Well that day that none of us has longed for us finally here. Rambo is about to be released. In reading reviews for the fourth installment of this Sylvester Stallone star making vehicle, it turns out, surprise, that Rambo is the most violent movie EVER MADE! Kudos to Sly for going way beyond this time. This movie features babies being bayoneted, tossed into flame throwers, heads flying off, donut shaped holes appearing in abdomens everywhere, and of course, redeeming social commentary. Wait? What that’s you say, behind the most gruesome violence ever shown on film there is a message?
That is what Stallone, who directs the film and stars in it, says about the picture. Stallone is trying to show the reality of the plight of the Karen people of Burma. There is s hard and terrible story that is real and ongoing. Pushing aside ideas from others to shoot a movie about an attack on Camp David or Rambo’s work on the Mexican border, Stallone wanted to show the severity of what is happening in what he describes as “one of the worst hell holes on earth”. I haven’t seen the movie, but from what I have read, it deserves a big old sign saying, “Mission Accomplished”.
It is very interesting if you go back and look at the Rambo and Rocky films side by side is that in their own way each of them has a unique social commentary on the time when they were produced. First let’s look at the Rocky’s.
Rocky I – This story of a down and out boxer from Philadelphia really captures the general sense of malaise and hard times of the late ’70s especially in an industrial town on the East Coast. Don’t forget this film won an Oscar.
Rocky II – We see a shift here with more of the 80′s optimism coming out as Rocky actually defeats Apollo Creed.
Rocky III – The overwhelming materialism and opulence of the 80′s tears away the hard earned work ethic and strength of the 70′s hardships as Rocky has to reinvent himself.
Rocky IV – Rocky ended the Cold War, enough said.
Rocky V – This film never happened
Rocky – Yearning for a return to the glory of 20 years ago, to escape the difficulties of the present day, we dip back into the innocence of the 80′s and believe a 60 year old can win a boxing match.
Now a look at the Rambo’s:
Rambo: First Blood – This really captured the plight of the post Vietnam Era darkness that existed in our country and in many Vets. John Rambo was obviously a little darker and a lot better at killing than most, but he also shows the difficulty our country had in forgiving, moving on, and reincorporating those who saw such darkness in Vietnam.
Rambo: First Blood Part II – Freed from prison to go back to Vietnam and search for POW’s, this Rambo shows the stunning distrust of our government after Watergate and the Iran Contra Affair. We are still struggling with the war in Vietnam and a feeling that the darkness we experienced is really the government’s fault.
Rambo III: Moving beyond Vietnam, Rambo now teams with the Mujahadeen of Afghanistan to repel the Soviet army. The all out war against the Soviets comes just before the end of the Cold War (see the work of Rocky in Rocky IV) and shows our one sided ignorance of world conflict. Going back and watching this film now, where Rambo essentially arms and trains Al Qaeda himself will make you cringe.
Rambo – Now demonstrating a global awareness of genocide, human depravity, and social conscientiousness in a way only Hollywood could appreciate, John Rambo turns into a far rougher, unredemptive killing machine in an effort to be Angelina Jolie.
Say what you want to about Sly and his films, such of which are good, and some of which are so bad that we have to pretend they never happened, but they do offer an interesting glimpse into who we are as a country. I am not encouraging anyone to go see what sounds like a barbaric and gruesome picture, but it is worth considering why it was made. Maybe Stallone is a social prophet, without even knowing it.
February 2, 2008 at 3:41 am
My question is: How much violence or sex or whatever can you justify in the name of social commentary? Where do the message and the means meet? How much social awareness can the “most violent movie ever” really raise? Maybe a lot. Anyone else have thoughts. (Greg was disappointed that no one blogged on this one. Maybe we’re all waiting until we see the movie.)
February 6, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Shay to answer your first question I think for it to be a social commentary it has to reflect the society in which it is making a comment on. For instance, you could argue that American Gangster made a statement about the drug lords of the 1970s and how eventually the Feds were able to clean house. If sex and violence are part of that society and culture, then it probably needs to be portrayed appropriately. Just not at NC-17 levels.
And as for the movie, itself, I have no interest in seeing Rambo: The AARP version, just like I had no desire to see Rocky: Only 3 Rounds or Less or the Next Blue Plate special is on the house.
February 6, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Shay,
Good question. Certain stories/history requires an understanding of their own violence/ultraviolence. I know that the D-Day scene from Private Ryan gave me a better understanding of the guts it took to storm that beach (even the part where they are dragging the half-torso). That kinda removed the veil of WWII being the “Good War” of flag waving Americans can do anything easily. However, the blood and guts stuff doesn’t have to be shown every time. There’s a big difference between setting the tone of a scene or story and just having guts for shock value. The Godfather did a great job of denoting the violent lifestyle without copious amounts of bloodshed. The dialogue helped to set that tone. But certain stories must show that atrocities occurred. You cannot retell the rape of Nanking without noting that babies were speared on bayonets. Must you show that? Not necessarily, it can be implied with good screenwriting.
