Discuss Hacksaw Ridge
Discuss → Movies → Hacksaw Ridge → General
The ending (Spoilers)
posted by Will BarksSTAFFMOD on February 10, 2017 at 6:26 PM
In general I enjoyed Gibson's film a lot. It's very captivating and idealistic in a nostalgic way. The idea behind the plot is absolutely great, a soldier refusing to carry a weapon in combat, a very admirable pacifistic theme. At first. Then there comes the heroic scene where Garfield saint-like recues an incredible amount of wounded soldiers that were left behind to die. This scene alone is an extremly powerful piece of cinema. But why on earth did Gibson chose to add a partiotic "revenge" scene afterwards, having heroic GIs slaughter hundreds of Japanese soldiers and end the film on that note. For me, this action destroyed every idealistic effort the protoganist went through during the whole movie. In the end, he was just a tool for the cruel machinery of war.
Reply by Heisenberg12
on February 10, 2017 at 8:46 PM
Wasn't that part of the true story though? Much of what was included came from soldier journals and Doss' documentary and story, so it would seem those events happened and he was just including them. It was important to show the outcome of the battle, that they defeated the Japanese and took Okinawa like in real history, I'd guess. That's how it really happened?
Reply by Heisenberg12
on February 10, 2017 at 8:46 PM
Wasn't that part of the true story though? Much of what was included came from soldier journals and Doss' documentary and story, so it would seem those events happened and he was just including them. It was important to show the outcome of the battle, that they defeated the Japanese and took Okinawa like in real history, I'd guess. That's how it really happened?
Reply by chucknorrissinspiration
on February 11, 2017 at 1:30 PM
are you referring to the scene when after they jump of the cliff the GIs shoot at the gaps up on the ridge? weren't they under fire as well? or is it another part you are referring to?
Reply by DanDare
on February 20, 2017 at 12:18 PM
It might had been true or not but it leads to a cinematic ending.
Reply by Will Barks
on February 21, 2017 at 6:06 PM
I'm referring to the last battle scene. The soldiers decide to climb the ridge once again demanding Doss to join them despite his Sabbath. For me this scene, the way it was shot, glorified war and gun use, implying a kind of double moral standard to the whole film.
Reply by Heisenberg12
on February 21, 2017 at 6:32 PM
Oh okay. I see what you are referring to.
Think that they just wanted to finish the true story of how the allied forces did win the battle, and also how Doss was in fact wounded by a grenade like that in the battle. It seems as if they wanted to be historically accurate with these two things of how the battle ended. It did take them several days to win the battle in real life. Doss was wounded by the grenade and had to be removed.
They decided to leave out that Doss gave up his stretcher to another wounded soldier also on his way out of combat and something regarding how he, instead, crawled to safety, and this was partially because Gibson didn't think the audience would believe it (even though it really happened).
Reply by Daddie0
on February 27, 2017 at 4:10 AM
A couple of thoughts on this: First, he never said he would not enter battle, nor that he did not support the war...he said he would not carry a weapon. So his returning to battle on the "second" (or any other subsequent) day is not a change of his convictions. Second, you are right about him violating the Sabbath, but we do see a bit of a compromise on this. The soldiers wait for him to finish his prayers before entering battle, and in fact won't fight without him with them because they have basically become superstitious about his presence even though they don't necessarily believe in God. So I think what we see is some reasonableness from him on breaking Sabbath having experienced the realities of war. Also, this would not necessarily be as strongly held of a conviction as "Thou shalt not kill." the Bible actually directly addresses the question of whether it is lawful to do good or evil on the Sabbath...after which Jesus literally heals a man on the Sabbath. So while that is outside of the scope of the film, you could see how this might be a more loosely held conviction than the first. ;)