|
|
|
|
|
|
Black Hawk Down: A Lopsided Account
| By Ali Asadullah |
04/02/2001 |
It almost feels wrong to give Black Hawk Down a full review; simply because it was such a poor representation of a historical event. If I had my druthers, I would give it only the following three-word description: Violent, violent, violent. However in the interest of providing Muslims with an understanding of how American cinema has chosen to portray the fateful circumstances of the so-called “Battle of Mogadishu” of 1993, I will “bite the bullet” and squeeze out another 900 words or so.
This film deals, of course, with the American military intervention in Somalia in 1993 during United Nations efforts to bring humanitarian aid to the starving population. Amidst civil war and famine, chaos ensued in much of the country. After militia activity began to hamper U.N. operations, U.S. Special Forces stepped in to establish order. As part of their mission, U.S. military leaders decided to target Muhammad Farrah Aideed, one of the more powerful figures in Mogadishu – Somalia’s capital – at the time. This proved a mistake, as the troops sent to capture him met stiff militia resistance and found themselves in the midst of an 18-hour battle, in which 18 Americans lost their lives and 84 more were wounded. Black Hawk Down narrowly recounts that battle.
The problems with the film are many; but they all stem from the filmmakers’ narrow approach. Although the beginning of the movie features scrolling text that explains the humanitarian and military crises that prevailed in Somalia in 1993, there is no real contextualization of the conflict. It was almost as if the filmmakers were in a hurry to put American faces on the screen. As a result, the dramatization begins and ends with Americans, which is a bit strange considering that Somalis were there in their own country long before the American intervention and will remain there for some time to come.
I was particularly bothered by what I perceived as a lack of effort in the portrayal of Somalis. For many Muslims, Somalis are easily identifiable. They are one of the more distinct looking peoples of Africa and I, for one, can typically pick an East African out of a crowd. Unfortunately, many people cast in the roles of the Somalis just didn’t look the part. It was reminiscent of the old Tarzan movies in which Blacks were generically cast as “native” peoples.
Beyond the issue of appearances, Black Hawk Down also fails to give any sort of depth to the Somali characters. Other critics have made this same accusation, and I must admit that it is not unfounded. Throughout the movie, Somalis are seen as this nebulous, ominous mass of crazed militiamen, with no depth or substance as a people. This portrayal is such a disservice to Somalis who are overwhelming warm and generous. And as far as the conditions in Somalia are concerned, there are some very definable, explainable causes and circumstances that the film did not even attempt to tackle.
Instead, Jerry Bruckheimer (the film’s producer) chose to make Black Hawk Down one long battle scene, which he portrayed with all the horror and gore one would expect from war. For this I must issue the following warning: Audiences viewing this film will see more blood and severed limbs than in recent movies. One can think of it as the “rushing the beachhead” scene from Saving Private Ryan over and over again for two hours.
I have seen some commentary in the entertainment and news media that support Black Hawk Down. Those commentators who’ve given it a “thumbs up” have defended the film by saying that it was intended to provide an American soldier’s perspective on the war and that excluding the Somali point of view and context was therefore justified. I say hogwash; and this is why:
While sitting in a packed theater watching Black Hawk Down in a notoriously liberal area of Northern California, I experienced something disturbing. As more scenes of Somalis being shot by American troops flashed across the screen, I heard laughter. At first it was subtle, just a few chuckles as hapless militiamen charged U.S. soldiers only to be mowed down by machinegun fire. But as it happened again and again, more and more people began to feel comfortable letting out chortles and snorts of laughter.
By the end of the film, it was apparent that a significant number of people in the theater found it humorous to see Somalis die. There is something very wrong with that. Death is no laughing matter, whether it’s an enemy death or not. And to hear actual laughter, made me realize how effectively an audience can be swayed when not presented with a fully contextualized representation of events.
But then again, Black Hawk Down was made to be a patriotic film; and patriotism is often achieving through jingoism and the denigration of “the other”. After all, the more one dehumanized their enemies, the easier it is to justify killing them. And with the “War on Terror” potentially headed to Somalia, it is in America’s best interest to have the public see Somalis as inhuman, crazed warriors, hopped up on Qat (the local drug) itching to kill Americans.
In short, I fully agree with those who have called for a boycott of this movie. It should not be supported, and Muslims knowledgeable of the situation in Somalia should make an effort to explain to their friends and co-workers who do see the movie, that there is more to the conflict there than what Black Hawk Down brings to the silver screen.
|
|
|
|
