What's new

*** Official "BLACK HAWK DOWN" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
I had an interesting experience when attending the critics' screening of this last week. There is a fairly sizable Somali community in Columbus, and some people from it, along with the Ohio Council of Churches, attended to see for themselves if the "controversy" was warranted.
The general consensus, reported in the Columbus Dispatch article, was that it is a film that may be too painful for many Somalis to watch but the depiction of their countrymen and women isn't as bad as they feared.
In my review I mention that I think it's a minor fault that we don't get the context of why all of those people are attacking the downed choppers, etc., but it doesn't diminish the masterful technical achievements or powerful emotional moments.
I couldn't find the info in the press notes, but some characters are composites. I don't know if the soldier who had his hearing damaged is or not.
 

DanR

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 27, 1998
Messages
676
I have a friend in my masters degree program who is an Army Ranger currently on in-active reserve. After seeing this movie, suffice to say that he will never have to pay for another beer when we go out drinking.

Regards,

Dan
 

Heath L

Grip
Joined
May 23, 2000
Messages
15
In my review I mention that I think it's a minor fault that we don't get the context of why all of those people are attacking the downed choppers, etc., but it doesn't diminish the masterful technical achievements or powerful emotional moments.
I'm in the military (and participated in Operation Restore Hope) so I may have a semi-biased opinion on this matter. In my opinion, this is like saying that Saving Private Ryan has a minor flaw because it didn't explain why we landed on Omaha Beach. If that many people don't know why we were in Somalia (or their feelings about us being there), then I've given too many people too much credit for far too long.
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
I always thought that Josh Hartnett was strong in Pearl Harbor even though the entire film wasn't. He is one of the promising new actors around and Black Hawk Down confirms that.
It's too bad I missed O in the theaters as the acting on that one and the film itself was highly regarded. I can't wait to see that one now on DVD when it gets released.
~Edwin
 

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
Heath,

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I understand why the Americans were there. I assume that not all of the people attacking the U.S. troops were part of the militia. That's what I think is unclear.

And you know what, I probably am ignorant about everything that happened. I was in college at the time and didn't read the paper or watch the news everyday. I don't know that it even would have taken that much since Scott establishes what the conditions are like in Somalia.
 

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,515
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
Great comments all around! Again, the key element of this movie was that it did NOT contain a prepackaged message. Hollywood war movies with messages are a dime a dozen, and very few of them aren't crap. This movie was an accurate depiction of an event. Like PH, it moved me because it really happened to real people, and the chaos and carnage are real. Unlike PH, it was far more involving and well-made, due to the strengths of screenwriting, acting, and directing.
The messages are what you take from the film. It honored the best among our citizenry for their best: courage, faith, and brotherhood. Leave no man behind is on the poster, and it defines these men and this film. I'll leave politics out of this (I hate them all :D ), but Hollywood does not always honor these men. Those who have had to endure these situations hate war more than any Hollywood exec, whiz director, or actor "with a cause.".
Again, Ridley was the prime mover here, and it showed. The lack of Bruckheimer was due to Ridley's vision and talent, and the cast played their parts without winking at the camera. Their respect for the events and people was evident in their work. It wasn't an easy movie to watch.
As for the "humiliating" ending: you don't have to "win" to be a hero. They took care of each other. The TWO snipers who jumped down (expecting to die) did it to save ONE pilot. That element is what makes those men, and this movie, special.
Take care,
Chuck
 

Mark E J

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 26, 2000
Messages
283
Hi everybody,

I have researched this subject about as far as I can as a civillian and non-journalist. I've even listened to stories from some of the Rangers that were there. So if anyone has any specific questions I might be able to answer them.

I can tell right now that the movie is probably the most accurate depection of a real event that I have ever seen come out of Hollywood. Everything you see in this movie actually happened. There is some character and time compression (there were 120 men on the ground involved in the battle which lasted 18 hours, in the movie we are only shown about 40 characters and the battle is compressed into a 2 hour sequence) and a few minor tweaks to make certain scenes more cinematic, but NOT ONE EVENT HAS BEEN INVENTED FOR DRAMATIC EFFECT.

As for some specific questions addressed here: Shawn Nelson did indeed lose his hearing just as it is shown in the movie.

Also as far as the depiction of the Somalis go the film is completely accurate. However you need to understand that these people were all high on Khat. It is a local drug that causes an extreme adrenalin rush and a dramaticly hightened state of agression. The Somalis chewed this drug like it was gum. Combine this with the fact that there had been no law or structured society there for a decade and you see why they acted like they did. Imagine going up against 10,000 heavily armed street punks on PCP. Which is exactly what the Rangers and Delta did with only 120 men, out of which only 18 were killed. When compared to the 1,000 that were killed by Task Force Ranger I hardly agree that they had their ass handed to them as someone suggested over in the review thread.

