Friday, January 25, 2008

War in the Blood: Rambo and Rambo

By Matt Zoller Seitz

"You're always going to be tearing away at yourself until you come to terms with who you are...Until you come full circle." So says the disembodied voice of Col. Trautman (the late Richard Crenna), super-soldier John Rambo's mentor, in a nightmare sequence from Sylvester Stallone's Rambo. In this long-delayed fourth episode in the action franchise, our gravel-voiced angel of death rouses himself from his isolationist torpor long enough to guide Christian missionaries upriver to deliver medicine to oppressed villagers in the Union of Myanmar (here called Burma), then leads mercenaries to the same village to rescue the kidnapped Christians. The hero's dream occurs during an introverted lull in the action -- one of those inevitable, oddly charming moments when Rambo contemplates not getting involved. (Like we paid ten bucks to watch him sit on his ass and mope.) Minutes later, Rambo hammers red-hot metal against an anvil and comes to a voice-over realization: "You know what you are... What you're made of... War is in your blood. You didn't kill for your country. You killed for yourself."

Since the character of John Rambo is, and always has been, kind of a lethal everyman -- Pauline Kael once called him "our national palooka" -- killing for one's country versus killing for oneself is, in this context, a distinction without a difference. The important part of Rambo's monologue precedes the capper: "War is in your blood."

For all of Rambo's enjoyably absurd superheroics and chunks-a-flyin' combat scenes -- not to mention its nostalgic spectacle of a Reagan-era action hero shredding hundreds of greasy louts -- it's that phrase, more than anything else, that lingers in the mind: War is in your blood. Read it, hear it, memorize it -- and don't be surprised to see it on bumper stickers or t-shirts after Rambo has left theaters, and newspaper critics have all had to write pieces explaining why this supposed liver-spotted relic of a film made so much money. Like its three predecessors, Rambo strikes a nerve, and it's not a nerve that America's left-leaning critical establishment wants struck. Cowritten and directed by Stallone, the fourth Rambo movie is a bracingly political picture -- as much an argument in movie form as No End In Sight; a pro-interventionist rebuttal to all the 2007 documentaries and dramas about America losing bits of its soul in Iraq. The I-word is never spoken in Rambo, yet in its coded way, the film makes a case for why we are in Iraq and should stay there until the job is done, whenever that may be.

As in a dream, the film's characters and situations represent many different ideas at once -- and given Stallone's long track record as a meat-and-potatoes filmmaker who believes in whatever sells and who never acknowledges cliches as cliches, it's fair to assume he's being imprecise rather than complicated. (Think of the scene in the second movie where Rambo smooches his lovely Vietnamese female guide near an idyllic waterfall, and she gets shot the instant their lips unlock -- a Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker moment played straight.) Yet the end product is still a potent stew, with a sharp pro-interventionist flavor. Arriving five years into America's occupation of Iraq, on the cusp of a presidential election that could determine whether the U.S. stays indefinitely or leaves as soon as possible, its timing is impeccable. It's a Stay the Course movie, an inspirational blood-and-guts action flick whose message seems aimed equally at the portion of the American left that wants to see democracy spread, but not in this way, and that supposedly has no stomach for war; and that growing sector of the American right that views Iraq as noble crusade led by incompetents. [Editor's Note: Spoilers Galore]

This Rambo, more than any previous entry, makes a point of showing what happens when you don't get involved: the goons that rule Myanmar countryside massacre hapless villagers, rape their women, shoot animals and small children point-blank, make prisoners race through mine-strewn rice paddies for sport, and conscript preadolescent boys at gunpoint. (Stallone establishes his journalistic bona fides with an opening montage of real-life atrocity footage that includes a shot of a child burying an adult's severed head. Fox News pilloried Brian De Palma for doing this in Redacted; somehow I doubt they'll raise similar objections here.) Then Stallone shows what happens when you try to change the world through compassion: the missionary medics ask Rambo to take them into Myanmar to help ethnic Karen rebels persecuted by the country's goon squads. Rambo refuses until the group's moral figurehead, Sarah (Julie Benz), engages him in a dialogue about ideals and how best to achieve them. Rambo accuses her of "trying to change what is." Later, upon learning that the missionaries brought no weapons, Rambo declares, "Then you aren't changing anything."

The deeper Rambo and the God folk travel upriver, the scarier things get, but the newly-arrived Americans never turn back because "we made a commitment" (a line spoken twice in the film). But without lethal force to back it, the missionaries' good intentions are limp-dick useless. These Ned Flanders-types are terrorized by a bandit army led by a Saddam manque -- a chain-smoking tinpot dictator with mirrored shades and a creepy mustache. (Unlike Saddam, he's gay.) Soon enough, the Americans are captured, tortured, imprisoned, strung up by their arms and gnawed by flesh-eating boars. Sweet blond Sarah is trapped in a muddy bamboo cage and leered at by thugs, her terrified expression backed by the offscreen squealing of pigs. (Rambo ultimately saves her from her own personal rape room -- but several unlucky brown-skinned dancers aren't so blessed.) The group's church hires an ethnically and nationally mixed band of mercenaries to extract the Christians, but at various points, many of them (but especially the group's leader, a Brit) suffer attacks of doubt and fear and argue in favor of turning back. Rambo won't let them. He'll go it alone if he has to -- but he doesn't have to. This world-in-microcosm responds to Rambo's humble moral certitude and fathomless resolve. The snotty Brit leader sticks it out till the end and kicks ass with one good leg. Even Sarah's best friend, the stridently pacifist Burnett (Paul Schulze, who played Father Phil on The Sopranos), renounces pacifism, grabs a stone and makes like David. Out with the New Testament, in with the Old.

Message to Neo-hippies, Christian pacifists and anyone who thinks there's a humanitarian or diplomatic route to a more peaceful world: join reality, arm yourself, and keep fighting until you win. "Nothing is over!" Rambo bellowed in the first installment. "Nothing! You don't just turn it off!" "You've got a choice," Rambo growls in the fourth film, pointing the tip of a fully drawn arrow at the forehead of a selfish fellow soldier who wants to cut and run. "Die for something... or live for nothing."

