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

[Jaime m]

I thought that the movie did what it set out to do and i'm happy with that. But i don't understand your aurgument Tim . I have read the book and i have been watching the various programs on the incident the last couple of days on the history channel and nothing that is presented in the movie is jingoistic or "hollywoodized" flag waving.

Sounds to me that your own dissatisfaction with hollywood war movies is clouding your judgement and is coloring your point of view. I say this because if you would have delved futher into the subject by letting the movie being a jumping on point to learn about this incident instead of it being your sole education, you would know that the book along with the various other materials revolving around this incident tell the stories from both sides and never try to sink to simple pandering.

Tim you are totally intitled to your opinion, but at best it sounds knee jerk and totally dismissive and based on your own point of view instead of an educated one.

As far as the "Truth" well there will always be two truths to all involved and each side will cling to them.

 

[Jonathan Burk]

I just want to encourage everyone to catch the History channel documentary if they ever re-run it. It was fantastic, and answered all my questions about the film. It also has the Somalian's side of the story, as they interviewed some of the militia and other people on "the other side". It turns out most of the things I thought "weren't real" in the film really did happen.

Hopefully, the DVD will stand as a lasting testament in both fact and spirit to what happened that day.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Members,
Let's keep the discussion focus on the film and not an individual's comments. As much as I don't agree with Tim's comments he has the right to express them but as documented by previous posts, some of you have already rejected his argument so let's not beat a dead horse and instead discuss this film's merits or even lack of. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Robert Crawford
HTF Administrator

 

[Mark E J]

Max,

I would be careful about telling someone to contact the Rangers who were there to voice their problems with the movie. I know you were joking but you would be suprised how many people out there do just that.

Robert,

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

Please guys let's not let this thread slip into a flame war. I don't think you will find anyone with more respect for TFR and there heroism on Oct. 3-4 1993. Nor will you find someone with more desire to defend them and this movie. But I will reconize Tim's right to his own opinion. I completely disagree with him and I have presented my case as to why. If he chooses to ignore what I and others have said, then so be it.

 

[Paul_D]

Before I went to see this, I noticed in reviews I had read, that there was some mention of "racism" with regard to the portrayal of the Somali people. I immediately assumed that this would be the case, and went in fully expecting the film to be a racist, totally action-orientated, anti-character blastathon. And note also, that the technical specifics of modern warfare, REALLY do not interest me - even to the point that I dislike tales of SAS missions etc...
I was absolutely astonished at how compelling Black Hawk Down was. How technically superb! How totally un-racist! Now, I've always thought that Ridley Scott was an excellent filmmaker. His films have always been highly praised for their technical achievement. But almost always criticized for their lack of emotional resonance. In essence, given this (debatable) weakness, BHD is THE ultimate Scott movie - because capturing the specifics of the battle and the behaviour of the soldiers accurately, is what gives it its emotional resonance! The actual human interaction rightly takes a back seat to the physical struggle they endure. As has been stated before, character development would detract from the emphasis put on the men as part of a unit - one which cannot be broken up for any price. Whether separate of together, there is an unbreakable bond between the men, and this simple truth is what connects every actor on screen, and is the emotional core of the movie. Its present in every scene, and in a sense, makes whatever sentimentality in the movie believable, thus acceptable. So often, I find sentimentality cheesy and inappropriate, only because its purpose is merely to pull at the heart strings of audience members. In this film, although not overly-sentimental, what is there is totally IN context.
Regarding the so-called racism, or one-sidedness of the story - I think the Somali presentation was totally appropriate. No individuals were ever demonised for their actions, and none of the Americans were ever seen to take pleasure in killing. They were defending themselves and their friends/comrades. The motivation for the Somali aggression, while not explained, is also not belittled or dismissed - the simple FACTS are presented and no further judgement are made. Theres a thin line the filmmakers walk in any film that depicts accurate scenes of warfare. Its unavoiable that audiences will side with the Americans, because they are the focus of the story. But the lack of character development actually helps to avoid the demonisation of the Somali people. If we were (emotionally) with any one or two Americans, any of the rival force they kill would seem far more meaningful than as now stand in the finished film. Instead, the deaths are just a constant onslaught of hostile people, fighting for a cause that we do not understand, brought about by a way of life and upbringing that we as a Western culture, can barely even comprehend.
Also, while I could appreciate it after looking back and thinking about who actually died, I was amazed at reading the final credit messages that only 19 Americans died in the fight, and over 1000 Somali's. The scenes of the Somali people running at isolated pinned down Americans kind of reminded me of Aliens - the oncoming masses can be held off for only so long, until ammo runs out.
This is an important film. Not quite a classic. But an utterly compelling, very well-made companion piece to the historical remnants of a truly tragic day.

