^{Reviews of Movies I've Never Seen}

The theory behind reviewing movies without actually seeing them is simple: some movies just aren't worth the time. It probably isn't fair, but since I'm bombarded with trailers, ads, reviews and celebrity culture, and since movies are always derivative, it doesn't seem unfair either.

Besides, it shouldn't cost eight bucks to have an opinion.

Black Hawk Down

They only real debate here is whether this is a bad movie or a bad movie that deserves picketing, boycotts and wholesale denunciation. Fellow crypter m.a.d. has posted about a Minneapolis group of Somali-Americans who urge a boycott of Black Hawk Down. The boycott is based not on any historical inaccuracy, but on the lack of context and the portrayal of most Somali's in the film as brutal and inhuman.

On the commentary track to Thelma & Louise, Ridley Scott discusses a lot of the technical difficulties of making a road movie. He talks about making Thelma & Louise the car chase movie, the cop movie, the buddy movie, but never seems to understand that Thelma & Louise, the movie he made, is also a feminist movie. It doesn't necessarily matter. The writers and actors, they knew. He made a great movie anyway, even if he didn't really get the entire context for it.

Ridley Scott is not really a director for context. Black Hawk Down takes place in Somalia the same way that M*A*S*H takes place in "Korea". It's a convenient setting for a movie about other things, in this case the horrors of war and the bravery of soldiers. The movie pummels you with carnage for two hours (probably more, because at this point Ridley Scott can do whatever the hell he likes). I'm sure Scott does this pretty effectively. I'm willing to bet he saw the battle scenes in Saving Private Ryan as a challenge.

But if you've already accepted the fact that war is hell, why go in? Why willing subject yourself to a visual clubbing of bloodshed and death? These movies are never really anti-war movies, no matter what the producers and actors say. These movies are pro-soldiers-who-have-to- go-through-that-terrrible-thing-called-war movies. That's fine, but let's just be straight about it. The bulk of the audience will be those who want to increase their respect for the military. Of course Black Hawk Down was filmed before September 11th, but our current war gives the movie increased resonance. (Who said Hollywood was going to turn all sappy and light? Who said we were going to see a bunch of comedies and - shudder - musicals? I see Schwarzenegger's Collateral Damage is blowing its way back into the theaters and Black Hawk Down actually had its premier date moved up. Sensitivity and restraint lasted about a month.)

What we have here folks is just another war movie. The good director and "based on true events" tag increase its profile, but it's just the latest war movie.

Boycotting Black Hawk Down sounds as misguided as most movie boycotts. I'm all for criticizing a movie or ripping a book all to hell, but as soon as someone says boycott, I get edgy. There's a strange, elitist undercurrent to many movie boycotts. You can't handle this movie, is the message. I'm afraid this movie will turn you whites/ straights/ non-Christians/ whatevers into bigger assholes than you already are. Okay, maybe you're not all assholes, but this movie could push you over the edge.

Black Hawk Down tells the story of a group of soldiers in a days-long gun battle in Mogadishu. Is it obligated to tell the story of innocent Somalis also? A viewer should get it pretty quickly that Black Hawk Down is from the soldiers' point of view. How do you think they viewed the Somali militia killing them? By all accounts, the movie is accurate, so what's the problem? Well, the problem is this movie will sum up the third world for some viewers. As is often the case with movie boycotts, the problem isn't so much with this movie but with the movies that aren't being made.

A different (and maybe better) movie could try to tell the story from multiple points of view. Still, limiting our perspective to that of one group is a legitimate way to tell a story, even if it doesn't result in a great movie in this case. In fact, one of my main beefs with Black Hawk Down is about an omission, but one that would probably be even more incendiary than anything that's on the screen. This battle also resulted in the naked, dead body of an American soldier being dragged through the streets to the cheers of a Somali crowd, all of which was captured on videotape. With all due respect to the men who lost their lives, this is the most monumental event from the Battle of Mogadishu. This image spurred our withdrawal from Somalia. Mainstream suspicion of U.N. missions, humanitarian aid and poor countries went through the roof. This image loomed over Clinton every time he made a decision about ground troops and when campaign-era George Bush sneered about "nation-building", this image gave his words currency.

I'm willing to bet if this image made its way into the movie I would have heard about it. Considering all I've heard about the hand-held camera, bloody f/x, and other minutia, I'd say the image isn't there.

Some are complaining that the movie isn't "real" because it doesn't show the average, innocent Somali enough. I'll add that it isn't "real" because it doesn't vilify and provoke enough either. It's just like stapling the raid on Tokyo to the end of Pearl Harbor because they don't want the audience to feel too down. It's gutless.

The question boils down to: is a filmmaker obligated to provide context, or to provide an innocent African every time he provides a villainous African? I really have to say no. What do we want, a public service announcement, an after school special, or a movie? Do we want nice Germans in every World War II movie?

I don't think Ridley Scott, a Brit, cares much about glorifying the American military. I think he was excited by the technical aspects of a war movie and Black Hawk Down was the hottest war property in town. If the hottest book/movie property had been set in Bosnia, he would have done that, because the context never mattered.