A TALE OF COURAGE, NON-VIOLENCE, AND CHOICE

 HACKSAW RIDGE: MOVIE REVIEW

Directed By: Mel Gibson

Date of Release: November 4th, 2016

The film Hacksaw Ridge is based on the real-life story of Desmond T. Doss who was an American pacifist combat medic. He identified himself as a believer in the Bible and a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. Due to his beliefs, he refused to go to the war with any form of weapon. With the non-violent deeds performed by him during his involvement in the war, he became the first conscientious objector ever to receive the Medal of Honour.

In this movie review, I would explore the subjective nature of morality and the absence of an objective principle in the war scenario in particular and life in general. I would also bring the notion of man’s freedom of choice as propounded by Jean-Paul Sartre, an existentialist philosopher. One can also locate the resemblance of Desmond’s actions with the ideals propounded by Gandhi. The fact that Desmond channels his conscience instead of basing his actions on principles that are subject to change with the context reflects the Gandhian tendency to place truth over and above everything. For Desmond non-violence in the Biblical sense remains his truth.

The film revolves around the period right after when the USA’s pearl harbor was attacked by the Japanese army and the American soldiers decided to retaliate. The story explores the essence of war and its capacity to not only take the lives of the people involved in it but also its ability to leave long-lasting scars in the minds of those who can survive. The opening scene of the film shows bloodshed and several injured soldiers. The scene reflects the gruesomeness that wars are essentially imbued with.

At the very beginning of the film, we see two brothers, Harold and Desmond Doss, who make a good duo. However, a casual fight between them turns violent as Desmond loses control over his impulses and attacks his brother with a brick. This leaves a lasting impact on his mind. Their father who himself is a war veteran despises the war set-up after losing many of his near and dear ones. However, he doesn’t hesitate to unleash violence upon their mother, that is, his wife. This reflects the lack of objective principles since a man who comes to despise violence in the context of war inflicts the same on his wife. This shows that morality remains subjective and open to personal interpretations, more so, shaped according to one’s own experiences and preferences.

Such acts of violence within the family also have deep imprints upon Desmond’s mind and he grows up as a firm believer in the Bible and its commandments such as ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ and ‘Murder is the worst sin of all. Desmond carries these principles throughout his life and still enrolls in war duty. He decides to serve in the war as a medic rather than a weapon-carrying soldier to remain true to his belief. He resolves to participate in the war to save lives instead of killing people. A resolution of such an exemplary nature remains unprecedented. 

Thus, the film evokes ethical dilemmas faced by those who participate in wars. While Desmond remains firm on his position that he would not give in to the violent acts, the others who support wars define violence as a form of self-defense. The film revolves around the inevitable fight one has to face with one’s own conscience. One can see that people who fight in a war do so to protect their territory and sovereignty. While wars remain essentially violent and gruesome, for soldiers wars are a way to assert their right to self-defense. Thus, forming an absolute judgment over the rightness or the wrongness of wars becomes precarious. 

It is also essential to note that both kinds of people, those who adhered to the rightness of violence and Desmond, the one who advocated otherwise, respect the constitution of the land. However, the nature of their duty differs. They base their actions and commitments on contrary principles. While those taking up arms are bound by their duty to kill the enemy, Desmond finds himself being bound by an authority higher than the army as an institution. This authority for him is the Bible and God. This difference like their commitment arises because Desmond refuses to part with the principles he grows up with, the ones that shape his conscience and the ones that imbue within him the notions of empathy and compassion. His reluctance to divorce with these principles remains strong till the end of his service.

His belief in pacifism quite ironically finds acceptance within the groups of violent supporting soldiers when he manages to save the lives of over half a century of wounded men during the war. 

Desmond not only commits to his duty and emerges as one of the most dutiful soldiers on the battlefield, but he also saves himself from the guilt of taking any life. The fact that he tries to save the lives of some of those from the side of the enemy also reflects his conscience being true to the principle of ‘love one another. 

Even though Desmond commits to his faith he also faces several obstacles while doing so. Dorothy, who eventually marries Desmond, evokes him of being confused between his will with that of the Lords. She urges him to not take pride in his principles and adhere to the guidelines of using a weapon to rescue him from any further ordeals and mockery. Many in his contingent think of him as suffering from a mental illness. Such estrangement from the idea of peace, non-violence, and compassion reflects the tendency of people to be blindsided by the scope of harmony in times of war. They could not imagine peace being a substitute for war at such a time. 

However, one cannot fully dismiss the choice made by the soldiers who fought with the weapons since they too were duty-bound to serve. Many circumstances come into play when a soldier decides to participate in a war, which in itself becomes a tough moral decision. This brings forth the idea of ‘free will’ and ‘the power to choose’ as underlined by many existentialist philosophers. The fact that one of the soldiers says this during the war: ‘In peace sons bury their fathers, in a war fathers bury their son’ reflects the suppressed emotions of many such soldiers who unlike Desmond couldn’t evoke a deeper conscience functioning on the lines of compassion. 

While Desmond remains as loyal as a Kant follower would be towards his duty to serve in the war, he also manages to choose his role in the power struggle thus retaining his ‘freedom of choice’ despite the circumstances. However, it would still leave behind the question of whether a man is actually free to choose as posed by Jean-Paul Sartre since no other soldier could locate his freedom while being duty-bound.  

Desmond walks on a tightrope balancing between the individual choice framed by his conscience and the war duty that he must perform. There is no denying that his story remains a beacon of hope that compassion can rightly find a place in the times of war.