Blackhawk Down... do you feel the movie showed a strong pro-US bias?

[glenn1]

Just curious what others opinions are on this, as it seems a majority at work seemed to think it was when we were discussing it today. My opinion was that for a Hollywood film, it was one of the least pro-US biased "war films" i've seen in quite a while... not to the extent of telling the story from the Somali side by any means, but IMHO it hardly painted a sympathetic portrait of the American side of the conflict. Both sides are shown exhibiting great bravery (sometimes to the point of foolhardiness) and the overall mood the film leaves you with is simply sorrow. My POV anyway.

Anyone else care to share their thoughts on the film and the political messages (if any) it conveys to you?

 

[feralkid]

I tend to agree...sucked for both sides.

 

[Hammer]

well the book tried to keep it as factual as possible and the author extensively interviewed the Somalis that took part in it.

 

[GoingUp]

The Europeans hate how pro US our movies are. I never really thought about it much until I was there. Armageddon is one they really really hate.

 

[Queasy]

Yeah, I didn't see it favoring one side over the other. Seemed to be more of a factual retelling of an actual even with some a little altered just for movie's sake.

 

[BigJelly]

It is an actual protralal of the battle. Some of the characters--Hoot for example, was a combination of a couple of delta force men so the audience wouldn't be confused by too many characters. But the other main characters, the ones they followed a lot, were real people and it really happened. The movie is made of facts, although it doesnt show the bodies being carried in the streets. So anyone that says this is all pro-American is nuts.

 

[Dragnov]

I don't know much about the event, but I'd say theres a pretty strong US sympathy bias. I just saw the people as a bunch of nuts shooting away at American soldiers who wanted to help them supposedly?

The feeling at the end of the movie for me was just simply "WTF". They don't really explain much on whats happening or the story, but just these brave American soldiers in the heat of battle. I sure as hell didn't see anything evoking sympathy or admiration toward the Somolian people attacking the soldiers.

 

[Dacalo]

hollywood = propaganda machine

 

[Dudd]

I think it did. If you take a look at the movie, each American death is treated as a significant event, while the Somalis die by the truckloads and no one cares. However, this is an American movie. It is made for an American audience. It had to have a pro-US bias, or it wouldn't have become a movie, but instead simply a camera floating around a battlefield. There's nothing wrong with it being pro-US, that's simply the side that the directer and writer looked at the battle from. If it were non-biased, it wouldn't have been as good a movie, IMO.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Dudd
I think it did. If you take a look at the movie, each American death is treated as a significant event, while the Somalis die by the truckloads and no one cares. However, this is an American movie. It is made for an American audience. It had to have a pro-US bias, or it wouldn't have become a movie, but instead simply a camera floating around a battlefield. There's nothing wrong with it being pro-US, that's simply the side that the directer and writer looked at the battle from. If it were non-biased, it wouldn't have been as good a movie, IMO.

Well I think the American soldiers' reactions to the deaths was indicative of the fact that as Rangers and Delta Force, they did not expect to have fatalities. That's just not what usually happens.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
I don't know much about the event, but I'd say theres a pretty strong US sympathy bias. I just saw the people as a bunch of nuts shooting away at American soldiers who wanted to help them supposedly?

The feeling at the end of the movie for me was just simply "WTF". They don't really explain much on whats happening or the story, but just these brave American soldiers in the heat of battle. I sure as hell didn't see anything evoking sympathy or admiration toward the Somolian people attacking the soldiers.

If you ever get the opportunity...check out the History Channel specials on Black Hawk Dawn. Gives excellent background on what went down in Somalia.

Long story short - civil war in Somalia with one dominant warlord who uses the food supply as a weapon. Thousands of Somalians dies. Marines come in and restore order and get the food moving again. Marines leave. Warlord come out of hiding and starts the same thing all over again. UN tries to step in but Pakistanis are killed and UN hides. US sends starts conducting special forces raids to capture warlord and his followers. On one mission, US kills 4 top leaders of warlords group not knowing they were actually discussing making peace with the US. :Q All hell breaks loose after that and enter Black Hawk Down.

During the making of the movie, they actually took out a part that directly blamed the Clinton Administration for denying them the use of the AC-130 gunship and armored vehicles during the Black Hawk Down incident.

I think it was more or less about what soldiers go through and the dedication they show to each other in combat.

 

[Piano Man]

While taking a course on African History, we studied Somalia at great length. After doing some research, I would say that movie is very pro-US.

 

[glenn1]

The feeling at the end of the movie for me was just simply "WTF". They don't really explain much on whats happening or the story, but just these brave American soldiers in the heat of battle. I sure as hell didn't see anything evoking sympathy or admiration toward the Somolian people attacking the soldiers.

That was my impression of what the director's intent was. The movie wasn't about politics, whether our reason(s) for being in Somalia was "right" or "wrong," or the reasons why U.S. soldiers wound up in a firefight against huge odds (in particular, the motivation of the Somali combatants to attack US troops is never specified). In some ways, the lack of a moral context from the perspective of either side works both for and against the movie, and is why i think the opinions of the viewers vary so from person to person.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
The Europeans hate how pro US our movies are. I never really thought about it much until I was there. Armageddon is one they really really hate.

then tell them to stop watching the damn things. why are hollywood films soo successful overseas?

 

[SherEPunjab]

Black Hawk Down probably is pro-US. I felt it is.

As far as 'bias,' as you mentioned, i wouldn't go so far as saying that.

Hollywood is in CALIFORNIA the last time I checked. And California is in the U.S. (at least until it drifts away someday, even then it will be U.S. territory). We [our directors, actors, script writers, producers] can depict the movie as we see fit, particularly a movie that deals with the murder of our soldiers at the hands of terrorists. There are a lot of times I do not agree with how our media portrays certain things, but when it comes to movies, I hope fellow Americans do know that hollywood is no substitute for history or news, everyone knows things are glamorized.

