Blood, sweat, bullets and RPG's: the protagonists of Black Hawk Down

Rating: 5/10 (19 March 2002)

Black Hawk Down makes it intentions very clear when Eric Bana's character says `when that first bullet goes flying past your head, politics go right out the window'. It is not a study of the situation that lead to the Mogadishu incident portrayed in the film. It's not an in-depth analysis of human action in the midst of horrible conditions. What it is, in fact, is a frontline film, concerned with giving its audience a experience as close to real war as a film could ever hope to come. The last film to really try this was Saving Private Ryan, during its ragingly intense battle sequences. Well, Black Hawk Down pretty much stretches that into a full-length feature. The first 30-so minutes may be all exposition (starting off pretty badly, telling the whole back-story to the conflict in title cards), but after that it's all-out action.
The question it raises is the following: is Black Hawk Down what we'd expect from Jerry Bruckheimer, just another action flick, or did Scott do something more with it. The answer may not be the first OR the second, but rather a little bit of both. Black Hawk Down is not a polished actioner like Pearl Harbor. It doesn't feature too much (read: any) vomit-inducing American flagwaving. It is often spectacularly brutal although we're largely spared the pornographic violence of Ryan's harsher scenes. What Scott focuses on indeed is using all cinematic techniques in his reach to create a movie experience which is as intense and energetic as possible. It has the dynamics, the trickery and even the spectacle of a traditional action flick, but it doesn't have any real form of making us feel secure and happy about it. Black Hawk Down is so unforgiving in its pacing and in its bluntness in presenting a modern day armed conflict, there'll never be any doubt in your head, that war is a horrible, horrible thing.
But, wait, the Bruckheimer has not left the building. Black Hawk Down is good, but it's not great. I am willing to accept the absence of political debate over the situation, the absence of any critical inquiry into the U.S. policy and strategy deployed. After all, this isn't about such abstractions, it's about the man dodging the bullets. The way the Somalis are treated here is less easily accepted, though. They are mostly seen as an overwhelming, never-ending wave of hostiles, more reminiscent of James Cameron's Aliens than any human group of adversaries seen on film. Two scenes do present the Somalis as fathers or men trapped in their situations respectively, but it's not quite enough. Therefore, there's something to be said for the film mourning the 19 American fatalities more than the 1000+ Somali ones (considering the film's American perspective, one could argue this makes SOME sense). What I really can't accept though, and I'm looking at the film from a storytelling instead of a political standpoint from now on, is the characterisation. There's an argument to be made for this film not needing any really well-developed characters. They could have been archetypes for sure, but I would have liked to have seen them a little bit more defined. Basically I gathered Ewan McGregor's characters likes coffee and Eric Bana's character was really tough and that's it. It's a film that aimes to make you 'participate' in the experience it's offering and as such doesn't require a fully developed set of characters that explicitly experience everything for you, but a little bit more would have been nice. Now, the fact you're frequently watching generic figures dodging another hail of bullets somewhat distances you from the experience.
This is the script's (and film's) main failure and not necessarily the cast's, who all do a pretty reasonable job with the limited material. The mid-war scenes are well-performed and it's only when the actors are asked to deliver some speeches on why they would do these things, that they are unable to compensate for the screenwriter's inability in answering this question in any manner beyond Hollywood sugartopping or Pentagon propaganda (which, by the way, was very supportive in the process of making this film). It's a shame then, the film has to end on such a false note, with josh Hartnett talking into camera about how 'sometimes people just turn out to be [heroes]'.
All in all, this is not a smart film. It doesn't have the level of sophistication Three Kings brought to its Gulf War-subject matter. In fact it's little more than the cinematic retelling of the events. What could've been provocative piece about the Somalia situation or U.S. political influence throughout the world is Bruckheimerized into a film which is about nothing more than not getting blown up and not making sure your fellow man doesn't get blown up either. While that's not anywhere near revolutionary, it's a testament to Ridley Scott's great directing that it's nonetheless shocking enough to be a worthwhile addition to the war movie genre.
Rating: 6