View Full Version : The ****UnOffcial BLACK HAWK DOWN Discussion Thread****
As this is coming out tomorrow for preview then full release on fri, and a film which will kick up some interesting opinons, thought i would start this (sorry mods)
As i have yet to actualy see the film, i cannot really comment upon anything apart from what i have read.
So anybody who has seen it wonna give alittle review.
Cheers:)
Not seen the film yet, but was intrigued by the addition to the certificate...I think its a 15, but afterwards it says (kind of like the LOTR 'under 8s' disclaimer) something like "Contains frequent violent battle horror" or words to that effect.
Call me cynical, but a 15 or an 18 film don't need this sort of disclaimer in the way that LOTR did. I reckon this has been added to INCREASE the audience, ie. to attract all the gore feinds and fans of violent films.
Whatcha' reckon?
diydestruction
16-01-2002, 16:10
seems like it could be a great film, but dont think ill be rushing out to watch this....
i think the disclaimer is purely to cover their own backs (?), esp. in america, if some 15 year old kid goes to watch it and comes back traumatised by all the violence they can go "ha!.... told you so, go ahead and "try" to sue!"....
bruckheimers involved, so expect corny lines and lots of flag waving, patriotic, god bless america type of stuff.
Seen it....some very good moments.
Plenty of patriotic....America America bits :)
Quite a few humorous moments as well....
It's good, but not amazing...
The way i understand it is that violence is more acceptable under a 15 certificate if it is in the context of a war film, as opposed to say arnold schwarzenegger kicking the ***** out of people.
Ben Martin
17-01-2002, 22:42
just got back in from a preview screening at UGC broad street in birmingham. i hate bruckheimer's movies, and i love about half of ridley scott's output ... and i thought this movie was superb.
i have to say that i wasn't expecting it to be that good - hoped it would be alright but didn't expect scott to overcome the bruckheimer influence/iron control. all i can say is that this must be the one film that bruckheimer has had the least control over, and as a result is definitely the best thing he has ever 'produced'.
i too was expecting corny lines, flag-waving and other 'god bless america'-type stuff but there were few of the former (i can't recall a single one though, to be fair) and little of the latter. it was more about loyalty to your fellow soldier rather than loyalty to the flag. and they talked about what it was to be a soldier, not what it was to be a US soldier. and i found the characters utterly believeable which helped the credibility of the sentiment no end. i despise the sentiment in your average bruckheimer offering but it didn't feel like that at all here.
the violence was more viscereal than i was expecting (i'm sure i heard it wasn't that graphic?), but this was a welcome surprise. no point hiding the realities of war. true, little is made of the somali position (though way more that you'd expect from a 'bruckheimer' flick) but this story isn't really about them - in the sense that this isn't a story about the whole civil war and the UN intervention, but rather specifically a story about this one incident from a US point of view. seems fair enough to me. it won't be for everyone, but if you want a quality, realistic, contemporary war movie then this is it.
i'd also like to mention those people who got up and left as soon as the last image faded and didn't bother to read either the list of the dead or, more amazingly, the two screens of information about 'what happened next' and how the situation was resolved! :eek: what were they thinking? "i didn't come to the cinema to read!!" ? :confused:
It might have been realistic, but directors have to understand that this is a novelty that will soon wear off if film lacks a decent narrative. Black Hawk Down doesn't even have a narrative, and is soooooo boring and so stereotypical that i started to daydream after about 20 mins. Maybe i've been de-sensitised to all this, but I think that Ridley Scott died along time ago and has been masquerading under the name of Tony.
Ben Martin
17-01-2002, 23:17
the event itself is the narrative. that is what you are going to see - the exposition of the facts of what happened in a true event.
my review of this is up at dvd times, the link is in my sig. Needless to say I hated it, although I'm sure my opinion is a minority one.
Originally posted by Ben Martin
the event itself is the narrative. that is what you are going to see - the exposition of the facts of what happened in a true event.
a dramatisation of the facts. and all the dialogue is fictionalised.
Ben Martin
18-01-2002, 15:25
Originally posted by martinb
a dramatisation of the facts.
i deliberately left that out because it wasn't at all relevant to the point about the narrative that Raphph had made.
and all the dialogue is fictionalised.
also irrelevant to whether or not there is a narrative. but if any of the dialogue is lifted from the book then at least some of it might actually be accurate as the book is said to be exact down to the detail of including some actual dialogue (from radio transcripts etc.)
Ben Martin
18-01-2002, 17:22
just to even things up a little bit for those who haven't seen it yet, here's a link to the review of Black Hawk Down over at Film Threat (http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?File=ReviewsOne.inc&Id=2511).
most interestingly from the point of view of a comprison with Raphph's review, they also address the issue of narrative in the very first line of the review - coming to the conclusion that having no scripted story doesn't necessarily mean there is no narrative.
great review, though i'm obviously biased, and it's worth pointing out for those that don't know that FilmThreat have no great love of hollywood, least of all jerry bruckheimer.
Jimmyboy
18-01-2002, 20:06
...........
GrossePointeJack
18-01-2002, 23:35
I saw this film today and found it very very average. The fact that there's 'Oscar Buzz' already surounding this film worries me slightly as it certainly doesn't deserve it.
Now i went into this film knowing that it wasn't going to a real 'Jerry Bruckheimer film' and i have to say that you dont really notice his influence in it at all. However, i still felt that the film was very pedestrian with a few good scenes in there and a bunch of OK performances (the only stand-out for me was ERIC BANA).
Part of the films problem is all of the actors there. I know that having familiar faces was probably a good way of keeping track of all the characters but it just didn't work as you tend to think about where everyone went. In fact, it took me a while to realise where that guy (LEGOLAS in LOTR - Sorry, forgot his name) - the new recruit went.
