Sue's Black Hawk Down Article

[Spiderdancer]

I'm so glad you wrote this article.

It needed to be said, and I'm glad someone said it. I did not go to see United 93 and I refuse to see any film based on real and tragic deaths of real people.

Yes, that does mean I don't watch Holocaust movies either. But at least those can argue for the social statements they make - about not forgetting what people are capable of, about the nature of evil.

Blackhawk Down isn't about those things. It's exactly what you said it is. I'd say I'm very proud of you, but that would be patronizing given the difference in our ages - so I'll just say I'm proud to know someone that brave.

[devilndisguise]

I agree, Thank you sue. This was very powerful and touching. And I think I'm just a slightly better person for having read it...



Like Thoreau's famous question to Ralph Waldo Emerson when Emerson came to visit him in jail after he was arrested for not paying his poll tax as a protest against slavery:

Emerson: What are you doing in there, Henry?

Thoreau: No, Waldo, the question is: What are you doing out there?

[sarahbot]

Damn.

Before I start, I can't comprehend what it be like to suffer a loss like your friend has. I can't even think of anything to say.

I am a history student with a film minor (yes, very useful), so this argument really means a lot to me. You're a very good writer, Sue, and though I don't feel like I necessarily agree with you 100%, I feel like you represented your argument very well.

Unfortunately I have a huge paper on Alfred the Great due tomorrow (or, as I am calling him right now, Alfred the [censored]), so I don't have as much time to devote to a debate/discussion as I would like.

I would offer this up, though. I didn't see United 93 either, largely due to the fact that I have absolutely no desire to relive the events of that day. But I think it needs to be remembered that not all movies are made sheerly for entertainment. Not that there's anything wrong with movies that mean only to be entertaining. But movies can also be art, a mirror to our world, a way of expressing everything in the human sphere of knowledge. And that can include all the most horrible things in the world, too.

You said "Is it proper, or even moral, to re-enact events like those in Mogadishu in an ultimate quest for box office dollars?"

I'm not a starry-eyed dreamer. I know this isn't some little film made because Ridley Scott "felt the story needed to be told", or some other such high moral. But I also think it needs to be remembered that not all movies are designed for pure entertainment.

At the same time, I'm remembering how I felt when I left the theatre after seeing Black Hawk Down. I wasn't crying over what had happened, or thinking of the families who would never see their sons again. I went to see the movie because of Josh Hartnett and Orlando Bloom. I thought of the men (boys, really) as characters on the screen, not as real people.

[dennisguilder]

Wow. As a soon to be High School history teacher, I try to bring in as much visual aid into the classroom as I can. I have at times considered films such as Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan. I thought I covered all the angles about showing these films to my students, but I never saw it the way you pointed out. I have to agree with you, these films are more entertainment than remembrance. While I know (and everyone who went to High School knows) History can get very boring and lose it's meaning and "realness" when taught from a typical dry textbook, I see Hollywood is not the way to go. I'll stick with the History Channel.

[Head Mutant]

I read Sue's article a week or so ago when she submitted it, and we had a small e-mail exchange about it, with my mostly taking the devil's advocate position, and her acknowledging it was a complex issue in return.

I think it was a wonderful piece, and I certainly don't think that Sue's attitude or reaction to her friend was in any way wrong. She felt very convicted on the film and it got her thinking about the whole subject of historical "entertainment". But the way I see it, there's a difference between whether this topic convicts you not to see such movies, and whether it is morally wrong to do so. I take the position that it is not wrong to make or see these kinds of movies -- on the whole (more on that in a bit) -- and the benefits far outweigh any objections.

The thing is, history needs to be preserved. It does. To willfully forget or expunge historical events from our world IS a moral wrong, and it's something we've seen happen. Movies based on historical facts -- the closer the better -- are an excellent way of preserving these events, and do get people interested and involved with history who might not of previously. The best of these films can even be forces for change in society -- how Band of Brothers elevated the profile of Easy Company's real life remaining soldiers and let their stories be told, for example.

The moral problem that I've struggled with and I've heard from Sue and others is this: if we're being entertained by it, then it must be wrong, because we're deriving pleasure from watching the suffering of representations of real-life people. Sort of like the Romans cramming in a coliseum to watch animals tear apart some prisoners for the sheer bloodthirst of it all.

