mfunk wrote:I would even take issue with the word "limitation," to be honest, because (and this is far from a perfect movie so please don't think this is directed at Hacksaw Ridge in particular) that implies that a film can't be truly great without a democratic plot, pulling in several vantage points and taking extreme care in painting all of its elements sympathetically. So while that certainly softens things, and I objectively know what you both are saying, it isn't something I would consider when evaluating the merits of a film unless it goes out of its way to unfairly dehumanize or demonize (even if it's, say, a particularly badly written female character or ethnic stereotype in a comedy, etc - it doesn't just begin and end with films about international war/conflict).
But you're just ascribing value judgements to people who have never made them. Who says a film can't be great unless it's not problematic? Some of the greatest works of art the world has ever produced are deeply problematic--some are great
because of those problems. Hell, I think
Black Hawk Down is a great war film, and we know for sure I think it's problematic.
mfunk wrote:1. I don't consider this a problem, and I'm still perplexed as to why having a subjective point of view in a film is inherently problematic. If you're looking for a film that takes the time and care to represent the other side of a conflict favorably or even understandably, those films exist (though perhaps not to the level of quality or quantity one may hope for).
I can't tell whether or not you understand that it's not subjectivity, but subjective
battle experience.
The argument is: to accurately represents what it feels like to be a soldier in the middle of the war, you have to turn the other side into faceless enemies, which robs them of the rounded humanity that's given to the soldiers whose POV we share. Because that's what happens in war: soldiers don't exactly get a chance to know the enemy as individual people. They're just enemies, and it's kill or be killed. We agree on this, right? It's just how war feels to those in it.
This may be accurate, and it may be unavoidable in films concerned only with the subjective experience of one side; but it's still problematic because of
all the obvious reasons. This is basic film studies. You can't represent a group of people as all just one aggressive, flattened thing and have that mean nothing. It's problematic, by which I means it's an issue that raises aesthetic, cultural, and political questions that are complicated and hard to resolve.
You're allowed to like problematic things, but not by pretending they are not problematic. I love
Black Hawk Down and
Rambo: First Blood part II. But they are problematic films (profoundly so in the latter's case--I mean, holy shit, have you seen that thing?).
mfunk wrote:2. I disagree with the implication that a character study of Desmond Doss needs to take the time to represent any "other side" with much depth, whether it be the Japanese, or his fellow soldiers and superiors (who are often represented as narrow-minded, violent, cruel, and unfeeling to Doss, with few exceptions until the stakes are very high). It's his story, not theirs, and if filmmakers are hedging all of their bets when a story like this is told, everything is going to come out very lukewarm and mediocre.
You're disagreeing with an implication that isn't there.
I don't care about what war films 'ought' to do. Only with what they are doing, and what that means.
My only interest in
Hacksaw Ridge is whether or not it's any
more problematic than the average war from from the last 20 years. And I'm treating claims that it is with a lot of skepticism. There are going to be a lot of people claiming racism simply because this is Mel Gibson.
mfunk wrote:Merits of Passion of the Christ aside (I've never seen it and never will), the seppuku scene I referenced is filmed around the edges of this act, and while it's depicted within the frame, it is not lingered upon. I would argue that it's superfluous because it's irrelevant to the main thrust of the film, not because it's gratuitous or mean-spirited.
I was suggesting it was there not because Gibson wants to demonize the Japanese, but because he just loves torture. The suggestion was only half serious.