My biggest problem though is the battle sequences. The shooting down of the choppers was very well done, as were most of the initial battle sequences but to drag it for about 2 hours is a bit much and frankly got slightly tedious. To me, some people's claim that its the opening of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN stretched out for 2 hours is sorely mistaken - SPR contains much more horrific battle scenes than what this film does. Now im not saying that the film is poor because it ISN'T SPR - im just saying that SPR had something in its battle sequences that were lacking in BHD - it seems that SPR conveyed the total waste of life so much more clearly or more importantly, how easy it is for life to just be wiped out in the blink of an eye. It's a problem with BHD that it seems to be a slightly more glossed over version of SPR's battles.
Overall i'm dissapointed with Ridley Scott for this one and it is a very average film.
Idle Child
19-01-2002, 11:52
Originally posted by Ben Martin
i too was expecting corny lines, flag-waving and other 'god bless america'-type stuff ..... i despise the sentiment in your average bruckheimer offering but it didn't feel like that at all here.
i believe the flag waving sentiment was there, albeit at the end, with the 1000 somalies V 18 US heroes blurb.. All 18 US solderies are named and commemorated, no such luck for the somalies. It's a one-sided story, and the flagwaving is right there before the end credits.
Originally posted by Ben Martin
i'd also like to mention those people who got up and left as soon as the last image faded and didn't bother to read either the list of the dead or, more amazingly, the two screens of information about 'what happened next' and how the situation was resolved! :eek: what were they thinking? "i didn't come to the cinema to read!!" ? :confused:
people unashamedly got up in front of me, and didn't much care for the "outcome". And to be truthful, neither did I. The 1000 no-name savages Vs the 18 noble US soldiers was just too shocking a statement to bear. The statements could have been better written. Besides which, i don't come to the cimema to read either, but i thought (through all the people getting up in my way) i'd still have go. And what i read was pants nationalism.
Ridley must have knew that it wouldn't play well with audiences (he's a brit afterall) and i cant see why he didn't go against the studios to cut that out.. He fussed over Blade Runner a hell of a lot.
Ofcourse i agree though, that the principle message of "loyalty to your fellow soldier" was sincere enough.
----------------------
Also, i agree with GrossePointBJack, SPR had the danger and futility of war wrapped in it's battle sequences. sadly lacking in BHD. It was more a FMJ message of it'snot out fight and we should't be involved".
Personally, i found that the music was unrelenting and i just wanted the music to stop. it added unnecessary melodrama to the movie, ie "here's the kick ass momment, here's the tense momment, here's the soldier killed oh no momment".
SPR didn't have these corny ingredients.
BHD, in it's use of music reminded me much of Black Rain. Ridley's score will intime sound very outdated. I believe it would be more realistic if the music was absent for the battle sequences. Here's to hoping the DVD release has a "Musical score Off" button ;)
William Shatners Wig
19-01-2002, 12:08
With the soundtrack, apart from actual songs and the electric score, I found most of it being very much like Zimmer's work in Gladiator. In fact there were times when I thought I was listening to the exact same score.
Also, on another note, I think that both Ewan McGregor and Ewen Bremner should not have been in the movie. Their characters were pointless and their accents were not the best... I'd say that McGregor's coffee obsessed Grimes and Bremner's comic relief were definately down to Bruckheimer.
-
As a whole I really enjoyed Black Hawk Down, it hit me as a cross between Three Kings and Full Metal Jacket. I see it as a definate future purchase.
ian_davies
19-01-2002, 16:21
Well, I loved it. I was hoping for an adrenaline rush that it seems that only war films can supply usually these days, and I got it. A minor detail that I really loved was the greenish tint given to the picture during the night-time sequences. I thought that added some great effect into bringing you into the warfare.
What you have to remember is that this film is a testament to the horror that these soldiers had to suffer. They went in trying to retrieve two war-lords who were causing all this pain, anguish and suffering, and the entire city became embroiled in a battle against them.
Also, the 1000 Somalis would have been impossible to name. So is it such a big point? A lot of innocent people got caught up, but the Americans never intended to kill ANYONE in Somalia. This was a peacekeeping mission. Everyone who died that day lost their lives for no reason. Maybe the soldiers shouldn't have been named, but it helps the overall impact of the film IMO. It reminds you that this isn't a work of fiction as such, these were real people who lost their lives in this battle.
Oh well, this statement's gonna get ripped to shreds, so I'd best stop now.
Originally posted by ian_davies
Also, the 1000 Somalis would have been impossible to name. So is it such a big point?
:clap: :clap:
Ian mate, well done, that was the funniest statement I have ever read! Kind of like my friend who wouldn't watch Crouching Tiger because she couldn't tell the characters apart.
ian_davies
19-01-2002, 17:03
Originally posted by Raphph
:clap: :clap:
Ian mate, well done, that was the funniest statement I have ever read! Kind of like my friend who wouldn't watch Crouching Tiger because she couldn't tell the characters apart.
No worries :) The point I was trying to make (and obviously failed, miserably) is would there have been any chance of knowing exactly who died there on the Somali side? I'm not familiar with the policies of registering people over there, but, well. I'll shut up :P
I knew what you meant mate, don't worry. :) It's shows you the power of the written word, and how some people can easily or deliberately take words the wrong way. As I reviewer I am very familiar with this.
ian_davies
19-01-2002, 17:33
Originally posted by Raphph
I knew what you meant mate, don't worry. :) It's shows you the power of the written word, and how some people can easily or deliberately take words the wrong way. As I reviewer I am very familiar with this.