___________________________


I can't think of another blockbuster action franchise that has been so unabashedly right wing in its world view. The original Rambo picture, 1982's First Blood -- based on David Morrell's engrossing 1971 novel -- gives no obvious hint of where the series would eventually go. It's one of the most accomplished action films of the 1980s, a have-it-both-ways thriller with a persecuted prole hero that pretty much any viewer, from Ralph Nader to Pat Buchanan, could cheer. For much of the film's running time, Rambo comes across as the latest incarnation of The Man Pushed Too Far -- a police-brutality-victimized drifter terrorizing the small town cops and soft-bellied National Guardsmen that mistook him for a smelly hippie. The film is fundamentally left-wing in its conception. But in its final scene -- Rambo's post-rampage meltdown in Trautman's presence -- it makes a sharp right turn. The hero weeps about being called a "baby killer and all kinds of vile crap" by protestors, and says he only did what he needed to do to win -- but "Somebody wouldn't let us win!"

The sequel, the P.O.W. rescue fantasy Rambo: First Blood Part II, was more politically specific and divisive. Co-scripted by Stallone and James Cameron, the film invested Rambo with a Terminator-like resilience, and drew emotional force from the even more indestructible right-wing canard that the United States lost the Vietnam War because somebody or something (tie-died hippies, spineless politicians, the media, the bureaucrats, the sun that was in our eyes) wouldn't "let us win." (Vietnam was lost, morally if not logistically, from the instant the Johnson administration fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a pretext for sending in regular Army troops -- and perhaps, as the French might suggest, long before that.) When Trautman offers Rambo his new mission, Rambo asks, "Do we get to win this time?" Rambo doesn't literally re-fight the war, as the film's detractors were fond of claiming; the film's action is confined to a P.O.W. camp and the surrounding jungle. But this, too, proves a distinction without a difference. By liberating long-imprisoned P.O.W.s -- a group whose emaciated, Christlike leader blesses Rambo in the film's finale with a silent glance and a hand raised as if to heal -- the hero confirms America's moral rightness in Vietnam, and frees the idealistic, impetuous, ass-kicking part of the American character held hostage for 10 years by the memory of Army choppers fleeing the Saigon embassy. (Five-and-a-half years after the release of Rambo: First Blood, Part II, the U.S. led an international coalition to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait; after withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and declaring victory, then-president George H.W. Bush announced, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.")

Rambo III, which sent Rambo to Afghanistan to rescue the kidnapped Col. Trautman and waste oodles of Reds, seemed only half-aware of the irony of its plot: the former Green Beret, a counterinsurgent trained to kill Vietcong and North Vietnamese army regulars on behalf of baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet, finds himself embedded (so to speak) with the same sort of people he'd been trained to exterminate: aggrieved peasants trying to expel a high-tech occupier. But aside from poignant reaction shots of Rambo regarding his mujahaddeen colleagues (which establish little more than Rambo's respect for fellow warriors) there's nothing to indicate awareness, on the part of Rambo or the movie, of the hero's politically intriguing, karmically apt situation. Rambo (and by extension, we) are placed safely on the side of the American-backed good guys. As in the second film, which sees Trautman promise the hero a pardon for the mayhem he wreaked in First Blood, Rambo picks up the old compound bow and goes to Afghanistan for personal, emotional reasons.

Or does he? In the Rambo films, as in so many blood-and-guts action pictures, the hero's reason for killing is more a pretext -- a means of talking himself into a course of action that he secretly wanted, perhaps needed, to embark on anyway. Rambo's a much finer human being than he lets on. All three sequels include a moment when the hero's sullen, fuck-you-for-pushing-me attitude gives way to appalled fury: think of the sequence in Rambo III when the Soviets attack his peasant hosts, or the moment in First Blood, Part II when he sees the starving, tormented P.O.W.'s in the flesh, reports his findings, busts out the prisoners and is abandoned by American helicopters at the extraction point. (Trautman later learns that Rambo was sent to that camp because the CIA assumed it was empty, and assumed he would return with pictures of empty cages and give the American government permission to wipe its hands of Vietnam for good. Here, as in the original war, Rambo can't win because someone won't let him win.) Rambo the Fourth goes one giant step further: this time Rambo unleashes his rage not in response to humiliation, betrayal or an oath of friendship, but after a process of moral reasoning assisted by his subconscious. The anvil soliloquy is Rambo's "to be or not to be," after which he resolves to take up arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end the fuckers. Rambo's big realization is that he does what he does because it's what he was put on earth to do. He always resists being tricked or coerced into battle, but once he's there, he commits. He's a good American that way. The world is Casablanca; he's Ripped Blaine.

Speaking of Bogart's selfish-turned-selfless hero, the spectre of World War II looms over the whole franchise. This truth becomes self-evident in the fourth film not simply because of the politics and aesthetics of Sly, but because Rambo arrives amid a still-ongoing war that's characterized by its architects and partisans as another World War II, and by its opponents as Vietnam in the sand. When you watch the sagging but still formidable hero tear-assing through the bush, his lethal proficiency ennobled by the late Jerry Goldsmith's mournful score, you get a rush of feeling that's more than moviegoer's deja vu; it's the sensation of mistakenly believing that you were having a dream, then realizing you're awake and it's all really happening. Here we are again in Stallone's imagination -- but this time the fantasy is not confined to the screen.

