•
Rating:
At one point, I thought that Mel Gibson had made a leap forward, philosophically or rather ideologically. Then the final sequence arrived and things returned to their place: the horrid and triumph-free vision of war gave way to a somewhat too patriotic and this time triumphant closure. The good achieved by Desmond Doss reassembled itself as just another piece of the great mosaic, nothing more than the overwhelming American force. As if to say: «We Americans even had someone in our army who saved 70 comrades, how cool are we». Watching the interviews with the real people at the end, it becomes clear that there isn’t a true questioning of war; war is an essential element of the American vision, so the good done by Doss represents just one function among many, an endeavor also in its own way of strength and tenacity, but aimed at defense rather than offense.
However, in the film’s best moments, a certain complexity in the depiction of the war conflict could be observed. The two war sequences are masterful, very complex in direction but structured in a way that they do not turn chaotic. The cinematic gaze enters the guts of war, allowing us to savor all its harshness and cruelty. And so, before the conflict erupts, we see the young soldiers observing the corpses left on the ground: torn apart, putrid, eaten by rats. It’s a shocking beginning that gives a very strong horror coloration to war, which remains quite constant throughout the narrative segment. Gibson is relentless in showing us all the horror, the mangled bodies, the nightmare nights, the degradation of the human figure. We are faced with a major piece of work that can compete with the great war films of the past.
For that very reason, the rest is jarring. From the loud ending that suddenly forgets the horror and brings American victory back to the forefront; to the construction of the premises for war. Doss's and his companions’ training owes too much to Full Metal Jacket and furthermore, does not perfectly carry out its functions. I think of the characterization of the characters: some are well done, like the Sergeant played by Vince Vaughn (really well done) who alternates between rigor and humanity, but many others are sketchy and poorly managed, like Captain Glover, poorly introduced and carried on without ever clarifying his figure. The comrades are obviously just masks; we couldn't ask Gibson to delve into all of them. But at least the bully, the one who obviously starts as a jerk and then changes, at least he could have been depicted in a less rhetorical way. Instead, it’s a narrative function without original characterization. Better then Doss’s wife, who remains far from unforgettable anyway.
Even the protagonist himself is not exactly a shining example of character writing. He is a very strange, peculiar boy, but not as deep and interesting as he might seem. In the end, he is a simpleton, a country guy who focuses on helping rather than shooting, but does not fully repudiate war. On the contrary, he is obsessed with it like everyone else. So his story is not even that significant. It remains an endeavor, a testament of fortitude and tenacity, but it doesn’t go beyond that.
During the training, however, his will to go to war without carrying a rifle has a more problematic and articulated treatment. In those parts, one can read a certain incapacity of the fighting man to understand the necessity of aid. Then, when going to war, everyone understands well how necessary people like Desmond are. But this does not minimally undermine the desire to wage war, and the director himself doesn’t seem even slightly touched by the idea.
6.5/10
Loading comments slowly
