Boys pretending to be men

I picked Wilson and Vaughn for the pic but it could just as easily have been any other group of comedians. Truth in writing, I really enjoyed Wedding Crashers but I could not help but notice that they were too old to be acting like a couple of high school students.

Vaughn and Owens personify the 21st Century fascination with boy-men. Movies and pop culture show irresponsible, sophomoric behavior as deriguer. House MD for examples shows a brilliant physician who is addicted to Vicodin and regular engages in frat boy behavior without consequence. Such behavior in reality would have landed the dear doctor unemployed and quite possibly in jail.

The gangsta persona is nothing more than a bunch of immature males running around with guns, bling, drugs and hookers somehow or other passing for adult behavior.

I was reading some friends Facebook postings today and there is an effort to reduce bullying. The examples were that the girl who got called fat has an eating disorder. The boy who got called stupid now has a learning disorder. Please stop bullying. What I did not read was the story about the boy who got called stupid and ended up graduating magna cum laude. Or the fat girl that went own to run her own fortune 500 company. There are stories like that out there but we emphasize consensus building instead of strength.

Hence we are experiencing a generation of boy-men who contribute nothing back to society except their stupid antics. Kids are routinely kicked out of school for drawing pictures of guns. Why? How does kicking the kid out of school teach the kid anything except how to become alienated from society?

We've got to start allowing boys to grow into men and then hold them responsible for being men. Stupid, immature behavior should be labeled as such and not excused as "edgy". Imagine these boy-men dealing with the crisis in Japan or handling the Libyan army?

I've started to re-watch the movies that shaped my views of the military. I begin with the Enemy Below. Even if you haven't seen this movie, its basic plot (two war-weary captains evenly matched try to out maneuver each other) has been redone in several TV series and movies (for the Trekkies out there, watch Kirk battle the Romulan captain).

I first saw "The Enemy Below" when I was still in grade school (probably 3rd or 4th grade). I was fascinated by the strategy each captain had to develop to try to survive. I also was intrigued by the mutual admiration they developed for their unseen opponent. It wasn't personal, it was just a job. I loved the espirit de coprs amongst the ships crews.

When I watched it again later in my 20s and 30s, I respected the fear both crews had knowing that one mistake by their captain could mean instant death. Yet they still executed their jobs despite the harrowing conditions. I like the different leadership styles of the captains. The destroyer captain was worldly and cool. He had two other boats shot out from under him. He recognized the talents his crew had (sonar man, the exec who had raced yachts, the engineers) and knew where he had a weakness (a green crew on the depth charges). He took it all in and made it work. The U-boat captain was an enigma even to his closest friend the first officer. His moods could shift from moody introspection to fiery passion. He could cower his crew with a scowl or help quell the fears of a suicidal crew mate with a fatherly talk.

Watching it again the other night, I saw all of the same elements but some new ones as well. Neither captain was especially thrilled about the war and viewed their duties as just doing their jobs. The U-boat captain was openly dismissive of one of his officers who was clearly a product of the Hitler Youth Corps. Today, the U-boat captain would be diagnosed with PTSD. He was fatalist and say his role as a warrior inevitably ending in his death (just as had happened to his two sons). The destroyer captain seemed motivated by the loss of his new bride (whom he got passage on his merchant freighter which was sunk) as well as an attempt to prove himself after losing his previous destroyer to a U-boat only weeks earlier. Neither of these back stories is particularly noble and seems to convey a message that only these kinds of men can excel at war. I don't know if this was the director or the one set in the book.

Now as a retied colonel looking back on my career I saw parts of myself in both captains. I identify with the U-boat captains suspicions of his government that their motives are only going to get you killed. I empathize with his weariness of war and how modern technology takes the "human" out of war (drones will never experience regret or PTSD). I identify with the destroyer captains self-confidence and calmness in doing his job. He the U-boat has the advantage and that the situation could easily go from bad (mono y mono) to horrible (encountering a German raider). He formulates a plan and carries it out while encouraging his crew and earning their respect at the same tim.

The final scene would never be shot today. We are too cynical and after being inundated with "reality" shows, cannot believe that two opposing captains would find any kind of respect. But that was the whole point of "The Enemy Below" is just that, at the end of the day it is about doing your job. Being a professional in your job, you recognize and can even admire your enemy.

Watch "The Enemy Below" to see how movies used to make you think and feel. And not one CGI or commercial placement to be seen.