Skip to main content

Have you ever looked into a goat's eyes?

Hacksaw Ridge
(2016)

(SPOILERS) There was probably an insightful, sensitive movie to be made about the World War II experiences of conscientious objector Desmond Doss, but Mel Gibson’s Hacksaw Ridge isn’t it. It’s unsurprising that a number of reviewers have independently indulged the wordplay Hackneyed Ridge, an effective summation of the ridiculously over-the-top, emotionally shameless theatrics Mel indulges, turning a story that already fell into the “You wouldn’t believe it if it wasn’t true” camp into “You won’t believe it anyway, because it’s been turned up to 11” (and that’s with Gibson omitting incidents he perceived to be “too much”, such as Doss being shot by a sniper after he was wounded, having given up his stretcher to another wounded man; certainly, as wrung through Mel’s tonal wringer, that would have been the case).


Perhaps Mel should stick to making subtitled features, the language barrier diluting the excruciating lack of nuance or subtlety in his treatment of subject matter. On the other hand, perhaps it’s simply the unfamiliarity of instilling uplift that has called him out. Apocalypto was, after all, a classic action movie, a chase to the death that never let up once it got going, and before it got going was relentlessly grim: powder for the keg. The Passion of the Christ, which I didn’t care for, was undeniably consistent in approach, pace and content; it was exactly the torture porn gospel he intended, for better or worse. Hacksaw Ridge, when we’re finally thrown into the heart of the battle, is a predictable war porn slaughterhouse (anyone familiar with his previous three directorial efforts should be well-prepared), so underlining the confused, conflicted statements Gibson is making, and one might suggest, if one wanted to play cod-psychologist, the confused, conflicted impulses he’s battling within.


The early part of the picture is played out in the sickly, capitalised character beats of an Oliver Stone or Spielberg war picture – I’m thinking the patriotic earnestness of Ron Kovic, or the hometown sincerity of Tom Hanks – lathered with the most cynically treacly score imaginable from Rupert Gregson-Williams, one that attempts out-manoeuvre the most in-your-face of John Willliams’ contributions to those directors. Andrew Garfield, 33 but easily convincing as 23, which makes a change, I guess, is absolutely aw shucks, good ol’ Southern boy too-good-to-be-true, in the lead role; he’s entirely effective, doing exactly what his director wants and hitting those marks with aplomb, but it makes the character entirely flat. That, and the undiluted stream of cheese-infested dialogue. The formative events Desmond encounters are of an entirely cartoonish nature: his adversity to violence as presented by two defining incidents; his rose-tinted romance with nurse Dorothy Schuttle (Teresa Palmer, very good).


So, when he eventually makes it to basic training and reveals his damned conchie colours, it’s taken as read that there’s going to be no sudden retrenchment of approach. If you have a character as undiluted as Desmond, varnishing every element around him is exactly the wrong way to go. Vince Vaughn’s R Lee Ermey-lite drill sergeant provides a bit of light relief at first (and credit to Vaughn, he’s really trying to be convincing in the role, even if he’s hopelessly un-), but the caricatures around him, from Sam Worthington’s captain who becomes a dyed-in-the-woll convert to the Doss cause (Worthington is consistently bland, as per usual, which actually kind of works – someone needed not to be going for it here), to the harshest fellow-enlistee-come-greatest-pal (Luke Bracey – surprisingly good, given how abjectly awful he is in the abjectly awful Point Break remake), simply lay on the clichés.


All of which makes the battlefield carnage something of a relief. There’s much less talking for starters. And Mel’s really in his element. Having spent all this time avowing the man of peace, he can really go to town on the flying entrails and exploding innards that are really what a war film’s all about. There’s the merest flash of Nazi propaganda footage, probably put in just so he couldn’t be seen to be ignoring his Achilles heel (well, one of them), but this being Okinawa, his focus can fortuitously rest on the faceless hordes of brute Japanese, depicted as rampaging multitudes of xenomorphs straight out of the James Cameron movie.


There’s been criticism of the depiction of the Japanese, the few moments of character given to a frightened man Doss attends to and an officer committing hara-kiri. Which is fair to an extent, certainly given the balance the perhaps unlikely Clint Eastwood afforded the Pacific campaign in his two pictures (of which, the Letters from Iwo Jima was far the superior), but it’s also in keeping with a picture that’s relentlessly crude in its depiction of everything, from religious conviction to romantic love to lovingly-captured exploding bodies, dismembered bodies, ignited bodies (Mel loves his flaming Japs). Always remember: if in doubt, bring on the carnage in glorious slo-mo. It’s more edifying, gratifying and downright thrilling that way.


