CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Reader Reviews › Black Hawk Down
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Black Hawk Down

post #1 of 27
5/18/06 at 10:54am
Thread Starter 
A wicked cool action movie. Eric Bana's steely super soldier channels Clint Eastwood. Ridley Scott manages to keep the battle coherent and engaging for the entire duration. As thrilling as Aliens, as inspiring as Glory.
BUT
A shameless piece of Go Army propaganda. The soldiers are not heroic due to their cause. Their heroism lies in their ability to follow orders. BHD promotes the image of the blameless warrior whose only moral duty is to look out for his own. The enemy are as souless as Romero's zombies. Hordes of raving black men intent only on killing our all american boys. The raving blackies are barely human as they have no concern for their own well being or the well being of their comrades. They relentlessly rush into gunfire, never pausing to help their own wounded (as the good guys do), then scream and rave like animals as they tear at an injured soldier with their bare hands. The most telling moments are the two short moments of dialogue allowed to the only black american. Before battle he plays the Magical Negro role as he sagely spells out Josh Harnett's character, and informs the audience about whose point of view they should adopt. Then he has a moment near the end when he pleads to a black woman not to pick up a gun- don't be a bad nigger, don't try and fight whitey, don't make waves, DON'T MAKE ME DO THIS- before he cuts her down.

I agree with the film's basic philosophy that soldiers in war conditions must look out for one another. I recognize the honorability of that concept. It's a metaphor for life itself (one Spielberg used in the opening of SPR). I also love the action, the primal thrill of watching Bana get the drop on a few baddies (a total Rambo/Commando moment as the bad guy's face drops just before Bana blows him away with the rocket launcher), the coolness factor of watching military procedure play out from the command room to the choppers to the ground. If these guys were fighting aliens or zombies or the street gang from Precinct 13 I would consider this some sort of masterpiece. But the fact that's it's based on a true story sours it. It promotes the glory of battle for it's own sake. I just can't get behind that.
Reply
post #2 of 27
5/18/06 at 11:29am
This is one of the very few times I might disagree with you Bob...at least in part.

To preface all of this you need to partner this movie with another " great soldiers in a fucked situation flick", ZULU (Also one of Ridley's inspirations throughout his career). The point of that film was not the cause but the way that the smaller outnumbered force faced overwhelming odds.

I will concede that ZULU does treat it's African Characters with more reverence. In that film their tactical skill, tenaciousness, and humility are shown in full force. In BHD, and this is perhaps due to time constraints, we really only see that one side of the story. This leaves us only the ultimate warlord character as the one Somalian we see more than once. But after the horrible things we have seen from the Sudan and the Congo is it too far of a stretch to say that there are some pretty horrible warlords in Africa?

The lack of Black American characters in the units was a factual choice. This particular unit at post really did have just a few black americans in the unit. Is this a cop out? Should they have made the one character more featured? Perhaps...but I don't really see overt racism on Scott's part.

Regarding the zealous hordes of Somalians...It is important to remember context of this conflict. The place was a shit hole. Good people were killed, good people were forced to kill. Drugs and substance abuse might turn a timid hungry teen into someone who would take a bullet to take out his frustration on the Americans who were shooting through their city. They really did tear at the bodies. This was videotaped. It wasn't created for the movie.

I think he succeeds in showing not the glory of war, but the spirit of the soldiers who fought together. I could have done without Hartnetts final monologue to the casket. Instead I would have ended with Sam Shepard trying to wipe the blood off the floor but instead only making it worse.

Just some thoughts.
Reply
post #3 of 27
5/18/06 at 11:45am
Yeah, I agree with the King here. The movie follows the book very closesly, and the book is an extremely good piece of reporting on the actual events.

So what happens in the movie is an accurate representation of the situation, as reported in the book. And no one, at least to my knowledge, has attacked Mark Bowden as fudging the facts or changing the story around for propaganda purposes.

But I agree with you, Bob, that Bana fucking owns the movie. His speech at the end is fantastic.
Reply
post #4 of 27
5/18/06 at 11:57am
Thread Starter 
Thing is, I'm not suggesting that they fabricated stuff to make the enemy look worse. I know all about the dragging of american corpses and such. What I dislike is the fact that the film refuses to scrutinize the politics of the situation and play at being a war procedural, while simultaneously making a John Wayne cowboys vs. indians flick.
It can't be both.
Reply
post #5 of 27
5/18/06 at 12:16pm
I disagree. The movie is not political. It's not about the characters (though the few character moments inserted at the beginning of the movie are painfully done and out of place) or the political situation they were in, and I say this as someone who absolutely opposed the sending of troops into Somalia.

The movie presents the point of view of the soldiers. But the smart audience member can entertain a point of view for the duration of the movie without actually holding it themselves.

It's not as if every movie about a serial killer in which you understand the killer's motives and empathize with them-think The Talented Mr. Ripley, for instance-is an actual endorsement of cold blooded murder. I see no reason why Black Hawk Down puts on such a position for the viewer anymore than the next cathartic experience you see in movies.

