'I think you shouldn't have come here, this is civil war, this is our war, not yours'
Black Hawk Down 6.9
An elite US taskforce takes on a mission into the heart of Somalia's hostile capital to remove an evil warlord leader from power, restoring order and saving countless lives. When their evacuation is shot down, it becomes a race against time to rescue survivors and fight on ground level to escape the approaching militia.
Opening scenes show young soldiers, mostly in good moods with little to do but kill time, the music and throwaway dialogue reflects this. The characters all seem to be relatively friendly with eachother, there's no rivalries, which there often are in this sort of setup. The tension and seriousness slowly ramp up as we see the troops preparing to leave, all seeming nervous in some way. I noticed they all say something like Hoo-Ar to eachother, I wonder if this is a real military thing as Al Pacino, playing an ex serviceman, says the same all through Scent of a Woman. As soon as they land they are under fire, the music changes to what sounds native to that part of the world, maybe showing they are now well out of their comfort zone. Most of the action is then filmed handheld, the more hectic the action, the more frantic the camerawork, trying to make us feel that we are there with them.
The improvised leg surgery is good and gory, the way it should be. I found it interesting that when the lad is dying, he asks for his parents to be told not that he loves or misses them or that he's sorry for anything, but that he fought hard that day. I couldn't help but feel this would appeal to American patriots, since they have such a modern culture of idolising servicemen. It felt a bit dehumanizing, especially when compared to something like Gio Ribisi's death scene in Saving Pvt. Ryan when he calls for his mama.
The whole film seems fiercely pro American, it felt so one-sided in it's feel and audience perspective. Before they even set off the US flag is everywhere, they play basketball, we see a Johm Grisham book and a Steve Martin film (i think it was The Jerk - even a very American word) Perhaps i missed something but one of the main issues for me was the near dismissal of the Somali side in the script, not just in terms of what we see, but other than a brief set-up, we have next to no insight into the effects on Somalia and the people, which I didn't like. We very briefly see the 'enemy' troops die and their loved ones grieving, so to squeeze in that classic and worthy war film message of both sides being human, but it was fleetingly done and was almost reversed by other script points. We don't really meet any fighters on the other side and the troops never really mention them, again a very self-centred, American feeling approach. I suppose all war films are slightly guilty of this but a war film about WW2 or Vietnam for example, may theoretically afford to be one-sided since most people already know the history, but this is a bit different, it just hardly acknowledged the Somali side. At points It was so oblivious it was almost like they were telling us that only the Americans deserved to live, but for me a historically accurate war film should never be as simple as good against evil. For example, at the end it says 'Over 1000 Somalis DIED and 19 American Soldiers LOST THEIR LIVES'... why word it like that? After all they were there to help a country and the public that was being starved by a crazy military leader, but that message was lost once the first US bullet was shot. It's even more odd since this is directed by a Brit. I do wonder if all this is somewhat knowingly done; since very early on a US general is told by a Somalian Arms dealer (the only scene that includes anyone on the other side's thoughts-and maybe the best scene of the film) that the US troops are out of their depth and not a force for good, this is often the feeling of course in highly political wars (all war is political) Later this seems to literally be the case once the chopper is brought down.
There's no arguing that it's well made, as you would expect from someone like Ridley Scott. It's well paced, the danger seems real, I liked that there wasn't much of the really quick cutting stuff that I don't usually like. Shots of the choppers are always impressive, especially when looking up from ground level. All the physical effects are clearly well done but I have seen this two or there times and never really gone for it. Not just because of the moral issues I had with it but also I find there is so much of the film time taken up with gun fights that, although well done, all look broadly the same and I start to lose interest, it's too action heavy for me. For me the best war films are human stories set against the backdrop of war, using the fighting to demonstrate and support the story, this doesn't feel like that to me.
Also with so many characters I lost who was where and why. I was most interested in following the 2 that were left behind (Tom Hardy in his first film role and Ewen Bremner-Spud from Trainspotting) There are some pretty big names and many, many recognisable faces so I wonder if Ridley Scott purposefully used a huge cast of 'B' actors, so not to distract by having a 'star', leaving the audience following the group and story progress instead of a particular character or two. As a result I didn't at any point remember the character names, which maybe you don't need to, but also it loses some of the character engagement. In fairness some of the cast do a good job of winning it back when needs be, and most of the actors are convincing as soldiers, besides some questionable accents, the most convincing is probably Sam Shepard as the General.
As with almost all war films there are some small nods to others, some are so small they may be coincidental but I was put in mind of Apocolypse Now (of course anything with war and flying helicopters does) Buffalo Soldiers, Redacted, Full Metal Jacket, Green Zone, Brotherhood (Korean) and All quiet on the Western Front among others.
Besides some decent action set pieces and some nice mood setting shots beginning and end, I was pretty conflicted about this, much of it comes down to my personal feelings about it. Like with (previously reviewed) Into the Wild, I think it was a good film in many ways but still pretty majorly flawed. It gets a decent rating because it is well executed physically and visually but there are so many that do it as well or better and offer much more crucial insight. I am going to rewatch Clint Eastwood's Iwo Jima double; Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, which gets around the one sided issue by showing the same battle in each, one from each perspective. There is no doubt for me that Letters, from the Japanese perspective, is much better than Flags, but both together expertly gives you the overall picture and lots of depth to the story, which Black Hawk Down entirely fails to do.
Comments