Why? Only “old hands” such as yourself are allowed to be fools? Well, you’ve surely showed me how it’s done.
Well let me abstract away from the icing as it were, and get down to the meat.
Very nice, you now have abandoned your senseless claim regarding Ghali and have found Cevik Birr as your sop. Single incident, and abstracts away from the clear fact that Howe and the American administration were running the show. The effort to get Aidid was US sponsored, others went along.
I take this to mean then that your best response on this matter is the above. Very nice then, I’ll give you a C- for effort.
What does Iraq have to do with this thread, why the analogous importance of winning hearts and minds, avoiding civilian casualties and calibrating responses to achieve political objectives. What ‘politicizing’ this thread do you mean?
What I am fit to do or not is rather immaterial to the point, nor are you my friend either.
So, again you lack a substantive response to my observation regarding the utility of the mission in the context of the larger mission – failure as argued above. “Getting” the people is not the problem, achieving the objectives was.
Amusing non-response my dear fellow. The humanitarian mission did not go well, a degenerating security situation had led to the mandate, at the USG prompting, not something that occurred out of the blue or because poor old Ghali wanted it. Or better, the humanitarian mission had begun well but degenerated.
Trying to point the finger at the UN is a rather absurd little game.
Almost amusing.
Take it easy, guys. You don’t want this moved to Great Debates, do you??
(Just fight the ignorance, not the attitude.)
You’re quite right, this thread is not supposed to debate the incident but discuss the film. I suggest a GD if one wants to go forward.
Not only is it foolish, but it would be unprecedented if one actually did. I wrote a review of this film for a newspaper I worked at wherein I essentially made the same points the OP did re: the lack of context.
But beyond that, I think it’s rather odd to criticize this as an “American” film. Obviously, an American studio is not going to put up American money to make a film with American actors to be released in America that will be critical of American actions. That’s a great way for a production company to go bankrupt.
If you want “History,” watch a documentary made by the BBC, or read the original book.
Even so, I thought the movie was not as one-sided as the OP claims. One of the pilots who was captured is portrayed having a conversation with a Somali lieutenant about what is happening. The Somali is portrayed as indignant and hostile, but not mindlessly violent or cruel, or even unintelligent. Yes, there is a certain sense of “Go Army!” in the film – right before it depicts soldiers getting overrun and killed.
Odd? As sketched above, I can easily imagine more or less the same film with better contextualization. The film was already implicitely critical of American actions, although supportive of the soldiers, which strikes me as entirley reasonable, much like the underlying book.
Of course your last point speaks rather poorly of American audiences, but is likely true to a limited extent. At the same time, once again the entire genre of Vietnam films seems to revolve around themes of support for the ordinary grunts and implicit or explicit criticisms of the war itself, from a variety of views, so I do not see in the end that critiquing the film for missing out on the chances noted supra is “odd” or indeed “foolish” unless I am to believe that we can not expect even the slightest nuance.
Once more see comments supra in re Battle of Algiers. False dichotomy, and lazy thinking.
I grant that, although I believe the larger point stands.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**Very nice, you now have abandoned your senseless claim regarding Ghali and have found Cevik Birr as your sop.
**
I made no senseless claims. I offered Birr as the non-American UN representative who individually pushed the hotel strike. Ghali was the head of the UN and supported action to get rid of Aidid.
**
Single incident, and abstracts away from the clear fact that Howe and the American administration were running the show. The effort to get Aidid was US sponsored, others went along.
**
Yes, it does contradict your spin, so you attempt to conveniently ignore it.
**
What does Iraq have to do with this thread, why the analogous importance of winning hearts and minds, avoiding civilian casualties and calibrating responses to achieve political objectives. **
No, Iraq is in no way analogous to Somalia. There is simply no comparison.
**
What I am fit to do or not is rather immaterial to the point, nor are you my friend either.
**
Nor am I what? Fit to kiss their boots? Well, I wasn’t a Ranger, but I at least did serve in the US Army infantry during wartime.
**
So, again you lack a substantive response to my observation regarding the utility of the mission in the context of the larger mission – failure as argued above. “Getting” the people is not the problem, achieving the objectives was.
