Hacksaw Ridge as a Rorschach Test
Just in case you’re not sure what a Rorschach test is, it’s that inkblot test. You look at the blob and state your first impression of what you think you see there. Psychologists use it as an analytical tool. What you see there tells something about you. You reveal something of yourself.
I’m going to argue that how you react to Hacksaw Ridge (or any movie for that matter) can tell you something about what you believe. So, I’m asking you the question: What did you see in this movie? If you had to state a theme, what would it be?
First, I enjoyed the movie, but I was a little bit confused. I didn’t find the clear message or theme in the movie that I expected. Not that I need a clear “message,” but I’m well-trained at recognizing themes, and pulling together the various elements of the text (the movie) into a consistency that could be expressed in a theme. Perhaps, this time I was lost because I was expecting something different and when I didn’t get it, it confused me. But I don’t think so. The word on my lips as a I walked away was “indeterminate.” I even wonder if Gibson did this intentionally. Is it possible that he refused to underscore a theme to allow us to create our own?
Gestalt theory includes the idea that we naturally take the various elements we see and perceive them as a single whole. That would mean that you will assemble the elements of the story, using your own preconceptions to fill in the gaps and order the evidence provided by the text into a whole that reflects your own beliefs. Perhaps Gibson is simply laying out the story before us and allowing our own natural tendencies to make it into a whole.
So, what was the movie about to YOU?
I see three potential interpretations (although the second two are probably the same thing, ultimately). My purpose here is to interrogate these interpretations to show what they might reveal about the interpreter. What does our understanding of the movie tell us about ourselves?
So, what do you see? Is this a story about a God who found a willing follower whom he could empower to perform a miracle? Is this a story about a great man of faith whom we should all admire? Is this the story of a “saint” (a person who stands apart from all us mere mortals)?
As an act of film analysis, it is my intention to try to stay away from outside evidence; the film is the text, and prior knowledge of the events cannot be assumed. I want to get at what the film itself says. So, here are the facts as I understand them from the movie. Desmond Doss made a commitment to God to never touch a firearm. Doss also felt a duty to serve his country in a time of war. Doss enlisted as a medic; the perfect job for him. He had to endure persecution at the hands of those he was hoping to help, and even had to fight to stay in the military. He risks his life to help wounded soldiers. But on one fateful night, he saved 75 wounded soldiers, singlehandedly lowering them down a cliff with a rope. I would also add that Doss was very humble and wouldn’t acknowledge that he was anything special.
Miracle?
First, do you see this movie glorifying God? At the end of the movie, is there something in your being that recognizes the power of an omnipotent being that used a man to save many? Did you walk out saying, “God is great?” There is plenty of evidence in the movie to lead to that conclusion. There are many unlikely things that lead up to the fateful day. His father shows up to defend him at his trial. His father had not been supportive of his participation in the military, or been a supportive father in any way, but he becomes a key turning point in convincing the military to allow Doss to complete his mission. There is a break in the chain of command that intervenes in his trial to help Doss. These things themselves could easily be seen in as acts of God enabling Doss on his path.
However, the most obvious act of God in the movie is the miraculous night. One must consider the incredulity of rescuing 75 helpless soldiers. Doss, as portrayed in the movie, carries 75 soldiers across a darkened battlefield to a cliff where he lowers them to the bottom. There is at least one close-up that suggests that his hands are getting raw from the rope, and that is fairly early in his night. Consider that sheer physical impossibility of the task. Estimate how many bodies you could carry before you gave out. Even in those stories we all hear about someone lifting a car off of a victim, they didn’t do it 75 times over several hours. Now add in the fact that your own military is bombarding the area without somehow hitting you. Now add in Japanese patrols looking to finish off the dying American soldiers. It is hard to argue that this is not an act of God.
Is this what you saw? Did you walk away praising God? In the postscript interview with the real Doss, he certainly attempts to deflect praise. He does not directly tell the listener to praise God for what happened, but he certainly deflects praise of himself, which leaves only God to credit. Herein lies my question. Why not be more direct? Is Gibson worried about losing audience to an overtly religious movie? Does he not see God as deserving of the ultimate credit and praise for the miracle? Or...does he want to let you decide?