I am sure that's how some people approach movies like Gladiator, Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan. But there are plenty more who are not just "entertained", but also educated, enlightened, inspired and develop respect for the true life events and people behind the film. If it is wrong to be entertained -- or, let's use some different words, enthralled or to enjoy -- in the slightest by a movie that depicts a person suffering or dying based on a real life person, then is it equally wrong to watch the History Channel? To read a historical novel or a true-life account of events?

Or is it just wrong to see movies based on people still alive? Maybe we have a statute of limitations that once all those people are dead, we can go ahead and gorge ourselves on history.

Yes, there is a line that should not be crossed between accurate, respectful historical storytelling, and crass exploitive entertainment. Pearl Harbor, exploitive entertainment. I spit on thee. Hotel Rwanda? Yeah, I suppose these people never needed their story told and should just be relegated to dry history textbooks in some 10th grade class and leave them there.

spiderdancer said:

I did not go to see United 93 and I refuse to see any film based on real and tragic deaths of real people.

And if that's your personal conviction, fine. I wouldn't be comfortable seeing United 93 either.

However, I see it as throwing out the baby with the bathwater to make such a sweeping decision, because not only does that leave us with increasingly vapid films that are 100% pure fantasy, but it also eliminates:

* Schindler's List, The Piano, The Grey Zone, The Hiding Place and any other movie that honors Holocaust victims

* A Beautiful Mind, The Aviator, Man on the Moon, because mental suffering should not be "entertainment" and some of these people die

* A whole lot of movies based on the Bible (The Passion, The 10 Commandments)

* Glory, which gave great honor and memory to the first black regiment of the war

So following that track, we get to a place where we can only show historical films as long as nobody real dies and nobody suffers. Just in case someone would enjoy that and get nothing else from it. Yeah, there are idiots who watch movies like that, but let's try and give credit to intelligent people with a conscience who get a little more than just a giddy thrill.

Let's not forget the fact that people are more genuinely inspired by real life heroes -- often portrayed by their on-screen counterparts -- than wholely fictional characters. Rudy is one of my all-time favorite films, far more so than if he'd just been a brain fart of a Hollywood scriptwriter.

Anyway, Sue, you know I respect you and I respect your article and conviction. I will say this -- before I saw Black Hawk Down, I knew *nothing* about this battle or the events. Seeing it wasn't popcorn entertainment -- it was a lot more realistic and less John Wayne than older war films -- but it did get me to read up on the events and to recognize the people who fought and died for in that battle. Your friend might not enjoy the fact that there's a movie out there that makes a dollar on the events surrounding her son's death, but there's now one more person in the world who recognizes and will carry on the memory of what her son did *because* of the movie.

[Spiderdancer]

admin said:

And if that's your personal conviction, fine. I wouldn't be comfortable seeing United 93 either.
However, I see it as throwing out the baby with the bathwater to make such a sweeping decision, because not only does that leave us with increasingly vapid films that are 100% pure fantasy, but it also eliminates:
* Schindler's List, The Piano, The Grey Zone, The Hiding Place and any other movie that honors Holocaust victims
* A Beautiful Mind, The Aviator, Man on the Moon, because mental suffering should not be "entertainment" and some of these people die
* A whole lot of movies based on the Bible (The Passion, The 10 Commandments)
* Glory, which gave great honor and memory to the first black regiment of the war
So following that track, we get to a place where we can only show historical films as long as nobody real dies and nobody suffers. Just in case someone would enjoy that and get nothing else from it. Yeah, there are idiots who watch movies like that, but let's try and give credit to intelligent people with a conscience who get a little more than just a giddy thrill.

It's not coincidental that of those you mention, I've only seen The Hiding Place (because I had to for a class) and The Passion (because I was curious and it was in Aramaic and Latin).

I suspect personally that any increasing vapid unreality of film is unrelated to whether or not it's supposedly based on truth. See recent sports films like "Invincible" that are "based on true stories" which are then totally altered by the screenplay.

Intelligent people with a conscience are also known occasionally to engage in an esoteric activity known as "reading books."

This is where I get my history information.