It's cool. However, you still hate the film, and I still love it :p
Kit_Taylor
19-01-2002, 22:15
So this is basically Moulin Rouge with M-16s and gore then?
Yonathan Gal
19-01-2002, 22:34
read my review: www.the90thdimension.com/reviews/films/reviews/blackhawkdown.shtml I still can't believe just how bad this film was, and I can't understand why anyone could like it... :) Jumy my opinion :)
I saw this as almost a doc you didnt need to know a backstory about every single character the film was about the event what happened why it went wrong etc not if Eric Bannas character said enough or we didt have some backstory about josh hartnetts character it was about the event and trying to bring it across to the audience in a realistic way.
Ok i'll get my coat however, i was surprised by Mr Eberts (http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-black18f.html) review of it :)
cheers:)
Although I like Eberts reviews, I have to say he is the most patriotic reviewer I have ever seen. He embodies the word schmaltz.
Ben Martin
20-01-2002, 12:10
Originally posted by Idle Child
the 1000 somalies V 18 US heroes blurb .... The 1000 no-name savages Vs the 18 noble US soldiers was just too shocking a statement to bear.
that's a highly exaggerated representation of what it actually says on that screen! both your references to it above embellish what was actually there with choice adjectives that make it sound like something it wasn't.
in reality, it states that 18 US soldiers were killed and over 500 somalis. that's all. it shows the total waste of life and makes clear that somali casualties were obviously far worse.
And what i read was pants nationalism.
maybe i've forgotten already, but i recall both screens purely containing factual information that was presented with no bias one way or the other. for example, it simply explained what happened to the pilot without couching it in 'nationalistic' terms.
SPR had the danger and futility of war wrapped in it's battle sequences. sadly lacking in BHD.
but whichever movie you prefer (i like both) there's no denying that black hawk down showed both the danger and the futility of war. the latter even more so imho, because at least the events in saving private ryan (D-Day etc) ultimately led to the allies defeating the nazis.
i found that the music was unrelenting and i just wanted the music to stop.
i loved the music! another great score from hans zimmer, though i do see the similarities to gladiator in the vocal pieces. but they're good so it doesn't bother me.
it added unnecessary melodrama to the movie ... SPR didn't have these corny ingredients.
indeed SPR didn't have them, but then i'd disagree that these moments were corny in BHD. furthermore, they are two totally different movies that i wouldn't even think of comparing. for starters, SPR was a completely fictionalised story set against the background of true events. BHD was a true story in itself, and moreover happened in the very recent past. different stories, different movies, calling for two different approaches (though there are obviously some similarities).
Here's to hoping the DVD release has a "Musical score Off" button ;)
so you'll be buying it then?! ;)
Ol' Blue Eyes
20-01-2002, 15:36
I saw the film with high expectations, having recently read Mark Bowden's excellent book, and I was very impressed. Obviously you can't pack 500 pages of information into a 2hr 20min film and the film makers have opted to tell the story from the point of view of the soldiers, leaving out most of the political background and the Somali perspective. If you want to know more about that stuff, read the book, it's a brilliant piece of reporting and you'll find it hard to put down.
Judging the film on what it tries to be, which is a representation of what the battle was like for the American soldiers who dropped into Mogadishu on that afternoon, it does a superb job, up there with Saving Private Ryan and Platoon in my opinion. I had no trouble telling the main characters apart or following their stories. Come on, it's not that hard to recognise Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Jason Isaacs, Ewan Bremner & Tom Sizmore, even in helmets! This wasn't Alien 3 with a bunch of unknown actors dressed as monks and running around in the dark.
Ridley Scott's direction is a lot clearer here than in Gladiator, where I felt the stylised approach sometimes detracted from the film. Here his direction is crystal clear and some of the shots are breathtaking (the aerial shots of Mogadishu, the first crash, the gunships strafing the crowds).
In short this the best film I've seen at the pictures since The Man Who Wasn't There, vastly better than certain decent but overrated films about hobbits and amnesiac lesbians, and I hope it does well at the Oscars (though my money would be on A Beautiful Mind).
Alex Cox has another take on this movie:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=114013
GrossePointeJack
20-01-2002, 19:44
I recently watched SPR again after seeing BHD - not to compare but because BHD put me in a strange mood to watch it actually - so i dug out my VHS of it and that feeling came back to me during the opening - i dont know what it was but i just wanted the scenes to end - it got a bit too much, not to say i didnt enjoy the film but it shows the battles very vividly - it is, to borrow a term - gut-wrenching. It makes the landings actually seem hopeless for some reason - just the total lack of regard for life and how easily it can be stripped away. To get this from 30 minutes of combat action says a lot i think.
However, the 2 hours of action of BHD just got repetitive i thought. I mean, i can see Ridley Scott did a good job (or tried too) but it doesn't seem to put you in the action as much as SPR did. It still seems like a slightly glossed over version of events.
Now i think its true that the 1000 Somali that were killed cant be indentified so we dont know how many of those were Militia, but from what i heard doesn't the book point out that the soldiers DID kill innocent women and children - when this isnt shown in the film (though im sure it happened towards the end) and for me it got Jerry Brucheimer-esque when all those people were at the end cheering - and i know for a fact that didn't happen. To show the soldiers retreating was a good thing to do - but to show them as being these hero's cheered on by the villagers is a bit much.
After all, isn't this film glossing over a military disaster to show how brave these people were against the odds - for me it would've made a more interesting film to show this conflict that caused the failure.
Enough rambling now though, but in closing i thought it was very very average.
