slyc_willie
Captain Crash
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
- Posts
- 17,732
God, I haven't seen this movie in years. Rocky may have put Stallone on the map, but First Blood made him an action figure which demanded sequels loosely following David Morrell's anti-war but pro-survival message.
As a ten-year-old boy, I initially saw First Blood in the the theater and was enamored by the dramatic fight scenes and especially Rambo's use of Viet guerilla tactics and traps. At that impressionable age, Rambo was a cool bad-ass which we (my friends and I) wanted to emulate.
It wasn't until years later that I actually read Morrell's book and realized the anti-Vietnam war message behind it. John Rambo was a classically tragic figure, doomed from the start. In the book, he's an aimless drifter who repeatedly gets picked up by police chief Teasle and escorted out of town before Teasle finally gets fed up and arrests the mentally-disturbed Vietnam vet for vagrancy. From there, the story escalates into a whirlwind of graphically-depicted violence, which claims the lives of several police officers and National Guardsmen.
The message of the original novel, one of pity and anger against warfare (especially a no-win war like Vietnam), and those who experienced and encouraged it, isn't exactly faithfully translated to the screen. In the book, Rambo is a simple, disturbed, deranged man who cannot let go of his demons. In the film, he's a shirtless, bronze-statue mobile effigy of destruction pitted against small-town mentality, with the emphasis on the righteousness of his actions.
In Morrell's book, Rambo and Teasle come to admire one another, and reduce the moral quandary of their actions down to the basic powerful impulse to fight until the fighting's done. At the end of the book, it becomes a classic mano-a-mano race to the finish, with both men dying. Rambo, I believe, is killed by the Green Beret commander Troutman after Teasle and Rambo mortally wound one another.
Little of that is seen in the movie. Rambo comes off as an anti-hero in every sense of the world, to be both pitied and admired, and Teasle (played by Brian Dennehy) is the unfortunate Goliath to Rambo's David. There is some effort to bring Teasle to admire Rambo, but not much; the villain can't be much of a villain if he actually likes the good guy, right?
Anyway, watching the 27-year-old movie tonight had me thinking about the dichotomous view many people seem to have about the military. Given the situation, the military can be either the good guys or the bad guys, or quite often, both. It's as if the institution is villainized while the individual members are praised and even absolved of their actions, so long as the outcome is a "good" one.
It makes me think about my own actions when I was active duty. I saw a lot of things about the US military I didn't like . . . but I still respected (and continue to do so) the institution on a philosophical level. It's like family. You always love and support your family, even if you don't approve of some of the things they do.
I sure wouldn't want to go back in now, though, even if I could. I doubt I would be able to endure the current political climate in the military, nor would I care to return to my former position. No, thanks. I've had my fill.
As I said above, the US military is portrayed as a sort of corrupting big brother in the entertainment media at large. It's cool to be a Green Beret, or Marine Recon, but it's not cool to be a blind soldier. Kicking ass and taking names is all well and good if you're doing it for justice or revenge, but not if it's part of your orders.
A more recent example is the film Outbreak with Dustin Hoffmann and Cuba Gooding, jr. In the film, the military are the bad guys while Hoffmann and Gooding, acting against their orders and in the name of morality, are the good guys.
I see the same trend in low-budget Sci-Fi movies, too. Or, at least, those made before 2001. Post-9/11, however, and the US military are more often portrayed as good guys. In the first Transformers movie, the special forces guys are admired for their training and devotion. They remain true to their orders and defaults while also being heroic. Score one for the US armed forces.
Anyway, I think I've rambled enough.
As a ten-year-old boy, I initially saw First Blood in the the theater and was enamored by the dramatic fight scenes and especially Rambo's use of Viet guerilla tactics and traps. At that impressionable age, Rambo was a cool bad-ass which we (my friends and I) wanted to emulate.
It wasn't until years later that I actually read Morrell's book and realized the anti-Vietnam war message behind it. John Rambo was a classically tragic figure, doomed from the start. In the book, he's an aimless drifter who repeatedly gets picked up by police chief Teasle and escorted out of town before Teasle finally gets fed up and arrests the mentally-disturbed Vietnam vet for vagrancy. From there, the story escalates into a whirlwind of graphically-depicted violence, which claims the lives of several police officers and National Guardsmen.
The message of the original novel, one of pity and anger against warfare (especially a no-win war like Vietnam), and those who experienced and encouraged it, isn't exactly faithfully translated to the screen. In the book, Rambo is a simple, disturbed, deranged man who cannot let go of his demons. In the film, he's a shirtless, bronze-statue mobile effigy of destruction pitted against small-town mentality, with the emphasis on the righteousness of his actions.
In Morrell's book, Rambo and Teasle come to admire one another, and reduce the moral quandary of their actions down to the basic powerful impulse to fight until the fighting's done. At the end of the book, it becomes a classic mano-a-mano race to the finish, with both men dying. Rambo, I believe, is killed by the Green Beret commander Troutman after Teasle and Rambo mortally wound one another.
Little of that is seen in the movie. Rambo comes off as an anti-hero in every sense of the world, to be both pitied and admired, and Teasle (played by Brian Dennehy) is the unfortunate Goliath to Rambo's David. There is some effort to bring Teasle to admire Rambo, but not much; the villain can't be much of a villain if he actually likes the good guy, right?
Anyway, watching the 27-year-old movie tonight had me thinking about the dichotomous view many people seem to have about the military. Given the situation, the military can be either the good guys or the bad guys, or quite often, both. It's as if the institution is villainized while the individual members are praised and even absolved of their actions, so long as the outcome is a "good" one.
It makes me think about my own actions when I was active duty. I saw a lot of things about the US military I didn't like . . . but I still respected (and continue to do so) the institution on a philosophical level. It's like family. You always love and support your family, even if you don't approve of some of the things they do.
I sure wouldn't want to go back in now, though, even if I could. I doubt I would be able to endure the current political climate in the military, nor would I care to return to my former position. No, thanks. I've had my fill.
As I said above, the US military is portrayed as a sort of corrupting big brother in the entertainment media at large. It's cool to be a Green Beret, or Marine Recon, but it's not cool to be a blind soldier. Kicking ass and taking names is all well and good if you're doing it for justice or revenge, but not if it's part of your orders.
A more recent example is the film Outbreak with Dustin Hoffmann and Cuba Gooding, jr. In the film, the military are the bad guys while Hoffmann and Gooding, acting against their orders and in the name of morality, are the good guys.
I see the same trend in low-budget Sci-Fi movies, too. Or, at least, those made before 2001. Post-9/11, however, and the US military are more often portrayed as good guys. In the first Transformers movie, the special forces guys are admired for their training and devotion. They remain true to their orders and defaults while also being heroic. Score one for the US armed forces.
Anyway, I think I've rambled enough.
