Thursday, November 27, 2008

Rambo

Rambo. Frickin' Rambo.

Rambo's back in Rambo, the third sequel to the classic action film First Blood. While departing for “Rambo,” I was preparing myself for a huge laugh fest and was quite surprised to find that, while the film itself is nothing special, the ideological relevance the narrative dynamics share with the current Republican American politico-ethical scene (seen through the eyes of Noam Chomsky) is concurrent, bang-on, and frightening.

Like good ole' Rambo himself.

This time, Rambo is living in the jungles of Thailand, earning his primary living by catching snakes. Rambo: America, doing its best to mind its own business and live a peaceful, tranquil life (while still managing to catch a few snakes). A group of missionaries show up, hoping that Rambo will take them to Burma so that they can provide the Burmese people with spiritual and medical attention (idealist wimpy peace-not-war Americans). Rambo quickly informs them that their mission is pointless and that they should go home, but feisty Sarah (Julie Benz) won't hear of it and she convinces Rambo to drive them into the heart of the Burmese jungle. While driving them in, Rambo must blast his way through a nest of pirates, after which he hears the ethical "you-shouldn't-kill-anyone-under-any-circumstances" line from Sarah's partner Michael Burnett (Paul Schulze [Ryan Chappelle on 24]). At this point in the film, Sarah looks to be falling for Rambo's natural He-Manic charisma, much to partner Michael's dismay.

After the missionaries are kidnapped, Rambo hears the bad news, and agrees to transport a group of mercenaries into the jungle for a rescue operation. Enter the British Empire: an international group lead by the British soldier Lewis (Graham McTavish). Lewis reiterates many of the points Rambo made earlier in the film although he is much less graceful in his elocution. Thus we have the randy, foolish Brit facing off against the calm, laconic, American, both imperialistic icons, one having lost its position of power, the other, ironically tagging along (note that the Brits have to be paid: for Rambo, it's a matter of honour). Shortly thereafter, Rambo is leading the show, having defeated a small group of soldiers with a homemade bow and arrow, and tautly told Lewis where to stick his suggestions (note that in this scene Rambo rescues a number of peasants whom Lewis didn't want to save because he was afraid of being detected: ideologically, American might knows no fear).

And they continue on, rescuing the imprisoned missionaries, only to be tenaciously hunted the next day by their Burmese opponents. Lewis's leg is seriously injured and the British Empire is captured, only to be saved from the firing squad by the resolute Rambo. In an unexpected turn of events, the Burmese rebels show up and save the day (Stallone's way of saluting the courageous stand of the Burmese people last fall), although, Rambo continues to play a huge role as the Burmese rebels fight on. And, low and behold, "you-should-never-kill-anyone" Michael Burnett clubs a Burmese soldier to death with a rock, after which, Sarah has fallen in love with him again, since he has demonstrated that he has overcome his childish hatred of violence and accepted the ways of the world.

But while Michael lives, the only soldier to praise the missionaries's trip into Burma dies, the idealistic student-become-mercenary, subtly questioning the nature of pacifist ideals.

And Rambo returns home, the humble individual, having done good, with a little help from his friends, an unheralded hero, the antithesis to American foreign policy under the Bush Administration. Stallone (who wrote and directed as well) obviously finds grace and dignity in the warrior's life, but where he sits regarding how his country exploits that life is a question left unanswered. First Blood was an insightful look at Left Wing hypocrisy and the problems it engenders. But all I'm getting from Rambo is the idea that might is right, and that military campaigns create practical and beneficial results that diplomacy can't, which is something the American public hopefully challenges in the years to come.

No comments: