Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

[Goffe]

I'm familiar with Japanese soldier tactics in WW2. My problem wasn't with the caricature itself and more with how the movie viewed them. Flag of Our Fathers covered similar grounds and I didn't think Eastwood dehumanized the enemy like Gibson did.

 

 

About Hugo Weaving's character. I get it. I just thought the symptoms were so disconnected from each other that it failed to create a narrative.

[rukaio101]

On the whole 'faceless Japanese' thing, I do recall reading about there actually being a solid reason for that, albeit an out-of-universe one.

 

Specifically, due to the low budget, Gibson only had a limited number of Japanese extras, who he had to reuse for pretty much every shot. As such, he had to make an effort to subtly conceal their features so people wouldn't notice that the Japanese army was apparently made up of the same handful of guys cloned x100.

 

So yeah, that's an explanation for the 'faceless hordes' thing. Whether it excuses anything though is up for debate.

Edited February 1, 2017 by rukaio101

[Plain Old Tele]

42 minutes ago, rukaio101 said:

On the whole 'faceless Japanese' thing, I do recall reading about there actually being a solid reason for that, albeit an out-of-universe one.

 

Specifically, due to the low budget, Gibson only had a limited number of Japanese extras, who he had to reuse for pretty much every shot. As such, he had to make an effort to subtly conceal their features so people wouldn't notice that the Japanese army was apparently made up of the same handful of guys cloned x100.

 

So yeah, that's an explanation for the 'faceless hordes' thing. Whether it excuses anything though is up for debate.

 

You're right, I forgot about that. Gibson mentioned in a Q&A they only had 30-40 Japanese extras. 

[Avatree]

Quite an odd clash of two different stories. First act is cliché ridden and cheesy, young adult romance movie. I just read a review which compared it to a Nicholas Sparks novel/film and I think that is accurate. Second act is a gritty, scary and thoroughly engaging war movie.

 

It's really difficult to figure out why on earth Mel Gibson opted to make the first half in the way he did. Is it to make the second half even more impactful? It doesn't gel with me anyway.

 

Second half is really solid, impressive filmmaking. Very visceral and a much more intense portrayal of WW2 than other movies have been. It was terrifying and in parts completely insane. Not perfect but very good and more than makes up for the strange first half.

 

Other points; I thought portraying the Japanese as insects/rats/zombies was very unnecessary and it left a sour taste in my mouth. Also, this is an unusual film in that if it were an original story, it would have been 100x worse and not worked at all. Rare to see that. Finally - the best use of Vince Vaughn in many years.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Treecraft

[Plain Old Tele]

1 hour ago, Treecraft said:

It's really difficult to figure out why on earth Mel Gibson opted to make the first half in the way he did.

 

The first half is very much a Hollywood movie from the 1940s. Which, surprising as it may wasn't, isn't necessarily all that different from how people acted. Desmond Doss was basically an innocent, in almost every respect. The process of standing up for what he believed in was his transition to becoming a man, and the second half is his transition to becoming a hero (in the eyes of almost everyone).

[Lordmandeep]

I think you have to remember is that to the American Army during WW2 and even today to modern audiences, the tactics of the Japanese army seemed unnatural in nature and Okinawa was likely the most brutal battle the US army has ever fought and all of the tactics of the Japanese army were at full display and full horror during this battle.

 

Japanese forces would routinely continue to fight even with 50,60,70,80,90% of their forces destroyed....

 

For example at the Battle of Iwo Jima, there were over 21,000 Japanese soldiers and only 200 survived (few surrendered, many others got knocked out and captured)....

 

Therefore I do not think the director dehumanized the Japanese soldier, it was actually that brutal... 

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Lordmandeep

[Avatree]

7 hours ago, Telemachos said:

 

The first half is very much a Hollywood movie from the 1940s. Which, surprising as it may wasn't, isn't necessarily all that different from how people acted. Desmond Doss was basically an innocent, in almost every respect. The process of standing up for what he believed in was his transition to becoming a man, and the second half is his transition to becoming a hero (in the eyes of almost everyone).

The guy I saw it with suggested this. Was wondering why it was ridden with so many clichés and he said maybe those are clichés and have been overused throughout cinema, because that's how it actually was back then.

 

 

9 hours ago, rukaio101 said:

On the whole 'faceless Japanese' thing, I do recall reading about there actually being a solid reason for that, albeit an out-of-universe one.

 

Specifically, due to the low budget, Gibson only had a limited number of Japanese extras, who he had to reuse for pretty much every shot. As such, he had to make an effort to subtly conceal their features so people wouldn't notice that the Japanese army was apparently made up of the same handful of guys cloned x100.

 

So yeah, that's an explanation for the 'faceless hordes' thing. Whether it excuses anything though is up for debate.

Huh, that is interesting. The low budget showed in a lot of places (the CGI was veeeeerrry ropey) so that would make sense. I don't think it justifies the execution though.

[baumer]

When did this ideological shift begin where people are suddenly worried about how the other side is portrayed?  It's fucking war.  What do you want film makers to do?  Show the Japanese and Germans (or any other enemy in a war film) holding babies and attending church?  

 

War is hell.  Always has been.  It's not the director's job to show the other side.

[Lordmandeep]

The Japanese engaged in mass Charges like a horde.

 

That not racist, that is history... 

[Hatebox]

Don't have too much interest in this movie, but the Japanese soldier debate reminded me of an exhaustive video essay I watched a while back discussing the techniques Spielberg employed on Ryan to (rightly or wrongly) humanise the Americans and dehumanise the Germans. I like SPR but it's hard disagree with a few of the points this makes:

 

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Hatebox

[Plain Old Tele]

16 hours ago, Treecraft said:

Huh, that is interesting. The low budget showed in a lot of places (the CGI was veeeeerrry ropey) so that would make sense. I don't think it justifies the execution though.

 

Again, I'd pose the same question I did to Cmaster: how would you present those scenes? You have a few dozen extras and you need to show an overwhelming force and be reasonably faithful to how the battle played out (where the Japanese launched frontal assaults and then retreated into a maze of tunnels and caves, only to mount sudden, suicidal charges to knock the American forces backwards).

 

In fact, I think Gibson in a couple of places made a very clear distinction to make the Japanese not face-less: one moment being when the Japanese general committed seppuku.

[Avatree]

13 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

Again, I'd pose the same question I did to Cmaster: how would you present those scenes? You have a few dozen extras and you need to show an overwhelming force and be reasonably faithful to how the battle played out (where the Japanese launched frontal assaults and then retreated into a maze of tunnels and caves, only to mount sudden, suicidal charges to knock the American forces backwards).

 

In fact, I think Gibson in a couple of places made a very clear distinction to make the Japanese not face-less: one moment being when the Japanese general committed seppuku.

That's a completely fair question and if all that is true, then I wouldn't blame Gibson at all. I just mean that regardless, it still leaves me uneasy watching it; the production explanation behind it doesn't mean that it suddenly works in the film, if that makes sense. I generally try to separate how I feel about a film to the production behind it.

[lolifofo]

First time I needed actual tissues after a film. I couldn't stop the tears.

Still need to watch a few more movies from 2016, but this is my favorite so far.

 

 

A+

[FantasticBeasts]

Just watched it and I am still in awe. 

A+