Note: Minor plot spoilers to follow. You may want to watch the movie before reading this post.
I had the chance to catch Hacksaw Ridge the other day, and it is an extremely powerful movie. I was a bit leery after reading the very positive reviews because they highlighted the presence of the bad husband/father trope in the movie. From: Mel Gibson’s ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ Is the Best War Film Since ‘Saving Private Ryan’
…incidents in early sections of the film showing Desmond’s challenging family life with a loving, overly religious mother who was often savagely beaten by his drunken, abusive father…
I went anyway, and am glad that I did. The trope is certainly in the movie, but the father is not shown as a one dimensional drunken abuser. After watching the movie I checked out History Vs Hollywood, and it appears that Gibson used more than a little creative license in this regard:
The Great Depression left their father, a carpenter, despondent and turning to alcohol at times (though the movie greatly exaggerates this and makes him abusive).
But even with this in mind, Gibson doesn’t display the abject contempt for fathers that the Kendrick brothers do. As I noted the father is shown as a real (but deeply flawed) human being who is suffering and loves his family.
With the failing father trope out of the way, it is astounding that Hacksaw Ridge is the first non documentary movie to tell the incredible story of Desmond Doss. Doss after all was heroic in WWII, the only war in which Hollywood is truly comfortable portraying American fighting men as as heroes. It is also not coincidentally the only war where the US was allied with the Soviet Union. But while Doss was fighting on the right side of the war from Hollywood’s perspective, his story can’t be told without honoring his incredible faith. Gibson deserves great credit for fighting the Hollywood current and making a major production about this truly extraordinary man.
I mentioned above that Doss’ story is incredible, and in a way it may be too incredible. Aside from exaggerating the failures of his father, the movie also in many ways understated how extraordinary he was. For example, in one scene it shows Doss and his unit as having to climb up a cargo net to enter their first battle. Given the timing of the battle where this took place (Okinawa), it struck me as unlikely that this would be their first action. Hollywood Vs History confirmed that not only was Okinawa not their first action, but that Doss was one of three men who climbed the cliff to place the net there in the first place:
…medic Desmond Doss was one of the three men who volunteered to go up the ridge and hang the cargo nets (something not shown in the movie). They were the same cargo nets that the men had used to climb down from the army personnel carriers into the landing crafts that took them ashore. In the photo below, Desmond is seen standing on top of the ridge. The photo doesn’t convey the sheer danger he was in up there. The photographer refused to get any closer for fear he would be hit by Japanese fire. -The Conscientious Objector Documentary
The same article notes there was another incident that Gibson changed because he felt the true story was too difficult for the audience to believe:
Director Mel Gibson decided to leave this out of the movie because he felt audiences would find the heroic circumstances under which it happened too hard to believe…
It also mentions yet another incident which Gibson left out:
…the Japanese had a clear shot at Desmond Doss. Though it’s not depicted in the movie, one Japanese soldier recalled having Desmond in his sights, but every time he went to fire, his gun jammed. -The Conscientious Objector Documentary
After reading about the real story, as is so often the case I find the real story to be more compelling than the dramatized version. Still, Gibson has made a fantastic film and I highly recommend it.
It was a good movie overall, if not perfect. Mel Gibson was a good choice to present the story since he is not hostile to religion.
I appreciated the fact that Gibson presented Desmond Doss’ father as a wounded man rather than an evil one.
We didn’t bother to fact check it though, so I appreciate your review. Mine was much less comprehensive.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=528487830784
I first read about Desmond Doss at the site above, and can confirm that they shaved away a number of items that would make a Hollywood movie character unbelievable.
But really, that’s because Hollywood has no faith in God. Desmond Doss was brave because he believed that God had a plan for him, and he was merely acting out God’s will. He didn’t need to be an exceptional hero, he merely needed to do what he believed God required of him.
To Hollywood, that sincerity of belief is, itself, unbelievable.
Pingback: Hacksaw Ridge | Aus-Alt-Right
@Elspeth
One thing I found interesting is that Gibson is Roman Catholic, and Doss was Seventh Day Adventist. Given the SDA teaching on the RCC, Gibson’s ability to set that aside and honor another man’s faith is all the more impressive.