Ol' Blue Eyes
20-01-2002, 19:54
Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
Now i think its true that the 1000 Somali that were killed cant be indentified so we dont know how many of those were Militia, but from what i heard doesn't the book point out that the soldiers DID kill innocent women and children - when this isnt shown in the film (though im sure it happened towards the end) and for me it got Jerry Brucheimer-esque when all those people were at the end cheering - and i know for a fact that didn't happen. To show the soldiers retreating was a good thing to do - but to show them as being these hero's cheered on by the villagers is a bit much.
The Rangers did kill women and children but the book makes it clear that they had no choice - the "innocent" women and children were providing cover for snipers and mortars and the soldiers were entitled to defend their own lives. There is one scene in the film towards the end where an Ranger shoots a woman. Ridley Scott does leave out kids being killed, perhaps out of a desire not to appall his audience, but he also omits scenes of Somalis mutilating American corpses so it shouldn't be assumed that he's trying to bias the film towards the Americans.
My interpretation of the cheering at the end was that the Somalis were cheering their own victory over the Rangers.
Ben Martin
20-01-2002, 20:27
Originally posted by DamienB
Alex Cox has another take on this movie:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=114013
very interesting reading. i knew some of this already, but not all of it. that wasn't his "take on the movie", but i'll bet he still wasn't impressed when he did see it!
the thing is, i pretty much agree with everything he says about america's reasons for being in somalia in the first place but none of that really impacts on whether i'm able to enjoy the movie or not. i'm no fan of multinationals or the US military-industrial complex, and don't blindly accept official US reasons for getting involved in the way they did.
but the soldiers who had to undertake these missions weren't involved in those decisions, weren't able to say 'hey, we shouldn't be here!' and have the whole thing scratched, and this movie is about what happened to them. you can empathise with them and get some small idea what it was like to be one of those men that day. hey, maybe in reality a few of them did have racist tendencies? who knows? but there's always a few bad apples in every bunch.
i think alex cox spoils a lot of the good points he has to make with the overtly polemic nature of that article. to such an extent in fact that you could argue it's not really journalism as he is completely unable to remain impartial. fair enough though, he's not a journalist by trade, it's just a feature article. he accurately heaps on the detail for the historical background but really is somewhat vague in his attempts to smear mark bowden's book and the reputations of the majority of US armed forces (i'm referring to the troops, not the policy-makers).
for the foreseeable future, mark bowden's book remains not only the most accurate account of what happened that day, but pretty much the only published account. and considering it's very even-handed nature (i'm 70 pages in and so far 'the mission' is covered from a somali point of view as well as american) it is more than reasonable for us to accept the accounts of the rangers who were there. the few obscure newspaper articles referred to by cox may well amount to something, but he doesn't seem to have the conviction to really follow that up properly.
you can watch this film, empathise with the soldiers, and enjoy it immensely without selling your soul to the pentagon.
[Typo Edit]
Ol' Blue Eyes
20-01-2002, 20:42
It's telling that most of the bad reviews are either political rants about the film's alleged racism or complaints that it's one long firefight, which is pretty much what it sets out to be.
Originally posted by Yonathan Gal
read my review: www.the90thdimension.com/reviews/films/reviews/blackhawkdown.shtml I still can't believe just how bad this film was, and I can't understand why anyone could like it... :) Jumy my opinion :)
This post doesn't totally apply to you Yonathan Gal but as I've just read your review it gave me some thoughts.. :)
IMHO I think perhaps you missed an important aspect of this movie. It seems to me that this whole lack of character build-up which you disliked was very much intentional.
This movie isn't your typical fictional story and from that point of view it makes no difference where/why/when these soldiers joined the armed forces. It's also not a documentary, so I don't think it matters to much that it doesn't try and educate us on the whole Somalian Civil War.
What matters is that these soldiers are in a combat situation, things are going badly and they are trying to stick together while doing what they are there to do.
Based on that I didn't need to know who was who or what there history was to still feel a kind of emotional attachment, feeling bad about the situation they were in along with the Somanlians. You could see this was a messed up situation for everyone involved.
I didn't think the movie was racist, it hadn't even occurred to me until you mentioned it and I would like to consider myself reasonably PC.
At the end of the day we are entitled to our opinions, for you this movie was a miss but for me it was a good movie.. not brilliant but good.
I think it was more a movie about the way these people were feeling and dealing with the situation they found themselves in. I honestly think this movie achieved what it set out to do.
BUT that is just my opinion which I am more than entitled to! :)
Mark
Jimmyboy
21-01-2002, 00:43
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pythons
This post doesn't totally apply to you Yonathan Gal but as I've just read your review it gave me some thoughts.. :)
IMHO I think perhaps you missed an important aspect of this movie. It seems to me that this whole lack of character build-up which you disliked was very much intentional.
Of course its intentional, that doesnt mean its successfull though.
This is why BHD is almost impossible to review.
Its strenghs and its weekness's are one and the same & each individual person will decide if the lack of character deveopment & the non-stop continuing firefight is a plus or a flaw.
BHD is still unashamedly racist though.
Ben Martin
21-01-2002, 08:41
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
BHD is still unashamedly racist though.
but why? you can't just make an accusation like that without stating exactly why it struck you as racist. paying less attention to the somali position may arguably be biased or one-sided but it hardly qualifies as racist.
Yonathan Gal
21-01-2002, 14:43
Because it wasn't just biased, it presented them as complete merciless villains, and didn't ive one bit of info about the film. racist, definitely racist...
Maybe the lack of characterisation was on purpose then, but I simply don't care about people I don't know in a movie, and I didn't have a cle about half of them... I still maintain: they may aswell have stuck an american flag up for 2 and a quater houra and said "the end" instead of wasting money on effects and actors (bad actors, at that)...
Originally posted by Yonathan Gal
Because it wasn't just biased, it presented them as complete merciless villains, and didn't ive one bit of info about the film. racist, definitely racist...
