Somalia: Black Hawk Down

I was surprised that I liked Black Hawk Down as much as I did. I began viewing the film with much bias after reading the reviews ahead of time. I anticipated a not-so-subtle propaganda film—flag waving, Islam bashing, and maudlin American patriotism.  I am a staunch critic of the Bush dynasty—the engineers of Somalia mission. If given the opportunity, I’m stepping right up to have my ticket punched. Reviews of the film were varied, probably much of the divergence due to political leanings. I’m simply going to review the film, pointing out how my points differ from ones provided for our reading.

Is Black Hawk Down a propaganda film—a product of the post 9-11 hoopla machine? Of course it is, but it’s no guiltier of celebrating or underscoring heroic American military involvement than any other “militainment” films that came before it. Propaganda films are not new to American audiences. During WWI, Hollywood offered titles that included Sergent York, 13 Men and a Gun, The Red Baron, and Two Minutes of Silence. WWII gave us Mrs. Miniver, Foreign Correspondent, and Chaplin’s The Great Dictator. The list lengthens as American military history unfolded: Korea, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Somalia, and most recently—Operation Rumsfeld’s Hubris in Iraq. Hollywood realized a long time ago that there is money to be made by dramatizing war. There is nothing new under the camera’s eye.

Larry Chin asserts that our involvement in Somalia was based on a lie, and therefore the film is a lie. He further asserts that Black Hawk Down is the government’s carefully concocted propaganda engineered to stir up our inner war-monger. Mr. Chin: let’s “set things straight” for you. Are you so idealistic (read: stupid) that you subscribe to a belief that the Department of Defense’s machinations are, always have been, and should be perfectly noble? Mr. Smith does not go to Washington—power and money do. The idea, nay, the fact that government pulls the wool over eyes isn’t new nor a singular, magical revelation—so what’s your point? Lie or no, the film is what it is.

                        So what’s the point of this film? Black Hawk Down is a film about heroes without victory, heroes in defeat. Since the film precedes the debacle in Iraq (Operation Flimsy Pretext), we might say the film is more about our unsound involvement in Viet Nam or Operation Oil Profits (Gulf War I) or any other badly conceived, poorly executed shoot-from-the hip military operation in the post WWII era. If the film has any purpose at all, it’s to reveal that American foreign policy isn’t necessarily sound, we don’t always get it right, but that the men and women on the ground should not be criticized for it. We must recognize and applaud their instincts, thorough training, and courage that saved the day—not to mention their asses. It’s what the Marines mean when they preach “improvise, overcome, adapt.” American film audiences are not watching movies to become better policy makers. We’re there to be entertained.

I am hard pressed to believe that the film attempts to glorify America. The film does not offer flattering images; I am reluctant to invest in the idea that the director is conveying a statement that our presence Somalia was an “imperialist intervention, a noble incident of grand significance.” Hardly. What the film reveals is bad military intelligence and poor planning, along with military leadership at a loss as to what to do next. We see American soldiers shooting willy-nilly into crowds and killing civilians—women no less. The fact that we are getting  our asses kicked is hard to miss. But isn’t that the point?

Personally, I think the directors were channeling and likening the heroes in defeat on the grounds of the World Trade Center with the heroes in defeat on the ground in Somalia. Basically, it was about invigorating our sense of victimization. We did that a lot immediately following the 9-11 attacks.

Clearly, Larry Chin discounts what the film truly showcases: individuals responding to and surviving a worst case scenario. I think the film redeems the soldier on the ground executing orders that require a relinquishment of sanity and morality. Now, most might criticize that, but I would ask those individuals, namely Mr. Chin, “Where you there? What would you have done?” I’d also like to point out that military misconduct—if any—is the stuff of military tribunals, not candy-assed painty-waist journalist.

            Does the film make a point? Yes, as stated before, the film is about heroes in defeat; the usual hero manufacture fare. But passed that, overall, it I think it’s a shallow, two-dimensional blockbuster, shoot ‘em up vehicle designed to capitalize on the early 2002, post 9-11 American climate.  Thus, it’s about profits. It’s about box office draw. Remember, it was a tense time in American history. American audiences were tense and Black Hawk Down’s timing assured high dollar box office returns. Victimized Americans were ripe to shell out ticket and popcorn money with Somalia as the perfect venue. We were a captive audience, recent victims of the 9-11 attacks. At that time, we really did not a face or a name to blame for 9-11, but Hollywood gave America a bad guy—at least for a couple of hours. Who cares about historical accuracy—just give the audience something to cheer about. As I have said so often, all film is artifice. If the viewer wants a true account of Mogadishu, then Google it. How many historical films really are accurate? Ridley Scott and Jeff Bruckheimer are not the first to take artistic license. They won’t be the last.

Bottom line, the release of Black Hawk Down was all about the money— but just about everything coming out of Hollywood is. The Mogadishu debacle offered a storyline that was just too irresistible to ignore. It’s the perfect premise for a big-screen special-effects driven film with ancillary opportunities for graphic gore and schlocky scripting the likes of “in the heat of battle, politics go out the window” and “Hey—who’s hungry?’ 

The way Larry Chin converts innocuous statements into inflammatory proclamations  is absolutely ridiculous. One might manufacture an infinite set of subtexts from any line from any movie ever made. More often than not, the screen play—the actual dialogue in blockbuster films, is merely filler between jerky storyline advances and special effects. America laps this stuff up. Why do film critics assume a thoughtful, informed audience comprised of diction teachers, rhetoricians, and grammarians? Why do film critics assume a contemplative audience at all?

Of course the Somalians are portrayed as “crazy black Islamists.” They are presented to the audience as “the enemy”. Unless a director employs a conspicuous device to distinguish Vice (black extremist, Aryan goose-stepping Nazi, long-coated Soviets, black hats, the fat racist southern Sheriff) from Virtue (neatly uniformed FBI agents, white hats, white guys) American audiences really aren’t going to “get it.” In other words, a director utilizes visual devices to convey a story. Directors frequently resort to caricature.

Larry Chin presents the statement that Black Hawk Down is dangerous and those who love the film are dangerous. That reeks of Tipper Gore priggishness. The film isn’t any more dangerous than an Eminem CD. In fact, there are far more dangerous media out there—i.e. The Fox News Channel (“We distort, you comply”). The film doesn’t pretend to be anything else but a film. Fox News actually claims to be credible.

For Mr. Chin, I’ll leave you with this: here’s an AK-47, a band of journalists, and a hostile city with the entire populace trying to kill you. Get in there, and go at it—let’s see how you do. And if you survive the day, tell us about it. Oh, and please be prepared to answer for every move you made while on the streets.  And if you can, tell us the truth.

Chin, Larry. “Black Hawk Down: Hollywood drags bloody corpse of truth across movie screens.” http://www.uncg.edu/-jwjones/world/reado]ing/rvwsbhdown.html . Accessed 15 July 2012.