From the classic account by Mark Bowden, directed by master craftsman Ridley Scott, Black Hawk Down is the benchmark of gritty realism in war movies. Thematically gritty too, the film grapples with the meaninglessness of the mission and suicidal rules of engagement, among other things. All of which are eclipsed, thematically, by honest depiction of the courage-under-fire displayed by US Army Rangers and Delta “operators” during the battle of Mogadishu in 1993. It’s not many battles in which we’re outgunned, and fewer still in which we actually see our hapless foemen. Proving it takes 100:1 to tilt the odds overwhelming against our boys is poor recompense for our dead, but it is something, especially when crafted into a monument as fine as this.
Very interesting, but what did esteemed New York Times critic Elvis Mitchell think?
“Black Hawk Down” is ''Top Gun'' on an all-protein diet. The soldiers, mostly ground troops, are much leaner than Tom Cruise was in that 1986 film, though they grin just as righteously.
They should have hid even this behind the paywall1. Black Hawk Down is different - fundamentally - as can be from Top Gun, other than both paint an almost superhuman American military. OK, Elvis Mitchell, it’s a similarity, but can you tell a painstaking piece of naturalism, from a fairy-tale popcorn flick?
Can you tell that protein adds muscle, and uhh, that 1986 Tom Cruise was less jacked than 2000 Josh Hartnett?
Can you tell a righteous grin, from rueful or grim?
Did they get you to cha-a-a-ange, your heroes for Somalis?
Lack of characterization converts the Somalis into a pack of snarling dark-skinned beasts, gleefully pulling the Americans from their downed aircraft and stripping them.
Actually, the pack of beasts is the characterization, ripped from history, and Black Hawk Down was a hit in Somalia. While a definition of “characterization” may elude Mitchell, his schtick at the NYT was to sprinkle such “film critic-y” words into his usual race hustle / CRT blather, lipstick on a pig, you might say. Reading between lines, we infer that Mitchell’s real complaint is that brown-skinned people aren’t the heroes of Black Hawk Down.
The guy who ripped Gary Gordon’s leg off and paraded it around in triumph - focus on him more. What does he like for breakfast? How is the marriage to his sister going? Is he struggling to break his khat addiction?
A more sophisticated Marxist than Elvis Mitchell might find evidence of thematic disdain for these strategically-pointless Somali missions, evidence of American decline, with a bit of nihilistic flavor! - all of which are certainly there. Such a sophisticate might note Hans Zimmer’s jarring juxtaposition of high skittering Arabian strings vs. power chords in the soundtrack, ahh a dissonant clash of cultures brought to aural life! Etc.
Perhaps some such sophisticated critic decolonized himself to a Chinese sweatshop like Forbes, allowing BIPOC Elvis Mitchell to earn a fat deep state paycheck by screaming racist at Black Hawk Down.
Just one more NYT quote, then maybe I will review the thing myself:
sitting through the accomplished but meaningless "Black Hawk Down" is like being trapped in an action film version of "Groundhog Day," condemned to sit through the same carnage over and over.
Again, the now-ostracized rabid leftist film critic of yore would find a way to revel in the meaninglessness of Black Hawk Down. A staggering achievement like Black Hawk Down should be laid claim to. But all the handsome, heroic white visages on display have triggered Elvis Mitchell to inchoate rage - as evidenced by the inexplicable Groundhog Day comparison.
That said I agree that there is a numbing aspect to Black Hawk Down; the combats get repetitive and the plot quagmires just as the mission did. The last half hour in particular drags. For all his mastery, Ridley Scott does not edit aggressively enough. Like Peter Greenaway, Scott is a “painter” first and filmmaker second. He sees his masterpiece in the shot itself, more than as an integrated whole. Missing forest through trees, as the bromide goes. 20 minutes less and Black Hawk Down might have gotten 4 stars.
OR, Scott could have spent more plot on tensions between Rangers and Delta which Mark Bowden carefully agonized over in his book. Short shrift is given to Captain Steele, who led ~100 Rangers through the battle - no small feat! But Scott shows Steele through the eyes of grunts chafing at the chain of command, the more they bear witness to the heroics of Delta Force - those elite who command themselves in groups of two. Ostensibly lent to Steele’s command, yet the Deltas outrank him and are smarter than him, so there is a lot of pointed ignoring/defiance of orders going on. Quick-witted sneering rejoinders directed at Steele by Delta infect his Rangers, who flirt with insubordination. These subtleties are hard to pick up on first viewing, or without having read the book, but they are reason to watch again.
Even so, the impression given by the film is that Steele is an idiot.
The Bowden book is more sympathetic, explaining the absolute necessity of “chain-of-command” special forces like Rangers. Delta Force are Gods among men, but Gods are necessarily few, which limits their tactical application. They ought to be smart enough to at least keep to themselves and avoid sowing dissent in the Ranger ranks in the midst of pitched battle. This is Bowden’s contention, IIRC from 20 years back.
You can read the execrable NYT piece in its entirety here: https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/-ARCHIVED-THREAD-NY-Times-doesn-t-like-Black-Hawk-Down/5-81595/?page=1