**
Now you’re redefining terms again in a desperate effort to salvage anything out of your intellectually bankrupt argument.
**
Amusing non-response my dear fellow. The humanitarian mission did not go well, a degenerating security situation had led to the mandate, at the USG prompting, not something that occurred out of the blue or because poor old Ghali wanted it. Or better, the humanitarian mission had begun well but degenerated.
**
Yes, it degenerated due to the UN’s attempts at nation-building.
Except that it was you who brought up the incident when you criticized the movie for “Americanizing” it.
American actors? A sizeable percentage of the leads were Brits and Aussies. I pick this nit only so I may mention the least accurate element in Black Hawk Down – Ewan McGregor’s American accent.
I am curious as to whether Collounsbury feels that Lawrence of Arabia pays insufficient attention to the viewpoint of the Turks and Germans, and, if so, if he feels it is a lesser film because of that omission.
He probably feels that The Two Towers is lessened by the lack of an Uruk-Hai POV character.
Absolutely not, the film was on L.
It would be helpful if one looked to my actual critique.
As to my dear little Rickie, we can debate the finer points of your jingoism and Somalia in another forum dedicated to that very purpose, otherwise focus is the question as quite obviously the ‘debate’ you want gets farther afield.
No need to debate further: you lost the debate the minute you began your ad hominem attacks.
Please. That film was as much about the Arab revolt as it was about Lawrence personally. **
I fail utterly to see any kind of distinction in your critique that would make it inapplicable to Lawrence or any other war film. Does The Longest Day give insufficient time to the German perspective?
Some selected quotes from Collounsbury:
RicWriter- I’m sorry that you were the only one trying to be civil in that dialogue. I, for one, thought you made your points well.
C, in fairness to the makers of “Black Hawk Down,” Stinkpalm does have a point here in a roundabout sort of way.
It’s indisputably true that the source material is far more evenhanded and provides more depth and understanding than the movie. However, as I am sure you are aware, a full treatment of the book in cinematic form would take - well, I’d guess four to five hours of film, at the absolute minimum, if it’s very quick and edited choppily. Six hours for a good treatment.
To turn “Black Hawk Down,” a book with multiple lines of narration and perspective, into a movie of standard cinematic length (the movie was 144 minutes long, which is longer than most) requires you make one of two decisions:
- Cut out an enormous amount of detail.
- Cut out lines of narration and perspective.
- Turn it into a multi-episode TV movie.
- Hand it over to the clowns who did “Gettysburg” and “Gods and Generals” so it lasts four hours and Ted Turner pays for all of it.
Option 2 does make it a more simplistic and less informative movie. Option 1, however, would probably have made it a crappy movie, anyway, since 144 minutes of exposition isn’t much of a cinematic experience. The horrors that could potentially befall Option 3 (Lorenzo Lamas as President Clinton!) are too shocking to even consider. And Option 4 is out, unless you want the parts of the Somalis played by the Eastern Tennessee War Between the States Re-Enaction Brotherhood. So you can either cut out detail but get a Grade 5 broadview of the history (Option 1) or narrow the perspective and get some detail (Option 2.) As a movie, Option 2 usually works better, because it’s much easier to engage the audience in relatable characters. If you can give Josh Harnett’s character 25 minutes of screen time instead of 3, that works better to draw the audience in and get them to empathize with his plight.
I cannot think of any example of a historical movie based on a written work than approached the depth of understanding of the book. The reason I can’t think of one is because there isn’t one, and the reason there isn’t one is that it’s totally impossible. Nothing that qualifies as a “novel” can be completely translated to the screen; it must be distilled. Even “The Short-Timers,” a very short book (albiet a work of highly reality-based fiction), when translated to the screen as “Full Metal Jacket,” had a lot of detail and depth removed. Even the very best historical account movies with the most accurate history - “Tora! Tora! Tora!” is a very good example - have to fly though the facts to get it done in under three hours.
