I don't actually need to see a contrast to believe it's a limited POV, and I don't believe that mere presentation is endorsement.

Ah, see, you and I are opposites on these two principles. Presentation without conflict is the very definition of endorsement, in my mind; and unless the director wants me to call him "limited", I need clear markers of when the limited POV is in use and when it is not.

Didn't Stone make the movie Salvador? I always thought he was a militant lefty.

Yeah, it occured to me that he may vote left -- I really don't know -- but his view of the world, as reflected through his movies, seems reactionary. Maybe he's a Stalinist.

I need clear markers of when the limited POV is in use and when it is not.

So you can't deal with an entire film in a limited POV? Or, let me not say limited -- a POV that's not shared by the creators?

I noticed people having this difficulty with songs (and I kinda got it -- I did tend to assume that a singer actually means their lyrics, unless it's "Cold Ethyl" and hideously obvious), but it's never struck me that way with either movies or books. TV, yes, I need to see, if we're dealing with a series. There's only so much alter-POV I can take.

Speaking in general, I think movies can be based on a limited POV, just like any other narrative artwork, but the director needs to be clear that this is what's taking place if he or she wants to differentiate from an omniscient POV. Not that it has to be Rashomon, but the clues have to be there. I haven't seen Black Hawk Down, so I can't comment in the specific, but the director's cut of Blade Runner had a lovely claustrophobic (yet blank) focus on Harrison Ford's character that seemed an even more limited POV when contrasted with the version with the voice-over. Gladiator, on the other hand, had those jumpy sections that might have been intended to put the audience into Russell Crowe's POV, but it failed miserably if that was the aim.

the way the French ship was treated in "Master & Commander." We barely see it, or we see it from far away, which is how our sailors see it.

I think I see. Although, I think there is a differing code involved between the two examples -- for one thing, nobody takes M&C seriously as history, although it has certain truthful historical flourishes.

(Also, the French ship is also about 80% maguffin, isn't it? The Frenchness of the ship is immaterial to the plot (so much so that in the book it was American); indeed, for a long time in the middle, the ship is totally irrelevant -- storm, nature walks, trade, social conflict on-ship, jokes about weevils.)

With the whole film coded as adventure rather than history, portraying the enemy as other is just part of the genre, and invisible as a choice. And doesn't matter, because we know that we're not seeing real Frenchmen, but fantasy-Frenchmen, or anybody. Who they are really doesn't matter, because it's an adventure film.

Whereas, when the film is coded as history, failure to make explicit what is viewpoint and what is fact is visible and wrong-looking. If the BHD was an editorial, then I just disagree with it; but if it was history, and it seemed like that was what it wanted to be, then it was kind of crappy history. If it was an adventure movie, than I have even less respect for it than I had an hour ago.

I think movies can be based on a limited POV, just like any other narrative artwork, but the director needs to be clear that this is what's taking place if he or she wants to differentiate from an omniscient POV.

The obvious example is The Usual Suspects and you don't realize that you have an unreliable narrator until the very end.

I always used to get Oliver Stone confused with Ollie North.

But what about movies where the whole thing is limited POV? Can those exist successfully? How do you indicate that you don't share the POV, as a writer/director?

Yeah, but Nutty, the whole point of the film is to make us feel what battle was like for these specific soldiers, and showing us information they didn't know, like the larger political and cultural picture in Somalia,(and in the US for that matter) undercuts the very story they were trying to tell. Part of the point of the film is that these kids had no idea what the fuck was going on or who they were dealing with or why.

The obvious example

Yes!

I was suspicious of that one from the start, though, and figured it out pretty early on. This was mostly because when that one came out, I was just getting to be a big fan of unreliable POV and starting to be suspicious of who's telling me stories within stories. Not sure if there's a point to this anecdote besides saying "aren't I a smartie?," though.

I always used to get Oliver Stone confused with Ollie North.

This cracks me right up.