An analogy for U.S. foreign policy

Rating: Null/10 (19 January 2002)

There's been much comment about the political aspects of this movie: the 'facelessness' of the Somalis, the complete one-sidedness, the lack of context (the SNAFU in Somalia was instrumental in persuading the U.S. government to back away from involvement in foreign matters for several years, and the resulting lack of intelligence may have contributed to the events of 9/11 - but you wouldn't know this from Black Hawk Down).
However, Ridley Scott reveals a wryly subversive streak by creating a movie that acts as a sort of parable for American foreign policy. Americans don't understand 'abroad' - neither does the audience, thrown into a confused jumble of incomprehensible language, food, etc, and then a virtually plotless battle. Disorientation rules. But the Americans win in the end, so that's OK, even though it's not clear whether the objective was attained, or even what the objective was. (Compare this with the Gulf War and the 'War On Terrorism' - without a clear, coherent objective, it's impossible to say whether the conflict's been won or lost.) Also, a few Brit actors (McGregor, Bremner, Gruffud) are thrown into the mix, like the Allied forces who are just ballast to the US-driven war effort.
I still don't know whether it's a good or bad movie ('good' or 'bad' in both aesthetic and moral senses) but, if you look closely enough, it's a much cleverer movie than the multiplex droolers might have picked up.