All in all, the second and third Rambo movies weren't so much anti-commie as pro-intervention -- and nostalgic for the four brief, shining years, 1941-45, when it was acceptable to put such attitudes into action. In the second and third Rambo pictures, the hero wasn't merely revising the Vietnam war and heating up the Cold war, he was dramatizing a collective desire for another World War II -- the last American war in which the vast majority of citizens, and a fair portion of the world, believed from start to finish that we were in the right. The Vietnamese in the second Rambo film read as Japanese; their poster boy is a bespectacled dork that looks like the character that came out of the bushes and surprised Gilligan. The effete, swaggering Russians in the second and third films are Nazis without the swastikas. The military prisons featured in II and III bear more relation, respectively, to a Japanese P.O.W. camp and a German castle keep than to the real-world 1980s structures they represent.

Stallone's understanding of the American imagination is reductive, but it's not wrong. The collective longing to relive The Good War has been handed from generation to generation like the gold watch in Pulp Fiction. This nostalgic fantasy is so overwhelming that for days and weeks and years following 9/11, Americans grasped after images that seemed to confirm that the period we'd been jolted into was "our" World War II. (Arguably the most iconic photo from 9/11 is Thomas Franklin's Pulitzer Prize-nominated snapshot of firefighters raising an American flag at Ground Zero -- an act and a record of an act that are as much homages to the Greatest Generation as Saving Private Ryan. "As soon as I shot it, I realized the similarity to the famous image of Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima," Franklin told Poynter Online.) Seventeen years after the last Gulf war, 20 years after the last Rambo movie, 40 years after Tet and 70 years after Hitler rolled into Czechoslovakia, here we are again -- fighting either cynically scapegoated Others or Nazis in head scarves, depending on your politics -- because, as Rambo confirms, it's what we do, and what we were meant to do. However we got into this mess, we're in it, and now we have to win it. Pain is weakness leaving the body. These colors don't run. The surge is working.

Rambo is America's undying warrior spirit made flesh -- a human incarnation of the "sleeping giant" that Japanese admiral Yamamoto claimed had been awakened by Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor. By defining Rambo this way, and pitting him against murderous, torturing, decadent Others who, unlike Rambo (and us), have no code, no sense of decency, no humanity, this series aims to show that our nation is right even when it's wrong, and that it makes war because it is a righteous warrior nation in a barbarian world. The warrior spirit is America's defining trait, the double helix from which the rest of its character is built. We've come full circle.
_____________________

Matt Zoller Seitz is the publisher of The House Next Door.

33 comments:

Sheila O'Malley said...

Great stuff, Matt!

The Rambo franchise satisfies some deep deep shit inside of me - I don't know what it is, but you've touched on it here. On a personal level, I feel rage when bad things happen - its not so much rage at the thing itself, but at the helplessness I feel in the face of such events ... wanting to fight back - wanting to give the finger to a gentle good God, wanting to shout "F*** YOU" to the crowd who thinks "Everything happens for a reason" is the be-all end-all of human wisdom. Oh yeah? Everything happens for a reason??? Are you out of your goddamn mind? Only a truly privileged ignorant person could really believe that "everything happens for a reason". Or so it seems to me when I am at my most cynical and angry.

Oh, and that "sleeping giant' line was not said by FDR if I am getting my facts straight - it was said by Japanese Admiral Yamamoto:"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

I, for one, am psyched to see the new Rambo. You've captured a lot of its appeal for me.

Wally said...

The best writing about Rambo that I've read is in Susan Faludi's Stiffed; she makes a strong case (as I recall) for Vietnam Syndrome and Stallone's 'they wouldn't let us win' politics as political conjugates of emotional principles: 'It is commonly accepted that the Rambo trilogy transformed the lost war in Vietnam into a triumphal confirmation of American virtue. But it would be more accurate to say that the film series reclaimed the virtue of the solitary American man. ... Conventional perceptions and clichés about the Rambo series are drawn almost entirely from the second of the three films, which scored by far the highest returns at the box office...In the Vietnam War, Stallone saw the outlines of a disturbed family life. "It was like a bad marriage," he told me, "and America was the battered wife who didn't know how to get out, didn't know how to leave with dignity."'

Stallone narrowly missed the Vietnam draft, for murky reasons (he claims psychological instability).

Unsure how to link these bits, am going back to bed.

Steven Boone said...

Gorgeous work, Matt. Your "gold watch" reference encapsulates the history of 20th Century American jingoism as dazzlingly as the QT monologue itself. Rambo is the uncomfortable hunk of metal Sly has had up his ass since 1988, and now, several years after 9/11, in the thick of Vietnam II, he's ready to hand it off to the kids. Bullshit.

I'll bet good money that, statistically speaking, the body count resulting from non-violent resistance and war come out about dead even. The question of which path to choose is a moral, ethical and spiritual one: Can you kill your way to a better world? John Rambo probably hasn't made up his mind about that yet, but in the meantime he'll keep on killing.

At the shelter I work in, there are a lot of Nam vets, and many of them tell me that the trouble with the Iraq War is the same trouble we had in Vietnam: The higher-ups won't let their warriors take the gloves off and fight to win. They respect boundaries and rules of engagement that the enemy just doesn't give a shit about.

I respect the opinions of folks who actually fought and lived through such horrible wars, but I wonder if exposure to the broader political and historical realities that military commanders tend to leave out of tactical briefings... would alter their POV. I believe in an age old truth: Resistance fighters fight dirty cuz that's all they got. Bombers vs. baskets. Terror breeds terrorists.

Sounds like this Rambo is superior to trash like The Kingdom because it at least doesn't lie about its intentions, positing a "sensitive war" or condescending "brotherhood" with the local friendlies.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Sheila: Thanks for the Yamamoto.

I agree that Rambo taps feelings of rage that decent people experience when witnessing injustice. That's the key to the movie's appeal for viewers, more so than their politics -- which is why the movies are so politically effective, and why the second one in particularly was employed as a political tool by the American right. After the 1985 Beirut hostage crisis, President Reagan straightfacedly declared during a press conference, “After seeing 'Rambo' last night, I know what to do next time this happens.” Interestingly, though, I remember reading a newspaper story at the time that said that 'Rambo' was playing on a single screen in Beirut and was wildly popular with urban insurgents of all types; they noted the movie's right wing U.S. slant, but disregarded it, and grooved on the one-man-army conceit.

