#but yeah like 'what does it mean to mulcahy' is a bigger and more subjective question that i have my own take on but it's definitely one

[marley-manson]

I have this impression of film analysis being relatively concrete at its core due to its tendency to always come back to the camera as a focal point. Filmic language is almost all about the camera - types of shots, takes, angles, pans, what is focused on, what is cropped out of the frame, how editing ties these shots together, how sound and music can affect the impression of the visual image, etc. You can draw a multitude of conclusions in terms of theme and meaning, but your building blocks being constructed visuals mean they usually don’t leave a ton of wiggle room for interpretation of what we’re actually seeing.

Like I have no doubt in my mind that this shot is meant to be an anonymous soldier on the cross:

This is deliberately framed to only show non-identifying details - blood and green fatigues and boots. This could’ve been a long shot, we could’ve pulled out to view him in his entirety, or we could’ve cut to his face, and if his face was important, we absolutely would have. So he’s not just anonymous, he’s anonymous for a reason, and imo the reason is so he can represent all soldiers. He’s not a soldier, he’s Soldier as a concept. This is essentially confirmed, imo, by the next shot:

with the soldiers on the tables matching the soldier on the cross in their bloody fatigues. No white sheets hiding the bodies the way we usually see operations, just green and red, like the lower legs in the previous shot, in direct visual parallel.

So if he’s meant to be someone specific then Alan Alda fucked up as a director, basically.

Of course, the meaning is still up in the air. It’s as close to facts as I think you can get that the soldier on the cross represents every soldier, but what that means for Mulcahy, well, that’s where more subjective interpretation comes in.

Anyway that poll made me want to kinda say something about my take and why there’s virtually no doubt in my mind about it. Film has a lot of room for interpretation, sometimes even in terms of understanding shots and “reading” the filmic language, but this is a pretty straightforward visual imo. Plus I just like seizing the opportunity for close readings lol.