Run Silent, Run

Deep is not propaganda, or not mainly propaganda, or at least not propaganda in a ‘political’ sense, as  everything after all is propaganda. The title refers to a moment in the movie which is (perhaps) memorable, when two submarines lie right next to each other in the deep and are silent, so that each does not know the other is there. I have a bit of a 'thing' for submarine movies --  partially because they mean instant drama — men locked up in a claustrophobic environment — and they are also sexy for that reason. I associate submarine movies with my father and my uncle (his brother). My uncle was an engineer who fixed atomic submarines in New London, Connecticut (I was baptized in New London at the church where my great uncle was minister). My Dad loved submarine movies, I remember watching Operation Petticoat with him — starring (yet again) Cary Grant, about a submarine that was painted pink for (why? I can’t remember). Of course that’s a big laugh, because submarines are masculine. Also I am fascinated by deep water, terrified of it, actually, swimming in deep water is nightmare for me, because I imagine what is below and it gives me the heebie-jeebies. But, paradoxically I love swimming underwater. As Donne says it is a ‘fine and private place’ and “none do there embrace” except in porn movies that take place in swimming pools (they are funny, sperm looks funny in water, sort of like white jelly). (That was a joke when I was a kid, another boy would ask you “You know what sperm looks like in the bathtub don’t you? And if you said 'yes' it meant you masturbated in the bathtub and they all laughed. It was like that other joke where they could tell if you were gay by how you looked at your nails? They would ask you to look at your nails and if you turned your hand in, and curled it over, rather than just looking at the back of your hand, that was like a girl, and you were gay.) I wish to discuss the patriarchy now. All my writing is about showing my behind to the 'political father,' to paraphrase Roland Barthes. This is not merely therapeutic, my father actually approved of my naked behind more than my mother did. When I was little he caught me in bed with my best friend and I’ll never forget it, he opened my bedroom door and said “Rise and shine you bathing beauties!” This seemed like good-natured acceptance of our childhood polymorphously perverse activities at the time, though my father was kind of sexless, so maybe he just didn’t know what was going on. Anyway I don’t really have anything against my father except that he was somewhat non-existent. But Run Silent, Run Deep is offensively patriarchal. There are, again, almost no women, and the conflict is between a younger man (Burt Lancaster) and an older one (Clark Gable). They are both too old to be serving on a submarine, and all of the men in this particular submarine are far too old to be sailors (maybe that’s why I found the men less attractive than in Destination Tokyo) but that’s the way it goes. So it’s a conflict between the authoritarian Gable and the rebellious Lancaster; it’s sort of like The Caine Mutiny without Humphrey Bogart and the courtroom. Then when Gable starts making his biggest mistake as captain, he hits his head, gets sick and Lancaster takes over. But very significantly Gable continues to run the show. In other words Daddy is always right; which is really what makes the world go round (I’m not saying it should, just that it does). This is also what makes the movie slightly repellent. Also, in the book that is the basis for this movie, apparently the Clark Gable character is supplanted by the younger officer who takes over, but Clark Gable would have none of that, saying it would ruin his image. That is truly sick. It makes me think the only lovely thing about Clark Gable was that he was married to Carole Lombard (who was perfect in every way) even though he does have very big ears. But back to the patriarchy; I want to warn everyone of a terrible mistake that is happening right before our eyes -- and yes it will bring us much misery. But no one will listen to me because #1 no one reads this blog, and #2 the truth is just too difficult. (So I’ll try and dress it up as a lie.) The problem is that everyone wants to get rid of the patriarchy and they think that means dis-empowering straight men. As much as I generally dislike straight men (Sean' and 'Shaun' you are exceptions!) they are not the problem, believe it or not. People are evil, and absolute power corrupts. Period. The theatre I ran -- Buddies in Bad Times Theatre -- was handed over to women two times, and they were much worse dictators than I ever was. People talk about them with more hatred even than they talk about me. This is not to demonise women, but the fact is that what is happening now — powerless people suddenly being given power — is not a good thing. When the powerless are suddenly given power they act in an even more maniacal way than those who have had it for a long time . Of course 'the powerless' should have 'the power' — straight men shouldn’t always have it, but if you suddenly give power to the powerless they will go crazy and destroy people, they will decimate them, burn them alive, and lie back and enjoy it, cackling all the while. I’ve seen it happen. I don’t know what the solution is, but it might help not to be an essentialist. My old friend Sue (now Johnny) taught me this; that essentialism really is the root of all evil. By imagining that men are like this (evil)  and women are like that (good) we are lying in a fun and sexy way, but literally we are also killing people. Sorry I know no one wants to hear this and people will even call me more names than they ever have before if I say this. But they won’t read it, as I am just an abject outcast homosexual you-know-what sucker anyway, Thank God! (If he existed, and if she was a man, I mean).