It is also worth noting that despite what some would have you believe the mission on Oct.3 1993 was a success. There were 2 objectives to this mission: to arrest the 2 Adid henchmen, and later to protect the first crash site. Both abjectives were accomplished with minimal loss of life.

Most of the deaths happened on the lost convoy and at the second crash site. All of these deaths accured because no Tanks or SPECTERE C-130 gunships were provided to TFR. This decision was made on a civlian level not military. The decision to remove TFR was also civilan and completely unwarented. Even with the 18 deaths TFR were still capable (and now highly motivated) of removing Adid from power.

So in the end that story of TFR was one of true heroism, sacrifice, and personal victory. I think Ridley Scott did an exeptional job telling this story and deserves alot of credit.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,604
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Tim,

Where does it say you have to depict a film from both points of view????????????????? You are welcome to your criticism regarding the film but in my opinion the criticism has little or no significance in the overall grade of this film.

Crawdaddy
 

John Devine

Auditioning
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
9
:emoji_thumbsup:
I saw the movie tonight.
It is the best film I've seen since SPR.
After it was over, everyone in the theater just sat there kinda of stunned.
Most of the guys chocked back some tears, the bravery and comradery of those men was very touching.
It will make you angry, it will make you cry, it will make you proud.
Technicaly it is stunning both visual and audio.
Go see it and you will enjoy.........
Can not wait to own it.
 

Derrick G

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 4, 2001
Messages
52
Tim,

Actual footage is actual footage. What does it matter who's film it was? The Somalias did rush to the battle in masses. This comes from interviews Mark Bowden (who wrote the book) did with militia fighters and other Somalians when he was doing his research. The Somalias were so used to fighting that they didn't think much of it. In the book, it tells of a Somalia woman walking down the stret carrying a basket. When the convoy trying to reach the first crash site came by, she set the basket down and held her ears. After the convoy passed, she picked up the basket and kept walking. When the convoy turned around and came back down that street, she did the same thing again. I wished they had put that in the movie. It would have shown that fighting just didn't bother the citizens. Mark's research also confirms that most of the militia did use khat on a daily basis, and most were high when the battle started.

As for the Somalia deaths, most of the US soldiers were using M16s. The .223 round doesn't make big holes in people. Yes, they did have M60s and there were .50s on the Humvees, but the majority had M16s There were several instances in the battle where Somalia's would be hit by M16 fire, only to move to cover and keep fighting.

Derrick G
 

Derrick G

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 4, 2001
Messages
52
Forgot to mention about the "insight." It's hard to get the Somalian point of view because most Somalians still hate Americans. When Mark Bowden was doing his research in Somalia, he was escorted by armed men in one of the "technicals." He left Somalia without interviewing as many people as he would have liked because it was getting increasingly dangerous for him to travel the streets. The fighting in Somalia has never stopped. To this day, there is still clan fighting in Somalia. I'm sure Bowden and many others would love to have more insight into the Somalia point of view is someone is willing to go there and get it. Any voluteers??:D
Derrick G
 

Tim Raffey

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 20, 1999
Messages
126
Robert,

I'm not trying to say that any filmshould be made in any way, but the film's overwheming one-sidedness is primarily what offended me. I fully support Ridley Scott's right to make whatever movie he wishes (and for what it's worth, again, I think he's done quite a good job in centering a film around a combat scene), however the lack of context, to me, seems to support a view held in the west that we are antagonized by the rest of the world (as the essence of the movie--the combat scene--would suggest), never stepping out of line, and only doing what we have to to protect whatever it is we feel the need to protect.

Derrick,

Who shot the footage in inconsequential, but the nature in which it's shown isn't. Any person (or nationality) who has ever participated in a riot is a nameless, faceless part of an angry crowd? Generalization. The Italians lynched Mussolini, you better have an armed escort if you go there.

As for Khat, Mark did not refer specifically to the militia, but Somalians in general (the discussion was of the portrayal of Somalian civilians). And though I've never done khat, most of the world's narcotics do not turn a person into a monster. More aggressive, with an adrenaline rush, is a far cry from inhuman (not to mention the fact that the battle lasted 18 hours. How long is a khat high?).

Also, never mind the size of the gunshot wound, there were no emotional Somalian deaths in the film, save two (one was fishing for a "Pfft! Deserved it for trying to kill a good guy!" response, and the other happened offscreen, to a child). At least in Saving Private Ryan there was some equality in its portrayal of the mercilessness of combat death.
 