Wally: The abused spouse analogy cuts both ways. Rambo is in many ways that abused spouse, withdrawing in depressed anger after being manipulated and abused by his country, yet always coming around to support and serve it when push comes to shove.

The movies also make an interesting contrast with the "Bourne" franchise, which likewise are centered on a military-industrial Frankenstein's monster run amok. The difference is, Bourne turns on his creator nation whereas Rambo concentrates his ire on representative hateful Americans (Dennehy's sherriff in "First Blood," the CIA chief Murdoch in "Part II") but remains loyal to the government and to the abstract concept of the USA as a well-intentioned giant.

Steven: "Can you kill your way to a better world?" Most of the time, no, but as much as the diplomacy and humanitarian aide-minded lefty in me hates admitting it, there are a lot of cases where only force will do the trick. The old cliche is true: if Gandhi had been a Russian peasant in Stalin's USSR rather than a citizen of British-occupied India, he would have gotten packed off to Siberia and probably murdered there pronto, his body scattered to feed the wolves. Nonviolent resistance only works in countries with some sort of democratic or constitutionally managed temperament, however limited. There's a great scene in a Woody Allen film -- I can't recall which one, but I think it's "Manhattan" -- where the hero's friend approvingly cites a stinging satire about a march by American Nazis, and Allen says that when it comes to getting rid of Nazis, he prefers baseball bats to stinging satire.

The hard part in using force is figuring out how much is needed to achieve the desired result, convincing your peers that force is the only proper route, and not distorting reality to give yourself a more compelling excuse to use force.

In Iraq, I think we failed on all three counts -- and the recent increase in troop levels, which has staunched bloodshed in certain areas of the country, doesn't erase the mendacity of the administration's reasoning for taking us into Iraq in the first place. It's "Cat in the Hat" logic: at the end of that book, the Cat, who has turned the house upside-down for no good reason, "redeems" himself by cleaning up the mess he made. It works in children's fiction, but as foreign policy it leaves much to be desired.

DJR said...

Wonderful writing, Matt. You've articulated much of how I felt about the politics in this movie, only I see them as a bit more innately despicable than you seem to.

It's too bad Rambo sucks on purely movie terms. The action isn't even that satisfying, ultra-violent carnage notwithstanding.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

The crowd I saw it with Friday afternoon at the Court Street 12 in Brooklyn seemed to enjoy it. They were whooping with delight during the finale -- laughing their asses off, too.

Funny thing: A film critic friend of mine had originally planned to see the film with me opening day. He said he expected that it would just be us and a bunch of kids skipping school. I laughed at that at the time. It didn't occur to me until later that the last film came out 20 years ago, when anybody who would skip school to see a movie had not yet been born. Sure enough, most of the people in the quarter-full auditorium looked to me like dads skipping work.

Bruce Reid said...

Very nice unpacking of the ideas in such a determinedly straightforward series of films, Matt. Though I do think America's "warrior spirit" is one of those half-truth half-fantasy things that gets overplayed by its proponents on the right and critics on the left. I've read that Ozu realized a war with America was unwinnable after he caught a Busby Berkeley musical and realized any culture that would devote so much resources and ingenuity to pure spectacle could easily muster up the energy to fight a war. Relentless optimism and good cheer probably have as much to answer for in our history as any strain of grim, Old Testament retribution.

Anonymous said...

Huckabee's got Norris and Stallone just came onboard for Big John McCain. Mean anything?

Steven Boone said...

Matt: "Can you kill your way to a better world?" Most of the time, no, but as much as the diplomacy and humanitarian aide-minded lefty in me hates admitting it, there are a lot of cases where only force will do the trick."

But what is "the trick"? What quick fix do invasion, occupation, counter-terrorism and worldwide dragnets provide? I think the last three Rambo flicks propagate this notion of "the trick" in absence of diplomatic alternatives, which in recent history have been conveniently left off the table as if they didn't even exist. "The trick" is sexy, immediate and boosts a kind of cheap national pride, but what is it, really? What is the human toll of certain kinds of large scale intervention versus the result of torturous negotiations? It makes certain folks sleep better to believe that the enemy (the Other) operates out of pure bloodlust, evil--even envy. Anything but survival or historical grievance. To go down that path of contemplation is to be a flaky Flanders, in the popular wartime imagination of Ho'wood.

I hate to be so true to the Boone leftie cliche, but I really think that Westerners are taught to give only glancing consideration to the human cost when the humans in question are poor and brown. I am aware of Rambo's universal appeal, especially in Third World countries, but nobody's so cynical that they can't be sold a bill of goods. Screen violence unites the disaffected round the world in rage and hostility.

That said, I always dug the first three Rambo flicks for their cavernous Goldsmith scores and beautiful anamorphic widescreen cinematography.

Aaron said...

Interesting insights Matt. But while you explore the movie's politics you didn't really talk about whether the movie works as entertainment. Okay it is effective as propaganda. But did you enjoy it??? Was the action thrilling???

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Anon: I've interviewed Chuck Norris at length. I don't agree with much of his politics, but he's a crafty businessman and sincere entertainer and a really decent guy who's absolutely in tune with the values of what used to be called The Silent Majority. His support for Huckabee actually boosted him -- it sent a signal that Huckabee was truly "One Of Us." Stallone's support for McCain smells like a publicity ploy to me -- the Vietnam connection, however tenuous. I tend to think Stallone's endorsement of McCain signals that McCain is not a viable candidate; Stallone may come from blue-collar roots, but I think the perception is that he's a Hollywood phony at heart. It means as much as an endorsement from Richard Gere. Unless "Rambo" makes a ton of money and become a late-career zeitgeist hit, like John Wayne's "The Green Berets" and "True Grit" back in the day, in which case it could actually translate into something.

