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

Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin" is regarded (I've never seen it, but probably rightly) as one of the greatest films ever made and an awesome cinematic acomplishment. It is also a piece of Communist propaganda. That makes it no less poor as a film.

"Black Hawk Down" plays loose with facts and simplifies what happened in Somalia, but it isn't propaganda. If it *had* tried to cover every aspect of the conflict in all it's detail it would have been confusing and tedious and seemed more like a history lesson than propaganda.

The US intervention (as part of a UN force) in Somalia was not like US intervention in Vietnam. The aim of the mission was to help the Somali's and control/stop the Warlords (Incidentally, one of the big digs the film has at the UN where the helicopter is not allowed to fire on militia looting a food convoy is perfectly true. Some people here may remember the shameful event in 1995 when French UN troops arrived in a town in Bosnia in order to defend it, only to find that the UN would not let them fire on the Serb Militia). The film focuses on the plight of ordinary soldiers in what must have been a horrendous situation in what looked to me a realistic manner.

"...tedious and seemed more like a history lesson than propaganda"

Sorry, that should have read:

"...tedious and seemed more like a history lesson than a film"



Zagreb

I don't mean to say that Black Hawk Down is equivalent to "Triumph of the Will," but this puts me in mind of a similar situation. Leni Reifenstahl (spelling?) reluctantly filmed some party rallies for Hitler, and denies that she ever intended it to become what is sometimes called the greatest propaganda film in history. She said she was just filming people in an artistic way and that she should not be held responsible for the way the film was later used to bolster the Nazi party.

Can Reifenstahl or Ridley claim innocence for ignoring the context of what they were filming?

I suspect anyone who rates American lives higher than other, mere human, lives, will have problems with the critique.

Zagreb, why don't you write a review of the film. I, for one, would love to read it.

And also, to state the staggeringly obvious, Black Hawk Down deals with near contemporary issues and conflicts - surely no-one could any longer feel insulted by the events depicted in 'Battle Ship Potemptkin.' I'm sure this isn't currently the case in Somalia where, I believe, a lot of work is shortly to be embarked upon by the West. If it was simply a story of men in tight circumstances, why not choose the trenches of WWI, or the American civil war.
Is it necessary insult entire populations whilst bolstering your own (biased) efforts, and making millions entertaining people with tales of a brutal conflict with a impoverished people?

Because it's more relavant if it depicts recent events. The film is showing an actual battle that happened very recently. I remember very well when this actually happened. I know people who were there.

Personally, I like seeing war movies about wars I have a connection with. As a veteran of the Gulf War, Courage Under Fire, had huge impact on me, even though I've never even been on a helicopter. I've only been able to watch it twice becasue I break down in tears.

Black Hawk Down has a little bit more distance for me, but I like seeing depictions of the military as I remmeber it. That's the Army I was in. Just as I like watching movies that were filmed in Portalnd, Oregon (my original home). I don't know much about the WWII Army. It was very differnet than the one I served in. I don't have a very close connection to WWII movies.

I don't think the causes of the fight are imporatant to the film. I don't think its misleading or deceptive to leave it out or gloss it over. Burkheimer does not make movies for political reasons. He makes emotional movies to make a profit.

And from what the original writer said, the book and newspaper stories were simply about the firefight.

No lead-up and no post-battle analysis (or at least not much).

The idea was to show what happenned on the day of the largest firefight in US military history since VietNam from the perspective of the people on the ground.

He interviewed Somallis and Americans for the book and newspaper stories.

But to compress it into a film to suit our shrinking attention spans, I'm sure much of that detail got cut.

Still not having seen the film, I'm only going by what I've read. The literary accounts seemed balanced to a degree - obviously, he spoke more with the American soldiers than with anyone else because his audience was American. But I think the other side got a perspective.

I'll try to get out to see the movie this weekend...

Thank you Loony! You saved me some 6€ because now I'm *not* getting out to see the movie! The usual Hollywood history forgery stuff then...

Oh, I hope that WW11 (eleven) is a typo.

So you're not going to see it and form your own opinion?

Bossell, World War II is h2g2 (and most of the world's reputable newspapers) style. World War Eleven would appear as World War XI

yepp, I decided to live with my pre-occupied opinion until it's broadcast on TV. I'm quite sure that I won't learn anything new in the meantime

Sir Bossel, since you've only taken Loony's advice on the film, I urge you to take a look at my mini-review of it (Doctorgonzo posted a link to it earlier in this thread).

found it (it lives right next door now)

Congratulations, Loony! This entry is now on its way into the Edited Guide etc, etc (you know the rest )

Bossel, as I may have mentioned in another place, you are a discerning person with impeccable taste



Glug

Oh thanks for that! Sometimes I need it

What do you mean it lives right next door?

right next door: it's hanging off the same entry now, as the Peer Review thread has been moved