For Marines, we salute indoors only when wearing a cover. One example of when a Marine wears a cover indoors is when armed and standing a post.
Most Marines do not wear a cover indoors. Without a cover on, we do not salute.
That was accurate 20 years ao when I retired. Things might’ve changed since then.
I’m a vet and I think these films need to be as realistic as possible. That doesn’t mean there needs to be superfluous gore a la Hostel, but it needs to be there.
Personal story: I love Blackhawk Down. One of my favorites. My best friend was shot down in Afghanistan and I don’t think I’ll ever be able to watch that movie again. The sounds as they’re crashing. I can’t do it.
I’ll check that out, I read ‘Quartered Safe Out Here’ by the same author about his experiences in the Burma Campaign and it was an interesting read. I especially recall his point that life is sometimes more cliche than the movies, one colleague was shot and cryed out, “Aggghh, the dirty rats, they got me!”, as Fraser points out if that was shown in a movie the audience would be rolling their eyes, yet it actually happened.
Finished reading a couple of weeks ago ‘The Reivers’ by the same author, although I think I spotted a few minor historical inaccuracies in that one. 
Agreed, but I think it does need a certain amount of gore to show how awful warfare actually is, otherwise people may go away thinking its not actually that bad. As General Lee said, “It is well that war is so terrible lest we grow too fond of it”, or words to that effect.
Really? Can you specify what was so inaccurate about it?
In the interests of full disclosure I am not now, never have been and (barring the Russians suddenly taking a headstagger and deciding to come crashing through the Fulda Gap twenty years too late) never will be of the military ilk but I do have an interest in military history.
I recall having a heated debate with a friend who said Blackhawk Down is racist because it showed hundreds of black people being mown down with few white (although there were plenty of black faces on the American side as well) losses. I asked how could it be racist if:
(a) That’s what actually happened and
(b) the loss ratio is more a depiction of what happens when poorly armed and trained militia go up against a modern military, than black VS white, and yet the losses on the American side were still considered politically unacceptable.
Not to make light of the losses but in my previous occupation if a vehicle went off the road through mechanical failure, damage or accident it was reported in as ‘Blackhawk Down’.
edited to add, no offense meant, I hope your friend was OK.
My father went from capturing the Ludendorff Bridge into the Ruhr pocket … he didn’t ever watch The Bridge at Remagen… though we did once watch die Brucke together.
Well they got the uniforms right.
If I could roger that I wouldn’t be posting on this message board.
There you go.
I don’t think it was racist per se (i.e. the bad guys were not being dehumanized because they were black), but I did feel like it carried some very unfortunate, unsavoury, quasi-colonialist implications in the way the Somalis were being portrayed and how the narrative frames them.
They *were *being depicted like they were “Injuns” in old cow-boy movies, screaming hordes of nothing but mindless aggression. We don’t see their perspective on things, they’re not granted any humanizing moments (compare with another contemporary war movie, one otherwise just as rah-rah ARE TROOPS as Blackhawk Down: We Were Soldiers), they don’t even really have a “face” - the best we get is the scary lookin’ dude with the rocket launcher, who doesn’t even have a name but has to be portrayed like a badass, because only a stone cold badass could have downed a 'Murikan helicopter, naturally - and yeah, ultimately they are just filing up to get mowed down.
Now, granted, I don’t really know much about that particular conflict or action, but I’d expect even poorly trained militias from the ass end of Africa to be a little more than zombie hordes engaged in quasi-constant, wall-to-wall human wave attacks. They seized a fucking country and defended it from the depredations of rival warlords, I expect they know at least a *little *about warfare.
It’s kind of like the moral vacuum arms dealer guy they capture in the beginning of the film says: “Don’t make the mistake of thinking that, just because I grew up without running water, that I am simple”. Feels like the film director immediately forgot all about that.
And, well, the parallel with “the Injuns” did make it more than a little uncomfortable for me. Ultimately, what soured me more than anything on the movie were the final titlecards - the juxtaposition of the quasi-fetishistic listing of the names and ranks of every single American soldier who died over the course of that fiasco, and then “Oh, and 3000 Somalis died too”. No names for them, because who gives a shit ? Did these beasts even have names ?
I like to think it was meant more like a memorial than a score card but… like I said, unfortunate implications.
[QUOTE=Disposable Hero]
Really? Can you specify what was so inaccurate about it?