[Head Mutant]

So why are books so good and pure and exempt from condemnation in comparison? Can they not get facts wrong? Sensationalize? Conjure up mental images for us far more bloody or disturbing than what we might see on screen? Does everyone who writes a history book or historical fiction go ahead and donate all THEIR proceeds to the people who suffered between their pages, or do they deposit the checks into their bank accounts?

[Head Mutant]

On a slightly different note, the History Channel ran a series called "History vs. Hollywood", taking historical films to task for their accuracy and shedding light on what really happened vs. what was embellishment. That might be a good compromise for the classroom, Mr. Future History Teacher.

[sarahbot]

spiderdancer said:

I suspect personally that any increasing vapid unreality of film is unrelated to whether or not it's supposedly based on truth. See recent sports films like "Invincible" that are "based on true stories" which are then totally altered by the screenplay.

I don't necessarily agree. Yesterday I was rereading an interview in a back issue of Bust with Christine Vachon, an indie producer who's done stuff like Boys Don't Cry, not what I would consider a vapid or unrealistic movie. I think this part is relevant:

I Shot Andy Warhol, Boys Don't Cry, and The Grey Zone are based on true stories, and Kids is documentary-like. Why not make an actual documentary?
They're totally different. I'm more interested in the essence of the truth of the event, and why it resonates, and having the theatrical and narrative freedom to discover that, rather than sitting down and having real people tell real stories. Sometimes I don't care what's true, because that's not what matters.

I actually didn't know Boys Don't Cry was based on a true story when I went to go see it.
That's a good example, too, because it is a true story, but we changed a lot of elements. We took away somebody else who was also killed that night. We adjusted a lot of details to make our story better.

Does that ever come back to haunt you?
Yeah, well, there are some people who consider themselves standard-bearers of truth. Our Truman Capote movie, about Capote writing In Cold Blood, which was a true-crime novel, addresses that: what was actually true and what wasn't? How do you adjust the facts to your own end to make the story better? Is it unethical if you're representing that the story you're telling is, in fact, true?





I guess what I'm saying is that while there is definitely a very set formula for true-story, lil-bwuvva-style sports movies, it isn't only for these that the facts get "bent".

[dennisguilder]

To Head Mutant, very good point. I had a student mention to me today about "Flags of our Fathers". I told the class about "History vs. Hollywood", because you know they'll do one on this movie (If that haven't already and I missed it). But as for the mention of books also being wrong, I'm not talking about books that have been made into movies or soon will be, I'm talking about books that will most likely never be movies, or at least not blockbusters. If you want to have good good idea of the Holocaust, I'd recommend Night by E. Weasel. For the Revolutionary War, The Diary Of John Plumb Martian. I know The Diary of Anne Frank has been made into countless films, but is has always been treated solemnly, not as an Adrenaline filled Action movie like Black Hawk Down. Thats leaning more toward entertainment, in my humble opinion. As for History Channel programming, if their facts are wrong, I doubt it was done intentionally. They don't sell tickets after all, and people who watch the History Channel are there to learn, so they don't need to jazz things up or add a romance story to attract the ladies. Movies are made to make money more than to educate. However, there are exceptions. I loved Amistad, but I don't remember it being adverted like Black Hawk Down. It was pretty close to a History Channel program. How many people do you think sit down to watch Amistad to be entertained?

Total Box Office Gross:
Black Hawk Down-$108,638,745 Genre- War
Saving Private Ryan-$216,540,909 Genre-War
Titanic-$600,788,188 Genre-Romance
The Aviator-$102,610,330 Genre-Period Drama
Amistad-$44,229,441 Genre-Period Drama

Source: www.boxofficemojo.com

[sarahbot]

dennisguilder said:

I'm talking about books that will most likely never be movies, or at least not blockbusters. If you want to have good good idea of the Holocaust, I'd recommend Night by E. Wiesel.

Yes - you would have to be insane to make a movie out of this. Still gives me nightmares. The comic book (or graphic novel, if you wish) Maus does, too.

[varana]

My two cents worth:

One thing that has been a pet peeve with me for literally decades is how Hollywood changes facts to make better "version of truth" in movies. I am not against making movies about real events. Books are great, but in my opinion a lot is to be said for visual aids as well. One does not, or at least should not, exclude the other.