And much of it works: the visceral quality of the battlefield is palpable. But it’s also impossible not to be pulled out of the proceedings by the artlessness of the emotional assault, by that score, by movie-movie moments where, rather than attempting fidelity to the events-as-were, Mel embroiders. Did Desmond really kick a grenade away as if he was scoring the winning goal in the Premiership league final (he did kick it away, but I doubt with such cinematic bravura)? Did he really pull his sergeant to safety on a bit of tarp while the latter gunned down swathes of fiendish enemy, as if he were auditioning for a stunt sequence in The Living Daylights? Mel frequently crosses the line from suspension of disbelief into unintended hilarity, and with it the fabric of the picture is torn asunder (talking of which, the real Doss was one of those who volunteered to go up the ridge and hang the cargo net. As for the reason the Japanese didn’t just cut down it down, rather than being extraordinarily sporting, it appears it was tactical).


Perhaps the apotheosis of this is the scene in which Hugo Weaving (unable to extricate himself from walking, talking cornball functionality his character, but doing his commendable best, Mr Anderson), in his WWI corporal uniform, shows up at his son’s court-martial to deliver a vital letter from his old commanding officer (and all that after Desmond’s had to miss his wedding: the logjam of calamity!) Any lingering doubt that this is really quite a bad movie vanishes entirely at this point (and that’s way before we have the chortlesomely saintly imagery of Doss showering himself clean of all that grime and blood, and his final, Christ-like pose as he descends the ridge on a stretcher: no mention of his wounds leaving him 90% disabled, mind). Hacksaw Ridge is, without insulting the many stellar pictures made during the ‘40s and ‘50s, resorting to a shorthand of character and convenience of plotting that you just shouldn’t be able to get away with today. And in many cases, you can’t, but this is evidently appealing to a certain audience, who are lapping it up.


They’re probably also as wilfully oblivious to the moral complexities of Doss’ decision to be a conscientious co-operator as the film’s director (I should stress here that I’m talking about the depiction of the movie character, rather than forming a conclusion on the actual person). On the one hand, he takes “Thou shalt not kill” to its logic conclusion and is a vegetarian (we’ll excuse the killing of plants, for the sake of argument). On the other, he believes the war was justified, and his acts frequently facilitate the deaths of the enemy (when Sergeant Howell takes out a soldier while Doss effectively acts as a decoy, or the aforementioned bobsleigh incident) or even his own colleagues (how many die aiding Doss in one of his foolhardy/daring rescue bids). Does “Thou shalt not kill” extending to making oneself actively complicit in the killing of others, be it condoning a war as righteous or supporting your comrades on the battlefield? Unfortunately, Mel doesn’t much care to dive into this. Desmond’s father tells him he thinks too much, but this isn’t readily apparent when Captain Glover attempts to impart basic utilitarian principles. But that does, kind of, fit, with a man who cites The Holy Book, which provides all manner of conflicting moral positions, such that it’s no wonder its adherents come out with all manner of conflicting (and sometimes enraged) positions.


I think it would have been quite possible to make a war movie dealing with many of these themes acutely and soulfully. Indeed, it has been done, by Terence Malick nearly 20 years ago now, before he became a parody of himself (The Thin Red Line). Alternatively, and as evidenced by the interview footage at the end of the film, the best vehicle for this story might have been a documentary; the real Doss recounting the incident where he washes the mud out of a blinded soldier’s eyes, who can then see again, carries way more impact than Mel’s dramatisation of the same (there is a doc, where this footage originated, Terry Benedict’s The Conscientious Objector, which is far superior despite doggedly following the biographical doc rule book, complete with annoyingly instructive score). As for Hacksaw Ridge’s place in the Oscar race, it has no business being up for Best Picture, but that’s not exactly unusual. One must content oneself in the knowledge that it could have been much, much worse; it could have been directed by Randall Wallace. 



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

They make themselves now.

Screamers (1995)
(SPOILERS) Adapting Philip K Dick isn’t as easy as it may seem, but that doesn't stop eager screenwriters from attempting to hit that elusive jackpot. The recent Electric Dreams managed to exorcise most of the existential gymnastics and doubts that shine through in the best versions of his work, leaving material that felt sadly facile. Dan O'Bannon had adapted Second Variety more than a decade before it appeared as Screamers, a period during which he and Ronald Shusett also turned We Can Remember It For You Wholesale into Total Recall. So the problem with Screamers isn't really the (rewritten) screenplay, which is more faithful than most to its source material (setting aside). The problem with Screamers is largely that it's cheap as chips.

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …

Bring home the mother lode, Barry.

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

If Panos Cosmatos’ debut had continued with the slow-paced, tripped-out psychedelia of the first hour or so I would probably have been fully on board with it, but the decision to devolve into an ‘80s slasher flick in the final act lost me.

The director is the son of George Pan Cosmatos (he of The Cassandra Crossing and Cobra, and in name alone of Tombstone, apparently) and it appears that his inspiration was what happened to the baby boomers in the ‘80s, his parents’ generation. That element translates effectively, expressed through the extreme of having a science institute engaging in Crowley/Jack Parsons/Leary occult quests for enlightenment in the ‘60s and the survivors having become burnt out refugees or psychotics by the ‘80s. Depending upon your sensibilities, the torturously slow pace and the synth soundtrack are positives, while the cinematography managed to evoke both lurid early ‘80s cinema and ‘60s experimental fare. 

Ultimately the film takes a …