Isn't it bizarre that we can actually have semi-serious conversations about the ramifications of celebrity endorsements? Does that speak ill of 21st century political culture, or is it not all that different from a Greek politician getting an endorsement from a particular epic poet back way back when? Hard to say.

Aaron: As entertainment, it's OK, I guess. If I were sixteen I would have seen it twice, but I'm not sixteen anymore. The direction is brutally efficient but mostly lacking in poetry. When I'm in the mood for pure violent escapism, these days I tend to gravitate toward films with a more expressive visual sensibility and a core of emotion that has everything to do with idiosyncratic characters and situations and not much to do with political button-pushing, left or right. Like the "Transporter" series, for instance, or "Exiled," or "Revolver," a film that I'm keenly aware is liked by pretty much nobody except me and Keith. (And we disagree more than we agree, so go figure.)

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

PS to Aaron: The exceptionally graphic violence bugged me not because it's brutal (I have a higher threshold for screen violence than almost anyone I know) but because it didn't seem either expressionistic (meaning somehow unreal) or realistic (as in a serious war film). It just seemed fashionable -- like Stallone was cranking up the gore level because he wants to keep pace with what he thinks kids today want to see.

Joel said...

Cross posted at my blog.

I haven't (yet) seen the movie, but...

Let's offer up a couple of distinctions between the fantasy of the "Rambo" movies and the reality of documentaries of "No End in Sight," a meticulous look at the mistakes that caused our country to remain embroiled in Iraq a half-decade after an invasion that was supposed to be an in-and-out proposition.

* Unlike Rambo, America can't just go around correcting injustices in the world willy-nilly. We can't afford to, and the American people probably wouldn't sit still for it. So we make choices, which inevitably end up being decided by our national interests. Which is why we have troops in Iraq instead of, say, Darfur. But it also suggests the reality of our decisions is more complicated than "We must right wrongs." We generally don't try to right wrongs unless there's a payoff of some sort for American interests; moral clarity is harder to find in real life than in the movies.

* In the movies, Rambo sees a wrong, corrects it, and walks away. Our experience in Iraq should tell us vividly that real-life intervention is not quite that simple. Rambo can "stay there until the job is done," because the job -- as framed in the movies -- can only be solved by violence, and it can only be solved now. That's not at all true in places like Haiti, Iraq and Afghanistan and a few other places I could name. The real job is building a political culture, a job that takes skills other than pulling triggers. It's hard work, it takes a long time, and there will be setbacks. But such sustained diplomatic and political work doesn't offer the same visceral thrill of knocking over a government and pulling down a statue, and we haven't proven ourselves very good at doing it. Thus, we need to be cautious.

I still plan to go to "Rambo," and I even expect to be entertained. I still have fond memories of "Cobra," and "Rocky Balboa" was improbably entertaining, showing that Stallone is still a gifted movie-maker. (I don't think the hoity-toity term filmmaker quite applies to his work, but that is in no way a denigration.) But I'll go see the movie knowing that it's a fantasy.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Also, regarding Stallone and McCain: McCain is the Republican candidate who gets up at the podium and repeats the words, "We are winning in Iraq" over and over and over. Seriously. If that doesn't seal this case for "Rambo" as a "Stay the Course" movie -- in addition to all the scenes in the movie where the hero rather pointedly argues against any form of intervention that does not involve lethal force, and the repeated sentiment that once you have committed to something, you must see it through -- I'm not sure what does.

See story here.

Steven Boone said...

I just stumbled across a link that somehow seems apropos here.

http://men.msn.com/articlees.aspx?cp-documentid=5981523>1=10823

Anonymous said...

Statham's Crank works on that level too. Its visual sensibility is insane, but undeniably entertaining and expressive in its own way.

Eddy Elfenbein said...

Great review. One small thing to add. The Green Berets were designed to help indigenous people fight off commies. That’s the idea behind the “team” concept (as in the A-team). This sounds strange today, but they were considered “liberal” in JFK-era terms. In fact, in the original script to Apocalypse Now, Kurtz, a Green Beret, is specifically referred to as a political liberal. They were sort of the Pentagon’s version of the Peace Corp.

Political Atheist said...

Matt, your comments are quite insightful and thought-provoking. Though I haven't seen the film, I cannot help but wonder how nice it would be if Rambo's grit, determination, and steely, can-do spirit were to be applied towards achieving energy independence, transitioning towards a more sustainable economy, overcoming the impulse to spend the wealth of future generations, and fighting climate change. Indeed, the scale of problems that our country faces, in all seriousness, does call for reserves of fortitude and endurance that seem to be in short supply. Because we are unwilling to do the hard work of facing up to these problems, which would require sacrifices from everyone, not just the working class, we prefer to use violence to conquer without instead of directing our energies within to conquer our insatiable appetites for cheap oil, for hazardous imported consumer goods, and for limitless economic growth.

In short, what your piece does not get to is how much the fantasy of "getting to win the war this time" relies on the same logic of economic bubbles and performance-enhancing drugs. Stallone himself is an armchair warrior, needless to say, but the success of Rambo on the battlefield does not evoke the hardships faced by actual US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so much as the measures to which aging athletes resort in order to shatter longstanding records. But war is not sports, and cheating has no equivalent on the battlefield other than raising the rates of "collateral damage," i.e. of innocent civilians killed in the cross-fire or bombings, to horrifying levels.

KcM said...

"The anvil soliloquy is Rambo's 'to be or not to be,' after which he resolves to take up arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end the fuckers."

This is classic...

"Stallone's understanding of the American imagination is reductive, but it's not wrong. The collective longing to relive The Good War has been handed from generation to generation like the gold watch in Pulp Fiction."

...and this is really insightful.

Thanks for taking the time to examine the Rambo saga's philosophy on its own terms. It's not one I buy into at all -- the Rambo saga, not your review -- but this piece is one reason why I love coming by THND...taking cinema, even ostensibly B-movie cinema, at its own terms.

