A good – not great – picture on perhaps one of the greatest WW II stories ever put on film

Rating: 6/10 (9 November 2016)

Mel Gibson goes back to directing one decade after he delivered Apocalypto, a stunning adventure film blending history, romance and tremendous amounts of savagery. Interestingly, these three narrative pillars have been at the very core of Braveheart (1995), The Passion of the Christ (2004), Apocalypto (2006) and, ten years later, are now deeply rooted into Hacksaw Ridge, a war film depicting the bravery of Army Medic Desmond Doss, who enrolled to serve during World War II.
Besides telling the story of an undoubtedly true American hero, Hacksaw Ridge dedicates a substantial amount of screen time to the backstory and development of its characters, sometimes successfully, sometimes not as much. The film is pretty much divided into two distinct halves, the latter of which is the Battle of Okinawa.
The aesthetic qualities of Hacksaw Ridge cannot be denied. Visually, it looks neat. Forget the over saturated cinematography of late Middle- East set war films, or the under saturated greyish tones of Saving Private Ryan (which all look great, but Hacksaw Ridge looks different). Instead, Hacksaw Ridge feels naturally lit, and the horrors depicted and the smothering atmosphere are nourished by torn limbs, blood, guts, burning men and screams. The battle sequences are intense and overall well directed. Mel Gibson's direction is competent, especially in the first half. While the battle sequences do feature never-before-seen grisliness and some surprisingly innovative shots at times, Gibson's sense of geography is a bit chaotic, and probably purposely so. After all, we are not following the squad capture an objective, but rather a medic going in all directions to rescue his wounded fellow soldiers. Bravery is well depicted, and Doss saying "Lord, help me get one more" will echo through your mind when the credits start rolling.
Back to the first half of the film, where the romance, family backstory and training camp occur, I thought it was good. There is a lighter tone to all of these parts than what can be found in comparable films. I don't think that's neither a good nor a bad thing: what it is, though, is a bit of an unusual vehicle for emotion in such a film. Forget the big violins. There is a somewhat « feel good » aspect to it all, almost comedic, even when it comes to the training camp segment. At first I thought it was Vince Vaughn playing the Sargent, but it's actually the dialogue which carries more humour than most would probably expect, blended with the expeditious nature of the narrative structure, where very little time is actually dedicated to characters' emotions and is instead driven by a relatively quick succession of meaningful actions. The approach itself appears to become a trend among recent war films (American Sniper definitely comes to mind). It kept me thinking about Steven Spielberg, who once said that he likes to show his characters think in his films. I found that remark to be interesting, and when I watched Saving Private Ryan after that, it made me realize how many of these moments the film features (and other Spielberg films as well), and how, emotionally, sharing an intimate moment with the protagonist before jumping to the next scene allows for great viewer involvement, especially after an intense battle sequence where plenty of supporting characters die. To me, this expeditious way of depicting events prevented Hacksaw Ridge from rising to greatness along the likes of war films such as Full Metal Jacket, The Thin Red Line or Saving Private Ryan. The abusive and troubled father backstory, among other things, suffered greatly from the approach. I also felt like the heroic actions depicted in Hacksaw Ridge did not carry as much weight meaning-wise because of that, although the story that is told is probably greater than any other World War II story ever put on film. There are some emotional moments in the film, but very little time for the viewer (and the characters!) to let them properly sink in before moving on to the next scene.
The cast was excellent. Andrew Garfield portrays a gentle, almost naïve young man whose principles and faith are absolutely unbreakable. The supporting cast is also fantastic. There is a bit of an unusual light-hearted aspect to many of the characters, but this could have came as a breath of fresh air, had that not been awkwardly exploited due to the narrative structure.
The ending features what I found to be a very pleasing and emotion- filled surprise. Definitely one of the film's highlights for me.
Overall a worthy war picture, telling an amazing story that feels like it could have been delivered a differently to really rise to its full potential.