Once distilled, the movie simply cannot deliver the full historical story; details must be fudged, characters simplified, backstory left out. It’s a weakness of the medium. Of course, the films should still be judged by their artistic value; “Lawrence of Arabia” was a wonderful movie. “Enemy At The Gates” was crappy. And a film that outright changes history, like “JFK,” should be rightly criticized as being dishonest. Personally, I would rate “Black Hawk Down” as “okay.” It wasn’t great, but it wasn’t as bad as “Enemy at the Gates” or - God, the burning in my eyes - “Pearl Harbor.”
So while your criticisms are valid in terms of examining “Black Hawk Down” as a historical treatment, it really doesn’t say anything about the movie as a movie.
[total hyjack, but not OT]
Personally my bestest ‘war’ movie was Breaker Morant!!!
[/total hyjack, but not OT]
This is what I was getting at with my original post. The OP is really not playing fair with his criticism of the film. The filmmaker(s) never set out to create a completely well-rounded narrative. As someone who has written film criticism (admittedly, as an amateur, although I was published, and not on the Internet) for years, I believe it is self-evident that nobody in Hollywood feels their first allegiance is to the facts. Filmmaking is a business, first and foremost, and a film must be made in such a way that it will turn a profit.
Given that looming constraint, I agree that “Black Hawk Down” was about as well made as it was possible to be. Unlike a lot of American films of years past (All the “Rambo” pictures come to mind) the foreigners in question were not depicted as faceless darkies who died in droves when the hero fired a few rounds their way. Somalian characters are shown, at various times, accidentally shooting each other, cowering in fear as bullets fly around them, crying over their dead, aiding the American forces, and gunning down Americans.
Sure, the movie could’ve gone even further in this direction, but as RickJay explained at length, it wasn’t feasible while still keeping the movie at a reasonable length. Throw in that most people would rather watch a movie that at least seems sympathetic to their side at first glance, and the issue is settled. That’s not “lazy thinking,” it’s profitable thinking, from the viewpoint of the studio.
Does this not speak well of American audiences? It would not. . . .if the populace of every other nation on Earth were not exactly the same way.
Making completely one-sided propaganda is easy. It’s making a film like this, where you can really only afford (in both the literal and political sense) to show one side, yet still manage to keep from demonizing the opposition, that is hard. Ridley Scott deserves credit for that, not approbration.
This is what I was getting at with my original post. The OP is really not playing fair with his criticism of the film. The filmmaker(s) never set out to create a completely well-rounded narrative. As someone who has written film criticism (admittedly, as an amateur, although I was published, and not on the Internet) for years, I believe it is self-evident that nobody in Hollywood feels their first allegiance is to the facts. Filmmaking is a business, first and foremost, and a film must be made in such a way that it will turn a profit.
Given that looming constraint, I agree that “Black Hawk Down” was about as well made as it was possible to be. Unlike a lot of American films of years past (All the “Rambo” pictures come to mind) the foreigners in question were not depicted as faceless darkies who died in droves when the hero fired a few rounds their way. Somalian characters are shown, at various times, accidentally shooting each other, cowering in fear as bullets fly around them, crying over their dead, aiding the American forces, and gunning down Americans.
Sure, the movie could’ve gone even further in this direction, but as RickJay explained at length, it wasn’t feasible while still keeping the movie at a reasonable length. Throw in that most people would rather watch a movie that at least seems sympathetic to their side at first glance, and the issue is settled. That’s not “lazy thinking,” it’s profitable thinking, from the viewpoint of the studio.
Does this not speak well of American audiences? It would not. . . .if the populace of every other nation on Earth were not exactly the same way.
Making completely one-sided propaganda is easy. It’s making a film like this, where you can really only afford (in both the literal and political sense) to show one side, yet still manage to keep from demonizing the opposition, that is hard. Ridley Scott deserves credit for that, not approbration.
Pssst… Coll?
If you’re going to use Latin phrases, in a vain attempt to floor us with your sophistication, please get them right. It’s not “ad nauseum.”
TRY to remember your Freshman Latin declensions.
Nom: Nausea
Voc: Nausea
Gen.: Nauseae
Dat: Nauseae
Acc: Nauseam
Abl: Nausea
So, it’s “ad nauseam.” First declension, feminine noun, in the accusative case. Got that? Good. Now, write it 100 times before dawn, or I’ll cut your…