I myself have never been all that down with Rambo. I remember First Blood as a surprisingly good movie, which I saw -- with my right-leaning grandpa, who drank the Rambo kool-aid -- when I was in my early teens. But Rambo: First Blood Part II seemed like a joke to me, and Rambo III nothing more than an irony of history, what with the mujahideen aspect.

But, just because I don't buy any of it -- and, while I may eat crow, I think this movie will make less money than Rocky Balboa -- doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading reviews taking the saga on its own terms. So, kudos again.

gabriel said...

Matt: "The I-word is never spoken in Rambo, yet in its coded way, the film makes a case for why we are in Iraq and should stay there until the job is done, whenever that may be...This Rambo, more than any previous entry, makes a point of showing what happens when you don't get involved..."

Trouble is, the very serious consequences of getting involved are completely glossed over by Stallone/Rambo. The end of Rambo III would have been a good jumping-off point; the closing credits read "This film is dedicated to the gallant men and women of Afghanistan"--given that Rambo is a heroic mercenary himself, I think it's safe to assume the dedication includes those who came to Afghanistan for jihad.

I understand Stallone's stated reticence to set Rambo IV in Afghanistan or Iraq at present, but it would have been excruciatingly apt--and dramatically compelling--for Rambo to set out on a mission against Al-Qaeda (or fictionalized proxy thereof) in, say, Africa, only to find himself squaring off against an erstwhile (but still gallant?) brother-in-arms.

Rambo's fatal flaw is that he takes the virtue of honoring one's commitments past the point of good sense. Since he's a Hero, and this is drama, this results in lots of exhilarating and sometimes cathartic violence for our entertainment. Still, the tragedy for our Hero is that "somebody" will never let him see those commitments through--won't let him win.

What's left unsaid is what happens if the gloves really came off. We could have "won" Vietnam handily, just as we could "win" Iraq next week, if we so desired. It's just that we'd have to fudge our definition of victory...aside from the obvious political fallout, the scale of carnage would be incomprehensible and wholly incompatible with our values. But winners find ways to win and America hates losers so, who knows.

Maybe war is in our blood, coded into our DNA somehow. I really don't know. But I'm certain soldiers should fight for their country and fellow squadmates, not themselves. Any person who kills for himself is either a sociopath or a terrorist, not a soldier.

And I totally agree with political atheist: using HGH or other PEDs is just not okay.

-bee said...

Matt, probably due to the fact that I am knee-deep in world history these days, I would like to challenge your "american" framework for Rambo.

It is hardly a uniquely "American" trait to idolize the 'brave warrior hero". Not all historical cultures were uniformly enthralled with warriors (I can tell you the Ming Chinese were not), but many were, from most medieval Europeans, the Aztecs, the Japanese, etc, etc, etc. I doubt even "America's left-leaning critical establishment" would deny that there is a deep-seated element of human nature which yearns for a strong, warrior-type protector.

But when I think of "America", I think of our founding fathers - who regarded their european heritage of glorious kings and noble knights not with admiration, but with horror.

Our founding fathers were not warrior heroes, but primarily a bunch of eggheads - lawyers for gods sake - who built the Constitution as a veritable minefield for whatever prospective forms of tyranny might raise their hydra heads to take away the freedom they had rebelled against their king to win.

I would argue that America (at least up to now) has been distinguished by a founding principle based on a fear and hatred of the 'strong man warrior'

I would also say that for all the reverential lip service many americans give to 'the founders' many at heart despise the principles this country was founded upon.

I should imagine some of this contempt for the Founder's ideals came to the fore when our country emerged from WWII as a significant world force. To have all that power and be constrained in using it efficiently (what with all those checks and balances) has to seem intolerable to those with the universal appreciation for the exercise of 'pure' force.

I should say Rambo is a fair representative of a deep conflict raging in America's subconscious - but whereas you frame the WARRIOR mentality as being 'uniquely American", I would counter that the more 'liberal' attitude Rambo rails against is what is more typically "American", and the desire for an unhindered use of force represents sentiments I would call 'pre-American'.

I should say Rambo is a fair representation of the underlying rage felt by a segment of America for how the Constitution (to them) booby-traps our nation's efficient, logical and ultimately MORAL use of force.

GCCR said...

I haven't seen Rambo 4 yet, plan to go today (more later)...

But, while Stallone may certainly have an overt agenda (I tend to think his commercial agenda eclipses that), the Rambo films are no more a SERIOUS political reference point for the Right than the Rocky films are serious explorations of boxing for sports fans.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

-bee: "It is hardly a uniquely "American" trait to idolize the 'brave warrior hero". Not all historical cultures were uniformly enthralled with warriors (I can tell you the Ming Chinese were not), but many were, from most medieval Europeans, the Aztecs, the Japanese, etc, etc, etc. I doubt even "America's left-leaning critical establishment" would deny that there is a deep-seated element of human nature which yearns for a strong, warrior-type protector.

But when I think of "America", I think of our founding fathers - who regarded their european heritage of glorious kings and noble knights not with admiration, but with horror.

Our founding fathers were not warrior heroes, but primarily a bunch of eggheads - lawyers for gods sake - who built the Constitution as a veritable minefield for whatever prospective forms of tyranny might raise their hydra heads to take away the freedom they had rebelled against their king to win.

I would argue that America (at least up to now) has been distinguished by a founding principle based on a fear and hatred of the 'strong man warrior'"

I agree that the founding principles were as you describe them. However, they've been revised in the memory of a certain simplistic, sentimental, jingoist sector of the American populace so that Founding Fathers = Mel Gibson running around in the woods with a musket, picking off redcoats. This gets intertwined with the myth (not the reality) of the gunslinger as depicted in Hollywood movies, and with a fundamentalist Christian element which holds that God ordained America to exist, prosper and grow, and that because we're God's favorite, pretty much anything we do has His blessing.

I sense all of these elements residing within the Rambo series, its faintly countercultural appearance (Rambo as hippie, Native American brave, white VC, etc) notwithstanding. He's the guy who goes it alone and does what a man's gotta do -- a very American variation on the warrior archetype you describe above.

