_Black Hawk Down_ and dirty. (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Sun]

Honestly, what could be more exciting than fighting and dying to save a friend, or for a good cause?

The "good cause" portion is what made me not want to see BHD again. It's a flat out FUBAR'd situation (and I'd rather not delve into the reasons that got the US involved in this skirmish).

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Andy,
I've used this quote before, spoken by Eisenhower, himself a career Army man through WWII: "I hate war, as only a soldier can hate war."

I doubt many of those men are proud of battle, of who they killed, and how they did it. They might be proud they saved their friends life, or survived, or learned that they had reserves of courage previously untapped. I was horrified by the violence for it's truth. YMMV.

Lew, it would be wise to do a bit of research on a movie based on a factual event prior to shoehorning your own conclusions into it's motives. Especially when it's based on such a well-regarded book, that many members here have read. The movie was not perfect, but it was as close to accurate as Hollywood gets.

As for those conversations...poorly written, perhaps. That's a judgement. Yet again, they were far more honest than most war movies are with the soldiers. You may have found them uninteresting, but that does NOT reflect on their accuracy or feel.

As for not liking it due to no perceived "anti-war" message...that's ludicrous. The film made no judgement...it allowed the viewer their own opinion on the events depicted. That was extremely brave. See my above quote...no one can hate war as much as those who have to fight it. Remember that when you hear the cultural elite bleat about their opinions on war and it's aftermath.

Sincerely,
Chuck

 

[Ben Menix]

Excellent post, Jeff. Welcome to active forum participation!
As has been mentioned several times, but I feel bears repeating, I don't understand how *anyone* could find any manipulation or propaganda in BHD. And believe me, emotional manipulation and socio-political propaganda in the visual medium are two of my biggest pet peeves. Ask my wife; I can find propaganda in a Nike commercial.
Addendum after post:
Of course, I do understand that different people see manipulation and propaganda differently. I just didn't see any in this movie.
Ben Menix
[email protected]

 

[Lew Crippen]

You need to do a little more research about the actual event before making such a statement. The racial makeup of the soldiers involved in this firefight was exactly how it was portrayed in the film.

As I’ve not read the book upon which the movie was based, I accept your comment as accurate. Still, that is how I judged the movie when watching, without that prior knowledge. All-in-all a very interesting discussion, though I find Jack’s observations to be the most accurate—or more likely the ones that refelect my views.

 

[Ed O]

Interesting reading all. Walter, thanks for the accuracy info. In fact I was going to post some of your exact points and would like to add:

1. The book opens with Blackburn falling while roping. It's been a while since I read the book, but don't recall the pilot dodging an RPG causing the fall. I think it was just a tragic circumstance of him missing the rope or letting go too soon...

2. I don't recall, in the book, the Technical with the rocket launcher being overtaken by the Rangers and used against the Somalis. This may be a "Hollywood moment".

3. I recall Bowden describing in the book the Somali gunmen using women and children as shields because the Somalis figured the US soldiers would be reluctant to shoot into such a crowd and the hesitation would work to the Somalis advantage.

4. There were Somali children in the Somali militias and actively participating in combat...

5. the well known, by now, Grimes/Stebbins character change...

6. The cell phone used by the kid to alert of the approaching helicopters. Would this be possible in 1993 Somalia? I'm not so sure. Again I think this was done to show that Aidid had an intelligence network and the cell phone was used as symbolic of this...just a thought.

Any corrections regarding the accuracy are welcome. I believe the movie is very accurate with a few necessary changes.

Ed

 

[Eric Bass]

. This means that I find the continual conflict (of course all of the Somali’s would be black, so that is not the issue) to be black against white. Further, I suspect most strongly that this portrayal is intentional, a deliberate attempt to further push the audience’s emotional buttons.

Huh? Seeing as how they featured the one African American soldier there was in many scenes, if anything they tried to downplay the fact that the Rangers were nearly all white. They didn't have to show any African Americans since they were something like 1% of the attacking force.

 

[Eric Bass]

Well just watched it again tonight. Got to open the system up as well, gotta love it when the neighbors are out of town.

Having just recently reread the book I can say there are an aweful lot of differences. The small ground force going in on foot never occurs, although something similar does happen later on when the convoy is coming into town. That's generally what I found when comparing the real story to the film, not everything matches up, but in general if something happens in the movie something similar happened in real life..even though it may not be exactly accurate. The recoiless rifle on the technical for instance is similar to an incident where the rangers were taking fire from a large weapon for some time. Eversman doesn't run across the street to place the infared strobe on top of the building but someone does run out into the street under similar circumstances to secure the strobe in the middle of the street. I could go on but that's generally the type of changes that were made. They really did have the cookout shown in the beginning and Pilla did impersonate Steele on a regular basis. Even the dialogue is very authentic though it doesn't always come at the point that they used it in the movie.

 

[Max Leung]

Well said Jeff! I agree with you completely on your points. Like you (and most members here I'm sure), I have never been in combat. However, after reading many depictions of deadly street battles over the years, I easily developed an empathy for the soldiers in BHD. Hence, I had no problems with how they were portrayed, nor any problems with the dialog. The lines uttered are universal of ALL organized fighting men in history, one only has to crack open a John Keegan book, or any other book by a military historian.
I'm also confused by the simultaneous assertions that "there was too little character development" yet also "too much character development". Huh? I'll just chalk it up to post-rationalization of a gut feeling; there's nothing wrong with that, people do it all the time.
For a more chilling account of city warfare, pick up William Craig's book, "Enemy at the Gates: The Battle for Stalingrad". If you think BHD is just "war porn", then what would you call the fighting that occurred in Stalingrad? Truly horrifying would be an understatement. The emotional account of the Russian soldier who, upon discovering a beautiful young Russian woman found face-down along with her dead baby daughter in her house, slaughtered nearly a dozen defense-less German soldiers (no ammo or were too scared themselves to fight back) was extremely sobering. It was only by sheer force of will that I continued reading after that. I stopped halfway through the book, after the siege of Stalingrad, but before the Russian counter-offensive. I was too sick in the stomach to go any further. :frowning:
"Enemy at the Gates" and the BHD film had a similar "feel" to me, with the exception that BHD has to introduce all the characters at the beginning of the movie, while the book, naturally, introduces them on the spot.
To state that BHD is "war porn" just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Eric Fisher]

