the imaginative conservative logo

In this secular age, the fact that Mel Gibson did not shy away from the reality that the hero of Hacksaw Ridge was a conservative, Bible-believing Christian makes the film all the more astounding…

hacksawridge_andrew_garfield_publicity_still_h_2016_0Mel Gibson’s new film, Hacksaw Ridge continues the controversial actor and director’s taste for gusto, guts, and glory. From Mad Max and the Lethal Weapon films, Braveheart, We Were Soldiers, Apocalypto and Passion of the Christ, Mr. Gibson has not been afraid to explore the viscera of violence.

Literally.

His new film is gory with guts and glory.

In Hacksaw Ridge Mr. Gibson tells the true story of army medic Desmond Doss during the Second World War battle of Okinawa. Doss was a devout Seventh Day Adventist who, as a conscientious objector, still considered the war to be just. Enlisting in an infantry unit, the scrawny, but stubborn Doss endures bullying from his comrades and a court-martial from his superiors before serving them courageously on the battlefield.

Mr. Gibson does not spare the viewer the horror and heartbreak of hand-to-hand combat. The camera charges into battle with the soldiers and views the butchered on the battlefield with shock and a kind of disgusted detachment. Here lies a head, there half a soldier. There lies a lopped-off limb, and there screams a terrified boy with no legs. There is no glory on the Okinanawa battlefield— just humans reduced to animals with bared teeth stabbing, shooting, screaming, bombing, and burning one another with the fire, fear, fury, and frustration of hell itself.

Critics of Mr. Gibson’s Passion of the Christ said it was too gory. Mr. Gibson, they accused, had some kind of sick obsession with blood and guts. I disagree. Mr. Gibson’s films are truly graphic, but the violence is justified. When analyzing the portrayal of violence in film one must assess not simply the images on the screen, but the context in which they are portrayed, the intention of the filmmaker and the total morality of the film.

A film is not immoral simply because it portrays violence in a graphic manner. What is immoral is how the violence is portrayed, the moral message of the filmmaker and the moral response elicited from the audience. The question is not whether a film shows violence, but whether it does so merely to titillate or fascinate. A film which glories in violence is a kind of pornography, and the voyeuristic fascination with violence can be just as repulsive and degrading as viewing sexual pornography.

In Hacksaw Ridge, as in Steven Spielberg’s 1998 masterpiece Saving Private Ryan, the violence of war is indeed explicit and extreme, but in both films we view the violence from the point of view of Desmond Doss and Captain John Miller— the soldiers who are involved in battle. Consequently we share their horror of the hell that is war. If we are shocked, degraded, and disgusted, it is a small participation in the shock, degradation, and disgust that the soldiers themselves felt in the midst of battle.

The violence, therefore, serves a crucial function in the chemistry of both films. With the heroes we engage in battle, and with both John Miller and Desmond Doss, we face not only the physical violence of war, but also the confounding moral choices of ordinary men plunged into extraordinary dilemmas.

Miller must risk his lives and the lives of his men to save a young man for the sake of the political capital of the generals and politicians back home. Desmond Doss must risk his life to save others while never bearing a weapon or killing even one of the enemy. The portrayal of violence increases the intensity of the moral choices both heroes must face.

Finally, the film violence is justified because of the filmmaker’s overall intent. Both Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Gibson use the explicit horror of war to condemn, not to glorify war. Both Hacksaw Ridge and Saving Private Ryan exalt the heroism of ordinary men who are risking their lives for others. As such, the films dig deeper into the human condition and penetrate perennial themes of moral courage, self-sacrifice and redemption.

The films do not exalt the warrior in blind patriotism as early war films tended to do, nor do they indulge in cynical anti-patriotism and despair, as the directors of Vietnam-era war films so often did. Instead they dig deeper into the moral choices of ordinary soldiers—showing that real heroes shine forth even in the darkness and despair of the battlefield.

In this secular age, that Mr. Gibson did not shy away from the fact that Desmond Doss was a conservative, Bible-believing Christian makes the film all the more astounding, and the fact that the story is true makes Hacksaw Ridge all the more powerful.

Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
6 replies to this post
  1. Now that Mel Gibson is receiving many accolades for his masterpiece with the box office swelling well over $110M around the world and still rising, unkind and hateful writers continue to bring up his private life in order to get the public to hate him as much as they do, but we are not fooled – and besides, hate is like swallowing poison in the hope that it kills your enemy.

  2. Alas, we have developed entire generations who do not cavil at war, deeming it no more than what they call “entertainment” as in their video games, but who could not stomach the butchery which accompanies the creation of their Big Macs. They condemn the process but are happy and willing to enjoy the benefits.

  3. Mr. Naas, there is certainly much truth in your statement, more than I want to admit, but it is a bit of an exaggeration. There are many young men and women these days who know both the horror of war and yet have been willing to serve. I saw one just yesterday and will see two more this weekend and know that they have many who are willing to face the same horror with a sense of moral courage and duty. We are a culture that is corrupt, but it is not yet lost. The fact that the movie is doing well also shows that we can allow ourselves to be challenged. I find Mel Gibson’s private struggles sad, but I am glad that he is making movies again.

    • Guilty as charged.
      Definitely an exaggeration on my part. My only excuse is trying to forcibly make a point. But, yes, an exaggeration in fact.
      As I was reading the article, I was reminded that it has been some time since there was a Commander in Chief with direct experience of war in all its “glory”. Without leaders who have “seen the elephant”, it becomes ever easier to stumble into places from which extraction is difficult, if possible at all. And, frankly, that is most worrisome.
      Like you, I am glad to see Mel Gibson back. For whatever reason he wrestles with private demons, his films have a visceral urgency which speaks to people, even (I dare say) to those who disagree heartily with his worldview.

  4. I well recall Roger Ebert’s complaint of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST as being too violent at the same time he was applauding Quentin Tarantino’s KILL BILL.

Please leave a thoughtful, civil, and constructive comment: