"Hacksaw Ridge" film review

To call Mel Gibson a controversial figure in Hollywood is to make an understatement as large as to suggest that contracting an STD is only a slight inconvenience.  Even if I steer clear of the drunken anti-Semitic rant (and the recent comments ten years later which won’t help his case) and focus squarely on Gibson as a director, his films are polarizing:  Braveheart won five Academy Awards including Best Picture, but critics chided the unnecessary homophobia, the historical inaccuracies, and the other shortcomings associated with the plot and acting; The Passion of the Christ became the most successful rated R movie of all time, but critics cried foul on the extensive violence and questioned Gibson’s tact.   

Hacksaw Ridge, Gibson’s comeback as a director, is faring well with critics.  The antiwar film is being praised for showing a portrait of courage we don’t typically see in films—that of a pacifist, who enlists during World War II as a medic.  Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield) is so adamant about not participating in violence that he refuses to pick up a gun, risking a court-martial from his superiors for not obeying orders. 

While I agree with the critical consensus that it’s refreshing to see a pacifist as the protagonist in a Hollywood production—and I’m glad that the filmmakers don’t cop out from this premise halfway through—I’m not sold with the execution of the film.  Desmond’s pacifist morals are shown to the audience early in the film:  a young Desmond gets into a fight with his brother and gets a little too violent—striking his brother in the head with a brick, knocking him unconscious.  After apologizing to his mom, Desmond looks at the Ten Commandments hanging in the living room and vows to honor the commandments and never physically assault anyone again.

As the plot progresses, the character development is left on the cutting room floor. When Desmond decides to serve in the war as a medic, it's only because the plot says so, not based on a natural reaction shown to the audience. When Desmond's father stands up for his son's convictions during the court-martial scene, it's a drastic about-face from the character (Desmond's little brother, who enlists months beforehand, is kicked out of the house by the father during a family dinner for volunteering to serve in the army). Yet, beyond a meaningful look by the father (played by Hugo Weaving), the development is lost on the audience.

Speaking of the brother, the film promptly removes him from the narrative after being kicked out during dinner.  Did he die during battle?  Did he regret his decision to serve in the military?  Did he ever reconcile with his father?  These are questions left unanswered.  (I just looked up the real Hal Doss and not only did he live through the war, he outlived the rest of his family.)

As far as the acting goes, this isn’t the best platform for a measured performance.  Andrew Garfield is acceptable as Desmond, but he plays the character as a deer caught in the headlights in the first half of the film and doesn’t get the opportunity to show off his acting prowess in the second half.  I'm convinced Vince Vaughn, who plays the sergeant on Desmond’s squad, was told to watch Full Metal Jacket three times in a row in lieu of being given direction that he can use.  The other cast members are adequate, but they are all one-dimension characters who are designated antagonists to Desmond throughout, just so they can have the inevitable “I was so wrong about you, Desmond” moment in the climax.

The big set piece in the second half of the film—the Battle of Okinawa—is essentially an extended fight scene.  As a piece of choreography, it is impressive; as an edited piece of film, it fails:  the film cuts away at an alarming speed, leaving the carnage to become the faceless violence that Desmond Doss would certainly object to.

My biggest complaint with Hacksaw Ridge is that its screenplay is lacking the cohesiveness and credibility needed to make the film compelling to both Christians and non-believers.  I won’t reveal the ending, but afterwards the film spends at least three minutes interviewing the people who fought during the war, and they corroborate the film’s accuracy.  I can’t recall the last time a film needed to explicitly state that the actions taken happened in reality.  Perhaps if the filmmakers took the time to develop the characters, they wouldn’t need to be so defensive.

Grade:  D+