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

OK, I want to challenge a few things here.

I went to see this film at the cinema and found it enjoyable. I am no fan of gung-ho flag-waving nonsense and this is why I liked it. Let me explain.

First off, the film was foremost and firstmost about professional soldiers being rescued from a bad situation. It did not go on about them being American's. There was no reference to how great America is or what a wonderful job they were trying to do in Somalia. The point was they ended up in a truly horrible situation and their comrades tried to save them. If that is on a par with rubbish like Rambo then I am a potato.

As for the Somali warlords and the situation there - it did simplify it and them (my main objection in this instance was presenting the Somali Warlords as intelligent and urbane - I'm sure they are neither). What you seem to fail to realise is that the basics - that this was a poor and desperate country being looted and oppressed by fascistic scum - was present and correct. The United States may have a chequered past in international intervention but in Somalia they were basically trying to do good.

What I did like about the film was that it dispensed with the Rambo nonsense where fearless supermen fight cowardly foreigners. The somali militia were presented as determined and fearless - ie realistically. We also saw US troops being afraid and uncertain - ie realistic. At one point a US soldier confides to his superior that he is afraid to go into Mogadishu. Instead of the macho "Now look here, soldier!" cr*p, his commander tells him that every single man around him feels the same, but that they owe it to their comrades to make an effort for them. I think, for a mainstream US military action film, that's pretty good.

Yes, there were problem. The helicopter flying around going "we will not leave you behind" was horribly mawkish and the portrayal of the Pakistani UN troops as vaguely untrustworthy was, in the circumstances, a bit petty. My point is, this film was a lot more decent and a lot less jingolistic than it realistically could have been and you should give it credit for that.

That and the fact it's a darned fine bit of cinema.

Ok, so your point is that it does convey a realistic image of soldiers at war. May be, and I'll buy it. However, what makes me stay at home instead of running to the billet box is that it was was sent around the army - so I'm quite sure I already know the gist. They wouldn't distribute movies that made soldiers desert, would they? A second point is the bit about mangling the bits of history.

The movie is an excellent depiction of how Americans fighting. It shows problems and it shows valor. Everything about the firefight feels accurate to me. I wasn't in Somalia. I was mech infantry, and I never cared much for rangers. Having served in the Army of the early 90's, I think this movie is dead on.

Now the Army has stated that the movie refelcts the Amry's core values. I don't see how that either takes away or detracts from the value of the movie itself.

The history in the film is condensed, because it's outside the scope of the film. The film is about the battle.

It doesn't matter to me if you don't want to see the film. War movies aren't everyone's cup of tea. Most of them suck. I think it was a good movie. I think the cinmetography was quite good (although it wasn't all that much different from Saving Private Ryan). I think you're selling it short due to twisted views of the film.

As I understand it, the following despicable distortions (there are many others) are what turns many reasonable people off the film.

To justify the number of Africans killed in the film, the Wall Street Journal reported:

Mr Roth insisted that the films central villain, Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, be unmistakably portrayed as a 'Hitler-like figure' responsible for thousands of killings.

To hammer this point home, the film opens with Aidid's men shooting down starving Somali civilians at a Red Cross food-bank A caption onscreen gives the date for this completely fictitious event as October 2, one day before the fateful firefight.

First off, can I say how glad I am people are finally discussing this wee entry

I agree the film was not an accurate portrayal of events. It played pretty loose with the political details of Somalia but, as two-bit said, the film was really about the battle. That's how I saw it.

As for the Somali warlord in question. Maybe someone did insist he was played as a "Hitler like figure". Have you ever considered that even though Hollywood portrayed him as a baddy maybe, just maybe *he actually was*? From what I've read about Somalia, the militias that run it are *not* good guys in any shape or form. I doubt it's beyond them to loot a food convoy, even if that didn't really happen one day before the battle that the film portrayed.

My main problem with people who have a go at this film is that they say it's "gung-ho American propaganda" (without, often, having actually seen it). I went to see it and, as no fan of gung-ho American propaganda myself, I didn't really have a problem with it. For me, the film was about soldiers helping their comrades in a bad situation. Also try and remember an important fact. Ridley Scott, who directed the film, is not American. He's English.

Zagreb, in the interests of balance, perhaps you should try and remember the article was written by the same person who has a yarn that praises American jazz icon, Benny Goodman, featuring on the front page of h2g2 today (22/3/02)

I don't see how it's related. One is an American cultural bit and the other is about our political and military operations. I liked Mulan, but that doesn't mean I'd be the best person to write about them knocking our airplane out of the sky and then illegally holding our air crew.

Re Posting 5:

Discussion about the contents is what the fora are all about (PR is for the 'technical' part).

"My main problem..." - point taken, Zagreb. I had better not discuss the film without having seen it . But I'm still not convinced to go out and watch it. After all, I've spent enough time in a uniform...

If you enjoy cliche-ridden jingoism, the movie is a 'must-see'.

In all seriousness, Loony, how was the movie "jingoistic"?

The answer to that question is gone into in some depth in the article.

One definition of jingo is "a loud and bellicose patriot". Jingoism is the belligerent spirit or foreign policy of jingoes.

If nothing else, I've gone on to buy the book and see if there's any more backgound information in there.

I've just looked at it breifly, and it's really interesting.