BrianKM

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 15, 2001
Messages
106
Anyone know why the American flag patches that the soldiers wear on their right arms were backwards (stars on the right)? At first, I thought that the image may have been flipped, but the name tag read correctly and all the patches were backward.

Since Ridley obviously strived for realism, and delivered it in fistfuls IMO, I assume that this is standard combat operating procedure and that there is a reason for it.

Oh, and why did the Delta Force guy tape up the grenades? So the pin wouldn't get pulled accidentally?
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,604
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
I'm not trying to say that any filmshould be made in any way, but the film's overwheming one-sidedness is primarily what offended me.
Scott chose to film the battle from the American point of view and you were offended????????? Hmmmm, whatever! I don't want to get into some American versus Anti-American discussion because this isn't the place nor time for any talk about nationalism. By the way, did you read the book? If not, then perhaps you should because then you'll understand the reasoning behind Scott's method of filming the movie. Right now, I'm in the middle of the book and I can't put it down.

Crawdaddy
 

Mark E J

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 26, 2000
Messages
283
Tim,

Hey, believe whatever you want to believe. But the Somali's acted exactly as they are shown in the movie. Remember the Pakistani UN workers mentioned at the begining of tne movie? Well they were killed by a mob that disembowled them then skinned their bodies. The same thing happened to 3 western journalists. Also when the mob overran the Durant crash site the movie doesn't show that they actually ripped one body limb from limb.

Now if you don't believe me or "American cameras" then perhaps you'll accept the word of a somali citizen who fought that day. Hassan Yassin Abokoi was shot in the ankle and sat beneath a tree watching the crowd overrun Durant's Blackhawk. He personally discribed watching his neighbors hack at the American bodies with knives then go parading through the street showing off the body parts. He was also very upset that he couldn't join in. This is his story not Americas.

As for the Khat, pretty much everybody took Khat. Khat is a weed that you chew, and it was as popular as gum and chewed all the time. The effect of Khat is infact monsterous. When someone is on it his eyes bug out he gets extremely agitated and aggresive and he gets an almost psychotic feeling of invincibility. Combine this with the fact that there was no social structure; that somalian society was like something out of a Mad Max movie and you breed inhumanity. Something also not shown in the movie is the fact that many of the gunmen would stand behind women and children while shooting, actually stick the gun barrel in between the armpits of "civilians" while shooting at the Rangers.

You sould also understand that the terms "milita" and "civilian" are used very loosely in Mogadishu. There was no goverment, no laws or police force, nor was there any uniformed military. There was nothing but a bunch of gangs fighting each other. The "milita" was nothing more than a bunch of thugs who worked for whoever gave them the most money and khat. The civilians were still members of the Habr Gidr clan and therefore fiercely loyal to Adid. So they considered themselves at war with anyone who challenged him. Where there people who hated the violence and wanted peace? Absolutely. But they stayed inside and didn't shoot at TFR. So they are not shown too often in the movie. But they are shown. Remember the teacher protecting her students?

Brian,

The American flag is always worn with the stars facing the front by Rangers and Delta. It is meant to symbolize America "always moving forward". I'm not sure about the grenades though. But your theory sounds about right.
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
I'm not trying to say that any filmshould be made in any way, but the film's overwheming one-sidedness is primarily what offended me.
There have been a lot of films in the past that emphasized a particular point of view more than the other and have been quite effective. Black Hawk Down is no exception.
Had the film been dishonest and grossly inaccurate in presenting this point of view is another matter. But from what I have read about the actual incident and what ended up on the film, there were very little liberties taken, if any, that I would consider "offensive".
Please list those scenes that "offended" you so that I know where you are coming from.
~Edwin
 

Henry Carmona

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 7, 2000
Messages
1,299
Location
San Antonio
Real Name
Henry Carmona
I'm not trying to say that any filmshould be made in any way, but the film's overwheming one-sidedness is primarily what offended me. I fully support Ridley Scott's right to make whatever movie he wishes (and for what it's worth, again, I think he's done quite a good job in centering a film around a combat scene), however the lack of context, to me, seems to support a view held in the west that we are antagonized by the rest of the world (as the essence of the movie--the combat scene--would suggest), never stepping out of line, and only doing what we have to to protect whatever it is we feel the need to protect.
Good post Tim,
I wasnt offended as you say you were, but i do understand the desire to see both sides.
Since this was, is, an accurate film of the events it portrayed, i didnt mine the "one-sidedness" off it very much.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top