I have been an admirer of Desmond Doss for many years, after I stumbled across his story on the Internet one night. One of my most treasured possessions is an inscribed copy of the biography his second wife wrote of his life which I purchased before his death. I found it interesting that the book minimized the poor treatment he received from the other soldiers, but I believe that he was at heart a very humble man and would not want them shamed.
I haven’t seen the movie yet (planned to go opening night but was thwarted) but the trailer has me very excited and the positive reviews it has received add to that.
That reminds me of this story about George Washington: http://www.historynet.com/the-marksman-who-refused-to-shoot-george-washington.htm
I am rather in two minds about Mel (have you a dog in this fight?) Gibson: on the one hand I knew that as he was directing that Hacksaw Ridge would not be this year’s Holohoax movie but then The Patriot was I understand entirely biased in favour of America. Right now I am watching another American film which in passing asserts that in 1776 (never mind the logistics of doing so) England had one million troops embark for and arrive in America. I haven’t checked but that is surely in the realms of fantasy – for at that time our population would not have amounted to ten million and of those half would be women – come on!! : I know you won Yorktown, I understand that you are proud of that, but even so….
@ Elspeth says:
November 16, 2016 at 11:44 am
“Mel Gibson was a good choice to present the story since he is not hostile to religion.”
Hollywood is not hostile to religion. Hollywood is hostile to Christianity.
Apologies for the OT post, but I thought some of the readers here would get a kick out of this:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/november-web-only/trump-won-how-evangelical-leaders-feel.html
Just picked up the biography and noted that the entire portion that describes the battle on the escarpment for which he received the Medal of Honor is two and a half pages. In a book of 188 pages. The Medal of Honor ceremony is a few sentences in a paragraph.
Now that I’m looking through it again, I am reminded that this is not a book about a man, but a book about the faithfulness of God in a man’s life. In the escarpment portion, as he begins to lower men down it is noted – “The Lord even provided a tree stump on top of the hill” for him to loop the rope around. The book is full of asides that describe God’s constant care for this faithful man,
ToK says:
November 16, 2016 at 1:50 pm
Churchians show their true colors yet again: complete lack of faith, fixation on the temporal world, placing ethnic/national identity above Christian brotherhood, fearing Caesar more than the Lord.
Churchians “Of Color,” in particular, finally came as close as they ever will to admitting that Scripture takes a very distant back seat to identity politics.
Mel Gibson as far as I can tell isn’t hostile to Christianity.
But your point is taken Oscar.
As for that “what evangelical leaders feel about Trump” –
1.) I don’t recognize a single name but one, and that only tangentially. Am I not evangelical enough or are these people not really leaders? I know they’re not my leaders.
2.) I don’t care what they feel about Trump.
@ Elspeth says:
November 16, 2016 at 2:02 pm
“Mel Gibson as far as I can tell isn’t hostile to Christianity.”
Correct. He’s one of the very few in Hollywood who aren’t.
I greatly enjoyed the movie. But one thing that I found interesting about it was that Gibson cast almost all the main roles with Australians. Vince Vaughn and Andrew Garfield being American and British/American respectively. Kind of lends one to wonder if that was to help boost the careers of fellow Australian actors who needed a break (recognizing that Gibson was American who moved to Australia) or did his conservative and Christian beliefs lend him to overlook casting popular American actors and actresses?
Sounds like a good movie. A bit tired of the trope of abusive fathers. It really sets the tone for the rest of the movie, as well with the beatings he receives from other men in his fighting units for being a passive.
I’ve never been able to line this up though. I think those that choose not to fight, i.e. passives, are cowards. Not in the individual sense, as can be seen by the man in this movie, but in the broader sense. If you believe it is a sin to fight and kill, what you are saying is that you would rather others fight in your stead and burn in hell for your right to go to heaven, that is a cowardly position to hold.
How does one square that issue away? If someone invades, what do you do?
@ToK: Similar article showed up on my FB feed:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/november/global-evangelical-leaders-trump-win-will-harm-churchs-witn.html
Mel Gibson as far as I can tell isn’t hostile to Christianity.
Yes and that is a really bad career choice for him that has cost him a lot of money.
As for that “what evangelical leaders feel about Trump” –
1.) I don’t recognize a single name but one, and that only tangentially. Am I not evangelical enough or are these people not really leaders? I know they’re not my leaders.
