David Rogers
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- May 15, 2000
- Messages
- 722
-----
Exactly why i think this film was pointless. I don't think a medium as powerful as film is best used to show me what it looks like when a guy's thumb is blown off or what happens when an RPG gets lodged in
-----
I suppose you have different mental creativity than many others. Most people, even if they're very imaginative and extremely self-honest, still have problems or lack proper context to picture something in their head the way it looks or happens in real life. When I use the term 'photo-real' I'm talking about the use of effects to create the appearance of reality on-screen. You can *TELL* me they were being shot up from all sides, that every rooftop and corner and alleyway and building contained a person with a weapon that was aimed and firing at the US forces, but to *SHOW* me the convoy of lightly armored humvees and five-ton trucks barreling though the streets of Mog taking fire from all sides … its quite a different experience. Tell me they round a corner and the soldier on the machine gun immediately has his chest blown apart, but to show it happen that way with gore and all … it has a much different impact than the line on the after action report that likely read "lead convoy vehicle rounded corner at map coordinates xx/yy. PFC Joe Soldier received rifle fire to the chest and died of the received wounds almost instantly". A different experience for me anyways. And I'm someone who thinks on military matters often for pure enjoyment, who plays tactical games and watches such films often. I fancy myself fairly able to accurately picture the horrors of combat, but to watch BHD for two hours and see an honest recreation of what they saw and heard while there … quite a different experience. Movies like this are important to try and 'explain' to civilians what soldiers are going through when troops move and nations clash. If only the civilians would think on the subject more than most of them do anyways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The film is about the soldiers who were there, who found themselves getting shot at from ALL sides and wondering if the GI Bill was really worth it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
But you said that this film wasn't about the characters! Where is it ever even inferred that they're "wondering if the GI Bill was really worth it"? These kind of questions are exactly what are lacking in the film!
-----
You are officially being difficult, I label you with this response. The film was not about the soldiers as individuals. This seems to be your, and Mr. O'Hehir's, problem with the film; that it didn't introduce us to a very small handful of them, make them main characters, show us their backstory, show us their inner thoughts, give us what we need to know to understand their current motivations and drives, and then use the death of several of them to illustrate the main thrusts of the movie.
After all, what I describe in the immediately above paragraph is basically what most war movies do, isn't it? Boil an entire war down to a small slice that creates heroes and likable characters out of almost randomly picked soldiers? Makes you begin to identify with and like them as people, then rip them from you on screen and use your anguish and anger at their deaths to then drive the story, and the audience, into the screenwriter's final point for the film?
That aside, I'll attempt to clarify for you on this point a bit. BHD was not about introducing the soldiers to us as individual characters. You'll notice that even the nominal title character, Harnett, is absent from the film for about half its length, and has no 'leading man' trappings on him. What the film is about is the soldiers as soldiers, as a unit, as comrades. Not as individuals we learn about, but as men who are there to do a job because they're soldiers and when you soldier you go where they point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His review was ignorant and pathetic at best, and at worst was a low attempt to take a contrary position in order to drive circulation and click counts for Salon.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
My opinion is this is an unfounded attack by someone who just doesn't agree with the reviewer.
-----
On the contrary, this is a very founded attack. I give specific, numerous, and detailed reasons for why and how I disagree with Mr. O'Hehir, and discuss them at no short length. My disagreement with Mr. O'Hehir, I would say, meets the very definition of founded.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A film reviewer should watch the film, and Mr. O'Hehir obviously didn't have time; he was living in the past while he sat in the theater.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A strong closing for your post, yes but this doesn't make any sense. Are you suggesting that he wrote his review and didn't watch the film?
Yes, you have nailed it one good sir. That is exactly what I'm accusing him of. I'm saying he didn’t actually watch the film he was so negative over. Based on his written comments, I believe I can make a case for that very accusation.
-----
I feel your post has a lot of comments such as "Soldiers have each other and not much else" and "The movie is about the soldiers who were there who clung to one another, their commanders, and their training, and who made it out alive.." when that's not what we're really talking about here. These soldiers were indeed heroic. I'm not disputing that, i'm talking about how good of a movie BHD was.
-----
It was an excellent movie. You are unable to see it because you insist on clinging to your previously established notions of 'how a war film is supposed to go'. That, by the way, probably is an unfounded opinion, but you've posted repeatedly in this thread so I could certainly argue you've demonstrated the opinion I'm labeling you with.
My post has many comments along the line you identify because the film's message resonates with me so very strongly. "Leave No Man Behind" sends chills up and down my spine. For Christ's sake, they took causalities and deaths trying to retrieve the BODIES of the downed helicopter pilots, when all concepts of military value would have pulled the alive and healthy soldiers away from the now militarily useless helicopter and its injured or likely dead pilots. Why risk dozens of wounded and some dead to retrieve one injured man and some bodies?
When you think on this question and arrive at the same answer our soldiers already have, you'll understand Black Hawk Down.