The movie helps provide you with the experience the soldiers went through, as well as being well crafted entertainment, as you say. Right or wrong is another issue. The movie would have been no more meritorious if it had shown all the American soldiers as monsters and our mission there as evil, and would have suffered for it.

The kind of gung-ho attitude seems to be one military men must always adopt to mentally and emotionally accept the stresses of battle.
Reply
post #6 of 27
5/18/06 at 1:34pm
Rather than reiterate similar statements along the lines of "Holding Ideal vs. Enjoying Movie", I really liked the music used in the movie. Not the Hans Zimmer soundtrack (meh.), but the use of early '90's alternative rock in some of the barracks/hangar scenes. Too bad they couldn't use more of it in the movie without distancing the audience from the characters. I would have liked it, 'tho.

Ridley Scott is a moneyman filmmaker - he'd never do 'Military Procedural'.
Reply
post #7 of 27
5/18/06 at 1:38pm
Neofactualism!
Reply
post #8 of 27
5/18/06 at 1:47pm
The only real problem with the film ( and I suppose it's a big one), is that we only barely get to know any of the characters in the enormous cast.
Reply
post #9 of 27
5/18/06 at 1:55pm
Was this the last moment in the sun for Sizemore? I say yes.
Reply
post #10 of 27
5/18/06 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desslar
The only real problem with the film ( and I suppose it's a big one), is that we only barely get to know any of the characters in the enormous cast.
Isn't that kind of the point, though? They're all very brief archetypes, and I don't think the movie needs to do any fleshing out. At the end of the day, the film isn't really about who the characters are, but what the situation is and what goes through their minds. Whether they're desk clerks shoved into the field or hard ass loner types, they're all men stuck in the same situation, and it's how they react to that situation that creates the drama, not who they are.
Reply
post #11 of 27
5/18/06 at 2:14pm
Thread Starter 
You can see Bruckheimer trying to throw in some cutesy character subplots, though. Most notable (and regretable) is Ewan McGregor's barrista story arc that comes full circle when he makes his trapped comrades a hearty cup of joe.

As for Sizemore- yes. That was the last we saw of that shining star (even if his character was imported from SPR).
Reply
post #12 of 27
5/18/06 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Brigden
Isn't that kind of the point, though? They're all very brief archetypes, and I don't think the movie needs to do any fleshing out. At the end of the day, the film isn't really about who the characters are, but what the situation is and what goes through their minds. Whether they're desk clerks shoved into the field or hard ass loner types, they're all men stuck in the same situation, and it's how they react to that situation that creates the drama, not who they are.
Sure, but I think if we knew them a little better (at least 2 or 3 of them) we'd be more concerned about their fate.
Reply
post #13 of 27
5/18/06 at 2:16pm
If you want, I just don't think it's necessary at all. I was perfectly able to feel for them without needing to know what the name of their sweetie back home is, and I think the movie is relatively perfect the way it is.
Reply
post #14 of 27
5/18/06 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desslar
Sure, but I think if we knew them a little better (at least 2 or 3 of them) we'd be more concerned about their fate.
Honestly, I was more concerned with them getting out as a group than them getting out individually. After they all join up, that's all that matters. Plenty of smaller character moments before this occurs. I think it's handled really well the way it is.
Reply
post #15 of 27
5/18/06 at 2:18pm
Thread Starter 
The characters revealed themselves during the battle, not before. I would have gone for less backstory, actually. Except for Bana, of course, because he was just so fuckin' cool.
Reply
post #16 of 27
5/18/06 at 2:19pm
One of the moments I'm referring to is the one of the three guys tracking down the rest of the crew. The comedic moment in the film.
Reply
post #17 of 27
5/18/06 at 4:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einhander
Rather than reiterate similar statements along the lines of "Holding Ideal vs. Enjoying Movie", I really liked the music used in the movie. Not the Hans Zimmer soundtrack (meh.), but the use of early '90's alternative rock in some of the barracks/hangar scenes. Too bad they couldn't use more of it in the movie without distancing the audience from the characters. I would have liked it, 'tho.
Supposedly they wanted to use Welcome To the Jungle too, but Axl Rose didn't want them to use the original version; he wanted to make a "remixed" version for the movie so that none of the original band members would get royalties.
Reply
post #18 of 27
5/18/06 at 5:33pm
Some very well made points, fellas. I agree most with Charlie and his appreciation of the lack of backstory/padding.

I don't think I'd really refer to the movie as an action film though; particularly not a "wicked cool action movie". I found it a bit too visceral to consider it action the same way M:I:3 is considered action (especially since it was, at least kinda, a true story).
Reply
post #19 of 27
5/23/06 at 4:25pm
IIRC Bowden makes the point that there were no black rangers in that unit, and discusses the lack of black personnel in the rangers as opposed to the marines, or what have you.

