Tweet
No, White jacket isn't about subs, but the distinctions he draws concerning navies in the 19th century doe have some bearing on distinctions that exist in navies today aboard submarines. What comes to my mind was that PBS (I think?) special called Steel Sharks that was produced ten or twelve eyars ago, and also the descriptions Clancey provides of the American and British submarine services inhis book *Submarine*. The career path of an American sub commander is quite varied and diverse, with the officer being circulated through various assignemtnes at sea and aboard submarines, with his counterpart in the British sub services being cultivated to occupy one office and one office only--submarine command. Ther are other distinction,s too, which are interesting, and which have been described to me by sailors and acadeimcs. American and British bureaucratic cultures are differenct. For example, British Commanders bring to bear a more openly critical attitude. Their Amreican couterparts are more low key, less critical, and apparently more distant emotionally. I think this is true also when comparing other professions in Britain and America. Higher education, for example. American professors are much gentler with their students than their British counterparts, where public and private criticism is more acceptable. Amerian professor are very friendly, and are reluctant to be critical until there is just no other way. Yes, it is a long leap from Naval culture in the first half of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twenty-first, but it is interesting, afterall, to draw these distinctions as we examine our respective organizational cultures.
What I liked about *Master and COmmander* was it was the first film in a long time that I could point to and say, "Now that was a pice of filmmakers art! That was a real film!" And next of course was the special effects and the recreation of life aboard a British ship of the line during the Napoleonic period. Since it is such a good film that recreates the past, one must necessarily point out those features which fail to ring true to life, and those features which one disagrees with. Along these latter lines I am skeptical of the 'jingoism" I saw represented in the film, and also the naive portrayl of the "happy" ship we see in the film. Sometimes the film gets to be sort of like Masterpiece Theatre. And then there is the innuendo--you know what I mean--along the lines of what Winston Churchill (the former Lord High Admiral as well as British priminister) once said about the greatenss of the British NAval tradition being founded on "rum, sodomy, and the lash." But once again to Melville for his (I thought insightful) description of what was really going on out there on those ships during the Napoleonic Wars, and what, wherefrom, and who the British sailors on those vessels represented in terms of an empire--an empire, remember--that was at that time impressing sailors off our own ships, and who a few years later burned down Washington DC!
One wonders, too, that an Australian director and an Australian actor would be making a film about the British empire. Bit of irony, or something there. Films are films and they should be enjoyed, and good films should be thought about and discussed. That's one of the distinguishing features of our joint Anglo-American culture, the capacity to discuss things openly, fairly, and to be able to speculate (and tolerate speculation too) in order to get the fullest and best possible picture of a phenomenon or scenario. And because the commanders of our submarines (in both America and Britain) are trained to operate in such a culture, they are the best, the broadest minded, the most incisive, and the most decisive sub drivers in the world. My two cents.
What I liked about *Master and COmmander* was it was the first film in a long time that I could point to and say, "Now that was a pice of filmmakers art! That was a real film!" And next of course was the special effects and the recreation of life aboard a British ship of the line during the Napoleonic period. Since it is such a good film that recreates the past, one must necessarily point out those features which fail to ring true to life, and those features which one disagrees with. Along these latter lines I am skeptical of the 'jingoism" I saw represented in the film, and also the naive portrayl of the "happy" ship we see in the film. Sometimes the film gets to be sort of like Masterpiece Theatre. And then there is the innuendo--you know what I mean--along the lines of what Winston Churchill (the former Lord High Admiral as well as British priminister) once said about the greatenss of the British NAval tradition being founded on "rum, sodomy, and the lash." But once again to Melville for his (I thought insightful) description of what was really going on out there on those ships during the Napoleonic Wars, and what, wherefrom, and who the British sailors on those vessels represented in terms of an empire--an empire, remember--that was at that time impressing sailors off our own ships, and who a few years later burned down Washington DC!
One wonders, too, that an Australian director and an Australian actor would be making a film about the British empire. Bit of irony, or something there. Films are films and they should be enjoyed, and good films should be thought about and discussed. That's one of the distinguishing features of our joint Anglo-American culture, the capacity to discuss things openly, fairly, and to be able to speculate (and tolerate speculation too) in order to get the fullest and best possible picture of a phenomenon or scenario. And because the commanders of our submarines (in both America and Britain) are trained to operate in such a culture, they are the best, the broadest minded, the most incisive, and the most decisive sub drivers in the world. My two cents.