h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: 'Black Hawk Down' - An American Fable - A700769
Author: LÒÒnytunes - Orc or Hobbit? - U44452

By deliberately placing the firefight into the context of the food-relief effort, the film makes the US presence in Somalia seem utterly innocent - and makes the hostile response by Aidid and his followers seem utterly evil. Good propaganda, but phony history.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but this guide entry fits with the reviews I've been reading by some liberal journalists and historians. There was even a speech given by one of the actors from that movie, Brendan something, explaining that the film has been edited differently from the somewhat more complex version of this event presented in the original script. You can find it at http://www.zmag.org if you look for the title of the movie.

Some people use the word "fable" as a positive thing, so this title could be taken a step further: "Black Hawk Down - An American Myth."

My only question is whether this entry clashes with the guideline that Edited entries must be "balanced." Not that I disagree with your opinion, but that opinion is sometimes discouraged in the Edited guide. On the other hand, I don't understand how they decide this, because there have been opinionated movie reviews in the Edited Guide (maybe not politcal, but still opinionated). And that entry on the 2000 American Presidential Election "A Democrat's Perspective" totally throws me into confusion about what it means to be "balanced" in the Guide.

Wow!

This is an excellent and comprehensive article, obviously very thoroughly researched. I don't think there should be any problem with bias (assuming that this is all factual) - the guidelines also say that entries should deal with the real world. The film is biassed, the article isn't.

Gif

Was there a battle? Yes. Was that essentially how the battle occured? Yes. What were the reason for the battle? I don't know; it's outside the scope of the movie.

I think the article is interesting for its background information on the battle. Neither the movie nor the documenteries about it seem to address that in any detail. I'm sure all the facts in the entry are verifiable, although I'm sure there's plenty of spin on them.

As a veteran watching the movie, I enjoyed it. To a soldier the causes of the war are less important than fighting it, living through it, and winning it.

The film is based upon a book which was based upon an investigative journalist's finding of what took place there.

The Philadelphia Enquirer ran the initial stories...

How has the reviews of the book and reporting compared with the film.

I've only read the book and the newspaper stories - haven't seen the film yet.



- X

"18 US troops (and 500-1000 Somalis) were killed"
This should be posted in big letters over the entrance to all American movie theatres.

Zagreb posted this: F84621?thread=168840 which I think belongs in the PR thread

Some interesting comments people, though I must say, I believe some of them more properly belong in the article's fora rather than in this Peer Review thread.

Incidently, the piece is a critique, not a review.

From Collins English Ditionary comes this definition. Critique: A critical essay or commentary: especially on artistic work.

TELL THAT TO THE FAMILIES OF THE DEAD US SOLDIERS THAT THEY DRUG THRU THE STREETSOF MOGADIU BY THERE ANGEL MAYBE WE OUGHT TO HAVE A FANSTASY WITH Y'ALL. I HOPE YALL GET SOME OF THE SAME TREATMENT YOU GIVE US.

And the families of the dead Somalis who have just been branded murderers for carrying out a massacre that didn't happen ...

I seem to recall reading somewhere (can't think where ) of a fictitious 'Campaign for Real History'. Perhaps we need one in the real world. History has been subject to many alterations; 'the winners write the history books'. Films have been largely responsible for this in recent years.

If the abstract 'preservation of real history' isn't a good enough reason for this post, 'those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes'. It seems totally possible to me that the US/UK presence in Afghanistan could go the same way as the US mission to Somalia. Simply painting the Somalis as 'evil' will do nothing to help anyone.

Gif , clearly in the mood for cliches.

Thanks Loonytunes - very refreshing. Well written, and a challenge to the usual propaganda. This kind of murderous intervention shouldn't be glorified. No-one goes to war without profit in mind, period. So KID, although the pictures were disturbing, ask yourself what the troops were doing there at all - was the situation a horrible mistake arising from a genuine act of political altruism, with America voluntarilly deposing a 'vicious dictator' for no reason other than a warm, benign feeling towards that part of Africa, or was there money to be made? If it was the latter, then (other than hardware and organisation) what differentiates their actions from those of bank robbers?

I would change the word 'fable' in the title to 'myth'. Fable is too condescending. It implies a happy idyllic story that people love to believe, which when preceeded by the word 'American' is too broad a generalisation, and one that implies that the majority of Americans approve of massacres. Your point--that the film is propaganda, out of context, and misleasding as to who was massacring who--is made well enough in the body of the article.

My dictionary gives this definition of the word fable. A fictitious narrative or statement: as a: a/ legendary story of supernatural happenings: b/ a narration intended to enforce a useful truth; especially: one in which animals speak and act like human beings: c: falsehood, lie.

Dictionaries are limiting in that they only provide denotations. The connotations of "fable" are what concern me.
Does anyone else think similarly?

I understand your point Theanthrope - but I understood 'fable' as meaning a fictitous version of events, usually with a moral attached. I think its use is fair in this context. Although Loonytunes dictionary makes it sound less like 'Black Hawk Down' and more like 'Water Ship Down'.
Apologies,
Frogbit.

He makes it sound like "Black Hawk Down" is just like "The tortoise and the hare" to those bellicose, jingoistic Americans.

But, as I've dealt with him before, I know he will never, ever change anything at someone else's suggestion.

I think Two-Bit is right, here. The film was really about soldiers fighting on the ground and the situation they were in. That was the main emphasis of the film, rather than what the US was doing in Somalia and why (what it did skim over regarding this was simplified but basically pretty accurate).

I put my own mini-review of this film at the link Doctorgonzo mentioned above (thanks for the link, Gonzo, I still don't know how to put links like that in entries ).

I think Two-Bit is right, here. The film was really about soldiers fighting on the ground and the situation they were in. That was the main emphasis of the film, rather than what the US was doing in Somalia and why (what it did skim over regarding this was simplified but basically pretty accurate).

I put my own mini-review of this film at the link Doctorgonzo mentioned above (thanks for the link, Gonzo, I still don't know how to put links like that in entries ).

So why not just make a story up then?

Frogbit has a point. The fact that the film is predicated on real events, yet ignores the context of the events makes it dangerous. You can't say, "It's just about the battle, nothing else" because battles occur for a reason. The reason in the film, at best, wasn't given, and at worst, is misleading.