One big change - and this was a tough one to swallow - was the removal of any scenes were the rangers killed unarmed civilians. At the end of the film there's a cop-out scene where a woman picks up a rifle and she is killed by a reluctant ranger. In the book Bowden describes a woman pointing at the building where the rangers are hiding, and she is killed. For good or bad, that's a big difference, and only one example. I suppose the filmmakers didn't think it would go over too well on screen.
Reply
post #20 of 27
5/24/06 at 5:06pm
This is not a political movie and shouldn't be. The point is that it was a shitty situation gone all to hell, yet these guys still did their job and looked out for each other to an incredible degree far beyond even what is often realistically expected of soldiers. Compare and contrast with Jessica Lynch's unit where guys were left behind as soon as things went to shit, and you start to see the significance of this battle.

I don't usually inject myself into these discussions, but having been to Iraq in the infantry, I don't think the lack of backstory was a problem, but rather a positive. The theme is "No one gets left behind" and what these guys did under terrible circumstances. The soldiers get a chance to distinguish themselves in the movie based on their actions, not because they are "the funny guy", "the sensitive guy", "the guy with a wife", or "the short timer".

As Subotai mentioned, and I can confirm from spending a bit of time around the 75th Ranger Regiment, the lack of black soldiers is just a fact. The reasons, be they benign or shady, are for another discussion, but having a "token black guy" isn't something the film should be cited for. It's accurate.

From a technical standpoint though, this is in the running for the most accurate war movie ever made. The way the actors move is dead on, probably because on the DVD documentary I saw my mortal enemy SFC Duncan cussing them out as they were being taught how to do so.
Reply
post #21 of 27
5/24/06 at 5:11pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew

As Subotai mentioned, and I can confirm from spending a bit of time around the 75th Ranger Regiment, the lack of black soldiers is just a fact. The reasons, be they benign or shady, are for another discussion, but having a "token black guy" isn't something the film should be cited for. It's accurate.

.
I wasn't criticising the mere presense of a token black guy. I was criticising the way the black character was used.
Reply
post #22 of 27
5/24/06 at 10:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
I wasn't criticising the mere presense of a token black guy. I was criticising the way the black character was used.
He gets one wise line of dialogue, and that's about it. What's so wrong with it? I really don't know what alternative would be more preferable.
Reply
post #23 of 27
5/24/06 at 10:45pm
The film is too real to enjoy, and filled with too many bland characters in identical battle-gear to know. Somehow it tries to both praise and criticise the miltiary for dumping these guys into this situation, and then doing everything possible to get them out of it. It all seems like such a colossal waste, after the film was over I was just left feeling angry and nauseated.
Reply
post #24 of 27
5/24/06 at 10:49pm
Another cop-out - in the film they blame the politicians for nixing the heavy armor and C-130 gunships, but in real life it was Garrison's call.
Reply
post #25 of 27
5/24/06 at 11:55pm
I bought the movie years ago, so obviously I appreciate it a great deal. This was the first film that solidified just how great Bana is, and his character was definitely the most memorable and endearing.

I know it seemed that the Somalians were portrayed as almost inhuman, bloodthirsty killers, but I've always thought it was unavoidable due to how many principal American soldiers we were presented with to care for. I think there's really only so much time you can, or even should focus on humanizing the enemy in a film that's based on actual events from just over a decade ago. However, the scene where the young boy accidently shoots his father in an effort to kill Ewan's character was pretty effective in making me feel for them.
Reply
post #26 of 27
5/25/06 at 2:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Jones
It all seems like such a colossal waste, after the film was over I was just left feeling angry and nauseated.
My exact thoughts after watching and walking out of seeing Mission Impossible 2.
Reply
post #27 of 27
5/25/06 at 3:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uth Vaspetad
I know it seemed that the Somalians were portrayed as almost inhuman, bloodthirsty killers, but I've always thought it was unavoidable due to how many principal American soldiers we were presented with to care for. I think there's really only so much time you can, or even should focus on humanizing the enemy in a film that's based on actual events from just over a decade ago. However, the scene where the young boy accidently shoots his father in an effort to kill Ewan's character was pretty effective in making me feel for them.
Also, the scene right around that part where Twombly (I think) ducks through a door to hide and sees he has stumbled into a schoolroom with a woman teacher and some students - a brief moment that indicates that there WERE innocents civilians needing protection; whether or not US forces could provide that is certainly up for debate.

Abdullah Hassan's conversation with Durant may not be the most insightful thing ever, but I wouldn't say he's presented as an "inhuman monster" - he's a hard man, but seems fairly intelligent, and like all of us, has been shaped by his environment. An inhuman monster wouldn't have saved Durant from the mob - or at the very least Micheal Durant wouldn't have made it back into American hands.

Overall, I never got the impression that this was gung-ho, rah-rah propaganda shit. If this movie made you want to join the army, you're seriously fucked up, and should watch Trainspotting so that heroin addiction looks equally fun, causing you to overdose and die.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Reader Reviews
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Reader Reviews › Black Hawk Down