On the other hand, I do not personally think that hollywood sets a good example of how we should view the world. A lot of our films do have scripts that make us look superior to the rest of the world. Examples would be movies set in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe. They almost always show the worst of the nations there, rather than showing any of the positives. Of course many developing nations do have rampant corruption (as do we), discrimination (as do we), high crime rates (as do we), low levels of education (as do we compared to other industrialized nations), and are poverty stricken, but those are the ONLY things hollywood seems to show. One exception to this are the Asian action flicks, movies usually written and directed by Asians (John Woo is an example) that make it a point to avoid showing the numerous ghettoes and shanty towns of nations such as China.

 

[sandorski]

It's been awhile since I've watched it(have the DVD, so maybe I'll watch it again soon), but from what I recall it wasn't too Pro-US. I'd say it was more from the US POV. Saving Private Ryan is another story though, it definitely is very Pro-US, although it didn't have to be, for it's story was powerful enough to stand on it's own without all the flag waving.

Both are great movies though.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: glenn1

The feeling at the end of the movie for me was just simply "WTF". They don't really explain much on whats happening or the story, but just these brave American soldiers in the heat of battle. I sure as hell didn't see anything evoking sympathy or admiration toward the Somolian people attacking the soldiers.

That was my impression of what the director's intent was. The movie wasn't about politics, whether our reason(s) for being in Somalia was "right" or "wrong," or the reasons why U.S. soldiers wound up in a firefight against huge odds (in particular, the motivation of the Somali combatants to attack US troops is never specified). In some ways, the lack of a moral context from the perspective of either side works both for and against the movie, and is why i think the opinions of the viewers vary so from person to person.

exactly. the book doesn't really offer very much as to why the skinnies attacked in the first place either... i don't think anybody really has a conclusive answer.

 

[her209]

armageddon was sucha bad movie.

 

[0roo0roo]

the fact that we didn't go nuts and just spray all the civilians isnt pro us bias its just the truth


frankly i'd have a hard time not firing into dangerous mobs myself.

 

[Rudee]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Both sides are shown exhibiting great bravery (sometimes to the point of foolhardiness)

If you call firing an automatic weapon from around a corner without visually obtaining your target "brave", then I suppose the Somalian's were just that. According to reports from US solders who fought in the real battle, the Somalian warlords were using women and children as human shields, and for the most part, firing blindly at whatever they could, hoping they would hit something. Hardly what I would consider brave.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Queasy

If you ever get the opportunity...check out the History Channel specials on Black Hawk Dawn. Gives excellent background on what went down in Somalia.

During the making of the movie, they actually took out a part that directly blamed the Clinton Administration for denying them the use of the AC-130 gunship and armored vehicles during the Black Hawk Down incident.

I think it was more or less about what soldiers go through and the dedication they show to each other in combat.

Yes the History Channel program was excellent really involving with a lot of very good recreations of events. It was good enough that I haven't gotten around to seeing the movie version yet.

Watching the History Channel version was almost like reading a David Drake military SF short story (or vice versa I suppose, though his experience is from Viet Nam) with the focus on individual soldiers doing their job as best they can and despite the mess that command has gotten them into. It's a totally different feel from the "big story" or "narrative arc" that Hollywood writers feel obligated to put into their movies.

 

[Walleye]

im suprised noone mentioned U-571 yet, i mean, that;s just a complete destruction of the facts for the sake of the movie.

Blackhawk Down... i really couldnt care, i didnt understand the whole movie. i dont understand why on earth we didnt just do a conventional siege on the city. that would have been more effective, and resulted in less deaths as well.

Armageddon... that;s another dumb film... why dont foreign audiences hate a movie i dont hate?but i will say thios. it's no small wonder that the rest of thw world hates us, when they see what our movie makers, our news media, and our public figures making asses of themselves on a daily basis.


(i wasnt referring to bush. he only does that every other week.)

 

[tcsenter]

I don't know much about the event, but I'd say theres a pretty strong US sympathy bias. I just saw the people as a bunch of nuts shooting away at American soldiers who wanted to help them supposedly?

It was pro-US by the very consequence of it being significantly factual. What we were doing over there was classic 'good' vs. 'evil' stuff, trying to protect humanitarian operations from roving bands of armed thugs who use starvation and murder as a means of gaining power. It would be hard for ANY objective treatment of those events to not leave one with a 'pro-US' impression, unless you're among the sympathizers or members of those roving bands of armed thugs whose use of starvation and murder to obtain power was threatened by our role there. All those Somalis being killed in the streets were those loyal to one of those roving bands of armed thugs, so who gives a sh-t about them?

 

[Huma]

I'm canadian, and usually pretty sensitive to american propaganda films, but I didn't feel tha BHD was one. It didn't try to justify american's role there, it just stated the reason they had gone in.

The focus is obviously on the american soldiers, as the story is about the comraderie more than anything else. Why no focus on somali deaths? Because an estimated 1000 somalis died that day. I think the movie even takes steps to question american involvement.

Pearl harbor was a horrid piece of propaganda though.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
It was pro-US by the very consequence of it being significantly factual. What we were doing over there was classic 'good' vs. 'evil' stuff, trying to protect humanitarian operations from roving bands of armed thugs who use starvation and murder as a means of gaining power. . . .

Yes, and our being routed and run off was very much a failure of our elected officials / commander in chief not having the spine to risk American casualties to do the job all the way. Which again reminds me of Drake's rather dark-humored military SF.

I voted for Clinton, but I give him little or no credit for effective foreign and military policy, except for "appeasement" being somewhat effective as a short-term band-aid.