Even if it admittedly was fiction, I would be hyped by the exuberant America glorification.
i'm really torn by statements like this, given the context. on the one hand, the rash of recent blockbuster war movies that are little but thinly disguised rah-rah propaganda are objectionable, both aesthetically and ethically. drquick, you are performing a useful public service by pointing out this fact.
it's really unfortunate, though, that you have chosen as a vehicle the one war movie i've seen in the past eight months that ISN'T a flag-waving propaganda flick.
i just don't see where you're getting the "exuberant America glorification". really. watch the movie again: the Rangers LOST. in fact, they got their ASSES KICKED by a relatively lightly armed, technologically inferior, disorganized force of amateur soldiers, whose only advantages were weight of numbers and knowledge of the terrain. what was supposed to be an easy, 30-minute operation turned into hours of hell and 19 American casualties (never mind the destroyed helicopters, which do not come cheap).
i don't know about you, but the rush of elation i felt at the end of the movie didn't come from feelings of "hoorah! America r00lz! we sure kicked some skinny ass today!", but rather, "wow, those guys actually survived, and brought their wounded back with them. that's amazing. i would have died out there." where's the glorification in watching a soldier die on a kitchen table? where's the glorification in seeing a mob tossing the lifeless body of a pilot? where's the glorification in seeing troops venturing out at night without their NVGs because they left them back at the base?
Ridley Scott may think that the Army wanted the movie made to alter public perception that the raid was a fiasco. perhaps this is, in fact, what the Army wants. but if you watch the film with an attentive eye and some knowledge of the history behind it, it's clear that while the raid was not a success from a military standpoint, it was a situation in which elite American troops performed commendably under very adverse conditions. if the raid was not effective, it's not due to a failure on the part of the troops in the field, and that's something of which they honestly deserve to be proud.
i'd understand your objections better if, say, this film had billed itself as a survey of the entire US (or UN) involvement in Somalia, and then had failed to mention the atrocities. but instead, this film covers specifically the events of a brief few days, in one area. if you can provide documentation of atrocities that occurred in the market in Mogadishu during the period of time that the film covers, you should probably take that up with Mark Bowden, and accuse him of whitewashing.
i'm sorry to keep ranting about this, but you, drquick, are essentially asking filmmakers to set aside their artistic goals in favor of making the film, for want of a better word, "educational". that's not how good films are made (though some good films are educational).
honestly, your arguments bring to mind the recent decision to alter the statue of the NYC firemen in order to make them multi-ethnic. the fortitude and bravery of the Rangers in Mogadishu deserves better than being hijacked to "raise public consciousness" about war crimes.
Schopenhauer is not featuring heavily on the "Review Hidden Comments" page at the moment. - Herring
[ Parent ]