With all the violence in the opening scenes of Private Ryan, when it was all said and done, I walked away with a greater sense of loss with each soldier that was killed, whereas with other war movies, the killing seemed less personal and that takes away from the feel of the history and sacrifice.
February 7, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Shannon, my question is more about the pros and cons of portraying violence and sex. As Todd mentioned, you can achieve much of the social commentary without graphic images. These images are dangerous because they get inside the mind and take root. Part of the horror of the reality behind evil events is the graphic images behind them. How much of that evil is carried over in a reinactment of the sin?
February 8, 2008 at 4:03 am
I see your’s and Todd’s point. There is a fine line there in the portrayal of any event. Even when you are writing you want to select words that are appropriate, especially if you’re a visual person like myself.
If you take away the opening sequence from Saving Private Ryan, to use Todd’s example, you miss the entire story of the struggle and sacrifice of the soldiers on D-Day.
On the flipside, a movie like Jarhead didn’t need to have the bathroom scene where the lead character is, we’ll just say, taking care of some personal business. You could make a social commentary about being in the Marines without that scene. (My old roommate and I were disgusted by that scene when we watched it in the theater.)
Any movie that has a resemblance of social commentary should be mindful of where that line is and what is appropriate or not.
February 8, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I agree with Shay’s idea about evil. Part of the evil in the atrocities we face is having to see them. Those images stay with us and impact us in powerful ways. Sometimes that is good, images can give us passion and help us find calling. I think of some of the famous images, that while hard to see, can be important for us. I think of the image of Kim Phuc running from her burned out village. It was a hard image, but brought the reality of what was taking place into our consciousness.
Where the power goes too far, and impedes positive results, is when Hollywood is involved. When it is stylized, glamorized, or trivialized the images no longer bring about positive results. In Rambo’s case, it seems like the later, the stylized and trivialized imagery of horror. Rambo himself is a caricature, too muscular, too old, too good at killing to be real and add real commentary to the issue.
If Stallone was more interested in social justice than box office success he probably would have made a documentary.
February 8, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Yes, sometimes the violence needs to be shown, but I think the image/video should be done in a way that elicits a deep/thoughtful response even if the responses are different or polar opposites. If bayoneting a baby just draws a “oh man that was rough?” or “wow, that was totally awesome” response, then the image serves no purpose other than to appeal to our tawdry nature. But if the image of women and children’s bodies on the steps in Nanking makes someone stop and think about those atrocities and their bearing on human events and commentary on human nature, then that image is serving a purpose. By being photographed like that, their deaths serve to hopefully teach us about ourselves. I think of the footage of the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe or the Spanish Republican soldier taking a bullet to the forehead in midstride in the Spanish Civil war…Those images are repulsing (hopefully) and yet poignant. The dude getting chopped up by the propeller in Indiana Jones? Not so much… Horse’s head in the bed and the boss getting the bullet in the glasses in Godfather? Yeah, that helps to illustrate the mafia mentality. Heck even the curb scene in American History X served an illustrative purpose…to me. The hospital scene in Hard Boiled (John Woo)…nah…
February 11, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Greg hit on a couple good points that tie together. First, “Hollywood getting involved” refers to the way real life tragedies are exploited for box office sales. Independent films have heart and intellect and soul. Their goals are not as much pinpointed at financial success. Instead they want to create art and often social awareness. Greg’s second point is that if Stallone really wanted to raise awareness of international catastrophes and atrocities he would have made a documentary. While editing allows for documentary filmmakers to bias the story to some degree, the footage is most often authentic. Capturing authentic footage and displaying that to the world is much more valuable than recreating horrific images that overly stylize, glamorize, and hyperbolize the reality they intend to portray, thus making a softer version of that reality. No matter how graphic or how “realistic” Hollywood footage is, the audience always has the actors, lighting, and editing in the back of their minds. These Hollywood images not only cheapen the events they are directly meant to portray, but they also cheapen an other similar event. When I saw the planes crash into the WTC in 2001, I had a hard time grasping the depth of what happened. My first thoughts were how similar the explosions and chaos on the streets looked to several Hollywood action films. It took a while for the true horror to set in.
February 11, 2008 at 9:54 pm
In all of this, isn’t there a responsibility on the individual to be able to separate the entertainment from the reality. We can talk about the responsibility of Hollywood regarding the violence in films, which they have a responsibility in being sensible, but individuals also have a responsibility that I believe we have not touched. It’s up to the individual to realize that what he watches on television is not the same as what occurs in real life and be able to separate the two. Sadly, not too many people take that responsibility for themselves.