The low genius of these movies is how they position Rambo as an outsider, someone estranged from America, yet who invariably behaves in accordance with principles handed down through a hundred years' worth of American action pictures.

What makes them distinctive, though, is how the whole series (particularly the second, third and fourth films) work as rhetorical shadowplays, asking and answering any qualms one might about Rambo's unilateral decisions.

As I said high up in the piece, the idea of Rambo killing for himself, not his country, is a distinction without a difference, because the very conception of the series equates Rambo with America, or with some kind of distilled essence of America, and sets him in opposition to various international fiends, plus bureaucrats that don't have the guts to do what needs to be done (the second movie) and well-meaning but impotent activists who go into other countries hoping to change their national character (the scenes in the fourth film where the missionaries are seen teaching and reinforcing Christianity in a non-Christian land) but don't understand that you can't effect that sort of change without a gun in your hand. It's important to note here that Rambo does not just rescue the missionaries, he exterminates everyone that opposed them and threatened the permanence of their good deeds -- and he takes out the leader, the one who consigned the heroine to the rape room.

"I should imagine some of this contempt for the Founder's ideals came to the fore when our country emerged from WWII as a significant world force. To have all that power and be constrained in using it efficiently (what with all those checks and balances) has to seem intolerable to those with the universal appreciation for the exercise of 'pure' force."

I can't disagree with any of that. World War II was a great moral victory for the United States and our allies, but in some ways a disaster for foreign policy, in that it gave the architects of future wars an anomalous template to draw on.

GCCR: "The Rambo films are no more a SERIOUS political reference point for the Right than the Rocky films are serious explorations of boxing for sports fans"

That's sort of true, but not entirely true. Reagan approvingly cited Rambo by name on national TV as a role model of how to handle the Beirut situation.

And Rambo's insistence that we lost Vietnam because "somebody" wouldn't let us win cemented a fairly astounding line of bull regarding the war that persists to this day. That line of B.S. has been rolled over into the Iraq occupation, so that Iraq has become a chance to refight Vietnam elsewhere, victoriously; this time, "they" won't be allowed to let America lose.

This POV might sound laughable, but it has been embraced by many people in the Republican party, including the president, the vice president, his cabinet, and, incredibly, Sen. John McCain ("We are winning in Iraq!")

GCCR said...

I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say Reagan viewed Rambo as a "role model."

It was a typical for politicans of that day to make annoying pop culture references while discussing policy.

Reagan also once quoted Dirty Harry's "make my day" catch phrase about a forthcoming budget he planned to veto.

Likewise, Walter Mondale invoked a Wendy's "where's the beef" ad while debating Gary Hart during the 1984 Democratic primaries.

I don't think a McCain administration would have invaded Iraq as the current one did.

But we are where we are and
McCain's proclaimations are strictly for public consumption and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Because a withdrawl plan would HAVE to include logistics for removing equipment, I honestly don't think that a President Clinton or Obama would enact a timetable that would be ALL that different from a President McCain.

Speaking for most of the Republicans I know (many hard core), NONE OF THEM see Iraq in terms of Vietnam.

They see it as an incredible fuck up on Bush's part (who'll leave behind a legacy of incompetence).

Ali Arikan said...

This was a very interesting piece, Matt.

On my blog, I approached the subject from a slightly different angle, that of Stallone's hubris. I quote:

The gore is not the message – the message is the message. And what is that message? That the US army would have obliterated the Viet Cong if only those liberalistas in DC left them alone? That the US should have intervened directly in Afghanistan on the side of the (incredibly undemocratic) resistance risking the fine balance of the Cold War? That the US should act as the protector of the Lord’s Word in Third World Countries (even though the film makes an inane case for defending freedom from oppression, and not missionaries per se)?

This final so-called message is the most despicable of them all. According to Stallone, he found out about the plight of the Karen Christians from Soldier of Fortune magazine. He, literally, called them up, and asked them for a list of all the trouble spots in South-East Asia. The fact that he had to call up a bunch of nutjobs to find an oppressed people he could use as a flimsy excuse to up the on-screen bodycount does not worry me (though it is pretty base). The fact that he is so earnest about it does. Masquerading behind social relevance, Rambo’s only true intention is to blow shit up good, and as such, it reminds us why he belongs squarely in the 80’s. His fans lament that they don’t make ‘em like they used to. Yeah. Thank fuck for that.

wstroby said...

Eddy Elfenbein: "Great review. One small thing to add. The Green Berets were designed to help indigenous people fight off commies.... They were sort of the Pentagon’s version of the Peace Corp."

The father of a good friend of mine was with one of the first Green Beret/Special Forces units in Vietnam in the early '60s. A career Army man, he spent three tours of duty there, and though he saw his share of combat, many of his missions were economic in nature. In one village, they imported strawberry seeds and helped the villagers convert a single rice paddy into a strawberry patch. The villagers then sold the fresh strawberries to the U.S. military command for use in bases all across the country, eventually bringing in so much money that the standard of living in the area went up dramatically. The philosophy, of course, was that a region in relative prosperity would not be so keen to join the VC cause. In another village, they taught them how to fish farm, using the horrible-tasting bags of millet that U.S. aid services provided to the villages, as fish food.

These days he's also very outspoken on the topic of torture - as in it doesn't work. He conducted a lot of interrogations and said one of the most fruitful was of a captured NVA colonel who'd been living with his unit in the jungle for weeks. They brought him into an air-conditioned officers hut and gave him a Coke and a pack of cigarettes. They couldn't shut him up.

Godfrey Cheshire said...

You do a very adroit job not only of probing the Iraq political resonances of the new Rambo (which I haven't seen) but also of linking them back to Vietnam and WWII.

