WARNING: "Hacksaw Ridge" spoilers below
I think the film anticipated this criticism, and preemptively addressed it, by emphasizing how he had inspired the other soldiers. There's that whole thing where they won't even go back out there unless he's with them, for example. So their victory isn't superseding his: he's sharing in that victory, too.
I agree that there's an obvious dissonance between their fighting and his steadfast refusal to do the same, but I don't see how that can be avoided. Heck, I'd say that's kinda the whole point. Why assume the film is wallpapering over this, rather than leaning into it? Is it really trying to be mindlessly triumphant at the end, or is it being wryly circumspect about how the violence, in a sense, still sort of "wins"? In other words, some of this criticism only makes sense if you assume the film has a simplistic message: if you assume it has a more nuanced one, then everything you're saying suddenly becomes evidence of its thoughtfulness, instead.
The victory itself has to be shown because part of the message is that it's not enough to win: you have to be worthy of winning, by fighting for the right reasons. This goes all the way back to the Bible, where military victories are shown as having a direct link to the virtues of the people who fight them. They win because they're fighting out of necessity, and not a desire to conquer. Because they have people among them who don't want to fight. And there's no way to make this point except by portraying both aspects of that situation: both the reluctance, through Dawes, and fighting anyway, through everyone else.
Re: the ritual suicide. I assume that's there to contrast the two notions of honor. How one is fundamentally peaceful, proud, and forward-looking, and the other is fundamentally violent, shamed, and backward-looking. In fact, both that scene and Desmond's grenade-kicking are both in slow motion, presumably to emphasize the link between the two.
I think the film anticipated this criticism, and preemptively addressed it, by emphasizing how he had inspired the other soldiers. There's that whole thing where they won't even go back out there unless he's with them, for example. So their victory isn't superseding his: he's sharing in that victory, too.
I agree that there's an obvious dissonance between their fighting and his steadfast refusal to do the same, but I don't see how that can be avoided. Heck, I'd say that's kinda the whole point. Why assume the film is wallpapering over this, rather than leaning into it? Is it really trying to be mindlessly triumphant at the end, or is it being wryly circumspect about how the violence, in a sense, still sort of "wins"? In other words, some of this criticism only makes sense if you assume the film has a simplistic message: if you assume it has a more nuanced one, then everything you're saying suddenly becomes evidence of its thoughtfulness, instead.
The victory itself has to be shown because part of the message is that it's not enough to win: you have to be worthy of winning, by fighting for the right reasons. This goes all the way back to the Bible, where military victories are shown as having a direct link to the virtues of the people who fight them. They win because they're fighting out of necessity, and not a desire to conquer. Because they have people among them who don't want to fight. And there's no way to make this point except by portraying both aspects of that situation: both the reluctance, through Dawes, and fighting anyway, through everyone else.
Re: the ritual suicide. I assume that's there to contrast the two notions of honor. How one is fundamentally peaceful, proud, and forward-looking, and the other is fundamentally violent, shamed, and backward-looking. In fact, both that scene and Desmond's grenade-kicking are both in slow motion, presumably to emphasize the link between the two.
Reply to Topic