Maybe the lack of characterisation was on purpose then, but I simply don't care about people I don't know in a movie, and I didn't have a cle about half of them... I still maintain: they may aswell have stuck an american flag up for 2 and a quater houra and said "the end" instead of wasting money on effects and actors (bad actors, at that)...
I'm really not trying to be awkward but personally I didn't even find the movie overly jingoistic (not like The Last Castle.. :o). Like I said to me it was about the people more than the army or the country. You know the human spirit and stuff. Of course it had the odd American bit of patriotism but then it was an American movie with an obvious American bias.
Again I guess it's all down to opinion. I just wouldn't want people to miss it because of an overly critical review. :)
I would say if this kind of movie appeals then ignore the reviews, go see it and let us know what you think. :)
Cheers
Mark
Yonathan Gal
21-01-2002, 16:37
Well all to their own, but I tell everyone not to see it, I think it's a racist and ignorant film and I'm telling people to stay away from it at all costs... :)
Ben Martin
21-01-2002, 18:03
Originally posted by Yonathan Gal
Because it wasn't just biased, it presented them as complete merciless villains
i don't think that is true at all. the somalis were simply "the other side", as the background to each side of the conflict was never covered. furthermore, we've already had detractors of the film complaining that the somalis weren't really developed as at all, let alone as "villains"!
but perhaps you're referring specifically to aidid's militia? from the perspective of the soldiers yes, they were certainly the villains of the piece. however ... the civilians were presented in quite the opposite light - as innocents who suffered even more than the militia and the US military.
racist, definitely racist...
so most definitely not racist. if your claim that the film is racist is based on the negative light in which the militia are portrayed, then it collapses when the somali civilian population are not portrayed in the same way. both 'groups' are from the same country and are of the same race. thus, whatever you might like to call this (an accurate representation of mogadishu at the time?) it most certainly cannot be branded as "racism".
to do so implies some ulterior motive. maybe it's just political correctness gone mad? perhaps a general anti-US sentiment that cannot be overcome? or even some personal connection to/obsession with racism as a subject for whatever reason?
[Typo Edit]
Yonathan Gal
21-01-2002, 18:13
sorry, no, I haven't got an obsession with racism or political madness, but I know I'm not the only one, I think Bruckheimer got accused the other day about the films racism, and I;ve talked to at least 25 people who have watched the film and agree with me, and tjat's 25 out of 30 people who watched it.... so it's not just me, sorry :):)
BOZZDUDE
21-01-2002, 18:25
I saw BHD on Friday and loved it.I don't really see how anybody could find this movie racist,sure it was made from an American view point but I don't think it should make any apologies for that.
I'd say that the U.S. soldiers refering to the Somalis as savages who are not able to shoot more a case of realism rather than racism.Scott could have easily shown the Somalis in a worse light with pictures of U.S. bodies being dragged round the streets being abused by the angry mob,if that had been his intention.
Far from being 2 hours of American flag waving I thought this showed how the American military machine was found wanting when things started to go wrong.It showed how poor decisions at command level made a bad situation on the ground even worse.Far from being a film about America saving the day it told the story of Americas worst day in combat since Vietnam.
If you like action movies and particularly war movies go and see this and make your own mind up.SPR is one of my favourite movies but BHD does it so much better.All the gritty realism and horror of combat is there but without the over sentimentalism that marred Spielburgs classic.
Ben Martin
21-01-2002, 18:45
Yonathan, that's got to be one of the most frustrating non-answers ever! apart from the fact that providing your own statistics (that we conveniently cannot verify) doesn't work, the fact that you are not alone in your curious vendetta does not justify it.
and you still have yet to provide us with any explanation for your allegation of racism other than the rather feeble, "it presented them as complete merciless villains". it is not even clear who exactly you are referring to with the word "them".
[Typo Edit]
Yonathan Gal
21-01-2002, 18:52
OK, I don't want to start a huge argument here, I've already had one thread closed due to my opinions on this film... But the film was biased to the level of racism. It showed the Americans as such heroes, whereas (no insult to the people who really died here), the film makers made no characters out of them, and so I didn't feel anything towards them when they died, and couldn't help feeling it was there problem for trying to act like such hot shots in the first place, whilst the views of Somalians were cmpletely ignored ad it didn't show any aspect of the war aswell, it pressumed that the viewer would pressume it was all fair, and the Americans should have been in there saving the day as usual (and of course making a mess of it anyway)... It was so pretentous and was simple an exercise in flag waving and army recruitment, and didn't show any respect to the Smalians who died there, oh sorry, it said "a 1000 Somalians died there" but in a way that said, but who cares, here's the list of brave great American soldiers who died instead.... And I'm really tired now, and can't be bothered to argue this anymore... :)
At the end of the day, there is no point in us arguing about it. We all have different opinions. I do however find the racist allegations just a bit frustrating as I cant really figure out how it could be considered racist, but perhaps I'm missing something.
At the end of the day it is a movie, it's for entertainment, it's not a documentery. Sure if it were a documentery then I hold my hands up and admit it failed, it didnt show the Somaliands point of view etc, granted, but it's a movie.
I think it's one of those movies that people either like or disklike with not much inbetween.. :)
Black Hawk Down - what a lot of garbage!!!!
I’ll even ignore the racist issue, except to say there is a difference between genuine racism and bad, one trick filmmaking. And the one attempt to build a human being out of a Somalian (the request for negotiation with the captured American) was too similar to a scene with Mark Wahlberg & Iraqi friend in Three Kings. Added to which, it went nowhere.