 

[Kenneth]

I also disagree that the film was jingoistic, however, I did see this on Slate that hits some of the elements that Tim might have been concerned with:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2060941
However, I think that the film is still a snapshot of a specific incident in time from the soldier's viewpoint and I think it succeeds admirably in that respect. No one accused Das Boot of being pro-Nazi (at least not that I am aware of). It simply told a story that many people were not fully aware of from a specific point of view. I don't think there is any failing of BHD in doing the same for this event.
Kenneth

 

[MickeS]

Don't know if this has been posted in the thread already, but if so, here it comes again: for those interested, go to http://www.blackhawkdown.com and read the newspaper article series upon which the book and the movie is based.
There are also clips from radio transmissions, actual Pentagon video footage and much more. Unfortunately, the site has been overloaded every time I've tried to acces the multimedia material, so I haven't been able to access the audio and video, but it seems very interesting.
/Mike

 

[ChrisMatson]

I thought that this was a great movie about an important part of American history that may have forever changed the way we fight.
Here Somalis Cheering is an interesting story I saw on CNN.com.
"At the screening, Somalis paid the equivalent of 10 U.S. cents to watch the movie, less than a mile from where a real Black Hawk helicopter went down.
Audience members seemed to take delight in scenes of U.S. defeat. Each time an American chopper went down in the film, the audience cheered. Every time an American serviceman was killed, the audience cheered some more."
The article also mentions some Somali people that were saddened by the movie and some that thought it was inaccurate.
-Chris

 

[Patrick Sun]

I read that CNN article, and don't have problems with their reactions to BHD. It's a pretty natural reaction on their part.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

What really irked me during the screening I attended was this middle aged couple who sat in front of me and brought their 3-year old son with them. Totally irresponsible.

~Edwin

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I read the article and found it very interesting as well. It is a good look at how perspectives and point-of-view affect any type of personal view, understanding their POV is as "right" as ours. I noticed CNN got the necessary quotes to engender some sort of negative/vitriolic reaction out of readers instead of asking insightful questions that might have taught us something. How tacky on CNN's part.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Chad R]

History is not immutable fact. It is simply put, a series of interpretations. Two people can witness the same event (or series of events) and recount them differently because of their own personal filtering process. They filter the information through all of the experiences and events in their lives that make them unique individuals.

I completely expect anyone from Somalia to view the events of that day in a different light than I do. The very philosphical differences that fueled those events will feed these varying points of view. However, this film never set out to show both sides. It's an American film, intended for American audiences about the Americans' experiences of that raid from their point of view. To that regard it succeeded.

 

[Mark E J]

I just got through reading the Mickey Kaus article for Slate and I think is far more one-sided and misleading than some claim the the movie to be. There are many facts left out or misrepresented. Here are 3 examples.
1 - U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was biased against Aidid because he used to support the old Somalian dictator Siad Barre, whom Aidid had overthrown. - True but Kaus leaves out that America tried at the begining to deal with Aidid until it became clear that his only goal was to use the UN and America to wipe out all other clans and take total control of Somalia. Something he had tried to do before when he overthrew Barre.
2. - The Habr Gidr were the militarily more powerful of two main groups contending for control of Mogadishu. If the U.S. had killed Aidid, citizens of the Habr Gidr areas wouldn't generally have felt liberated, like Afghans freed from the Taliban. They would more likely have been pissed off. - Only partially true. What Kaus doesn't tell you is that most of Aidid's military power came from traveling gangs of gunmen called the "Morian" who would hire themselve out to who ever provided the most money and Khat. Take Aidid out and the money and Khat dry up. Then the Morian go someplace else. Some of the more militant Somalis might have been pissed off but the Morian would not be there to back them.
3. - Kaus calls into question the UN shutdown of Aidid's radio station (while leaving other stations open) which led to the Pakistani massacre. - But he does not tell you that the "anti-UN propaganda" Aidid was using the station for included telling the Somali people that America and the UN had come to take all of them back to America as slaves and to force them to abandon Islam and convert to Christianity. Nor does he tell you that Aidid backed this absured claim by killing some of his own people and saying the UN did it. Sometimes even hideing the bodies of the Somali children and claiming that America had come and taken them as slaves.
Now I don't think anyone is going to argue that the America and UN policies in Somalia were well handled. Dozens of mistakes were made by many involved. But none of them have anything to with Task Force Ranger.
TFR was a seperate team sent to bring down Aidid's power structure and nothing else. I doesn't matter to TFR why they were sent in, they don't have any say in the matter, therefore it is inmaterial to the movie. TFR DID NOT FAIL IN IT'S MISSION They completed every task that was given them. It was civilian decisions to send them in and civilian decisions to pull them out before their whole objective had been completed.
What we all need to remember is that TFR was never sent to Somalia to kill people or occupy land. They were there to arrest Aidid and his top people on charges of crimes against Humanity. Nonviolently if possible. Remember that TFR had strict rules of engagement that said not to fire unless fired upon. If the Morian and Habr Gidr clansmen didn't fire first no one would have been shot. TFR fired only in self-defense. They fought that day only to save their own lives and the lives of their friends. The Habr Gidr clan cannot make this claim.
Now if Tim or anyone else wants to disagree with any of this fine, like I said before believe whatever you want to. But understand none of this is my opinion, it is all based on many hours of research. If you don't believe me then do some studying on the subject and come to your own conclusion. There is a lot of research material availible.
Infact if anyone here is interested in a very good overview of the subject that will give some clarity to the things that have been stated here they should contact The History Channel and ask about a documentary called The True Story Behind Black Hawk Down. It was on the other night. I don't know when or if it will be shown again but I think they have a video copy for sale.