[/QUOTE]
FWIW, the flick seems universally reviled by the military community on the Something Awful forums as well. Can’t tell you why that is though - haven’t seen it, and the goons don’t go into much more details than just mocking it and its being held as “OMG so true and accurate” by part of the Hollywood crowd.
I only saw it once so I can’t go through it point by point. Basically you don’t handle explosives (especially EOD) and act like a reckless cowboy. EOD is about the most careful guys I know. When they go in the area is secure and they are methodical. You don’t risk your life disarming bombs. When you find them you blow them up. You certainly don’t try to use a fire extinguisher on a burning car filled with artillery shells. It is still a dangerous job. If you want to see the real deal watch Bomb Patrol: Afghanistan.
The very beginning of the movie with Guy Pierce was the closest to reality in my opinion. The rest was totally unrealistic.
Good post and I can see better where my friend was coming from having it explained like that but I’m not sure how they could have shown the Somali perspective in any great detail without completely slowing down the pace of the movie.
btw it was one of the first movies I watched when I bought my snazzy new HD TV and surround-sound system, I imagine my neighbours thought WW3 was taking place in my living room!
bttw recently watched ‘We Were Soldiers’ again, I saw it in the cinema and remember being distinctly unimpressed (mostly because I thought it was overdone and about as subtle as a brick to the face) but liked it a lot better the second time around, and yes it does do a much better job of showing the ‘oppositions’ perspective.
I thought part of the point was the main character was a reckless cowboy and the tension that caused in his comrades (personally I think I’d have pressed the detonator when he was over checking the unexploded bomb by himself in that scene).
I imagine an interesting and tense movie could be made about EOD operations but I don’t think Hollywood would believe modern audiences would have the attention span for it…and they may very well be right unfortunately.
btw if you don’t mind me asking have you ever seen Jarhead and what did you think of it, watched it recently as well and its one of the few movies I thought was better than the book. The cinematography is breath-taking in some scenes.
I thought We Were Soldiers did a very good job at adapting the book (except for some poetic license). Except for the ending. The ending was awful. It was not a decisive victory. In fact that was only half the battle and half the book. Hal Moore was not involved in the next phase but covered it in his book. It did not go well to say the least.
That might have been the point of the movie but I assure you, anyone with that attitude would not last in EOD. Those he work with would see to that. It’s hard for me to articulate but soldiers are no robots blindly following orders. Especially someone trained in EOD. They are trained to think for themselves and not take unnecessary chances. I’m not even mentioning how they seemed to be able to drive all around Iraq on their own without a convoy or any support. It was pretty much rediculous from beginning to end. I guess it’s a good movie but I just couldn’t get past the yelling at the screen phase.
I have only seen parts of Jarhead. I’m not a Marine and my unit spent Desert Storm in Germany. I don’t know if I would be a good source for how realistic it was.
A realistic EOD movie would start off with a convoy finding an IED. Soldiers cordon off the area and calls it up. Then they sit around 8 hours for EOD to get there from the FOB.
Well, yeah, but then again by that metric a realistic war movie would be something like *Jarhead *- an hour and a half of pumped build up and tense waiting for an action that never really materializes, and even when it eventually sorta does it’s still undercut by upper echelon retardation and is thoroughly unsatisfying :).
And that’s in the “lucky” event where it doesn’t end up being traumatizing through and through (see:* Generation Kill*, which in my largely uninformed opinion at least *looks *like it’s kind of the right tone, the right mix of absurdity, adrenaline, downtime, fucking around and being horrified beyond the capacity to process it.)
Yes and no.
I don’t think humanizing moments necessarily have to be drawn out or hammer-to-the-face. For example, a simple 2 seconds shot of a hysterical woman rushing to cradle the body of her shot husband would have done a world of difference IMO. But nothing like that happens in BHD - the closest we get to that is an extremely short shot where one single (faceless, nameless) man breaks down over the body of his child that he shot himself out of manifest, complete ineptitude. Because god forbid the violent actions of American soldiers could ever cause human suffering, right ?
Might not be the kind of sentiments the film makers had in mind when they shot that scene - in fact, it’s very possible they put it in the film specifically to humanize the Somali side. But it’s still what I picked up from it. Devil’s in the (unconscious ?) details and so on.
Thanks for the answers, appreciated.
Actually watched Generation Kill fairly recently as well and thought it was very well done, but as to the realism I can’t comment.
Thanks for the replies, I may have been too harsh on my friend.