Not a single two dimensional character on display – basically the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan blown up over 2 hours and 20 minutes. And it tries to avoid the awful characterisation in Ryan by having NONE of it’s own. The cast were all awful in thankless roles. Early word on Eric Bana being great was hopelessly optimistic – he was never given a chance. The two Trainspotting boys were a disgrace to heroin addicts everywhere. Sizemore and Hartnett have absolutely no idea which film they’re in this time, and who can blame ‘em.
It was like watching a Rocky film consisting of 5 full 12 round fights (all with the same opponent) and nothing in between. Never ever have I watched a film before where I was convinced that over 98% could/should have been filmed by the Second Unit.
I’ve hated plenty of films recently. But this is the only one where I’ve been looking at my watch at every opportunity, praying for a quick death. Forget the ‘reality’/Somali issue -this was a crap attempt at entertaining filmmaking. Maybe there was a touch of directorial/production flair – but it was all Spielberg’s and Scott didn’t have any more tools in the box for this one. Complete failure, and maybe *shock horror* the worst film Jerry’s had his name attached to.
Yonathan Gal
21-01-2002, 20:49
Originally posted by McD
Complete failure, and maybe *shock horror* the worst film Jerry’s had his name attached to.
And God knows, he's certainly been attached to some awful films, and this is probably the worst, so just imagine how bad it is!! :)
Ol' Blue Eyes
21-01-2002, 21:05
Originally posted by Yonathan Gal
the views of Somalians were cmpletely ignored
This comes up again and again in this thread, that the Somalis' point of view is not shown. Did you all feel this way about the point of view of the Vietnamese in Platoon, the Germans in Saving Private Ryan, the British in Braveheart, the Allies in Das Boot, in fact the enemy force in just about every war film ever made? How many war films can you name which give equal time to both sides of a conflict?
It seems clear to me that the accusations of racism are due to the Somali militia being black and Muslim and people being hyper-sensitive to the portrayal of black people and Muslims in films.
Ask yourselves this - if the EXACT same film had been set in Chechnya and the villains been white Chechnyan rebels, would there be any accusations of racism?
Personally, I loved BHD (f*!#in A) - i found it particularly harrowing, and contrary to some previous references felt that it did an even better job of conveying the futility of the loss of life in war than did SPR - my only quibble would be the moments of humour which I couldnt help but feel did not sit well, tending to detract from the emotive state generated as would someone talking or standing up in the theatre. Overall very well done, and worth a watch - of course if you do intend to see BHD, it exists as one of the films which demands to be seen in the cinema, regardless of whether or not youve got a big one (tv) :D
Originally posted by Ol' Blue Eyes
Did you all feel this way about the point of view of the Vietnamese in Platoon, the Germans in Saving Private Ryan, the British in Braveheart, the Allies in Das Boot...
Hmmm, I think you've missed the boat on this argument, Frank.
Platoon - plenty of victimisation of locals, not to mention execution, by the US forces is shown.
Saving Private Ryan - the enemy are frequently shown to be fighting the same war the same way. And are also shown being left to burn and being shot whilst trying to surrender.
Braveheart - the British in Braveheart??? *cough* Not exactly a war movie of any relevance anyway.
Das Boot - the respect for the British forces is constantly remarked upon by Prochnow's captain. And British sailors being left to die is looked upon with horror by the Germans, who had hoped other UK boats could rescue them.
As I stated in my post, I think the main crime of the film was simply being one dimensional in all respects. But it didn't show the same respect to the opponent (or their natives) as those other films mentioned by you. Not by a long shot.
Ol' Blue Eyes
21-01-2002, 21:49
Originally posted by McD
But it didn't show the same respect to the opponent (or their natives) as those other films mentioned by you. Not by a long shot.
Actually it gave voices to two reasonable Somalis - the politician who speaks with Sam Shepard at the start and the American pilot's captor towards the end.
Getting pedantic here I know but in Platoon the victimised Vietnamese were innocent villagers, not Vietcong, who the film portrayed entirely as shadowy figures in the jungle - which is exactly how they would have appeared to Oliver Stone when he was a GI. My point is that Ridley Scott is doing the same thing. He wants us to experience what the American soldiers went through so the Somalis are portrayed as they were seen by the Americans. That doesn't make the film racist.
GrossePointeJack
21-01-2002, 23:39
Ok then - time to chime in on this debate.
For me - the film wasn't as Racist as some have claimed - but it is still a racist film i believe. The somali's are always presented as shady, sweaty men who, and this is the mistake, Scott clearly points out 'This is the villan' - if he had tried devoting a little time to the Somalis just to say "ok, this is why they're doing what they do" then that would've helped a lot i think (in relation to peoples issue about race). Now to argue a few peoples points:
TEZMO - I have to disagree, SPR does a much better job of showing the complete waste of life and the futility of war than BHD does. But i think this is only to do with the way in which the battles are presented and the sheer epic scale of death that Spielberg showed us (from both perspectives). Its something that gets overlooked that Spielberg does cut back to the German perspective quie often during the battle sequences (the scene where the Germans are burnt still isnt forgivable because they are Germans, or the ENEMY - it just shows that both sides were as bad as eachother in some respects)
McD - I also have to disagree with you there - i think SPR had very good characterisation - we knew who each soldier was, what they were like, their feelings about being at war. Most importantly, if you cried (not you personaly) when ****SPOILER -- Captain Miller dies --- END SPOILER **** then haven't you become involved in the film, because of the characterisation of the character, otherwise you wouldn't feel emotion. Now to backup your point - BHD has NO characterisation at all, so watching all these people die means nothing to you at all (actually - the only scene i found effective was the scene in which the soldier is killed by hundreds of Milita and his body is paraded around) - thats where BHD fails for me.