2.) I don’t care what they feel about Trump.
In the end you just have to consider the source (i.e., Churchianity Today). That really does explain it all.
” Kind of lends one to wonder if that was to help boost the careers of fellow Australian actors who needed a break ”
It is said that there aren’t enough American actors to portray manly men.
The commandment inHebrew is you will not ‘murder’ not ‘kill’. Very different meanings of the words…
Pingback: Hacksaw Ridge | Reaction Times
In Hebrew it is “You will not destroy”. Which is neither murder or kill. Destruction includes murder, but also includes vandalism, and destructiveness in general.
It is said that there aren’t enough American actors to portray manly men.
I would like to defend American actors here, but it is impossible. All our badass he-man actors are dead, or too old to fit the part. I don’t know how he found manly Australians of the correct age either. According to the Aussie regulars here, feminism holds sway in Oz as much as in the USA, so an ever shrinking pool of manly men on both continents.
I swear boys, we’re getting to be the last of a breed. (Insert smiley face)
Not arguing. Just looking to be accurate.
ratsach: to murder, slay
Original Word: רָצַח
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ratsach
Phonetic Spelling: (raw-tsakh’)
Short Definition: manslayer
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to murder, slay
NASB Translation
killed (1), kills the manslayer (1), manslayer (18), murder (7), murdered (2), murderer (12), murderer shall be put (1), murderers (1), murders (1), put to death (1), slew (1).
@Feminist Hater
If you believe it is a sin to fight and kill, what you are saying is that you would rather others fight in your stead and burn in hell for your right to go to heaven, that is a cowardly position to hold. How does one square that issue away? If someone invades, what do you do?
The movie addresses this question to a certain extent. In fact, it’s the central theme of the movie. Desmond states quite plainly that while he cannot do violence, not even to save his own life, he feels obligated to do something, and serve in whatever way he can.
As a pratical matter, in the face of war, we only have two options; fight back or die. People who can choose not to fight and still make a difference, like Desmond, or perhaps some of the saints who died martyrs’ deaths, are few and far between. I doubt most of us have the depth of faith required to make such a choice into a selfless act. Too, it is hard not to see Desmond as a bit of a hypocrite in places, when others to kill in order to save his life.
@feminist hater
Morality is weird. The main commandment of morality is twofold. To have a well formed conscience (and that is very influenced by our environment, so we are not entirely responsible for that) and to do what your conscience tells you to do and to abstain from doing what it tells you not to do.
This means that if YOU believe killing is wrong in whatever circumstances, you should not do it, and it is very likely that you will be damned if you do. However, your belief about that has no power at all over other men’s decisions. If they disagree and kill in a just war, they commit no sin and are not damned for that.
Please, Dear God! Don’t let the comments get bogged down in a pacifist theology debate!
In Western theology ever since the reformation the individual has been the supreme arbiter of what is Truth-for-him and unless or until God comes down in Person to give us the One True Interpretation of each and every verse (finally setting the rest of you heretics straight!) we are just gonna have to learn to live with one another’s varying degrees of insanity (insanity being when you don’t agree with me).
Desmond Doss lived true according to HIS light. It’s not his job to make his Truth work for the rest of the world. It’s his job just to live it in faith.
It is said that there aren’t enough American actors to portray manly men.
I would like to defend American actors here, but it is impossible…..I swear boys, we’re getting to be the last of a breed. (Insert smiley face)
Don’t be too sure. Just because you can’t see them does not mean they’re not there.
Regarding “equal pay” — an issue that refuses to die — women now complain of a “gender pay gap” in the arts: https://psmag.com/women-in-the-arts-get-paid-less-too-1997c1cb3c9#.gopnelzai
Among professional artists — a category that includes actors, dancers, musicians, designers, writers, and photographers — they found a gender pay gap of $19,288, which is comparable to the $20,250 gap for those working outside the arts.
Specifically, they found the mean annual income for male artists was $63,061, compared to $43,177 for their female counterparts. After further crunching the numbers, they report that a variety of factors that could influence income — including age, education, one’s specific artistic discipline, and the number of hours worked — only accounted for about one-third of that difference.
“That leaves $13,406.77 of the gender wage gap in the arts unexplained,” they write.
