Black Hawk Down: Bad.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

An evil mess of a film. About 35% of the movie seems to portray a geniune (well, genuine-ish, anyway) attempt to capture the confused calamity of war, but the filmmakers just couldn't bare to expose more than, say, 7 shades of grey before they have to bring back the Bruckheimer-isms. I half expected "Game Over - Insert Coin to Continue" to appear whenever someone's head got blown off. And this kind of thing is DANGEROUS. People don't know how to respond! For instance: -*oh yeah, SPOILERS, whatever*- there's a scene in the film where we see a Somalian child running across the screen for a moment before he's shot. And some guy in the audience starts LAUGHING! yeah, maybe mr. giggles was just a demented a-hole, but the violence was so cartoon-ish at times, I can half-understand. (though his response incensed me at the time). And *everybody* was laughing when the American soldiers were making wisecracks about the volume of the gunfire while they were mowing down the Somalian militia ("NEW HIGH SCORE! 1500 POINTS!"). And those BIG MACHO "LETS-GO-GET-EM, BOYS" GUITARS that accompany the US Military into battle. Fuck. What a terrible mess. A terrible, dangerous mess.

― Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

maybe it's some sort of counter-protest. (cf. thread i'm about to start.)

― jess, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

can't *bear*, of course. though "bare" just about almost makes sense in context.

― Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The guys are hot, though.

Actually, I found this to be one of the most disturbing movies I've seen in awhile. What is the point? "Wasn't the beginning of Saving Private Ryan great, let's stretch it out for 2 hours! And make the enemy black while we're at it! " War porn: thumbs down.

― Arthur, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"People don't know how to respond!" = art? Erm I haf not seen it it did not much appeal to be honest. I sort of wanted to review on RFN as a symptom-of-empire-in-self- deluded-decline a la Scott Polar expedition (eg organisational catastrophe sold successfully to public as moral triumph) but it wd have meant a. watching BHD, and b. digging out some old piece in the New Yorker or NYRB abt how the US military (wrongly) blamed the UN for everything that went wrong in Somalia. I never got round to it (plus I felt I was getting a bit endless abt Scott)

― mark s, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

and art is DANGEROUS, right? (actually, maybe the problem is that people know exactly how to respond, but in the context of war-porn, that response just makes me feel terribly uncomfortable)

― Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

apparently the film is doing massive business in Mogadishu. where people cheer every time some metalhead gets killed.

― DV, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I thought it was fantastic. The only thing that let it down was some of the 'longer' conversations, but perhaps they are only there to give the audience a minimum breather. I thought it conveyed a real sense of dread. The machinery was certainly very beautiful, I suppose that kind of reaction could be dangerous if I had access to helicopters, but I haven't. Brilliant stuff all round, I say. Wasn't the director of photgraphy Kieslowski's old mate? It would seem strange to find someone like that lending themselves to video game films designed to make people laugh at the deaths of impoverished Africans. I might have dreamt that last bit. Also, the macho guitars were accompanied by sensuous feminine African percussion, which set them off nicely I thought. Having said that, some of the more pompous music (sad) let the side down a bit. Another plus point: Spud out of 'Trainspotting' is in it.

― PM, Thursday, 7 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Technically a very proficient movie which floundered a touch exactly because it lacked a moral underpinning (which is partially after all what the film is about). What was most interesting was Ridley Scott's suggestion that the film was anti-war but pro-military, and oddly the film does manage to convey some of this near paradoxical idea. It argues that people in the army are doing a job, a rubbish horrible job and to blame them necessarily for the fuck ups of the politicians above them (shown I thought quite clearly to be the US rather than the UN) is to miss the point. In its confusion of characters and motivations it attempts to dispell the idea of "the soldier stereotype" - which in its confusion it only partially suceeds at.

The film is best viewed as a farce, albeit and not very funny one, where in sending more people in to save the lives of people who are presumed dead - you send more people to their doom. The point is that these are human decisions and the urge "not to leave a man behind" over-rides rational thought because that is the one thing the (American) fighting man believes in. A bit relelntless though - but certainly better than Behind Enemy Lines.

― Pete, Thursday, 7 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I haven't seen it... maybe I should. I like war films that are about war, but I don't like gung ho macho bullshit war films. So which is it?

would it be a better or worse film if it showed the US Marines being dragged around Mogadishu behind jeeps?

― DV, Thursday, 7 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Its a war film not about a war. (Maybe a battle film). It shows a few macho bullshit things, and then it shows them getting their heads blown off.

― Pete, Thursday, 7 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

three years pass...

somalis cant aim for shit

― fe zaffe (fezaffe), Tuesday, 17 May 2005 14:48 (twenty years ago)

Is the book any better than the movie? I've had it lying around for ages but have never cracked it open.

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Tuesday, 17 May 2005 15:08 (twenty years ago)

ts: mark bowden vs. robert kaplan

― W i l l (common_person), Tuesday, 17 May 2005 15:10 (twenty years ago)

I've heard the book is very good.

What was most interesting was Ridley Scott's suggestion that the film was anti-war but pro-military, and oddly the film does manage to convey some of this near paradoxical idea.

If I had the patience to sort through pages of search results, I'd link this to one of the big threads started around Winter/Spring 2003 about being anti-Iraq war but 'supporting the troops' as we went into this a lot in those. I've seen the movie once, which is enough for me. Haven't read the book, though.

― lyra (lyra), Wednesday, 18 May 2005 01:48 (twenty years ago)

fifteen years pass...

Hoot, the guy played by Eric Bana, was interviewed recently. He now makes his own brand of whiskey to go with his own brand of cigars, when not doing his day job as a pharmacist for the VA.

https://taskandpurpose.com/mandatory-fun/army-delta-force-legend-black-hawk-down

― sound of scampo talk to me (El Tomboto), Tuesday, 1 September 2020 17:20 (five years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.