"Another thing occurred to me though - how many movies do we have that are actually about soldiers like the ones in BHD? It seems to me, especially after Vietnam, that most war movies feature a diverse selection of characters who can bounce off each other to give some easy conflict and insights into their personalities and cover different sides of war. BHD, OTOH, is about an elite, volunteer army. These guys are warriors who have mastered their military training as well as any human can, not a bunch of guys, including draftees or reluctant volunteers, who don't want to be there fighting. When the shooting starts, their mentality is pretty much "preserve the unit, fulfill the mission," and it doesn't go much beyond that. So if it seems like their characterization is slight, or that the guys blend together too much because they don't have enough individuality, to me that just seems like the movie is being truthful about what an Army Ranger/Delta Force member does and thinks, and that isn't fully comprehensible to a lot of people in our society."

I think you've hit the mark with this.

I don't know how anyone can watch this movie and feel nothing. For example, when the fatiqued soldiers finally reach the stadium, I am physically exhausted, but relieved, just as the soldiers are experiencing at that point.

the end of the film is very emotional for me as well.

 

[Holadem]

I saw this film yesterday for the first time, and I entirely disagree with Jack, for reasons expanded upon in the first several replies of this thread. But this is all the more surprising, Jack, because this type of (IMO) neutral, unflinching, non-manipulative movie seems right up your alley!

This is a must have for me, I will be plonking down the cash for the special edition.

Edited to add that I find it curious that most of the main cast is not american. Weird.

--
H

 

[Jack Briggs]

I've screened it since, Holadem, and some of my opinions have softened a bit. Funny, but I never thought to revisit this thread. But I actually like the film in some ways now -- most notably for its unflinching portrait of what being in a scaled-back military "conflict" with political limitations placed on the participants is like. It shows the brutality of it all more effectively than I felt when I first screened it. In other words, Scott is not merely cheerleading and championing militarism so much as he is portraying its inevitable lethality.

Transfer-wise, the first release is topnotch. The Dolby Digital track is very good, with noticeable dynamic range.

So, allow me to flip-flop, sir, and reverse my position: Black Hawk Down, though flawed, is a focused, nonpolemical look at war when it is waged against a political backdrop. I'd give it, oh, three stars out of five.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Interesting revisit of an old thread. The three disc set is excellent, with two specials (I believe a Discovery Channel special and a History Channel special) on the event included, along with the usual behind the scenes stuff. I still think it's a GREAT film, and was happy when Ridley got a Best Director nom out of it. It was a tough line to walk, and he nailed it. Tough movie to watch however.
I still highly recommend the book. Lew, I am sure that I am still right
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

All-in-all a very interesting discussion, though I find Jack’s (original) observations to be the most accurate—or more likely the ones that refelect my views.

Now that Jack has softened up a bit to the film, are his views now still accurate?
~Edwin

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yeah, I thought people got grouchier and harder to please as they got older. What the hell?

You may have found them uninteresting, but that does NOT reflect on their accuracy or feel

And it could be said (and maybe was a few years ago in this thread) that this actually makes the film more honest.
After all, isn't an emotional tie to the "hero" part of Hollywood classic narrative, a device built on fantasy rather than reality, meant to engage and perhaps manipulate the viewer?
The film does dip into a few moments of H'wood heroism, but the fact that it mostly does not makes it a more powerful film IMO.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Yeah, I thought people got grouchier and harder to please as they got older. What the hell?

Yes, but they also get wiser, develop finer tastes and are more able to admit when they are wrong.

 

[Jack Briggs]

...and allow themselves to wander into situations like this one.

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

Hey I finished the film (finally!) a few weeks ago. Strange that this long forgotten thread pops back up now (and I'd even forgotten that I'd ever posted my comments in this one...seems I annoyed some people, eh? )
The film gets better when they get into the combat situation, and as an unflinching portrayal of a FUBAR situation, it's quite stunning to behold. It ends up getting an 7.5/10 from me, purely for technical excellence and the accuracy of depicting a hellish battle.
-Dennis

 

[Holadem]

I am becoming a huge fan of Eric Bana btw. He was by far the best thing about Troy, the only other movie I have seen him in. He brings so much charisma and gravita to his roles (well at least the two I have seen) that I hope the commercial and critical dissapointment of The Hulk was doesn't ruin his career.
--
H

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

...(and I'd even forgotten that I'd ever posted my comments in this one...seems I annoyed some people, eh? )

I, on the other hand, have learned not to take your comments ever so seriously as you seem to get off in getting a rise out of people from your comments rather than actually engaging in some serious discussions about the issues.
~Edwin

 

[Zen Butler]

Holadem, the 3-disc special edition is top-notch. I can't recommend it enough. Many of my circle criticized Scott for "glorifying" the conflict and giving an "inaccurate account." Even asked Ridley if he'd revisit the subject.

Well, the set comes with some fine documentaries to satisfy that horde. Scott must be praised for creating one of the most frantic, claustrophobic accounts of battle ever filmed on screen. I too found the canvas pretty neutral, and found nothing glorifying the subject matter or those involved.