 

[YANG]

In yesterday's local news paper article,there is a report on the malaysian military's view on "BLACK HAWK DOWN" incident...obviously they are seriously offended by the film.They felt that their effort in that incident had been neglected.
Here's the link to the report... Link Removed

 

[MickeS]

From an article on the site:

Eighteen US soldiers died and 70 were wounded. Private Mat Aznan Awang was the sole Malaysian casualty. He received the highest gallantry award from the Malaysian King. Other members of the team were also decorated.

More satisfying was the praise the Malaysian soldiers received from the men with whom they fought alongside.

Brigadier-General Greg Gile, commander of the US Ranger Force wrote on Oct 14, 1993: 'The battle that will live in history - your forces proved essential to accomplish the mission. The Rangers were saved, thanks to your soldiers.'

Major-General Thomas Montgomery, commander of the UN forces, was equally effusive. 'We are mindful of the price paid by your brave soldiers. We will never forget them and will be eternally grateful to Malaysia,' he said, assuring Malaysia that any US press critical of the rescue effort was off the mark.

The Hollywood movie has chosen to gloss over a contribution that a lieutenant in the US army appreciated.

A few days after the rescue, Lt John Breen wrote to the Malaysian soldiers who fought alongside him. He said many Americans were able to go to their families because of the help provided by the Malaysian troops.

He said: 'I would fight alongside you anywhere, any place.'

Gen Abdul Latif wants this untold part of Black Hawk Down known.

While I understand why the Malaysian soldiers want and deserve credit, I must say that the movie is based on a real event, but it's not, and doesn't pretend to be, an exact re-staging of that event. Some dramatic license has to be taken, and some things have to be omitted. Since it's an Aamerican movie, obviously the focus will be on the American soldiers. I welcome the Malaysian filmmakers to make a movie based on the experiences of the Malaysian soldiers.

/Mike

 

[Chris_Anders]

Going to change the subject for a while here. I would like to speak of the music. El-stinkorolo. How many times must we be submitted to Jimi Hendrix or the Rolling stones anytime there are Army guys getting on or flying in a helicopter. Just seems a little old and cliched. The music is not so bad when its used to set a time period up like the 60's and 70's, but come on, 1992? At LEAST they got part of it right when they played Faith No More Diagetically over the loud speakers in the hanger.

Another gripe; What is with Hans Zimmers "ethnic" whailing at the end of every movie. It was horrible in gladiator, and it even fit that movie better than BHD. What I speak of is the semi-song theme thing that was played at the very end of BHD, did not fit in anywhere at all. Zimmer is just a large pile of crap IMO. He nearly ruined the battle scenes in Pearl Harbor for me as well with his wishy washy sing song melodies.

Someone like Goldsmith or Christopher Young would have been better suited to do a movie like BHD. But with Rid. Scott directing, it was a unfortunate certainty that Zimmer would be accompanying him. Blah.

 

[MickeS]

Well, as for the music, it IS a Jerry Bruckheimer production after all...

I do agree though that it was a bit annoying with the Hendrix music, but I was wondering if perhaps it was a cover version?

Then again, Hendrix is timeless music.

/Mike

 

[Sam Graves]

I was wondering if perhaps it was a cover version?

Actually, it was a cover by Stevie Ray Vaughn who, incidentally, died in a helicopter crash.

 

[andrew_werdna]

paul,

you absolutely nailed it, and so concisely. i think many of the negative reviews completely overlooked the value of bhd's authentic approach.

 

[Jeff]

I also did not like Jimi Hendrix being played in that scene. I cringed when I heard the begining and couldn't believe it was used for such a well done movie.

It was nice hearing some "grunge" music that the troops were listening to since it took place in '93.

Jeff