Lately, Hollywood has been milking the arthritic cash cow. Bruce Willis, in 2007, reprised John McClane for the fourth time in “Live Free or Die Hard.”
Later this summer, Harrison Ford will be out with “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” his fourth release. For the moment, moviegoers must make do with Sylvester Stallone’s “Rambo.”
The first in the Rambo series, “First Blood,” was released 26 years ago and introduced Vietnam Vet John Rambo to the action-hero pantheon.
In the latest film, John Rambo is enticed out of retirement to take some missionaries across the Thai border into Burma. After the mission team is abducted, John Rambo is again enlisted to rescue them.
“Rambo” is by no means terrible. The direction and cinematography are dependable. The choreography of the stunts, the realistic special effects and the camera placements are well done. The grainy, greeny feel of the picture fits with the somber mood of the narrative.
The dialogue fared worse. A leader of the missionary team asks for John Rambo’s help by saying, “On the morning of the day they left.”
Who uses such medieval speech?
In addition, several attempts at generating pathos by having a female missionary Sarah Miller (Julie Benz) talk to John Rambo were pathetic. Not only were they obvious, they were also unnecessary: there is no need to persuade John Rambo, a killing machine, to return to the jungle. That is akin to providing Don Juan a license to seduce women.
The film’s flaws do not arise from the deficient plot or the awful acting, though Stallone has the charisma of an Egyptian mummy. Rather, they result from the film sanctioning certain actions taken in our country’s interest, presenting a simplistic view of isolationism and interventionism while promoting a brand of reflexive altruism.
The film begins by disguising its petty attempts at lowbrow entertainment by displaying a mishmash of gory pictures from the conflict in Burma. The first barrage of images scream out, “Look! This is a politically relevant film! We care about issues!”
Unfortunately, this is a disservice to those watching as it fails to follow up the principles underlying the film. If we all agree that what the Burmese army was doing to its citizens was reprehensible – the slaughter, raping, kidnapping, etc. – then why should similar acts done to extricate one of our own be applauded or condoned?
John Rambo attempts to dissuade the missionaries crossing the border, telling them their efforts will not help the Burmese people. This was the simplistic view taken by Charles Lindbergh during the World War II. There exist circumstances when it might be necessary to intervene in other countries.
The rhetoric from Miller is no better. We must do something, she says.
No, we need not.
The latter critique needs to be emphasized because it represents a particular strain of American Messianism that believes any American expedition to rid the world of evil is automatically righteous. I call it reflexive because it is stimulated by stories and images of horror, while it fails to take into account the historical causes of the given conflict.
It is possible the writers and director did not think deeply about these aspects of the film as it was being made. However, they cannot be excused for ignorance: while “Rambo” may be enjoyed, its underlying message must be repudiated.
—-
Contact Freke Ette at fette@lsureveille.com