Exactly why i think this film was pointless. I don't think a medium as powerful as film is best used to show me what it looks like when a guy's thumb is blown off or what happens when an RPG gets lodged in
-----
I suppose you have different mental creativity than many others. Most people, even if they're very imaginative and extremely self-honest, still have problems or lack proper context to picture something in their head the way it looks or happens in real life. When I use the term 'photo-real' I'm talking about the use of effects to create the appearance of reality on-screen. You can *TELL* me they were being shot up from all sides, that every rooftop and corner and alleyway and building contained a person with a weapon that was aimed and firing at the US forces, but to *SHOW* me the convoy of lightly armored humvees and five-ton trucks barreling though the streets of Mog taking fire from all sides … its quite a different experience. Tell me they round a corner and the soldier on the machine gun immediately has his chest blown apart, but to show it happen that way with gore and all … it has a much different impact than the line on the after action report that likely read "lead convoy vehicle rounded corner at map coordinates xx/yy. PFC Joe Soldier received rifle fire to the chest and died of the received wounds almost instantly". A different experience for me anyways. And I'm someone who thinks on military matters often for pure enjoyment, who plays tactical games and watches such films often. I fancy myself fairly able to accurately picture the horrors of combat, but to watch BHD for two hours and see an honest recreation of what they saw and heard while there … quite a different experience. Movies like this are important to try and 'explain' to civilians what soldiers are going through when troops move and nations clash. If only the civilians would think on the subject more than most of them do anyways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The film is about the soldiers who were there, who found themselves getting shot at from ALL sides and wondering if the GI Bill was really worth it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
But you said that this film wasn't about the characters! Where is it ever even inferred that they're "wondering if the GI Bill was really worth it"? These kind of questions are exactly what are lacking in the film!
-----
You are officially being difficult, I label you with this response. The film was not about the soldiers as individuals. This seems to be your, and Mr. O'Hehir's, problem with the film; that it didn't introduce us to a very small handful of them, make them main characters, show us their backstory, show us their inner thoughts, give us what we need to know to understand their current motivations and drives, and then use the death of several of them to illustrate the main thrusts of the movie.
After all, what I describe in the immediately above paragraph is basically what most war movies do, isn't it? Boil an entire war down to a small slice that creates heroes and likable characters out of almost randomly picked soldiers? Makes you begin to identify with and like them as people, then rip them from you on screen and use your anguish and anger at their deaths to then drive the story, and the audience, into the screenwriter's final point for the film?
That aside, I'll attempt to clarify for you on this point a bit. BHD was not about introducing the soldiers to us as individual characters. You'll notice that even the nominal title character, Harnett, is absent from the film for about half its length, and has no 'leading man' trappings on him. What the film is about is the soldiers as soldiers, as a unit, as comrades. Not as individuals we learn about, but as men who are there to do a job because they're soldiers and when you soldier you go where they point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His review was ignorant and pathetic at best, and at worst was a low attempt to take a contrary position in order to drive circulation and click counts for Salon.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
My opinion is this is an unfounded attack by someone who just doesn't agree with the reviewer.
-----
On the contrary, this is a very founded attack. I give specific, numerous, and detailed reasons for why and how I disagree with Mr. O'Hehir, and discuss them at no short length. My disagreement with Mr. O'Hehir, I would say, meets the very definition of founded.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A film reviewer should watch the film, and Mr. O'Hehir obviously didn't have time; he was living in the past while he sat in the theater.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A strong closing for your post, yes but this doesn't make any sense. Are you suggesting that he wrote his review and didn't watch the film?
Yes, you have nailed it one good sir. That is exactly what I'm accusing him of. I'm saying he didn’t actually watch the film he was so negative over. Based on his written comments, I believe I can make a case for that very accusation.
-----
I feel your post has a lot of comments such as "Soldiers have each other and not much else" and "The movie is about the soldiers who were there who clung to one another, their commanders, and their training, and who made it out alive.." when that's not what we're really talking about here. These soldiers were indeed heroic. I'm not disputing that, i'm talking about how good of a movie BHD was.
-----
It was an excellent movie. You are unable to see it because you insist on clinging to your previously established notions of 'how a war film is supposed to go'. That, by the way, probably is an unfounded opinion, but you've posted repeatedly in this thread so I could certainly argue you've demonstrated the opinion I'm labeling you with.
My post has many comments along the line you identify because the film's message resonates with me so very strongly. "Leave No Man Behind" sends chills up and down my spine. For Christ's sake, they took causalities and deaths trying to retrieve the BODIES of the downed helicopter pilots, when all concepts of military value would have pulled the alive and healthy soldiers away from the now militarily useless helicopter and its injured or likely dead pilots. Why risk dozens of wounded and some dead to retrieve one injured man and some bodies?
When you think on this question and arrive at the same answer our soldiers already have, you'll understand Black Hawk Down.