I recall Camille Paglia once wrote that almost all great art is created by men. That men are simply more creative, more original, and more driven than are women. This is why there is no female Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven. No female Rembrandt or Michelangelo. That aside from a few great women novelists, female artists — paints, sculptors, composers — tend to produce mediocre drivel.
Don’t be too sure. Just because you can’t see them does not mean they’re not there.
Name ONE American actor of the current Millennial generation who embodies any of the masculine traits of a John Wayne, Gary Cooper, or Humphrey Bogart, to name just three of the more obvious examples of the past when masculinity was the norm. I sure the hell can’t, and I seriously doubt you can either.
This is why there is no female Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven. No female Rembrandt or Michelangelo. That aside from a few great women novelists, female artists — paints, sculptors, composers — tend to produce mediocre drivel.
The last great female novelists came out of the 19th Century (there weren’t really any before then either; the 19th Century is unique in that respect). Female novelists of the last century and this one have pretty much produced nothing but drivel, ranging from mediocre to unreadable.
Rory: “The commandment inHebrew is you will not ‘murder’ not ‘kill’. Very different meanings of the words…”
The KJV was “translated” a bit over 400 years ago, and first printed in 1611. I put the word ‘translated’ in quotes because much of the text were direct ports of prior English translations, going all the back to John Wycliffe (@1380s).
The point of the above is that in the English of those days, ‘kill’ was the common word for what we call ‘murder’, and ‘slay’ was the common word for which we use ‘kill’.
That is: it’s not that the KJV translation of the commandment is wrong, it’s that our language has changed in the past 400 years, and we no longer use the words in the same ways our ancestors did. Think about it, when have you ever used or heard anyone use the word ‘slay’, unless as a joke of some sort?
@ feeriker
I would add Jimmy Stewart to that list. He had a talent the others didn’t, which was to portray the “everyman” that all the men in the audience could identify with, precisely because most of us are everymen. Tom Hanks also has that talent, but he’s 60. Then again, when I saw him in “Bosom Buddies”, I never imagined he would grown into the kind of actor who could play CPT Miller in Saving Private Ryan, not just convincingly, but brilliantly.
My point is that the millennial-generation actors may grow into that kind of talent, just like Tom Hanks did.
Who do I think has a good chance of growing into that kind of actor? Chris Pratt comes to mind. There are probably others. After all, if you’d told me back in the ’90s that Marky Mark would one day play Marcus Luttrell and Mike Williams convincingly, I would’ve busted a rib laughing.
Desmond Doss lived true according to HIS light. It’s not his job to make his Truth work for the rest of the world. It’s his job just to live it in faith.
I am reminded of Romans 14:4: “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”
Doss was not opposed to violence in general – I don’t know if this is in the movie, but in his biography he is asked, “What if someone were to come and try to rape your wife and daughter?” He replies, “I wouldn’t shoot him and I wouldn’t kill him, but he’d wish he were dead when I got through with him!”
As I sit here with my 41,000 guns most would clearly see that I have theological differences on this point, but I still admire the man and his convictions.
Feminist Hater @ November 16, 2016 at 2:37 pm:
“How does one square that issue away?”
With gratitude for those who do fight on your behalf. My conscience does not allow me to fornicate but I’m grateful for the sexual insights PUAs have given me, insights they could only gain by fornicating in defiance of God. A conscientious objector can hold a similar position.
We live in a strange world.
…
feeriker @ 7:41 am:
“Name ONE American actor of the current Millennial generation who embodies any of the masculine traits…”
Jim Caviezel. Christian Bale.
Jim Caviezel is 48. Christian Bale is 42. Neither count as millennials.
If one is a pacifist because one isn’t able to kill in defense of ones life or country, that is one thing. You can still help in relief efforts and giving to those wounded or those left behind. However, if one is a pacifist because one believes it a sin to kill, even in self-defense, that is an entirely different scenario. One allows gratitude for others to take on that undertaking themselves with their souls still intact for having defended you and your family, the other means that others must sacrifice their souls for your very ability to survive in a hostile world.
And I don’t believe this idea that one can believe one thing a sin whilst another not consider it one. It creates more problems than it solves. There is murder, there is killing in war and there is killing in self-defense. We all agree that murder is a sin, if there was one person who didn’t and went around murdering people, by that metric, he is without sin…. it just doesn’t carry water.