The 2 cents that I would add concerns my long fascination with the PRE-POLITICAL dimensions of the Rambo icon, as opposed to Rambo the character in a (political) narrative. I mean pre-political in a psychological and psychohistorical sense. I recall being in some Third World country -- I think Islamic -- years ago and seeing Rambo posters everywhere that young and adolescent boys were hanging out. It's a safe bet that a good percentage of these kids had never seen the movies, and an even better bet that they didn't associate Rambo with the U.S. or any particular geopolitical narrative. It was the image that fascinated -- an image of supercharged adult male power. No doubt 2000 years ago images of Hercules exercised the same, essentially non- or pre-ideological attraction.

The one similar previous icon that I recall -- which dominated global wallspace in the late 70s, and survived to share it with Rambo in the 80s and beyond -- was that of the likewise shirtless, ripped and ready-for-action Bruce Lee of ENTER THE DRAGON. But Rambo was a step beyond Bruce in several ways: 1) His torso was not realistic martial-arts athletic, it was nonsexualized beefcake, a fit body pumped up to fantasy proportions; 2) his expression was not one of martial readiness or exertion but of petulant defiance, a narcissistic pout; and 3) he carried a huge gun.

Although the images seem similar, I think the transition from one to the other signals a crucial pop-cultural shift, a change that reflects qualities of the cultures that engendered the icons. The Eastern image implies, first of all, a kind of disciplined interiority that precedes the action heroics: before striking outwards, the martial artist looks inward, learns to discriminate what is real from what is fantastical, and to master his own immature impulses. This is why the image, for all its dynamic demonstration of strength in action, also suggests a kind of realism and balance -- the hero is the sort you might meet in a martial arts match, and his display involves no more force (or musculature) than is necessary to restore order to the world.

The Western image, on the other hand, implies no such initial interior journey or discipline. On the contrary, the subjectivity here is passive, child-like and unformed. Once threatened, it doesn't seek to discriminate between real and fantastic, or outer and inner, nor does it seek to overcome its own immaturity. Rather, it projects its own disturbance and sense of violation outward on the world in a way that, besides mistakenly assuming that all wrong is "out there,' involves the exaggerations and delusions of fantasy at every stage: from the initial outrage through the outlandish body armor it assumes on through the paroxysms of violence that climax its ordeal. Here, the end result isn't restored order but simply exhaustion, a return to the initial state of passivity and interior emptiness.

Although both of these images may be pre-political in some ways, it's interesting to me that the Eastern one tends to elude strong, indelible ideological associations while its Western counterpart/successor has come to seem inextricably bound to a very definite political identity. Surely, Bruce Lee and similar Eastern martial arts heroes can be seen as exemplars of a traditional, pre-modern and therefore essentially conservative worldview, yet -- much like the classic Western (i.e., cowboys and horses) hero -- their type could just as easily fight for the left as for the right. Rambo, though, as you point out, evolved out of a sort-of left-wing narrative but only became the striking, highly successful icon of worldwide fame when he became associated with a right-wing U.S. geopolitical narrative. Why is that?

You've heard me sound this note before (coincidentally, there's another sample in my review of JIMMY CARTER MAN FROM PLAINS at the current www.indyweek.com): I believe the prevalence of TV in the U.S. by the 1970s created a psychological slide into the "infantalization" that Pauline Kael saw in STAR WARS: stunted and sucked dry mentally by the early intrusion of television into their interior lives, an astonishing number of grown men exhibited the mental outlooks of 12-year-olds. The passivity that was the much-noted hallmark of TV-influenced behavior prior to the advent of interactivity led inexorably to "passive-aggressive": behavior, psychological type, worldview -- a mindset of little inwardness, great petulance and self-justification, and a propensity toward violence.

This mass psychological turn, I believe, gave us a new right-wing outlook, one almost the diametrical opposite of the rugged, stoic, principled conservatism of Barry Goldwater with its canny estimations of friend and foe and a world full of moral gradations. This new, narcissistic right-wing worldview was passive-aggressive, Manichean, increasingly delusional and, of course, fundamentally outer-directed in seeking the enemies it needed to relieve its confusion and media-stoked anxieties: those enemies could be anyone from Willie Horton to Saddam Hussein to the poor Mexican sneaking across the border (this year's model) but they showed that threat and evil always had to be personified and enrolled a moralistic, self-justifying narrative -- as did the forces who would save us from these terrors.

That's how we got Rambo, and Ronald Reagan: empty cartoon heroes that a lot of functioning adults (and not a few kids) poured an enormous amount of emotional energy into, turning the fantastical into undeniable geopolitical realities. As suggested above, I don't think current media culture could generate any new icon with the peculiar qualities and power of Rambo (anymore than it could generate a new Rick Blaine): he was the product of the crest of the TV wave in the U.S. century. But the political mindsets shaped by that era don't fade as quickly as its action icons; they are with us still. Unsurprisingly, Sly Stallone -- or do I mean Rambo? -- last week endorsed John McCain.

Devin McCullen said...

Here's a lengthy overview of the whole Rambo series, including the original novel. Good stuff.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/124630.html

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Also, here's the link to Ali's piece on his blog "Cerebral Mastication" (great title!).

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

To Political Atheist's comment about foreign-policy-on-steroids, see this.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

In other news, the movie opened second last weekend behind the spoof "Meet the Spartans" -- but it still did quite well for a January opening of a hard-R action movie with virtually no female appeal, starring an action hero who's been AWOL since 1988.

Scott said...

Interesting note that nobody seems to have touched upon: the author of the original novel, David Morrell, is a Canadian, who moved to the U.S. to pursue graduate studies.

Is it ironic that America's most iconic hero of the past thirty years has its genesis in a Canadian's observation of America's intervention in the world?

Does it take an outsider for America to view itself clearly?

Anonymous said...

_Rambo_ seems to support the Powell Doctrine's philosophy of all or nothing commitment more than interventionism per se. Rambo doesn't support going into Burma initially, and his endgame consists entirely of saving American prisoners and getting out of Burma as quickly as possible.