Great Man?
Or did you see the man? Did you walk away from the movie impressed by Doss? Was he a great person who needs to have his story told? Doe he belong in the pantheon of the heroes of American culture? Is it Desmond Doss who should be praised?
Here too, I think you will find plenty of evidence. He is the protagonist. He follows Joseph Campbell’s hero’s journey. Simply by nature of how we watch movies, identifying with the protagonist and participating cathartically in his story, naturally puts him and the center of the meaning-making. Why would we not see the story as about him?
Even Doss’s humility can be read in a way that brings the attention back to him. Our culture rewards those who do not self-aggrandize. In our culture, the fact that he defers credit and does not esteem himself higher than others, only works to make him more praiseworthy. In that, he represents a cultural value.
Within the movie itself, there are few markers to point us beyond Doss. In fact, it was only after the movie that my own thoughts lead me to consider the miraculous nature of his feat. My thoughts during the movie were more apt to be impressed with Doss’s dedication, his selflessness, his conviction. I had to remind myself that there must be a God in this movie, just due to the impossibility of the physical labor of carrying that many men. In fact, the one instance in that sequence that stuck out to me was the moment when his hands were getting raw. I realized that in reality, his hands would be down to bone. His muscles would, at some point, no longer respond to his will. He would want to help, but his body would at some point fail. But again, I don’t see this in the movie; this came from my own thoughts much later.
Even the acknowledgement of his raw hands seems confusing rather than clarifying. The hands hint at the difficulty he faced, but it can be argued that it undercuts the miraculous nature of the moment ; “if it was a miracle of God, why was injured at all?” On the other hand, the fact that his hands weren’t more damaged seems to underplay the incredible difficulty of the task. It seems strange to read it as a miracle that he was only sort of hurt. It would be like saying, “Hey did you hear about the guy who lifted the car off of the accident victim. Yeah, he only pulled a muscle!” Similarly, the aftermath of the event lands him in the hospital, but there is no clear sense of the damage done. It comes off as simply exhaustion. It is indeterminate. Is this a testimony to the man, or to the God behind the man?
Even reactions of the witnesses to Doss’s heroics fail to clearly enunciate the director’s intentions as to how we should interpret the event. They acknowledge it. They are amazed. But they do not interpret. One could easily see a character declaring a miracle, or praising the man. We could even be given a variety of interpretations, including disbelief that might signal us to the need for us to make meaning of it ourselves.
However, what I could read into it was the acceptance of his peers. The film gives us an out, an escape to leave aside the questions of the divine, and see the event in humanistic terms. The despised outsider granted space in the community by proving his value. The surrounding characters are amazed at the feat, without attempting to define it. Those who doubted him acknowledge his value with a nod. Those who despised him are filled with gratitude. The characters are changed by the event, but it appears more to me that it is a lesson learned: “It takes all kinds.”
Is this your inkblot? Did you come away with a sense of the greatness of the man?
Saint?
Or did you find something else? I see a third option that I think is a combination of these two. I can see some reading into this film the idea that there are certain people, empowered by God (or the universe, or whatever) to do special things, but in a way that we can see that they are not us. I can see a view that divides us from these special people, “saints,” and extols their virtues as people we should look up to and admire, but not necessarily aspire to be. In that sense it would ultimately give us an excuse to remain unchanged.
This third view allows a comfortable view of God empowering certain people to certain tasks, so that the rest of us normal people can go on living our lives. We can be thankful, grateful, perhaps even worshipful without getting our hand dirty. If you combine the sense in the first view that this is truly miraculous, you must acknowledge a God. However, if we leave it as a miracle of God, and accept Doss’s claim to ordinariness, then we must conclude that it could just as easily have been one of us. In fact, the only reason that it wasn’t you is that you never considered the possibility that it could have been you.
You see, if your inkblot is the second one, then you’re still at risk of being asked to be a hero. If he can do it, why can’t you? The third way, however, saves you from that challenge. I would call this the “religious view,” because it acknowledges a higher power, but does not challenge you to step outside of your comfort zone.
What did you see?