Jim Caviezel is 48. Christian Bale is 42. Neither count as millennials
Thanks, Oscar. You took the response right off of my fingertips.
Anyone care to try again?.
And I always try to follow a belief system to its logical core. If one is a pacifist in a hostile world, of which Earth is one, then one can only survive by the sacrifice of others. That is undeniable. If one believes that all killing is a sin and thus cannot be done for fear of damnation, even when in war or in self-defense, then for Civilisation to take hold, others must sin to keep you safe. Once again, undeniable. This means others must damn themselves for your ability to keep your soul pure.
Nations invade other nations, tribes attack tribes, this is the nature of the beast, kill or be killed. Pacifism is a conundrum that can only exist when others die for your right to live.
Pacifism is a conundrum that can only exist when others die for your right to live.
There are difference between those that use pacifism as a tactic (i.e., Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr) and those who hold it as a moral imperative. Pacifists aren’t usually asking anyone to kill on their behalf or to protect them from the consequences of their beliefs. That someone else chooses to do so cannot be blamed on them. It is unlikely that those who take up arms are doing it to protect the interests of the pacifists, but likely in their own self-interest.
In any case, a pacifist on the front lines saving the lives of those who are fighting on his behalf must at least get a nod for being willing to lay his own life on the line as much as any soldier carrying a gun.
Indirectly they are, that is undeniable. We live in world where violence happens. Someone comes with a club and smashes the pacifists face in and he dies unless there are others there to protect him. That is why I called it a conundrum that can only exist when such circumstances are in place to protect that ideal. Remove those circumstances and the pacifist is dead because he will not fight.
Say there is a world maniac with his one hand on nuclear Armageddon and his other with a gun pointed at your head. He hands you the gun and says to you: “Shoot me or I destroy the world.”.. A pacifist would have to let the world die.
It fails, miserable on all counts.
A pacifist would have to let the world die.
…annnnd the discussion then switches to one on the sovereignty of God.
These women do a circle and then they come back to the issue you proved wrong twenty arguments ago. I think they hope you will have forgotten the previous results.
How about Sheldon from the “Big Bang Theory” or Ross from “Friends?”
Never mind…
“Anyone care to try again?”
I thought Millenials included age 40s.
Chris Hemsworth, age 29
Kyle Gallner, age 30
Daniel Fraser, age ?
Daniel Radcliffe, age 23
Of course, I hope you realize what you’re asking for when you demand paragons of masculinity from such young actors. These guys show promise.
…
Feminist Hater@ 12:30 pm:
“And I don’t believe this idea that one can believe one thing a sin whilst another not consider it one. It creates more problems than it solves.”
This is addressed in Romans 14.
…
KPP @ 12:59 pm:
“In any case, a pacifist on the front lines saving the lives of those who are fighting on his behalf must at least get a nod for being willing to lay his own life on the line as much as any soldier carrying a gun.”
A true pacifist cannot do that any more than my conscience would let me be Roosh’s wingman in a bar. “What you are doing is wrong and I want to help you do it”? That’s Churchianity not pacifism.
In any case, a pacifist on the front lines saving the lives of those who are fighting on his behalf must at least get a nod for being willing to lay his own life on the line as much as any soldier carrying a gun.
And this, in a nutshell, is the story of Desmond Doss and the movie Hacksaw Ridge. It wasn’t about pacifism at all. It was about one man living out his conviction while at the same time willing to march right into harm’s way to aid the men who were carrying the guns. Doss was no coward. Far from it.
The question (if there must be one) is how many other men would announce their personal conviction not to kill yet still volunteer to go into the heat of battle to be of use in another capacity?
Debating is futile if someone brings up Romans 14. It’s always the same half winded arguments. I was talking about pacifism, not Doss. The ideology around it. Yes, it is cowardly as if anyone is honest with themselves it requires others to protect you.
Gunner, if you truly believe what I am doing now is related to what is in that chapter then we should actually all drop all of this, and by this I mean the calling into question what society is doing. For everything in one way or another is calling the actions of someone into judgment. Dalrock should pack up his blog and we should all go home.
It’s a cop out. I’m not judging anyone, I’m discussing the issue surrounding an ideal. Which I believe cannot exist in and of itself without relying on others putting themselves in harm’s way for that person.