Let me give you an example:
True story, during World War Two a bunch of Norwegian resistance men blew up a heavy water plant in Vemork, Norway. At the time it was believed that this heavy water plant was a key element in Germany getting nuclear weapons. This has later been disprooved, but fact remains that a handful of men crossed mountains under extreme conditions, and almost miraculously managed to blow up a factory with very little previous training and shoddy equipment. All because they wanted to stop Germany from getting nuclear weapons.

In 1948 Norway made a movie about this, to them, pivotal event. the movie was called "Kampen om Tungtvannet" (The Battle over the Heavy water). The movie stayed as close to fact as possible, and several of the original resistence men playing themselves. For obvious reasons the Germans could not play themselves. But noone comes across as heroic, nothing is overplayed. The movie became a success, probably because it depicted real people and the events were still close to people's hearts.

Then Hollywood picked up on the story. In 1965 a remake was released called "Heros of Telemark", staring among others Richard Harris and Kirk Douglas. Did I say remake? Try turnign it into an action thriller, adding battles that never happened, portraying the heros as close to omnipotent while all nazis are idiots, some soppy stories about kids being rescued off a boat and so on and so forth. they even changed the tim of year to get the nature shots looking more beautiful.

Because this was portrayed as A Real Story a lot of people who could remember the actual events felt this version was offensive. Needless to say, teenagers of course loved the action flick because they starred the sex symbols of the time. And let's face it, teenagers like beautiful faces and stuff blowing up.

I didn't see Black Hawk Down. Why? Because it was based on truth, but had been changed to fit Hollywood standards, right down to the pretty face actors. Even if it's done with the best of intentions, i think movies that changes facts in this way are a slap in the face of the memory of the person(s) they are claiming to depict.
Are the real horrors of war not horrific enough without having to customice events to suit the public? Like in say "Save Private Ryan" or "Pearl Harbour"? If someone ever make a movie about something that happened to anyone I knew, I would want that movie to stick with the facts, not make my loved one into something he/she was not, not to change detail to make the situation worse or better than it really was.
In conclusion, in my opinion it is perfectly OK to make movies about real events, so long as you don't change facts to make a better movie.

Sorry about the long post, just wanted to vent about something that has been bothering me for ages.

[pfrsue]

I'm going to reply at length later on today. (It's just a little after 5:30 in the morning, and I haven't had coffee yet, and I need to get to work.) So let me at least say this for the moment:

Thank you to EVERYONE who felt moved to respond to my article. Some great points have been made, the discussion is extremely interesting, and I'm really very gratified that something I wrote was the catalyst of that. It's a complex topic to be sure and I really only touched on one facet of it. It's cool to read your own thoughts and insights.

You guys are a great.

Thank you,

-Sue

[Spiderdancer]

admin said:

So why are books so good and pure and exempt from condemnation in comparison? Can they not get facts wrong? Sensationalize? Conjure up mental images for us far more bloody or disturbing than what we might see on screen? Does everyone who writes a history book or historical fiction go ahead and donate all THEIR proceeds to the people who suffered between their pages, or do they deposit the checks into their bank accounts?

Not at all. There are plenty of incorrect, sensationalistic books. There are also hordes of OTHER books debunking THOSE books, which isn't something you'll see much of with movies.

I personally have a problem with the concept of showing things on screen vs. writing them down as far as historical commentary is concerned. Books tend to explicitly state what movies compress down to one line or one glance, and along the way many levels of meaning are lost. Sure, there are lots of books with wrong accounts of events that happened during the Civil War - but none of them have to deal with long closeups of Kevin Kostner because he's the star.

Maybe it's just that I'm willing to cut a book more slack. Historically fictitious books generally don't say "This is how it really was," but movies often say exactly that.

[dennisguilder]

Historically fictitious books generally don't say "This is how it really was," but movies often say exactly that.

Good point, just look at Amityville and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Chainsaw was made in 1974 and a lot of people still think it's real. What, who's Ed Gein?..........Psycho was a book written by a reporter?....
A real serial killer, Ed Gein, inspired both Psycho and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Also Wild Bill from Silence of the Lambs.

"Based on true Events" is meaningless, just look at Lifetime.