Also, did anyone think that most of the battle scenes seemed a little glossed-over, like a little more polished? Sometimes it seems like SPR's style but other times it seems...staged. I mean SPR's battles seemed like they were shot on the fly - like Spielberg was capturing a real battle as it was happening - but BHD's seemed rehearsed.
Well thats enough from me.
Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
TEZMO - I have to disagree, SPR does a much better job of showing the complete waste of life and the futility of war than BHD does.
GPJ - I very much see where youre coming from, but for me personally the sheer quantity of SPR deaths made them very much less significant events - in BHD however it was an event every time an american took a bullet.....see i feel there was a rapid small scale desensetisation (is that even a word) went on as the spr intro progressed......im rambling - each to his own :)
Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
McD - I also have to disagree with you there - i think SPR had very good characterisation - we knew who each soldier was, what they were like, their feelings about being at war. Most importantly, if you cried (not you personaly) when ****SPOILER -- Captain Miller dies --- END SPOILER **** then haven't you become involved in the film, because of the characterisation of the character, otherwise you wouldn't feel emotion. Now to backup your point - BHD has NO characterisation at all, so watching all these people die means nothing to you at all (actually - the only scene i found effective was the scene in which the soldier is killed by hundreds of Milita and his body is paraded around) - thats where BHD fails for me.
Well fair enough. But I thought SPR was godawful and yet ten times better than Black Hawk Down. Take the four main characters - I thought Hanks and Damon acted poorly (I hate Hanks, so I might have been biased), terrible script, etc. 'With each man I kill I feel even further away from home' or something as inane. If that is the best reason you can come up with not to kill someone then shame on you! Of course, I mean shame on the screenwriter, not the character! SPR's script problems, and those of every Spielberg flick, might be down to Sir Steven himself. Scott Frank, screenwriter on the upcoming Minority Report, is already slagging him off for using some of his own 'cringesome' dialogue in the Cruise flick.
The other two main characters - Sizemore and Burns - might as well have been in Black Hawk Down for all the work that went into them in Ryan. I expected Sizemore to collect a bit of Somalian dirt at any moment. Hanks death scene wasn't even slightly emotional in my opinion. But I do agree that it was hard to care for anyone being knocked off in BHD as the characters were so poorly drawn.
Just a few last points about BHD - how realistic were those Somalians anyway? Not one sniper! No single shot fired but from an enemy who seems intent on being seen and shot! Every single one! They were like those blokes who try and pick off Arnie at the end of Commando. The fact is that probably most of the Somalian casualties were picked off en masse by helicopter fire into crowds.
Added to which we all know this picture was going through final pre-production whilst Scott was making something else, and edited in next to no time to get it into the theatres months early. Shameful in every way.
Ben Martin
22-01-2002, 01:00
Originally posted by McD
maybe *shock horror* the worst film Jerry’s had his name attached to.
Originally posted by Yonathan Gal
he's certainly been attached to some awful films, and this is probably the worst
whatever you think of this movie, that is a blatant untruth and you both must know it?! you're talking about the man who brought us armageddon, coyote ugly and pearl harbor, for god's sake! :eek: this time he's got no patsy director and as a result he's ended up with, imho, the best movie in his entire back catalogue.
Originally posted by Ol' Blue Eyes
if the EXACT same film had been set in Chechnya and the villains been white Chechnyan rebels, would there be any accusations of racism?
quite. of course there wouldn't, because most people's understanding of the concept of racism doesn't go beyond skin colour. as i said on the other thread, for me it's the same as all the people who cried racism at episode I - complete lunacy! you have to walk on eggshells around these people. they see racism lurking in every corner, when in reality it's just in their heads.
ProgressiveScan
22-01-2002, 05:22
Originally posted by Jimmyboy BHD is still unashamedly racist though.
Why? You can't just post an inflamatory comment like that and not explain yourself.
I saw BHD last night and didn't see any racism - in fact at points I was rooting FOR the Somali's because I get fed up with hearing how invincible American makes their soldiers out to be.
Most of the more "pornographic" violence is shown being inflicted on the Americans by themselves or their equipment (the BHD's chopping bodies in half, etc).
In face it shows just how incompetant the US Military is, and BHD is even more relevant in the current climate, seeing how with all their technical might the US STILL can't track down Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar.
If the film's guilty of anything it's glossing over atrocities carried out by Mohamed Farrah Aidid.
I think you're seeing what you want to see.
ProgressiveScan
22-01-2002, 05:50
Originally posted by Yonathan Gal
OK, I don't want to start a huge argument here, I've already had one thread closed due to my opinions on this film... But the film was biased to the level of racism. It showed the Americans as such heroes, whereas (no insult to the people who really died here), the film makers made no characters out of them, and so I didn't feel anything towards them when they died, and couldn't help feeling it was there problem for trying to act like such hot shots in the first place, whilst the views of Somalians were cmpletely ignored ad it didn't show any aspect of the war aswell, it pressumed that the viewer would pressume it was all fair, and the Americans should have been in there saving the day as usual (and of course making a mess of it anyway)... It was so pretentous and was simple an exercise in flag waving and army recruitment, and didn't show any respect to the Smalians who died there, oh sorry, it said "a 1000 Somalians died there" but in a way that said, but who cares, here's the list of brave great American soldiers who died instead.... And I'm really tired now, and can't be bothered to argue this anymore... :)
It's great to have a point of view, isn't it?
But I didn't think it was a advert for the US Military; in fact it's a pretty damning indictment of it; the men weren't made out as heroes; in fact some of the characters were definitely flawed, and I'll spoiler this:
The Delta Force team as being out for their own little war and only caring when they were being shot at; the commanders at ground level squabbling over who should do what even as people died around them; the dodgy equipment; the recruit who died specifically because of a poor command decision, I could go on...