None of that forbids in anyway, shape or form the ability to call a sin a sin. Once again, this is the same issue of when all the feminists say we mustn’t judge those sluts, no siree.. however, as I tell them, I’ll tell you… judgment is an act of punishment, not an act of discernment or correction. They are two entirely different acts. We all discern ideas about other people, every single day. I have no power to pronounce judgment on them though, especially not through a blog post.
There is also the matter of disputable ideals according to Romans 14, like whether one should rest on the sixth or seventh day of the week.. or whether one should eat seafood or pork. It rightly points out that these are pointless arguments and only lead to insurmountable stumbling blocks. It does not delve into the ideals of ideologies or calling them into question. It speaks about holding to your faith, your beliefs and if that’s the case, one of my beliefs is firming calling out problems when I see them in order to bring about a solution or to better understand a problem; or even to call out contradictions, as is the case with pacifism.
I don’t think we are perfect, so we are always going to make mistakes. The sin isn’t important as the faith one has in God, that I will agree to but sin is still sin which is what I meant by saying I don’t believe that one person can believe something a sin and another not, thus making it not a sin. It still is or it isn’t, however, it is between that person and God.
My contention is that in this realm, here on Earth, we have to deal with the fallout of sinful natures, we don’t get to judge, but we sure get to fix these problems and provide solutions and corrective behaviours to those that sin. Unless we are ready to let murderers, rapists, pedophiles and all manner of criminals loose, I mean, who are we to judge, right?!
“Chris Hemsworth, age 29
Kyle Gallner, age 30
Daniel Fraser, age ?
Daniel Radcliffe, age 23”
Chris Hemsworth is Australian. Radcliffe may be one of those child actors who never turns into a normal-looking adult male. Ditto Gallner. Radcliffe is also from the UK, as is Fraser.
“Radcliffe may be one of those child actors who never turns into a normal-looking adult male.Ditto Gallner.”
They didn’t turn into Michael Jackson which itself is a triumph of character. Turning out half-decent or better despite full childhood exposure to the poisonous soup of Hollywood society is a harder test of character than anything Humphrey Bogart ever faced.
But I give up. You’re all demanding an ultramasculine superstar American actor before he’d had time to reach full manhood whose job is following converged scripts written by fags. That is an unfair indictment of the Millenials. There’s nothing wrong with them that isn’t the previous generation’s fault.
But I give up. You’re all demanding an ultramasculine superstar American actor before he’d had time to reach full manhood whose job is following converged scripts written by fags. That is an unfair indictment of the Millenials. There’s nothing wrong with them that isn’t the previous generation’s fault.
Look at some of John Wayne’s earliest films from the early 1930s when he was in his early 20s. “Full manhood” on full display even then. Their pathetic, masculinity-destroying feminist upbringing notwithstanding, what excuse do today’s young male actors have for not demonstrating the same?
Like I said, their job is following converged scripts written by fags. How masculine would John Wayne have been in Michael Bay’s Transformers movie? They’re raised wrong AND given poor opportunities. We shouldn’t fault them for that.
I hardly thought that this movie would be my cup-of-tea and so I took no further notice but when I recently saw the trailer I could see what an incredible and story that it was. I am thus delighted that Mel Gibson has been given a Nomination as Best Director in this years Academy Award.
War movies (as I say) are not really my thing but over the last couple of weeks I have been watching another war movie which I commend. That movie is A Bridge Too Far. It is beautifully filmed – perhaps too much so – and (although it is always impossible in a movie to adequately convey that a few hundred extras were in reality over thirty thousand – I detest CGI) so far as I can tell is very realistic and whatever ones views as to who was ultimately responsible for the failure of Operation Market Garden it does (so far as I can tell from some supplementary reading) get it broadly right. It strikes me as pretty extraordinary that Hollywood should spend, in today’s money, some $200,000,000 in making a movie about a British defeat not that I find the film anti-British nor for that matter unfair to the Germans. and any movie with (as I count) about thirteen A list actors (half of whom are American) is something one very rarely sees. I was put in mind of it because one of the British officers goes into battle with a furled Umbrella and not so far as I could see any other form of weapon. By the way, the American assault by row boat (and largely without oars) whilst under fire from massed tanks is surely in terms of bravery on a par with the attack (which might be apocryphal) against tanks by Polish cavalry.