SSG: Spy/Spec-Ops Group discussion

Originator of the whole 'soldier of fortune' mystique.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Mik...

that was some good reading. Lately I've watched The Dogs of War and The Wild Geese. Would like to see Dark of the Sun again, haven't seen it since i watched it at the big screen when it came out.

Hoare inspired/influenced those two of my favorite action flicks as well.

"The Wild Geese" and "Dark of the Sun", are the titles yep.

Fun fact: Scorcese numbers, "Dark of the Sun" (dir by Jack Cardiff) among his 'guilty pleasures' list; and says it should be seen rather than ignored. That's pretty high praise. The same movie is said to have influenced QTarantino.

Gene Siskel hated, 'The Wild Geese'. (dir by Andrew v. McGlaglen).

What I don't grasp is how some of these really bright men each casually label one-or-the-other film, 'racist'. The plots of both films yes, do depict cheap, sensational, exploitative yarns in Africa. But: always based on historical events.

And either then or now, (after the passing of much time) I can detect no ill-will in any of the people involved in either production; in fact just the opposite. Directors, actors, and writers all recognized the themes they were playing with.

Similarly, 'Dogs of War'. This too is an actioner set in Africa. Siskel and Ebert both liked it. Jack Cardiff was photographer.

So the question is: how exactly is one supposed to film high-action tales in an authentic manner, in a realistic political setting, and still avoid being slapped with a 'race card'?

Yes, I'm sure anyone can pinpoint scenes in each film which are violent, but I still ask whether they weren't all part of a coherent storyline. All three movies present different points of view; varying perspectives are presented.

Obviously, a scene where two mercenaries duel with chainsaws (one, a former SS) is wildly preposterous, but nonetheless ...were there (or were there not) civil wars and uprisings in Africa in the 1950s? The setting in all these flicks is not made up.

No one ever criticized 'American attitudes towards Germany' in a flick like, "Where Eagles Dare". The plot simply calls for Yank commandos vs hordes of German soldiers.

I just don't get what 'hair they're splitting' in all this.

One word to describe that attitude about realistic action movies: hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy okay but on the part of whom?

Realism is always relative in any question of visualization. Most filmmakers grasp this. But they can still set out with honest purpose even within the limited bounds of their commercial mission; and technical training.

Hypocrisy on the part of those who try to find racism in film plots that simply show historical reality.

That’s woke culture for you. My suggestion, don’t try and grasp it. It’ll only lead to a whole lot of head scratching & head shaking

Well said. That's usually my attitude. Anything they call 'new' (but which only amounts to over-complicating stuff which was always simple) isn't worth trying to figure out.

John Cleese recently quipped something to this effect, and that's a man I'm always inclined to heed. Something about how, in the past, "...common human decency was always enough for everyone to get by with". (my paraphrase).

It's just that when Scorcese regards a film in a certain way, I wanna know why.

And not for nothing, but Wilbur Smith has been writing action blockbusters set in Africa for a long time. Seems mighty convenient for some finger-pointers and tongue-waggers if --at this late date --they wish to censure and berate him for it. Where were they when "Gold Mine" and "Shout at the Devil" hit the big screen.

One war movie that featured Africa and that I really liked a lot was TEARS OF THE SUN, with Bruce Willis playing a Navy Seal officer sent to save innocent civilians from blood-thirsty militiamen/government soldiers. The acting was great and the action and setting most realistic and plainly showed how brutal life could be in many parts of Africa (can't remember in which country of Africa the action was supposed to happen).