I never got the impression the Americans were saving the day; simply getting involved in something which clearly wasn't their business and getting their asses well and truely kicked.
Perhaps though, you don't understand Bruckheimer's way to telling a story and it's leading you to make incorrect assumptions .
Was the film Racist - No! It was a depiction of events from ONE SIDE - that was the basis of the film, it wasn't as to whether what the soldiers did was right or wrong, it was about a group of men sent into an impossible situation and then trying to get out alive.
The film was called "BLACK HAWK DOWN" - a reference to the fact that one of the US helicopters is shot down. THAT alone should give you some indication as to what the film was going to portray. WHY should it have to give the Somali side of the argument, that was not the issue here, the issue was SURVIVAL. The film never claimed to be a political statement, it never claimed to try and answer why the US were in Somalia, it never hinted at the fact that it wasn't going to be anything less than biased towards the US point of view - and rightly so. It was about US soldiers trying to escape.
The racism issue should stop right here, it ain't a factor. Did people decry "Behind Enemy Lines" as racist (that too was based on a true story), as it only showed the Bosnians trying to kill an American Pilot? No they didn't. I think that peoples feelings of racism has been heightened by the fact that the militia were black.
Some people want the moon on a stick. They slam the first 30 mins of the film because there's no action and a flawed attempt at characterisation - however, if they had taken more time to develop characters people would have complained that the film was too long. So imagine if the film-makers had decided to include characterisation from the Somali p.o.v. - we would have been looking at a film going on 3 hours+.
For me, the film worked, I enjoyed it. Is it a film I'd watch again - YES! Is it a film that will sit inside my top 100 - NO! It was a flawed film, but nonetheless an entertaining experience.
I thought the film was excellent. Granted, it didn't have the most intruiging and complicated plot ever, but the film concentrated more on the relationships between the characters and their plight than an unfolding story and i think it worked.
I also disagree with people who complain about racism or american flag waving in the film. I was very surprised by the lack of flag waving that was shown. The film showed what war was doing to these soldiers and it showed differing opinions within the ranks of the soldiers about war and whether they should be there or not.
The Somali plight was given some screen time but the fact remains that the film was not about the Somalis. It was about American Soldiers. It's a hollywood film made with hollywood money by hollywood producers and directors. It's designed to make money and i haven't seen the figures, but i'm guessing it did just that.
It just so happened that i found it entertaining as well. It's on my list to buy on DVD eventually anyway.
The comments about racism and Saving Private Ryan made me think.
I dont know who said it but some-one said SPR was the better film and BHD was racist and told us nothing of the plight of the Somalians (that spelt right?).
At anytime during SPR are we told why the germans are bad and why they are fighting them? I missed it if they did.
But...we know the germans were the bad guys and the things they did through other channels, history lessons, history channel etc etc
BHD suffers because people are unaware of this conflict and the reasons behind it. SPR succeeded in its battle scenes because we knew the germans deserved to be shot and we wanted them to lose.
BHD does not set out to tell us all about the reasons behind the conflict, it sets out to show us the conflict (like SPR's beginning). I mean maybe it should have given a little bit of background but its our own ignorance of the conflict that makes us think the film is racist and one sided.
Flame away if ya like, its lunch time , Im in work and I was just reading the thread.
Originally posted by andyp2
Flame away if ya like, its lunch time , Im in work and I was just reading the thread.
That's the spirit!
I disagree with is your comments on Ryan. I don't know the film inside out, but were the Germans really the bad guys in it? I think they were just the other guys!
You don't need to turn a war film into a history lesson or show both sides of the story. Although Three Kings tried to do both - whilst portraying a fictional gold heist caper!
we know the germans were the bad guys... SPR succeeded in its battle scenes because we knew the germans deserved to be shot
This bit is a tad sweeping isn't it. There is a difference between Germans and Nazis. And remember SPR is about the U.S. fighting the Germans only. Forget about America joining the war because of Pearl Harbor. The main reason for the delay was that a lot of the American top brass wanted to fight WITH the Germans, and not against them - principally because it was obvious that Russia was their biggest threat long term.
Yeah sorry I did mean Nazi's not just Germans in general :)
Not really interested in the history lesson to be honest, not being rude just when we are talking about moves it neednt be so deep.
I just feel that we (and when I say we I mean general cinema going public) knew what we were walking into when we saw SPR because we all knew the Nazi's were the bad guys.
BHD suffers a little because it tells the story of a battle that most people know nothing about. I think it could have done with some background info, just a little though but I do not think it was racist.
Its a film by the way ;) A dramatisation of actual events shown from one sides perspective. When the somalian version of the film is released I am sure it will tell their side of the story ;)
There are always two sides to a story but rarely do they come from the same person.
GrossePointeJack
22-01-2002, 20:11
I know what you mean AndyP - When walking into SPR you take with you the knowledge that the Germans were the bad guys during the war - so when you watch it, thats how you feel. "oh it doesn't matter - a german has been shot" But in BHD, despite the opening titles, we still dont hold the Somalis as "the bad guys" - instead we just see them as black people, black people being gunned down in unison actually.
i have said that i dont think the film is racist, but what i did say is that Scott sorta shot himself in the foot in the portrayl of the Somali's - every single one of them looked mighty shifty to me.
Oh, and what was the point in cutting back to that Somali leader they had under arrest? It happens a few times and i have no idea why.
Ol' Blue Eyes
22-01-2002, 22:17
Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
Oh, and what was the point in cutting back to that Somali leader they had under arrest? It happens a few times and i have no idea why.
I believe the point was that the Somali knew what was coming and the Americans didn't because they grossly underestimated how well organised and well armed the militia were (particularly with rocket propelled grenades).
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.