Rambo: In All His Glory

Page 1 of 2      Go to:  1 2 >

[5 December 2008]

Rambo is constantly portrayed as judge, jury, and executioner in the national and international spheres.

By Marco Lanzagorta

It is nearly impossible to objectively assess the overwhelming impact of Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) in popular culture. All four movies of the franchise, First Blood (Ted Kotcheff, 1982), Rambo: First Blood II (George P. Cosmatos, 1985), Rambo III (Peter MacDonald, 1988), andRambo (Sylvester Stallone, 2008), appealed to international audiences, were huge successes at the box office, and continue to be popular titles on video shelves. In addition, the first films of the Rambo series defined the narrative and visual structure of the action genre during the 1980s and beyond.

Love him or hate him, Rambo has become the quintessential representation of America during the Reagan years. And believe it or not, President Ronald Reagan referred to Rambo in public speeches to exemplify his ultra-right political ideology and aggressive foreign policy. Quite memorable, towards the end of the 1985 Beirut hostage crisis, President Reagan stated at a press conference that: “Boy, after seeing Rambo [First Blood II] last night, I know what to do next time this happens.”

cover art

Rambo: The Complete Collector's Set

Cast: Sylvester Stallone

(US DVD: 27 May 2008)

cover art

David Morrell

First Blood

(Grand Central)

Perhaps more crucial from a cultural perspective, Rambo is a word that can be found in the prestigious Oxford English Dictionary. According to this source, Rambo is “a Vietnam War veteran represented as macho, self sufficient and bent on violent retribution.” As well, it is widely popular to use adjectives such as Ramboesque, Ramboid, or Ramboism, to denote an ideological position that resembles Rambo’s attitude and behavior.

If you think about it, very few cultural products have had such a wide and deep impact in our world. While it is true that the Star Wars or Star Trek sagas have a stronger fan following than the Rambo films, their cultural penetration have been more limited. In spite of being ignored, maligned, and despised by a number of critics and academics, the Rambo franchise emerges as an important building block in the history and characterization of American popular culture.

Rambo was created by the prolific David Morrell in his outstanding debut novel First Blood (1972). As the legend goes, in 1968, while working on his doctoral dissertation at Penn State University, Morrell was motivated to write a book about the American experience in Vietnam. According to Morrell, he wanted to write a book “in which the Vietnam War literally came home to America.”

As Morrell has stated multiple times, he found it unnerving that the newscasts reporting the war in the Southeast Asia jungles were disturbingly similar to the footage of social unrest across the US. Morrell also recalls feeling deep indignation while reading about a group of hippies that had been harassed by an abusive sheriff from a small southwestern town.

Combining these real life events, Morrell envisioned the story of John Rambo, a decorated Green Beret that returns home after fighting in Vietnam, only to find a deeply polarized American society. Suffering from nightmares, survivor’s guilt, social alienation, and post traumatic stress disorder, Rambo brings to US soil the harrowing experience of combat in Vietnam.

At this point it is worth mentioning the possible literary origins of Rambo. By presenting the struggle of a gallant warrior returning home after a brutal war, First Blood recalls Homer’s The Odyssey. And because a terrible trauma is used as a catalyst for the transformation of Rambo into a hero of superhuman dimensions, First Blood brings to mind Batman and many other comic book superheroes. As such, even though he was an innovative character, Rambo carries a lot of cultural baggage with him.

Resentful and rebellious against authority institutions, Rambo decides to wander the roads of his home country, only to be hassled by Wilfred Teasle, a despotic police chief.  However, Morrell’s First Blood is cleverly structured as a study in duality: Rambo and Teasle are decorated war veterans with extensive combat experience. Nonetheless, they are separated by a generation gap because Teasle was an honored Korean War hero and could well be Rambo’s father. As such, the ensuing conflict between Rambo and Teasle is pretty much a battle of equals.

An excellent allegory to the social polarization found in that period of American history, Rambo and Teasle are constantly unable to reconcile their different perspectives and convictions. As a consequence, a simple disagreement turns into a scorching conflict with devastating consequences.

The duality/polarization represented by Rambo and Teasle is reinforced with the skillful structure of the book: every chapter that deals with Rambo’s perspective is immediately followed by a chapter that portrays Teasle’s point of view. Therefore, for the entire length of the book, the reader clearly perceives how both characters are right, and both are wrong; they are both heroes, and they are both villains.

As such, First Blood is not simply a moralistic tale of good vs. evil, but a complex discourse on the failures of human communication and the ill effects of intolerance. Clearly, for Morrell, the conflicting viewpoints that divided America during that period of time were the product of well-meant convictions. 

The success of First Blood is undisputable: it has been translated to 18 languages and continues to be in print. Furthermore, Morrell’s book was the genesis of four motion pictures, animated series, comic books, and a line of toys and action figures. On a side note, it is a real shame that except for First Blood and The Brotherhood of the Rose (Marvin J. Chomsky, 1989), Morrell’s outstanding books continue to be ignored by Hollywood.

In any event, the cinematic adaptation of First Blood was not very faithful to Morrell’s book. As noted by Morrell in the introduction to a recent reprint of his book, it is perhaps ironic that while First Blood was intended as an allegory to the social polarization in the US during the Vietnam War, the subsequent film versions became metaphors for the social polarization that troubled America during the Reagan years.

The major difference between the book and the movie resides in the character of Teasle (played by Brian Dennehy). While the book presented Rambo and Teasle as equals, the film places a strong emphasis on Rambo and regards Teasle as evil, weak, foolish, and ineffective. In addition, the violence in the book is severely toned down to make Rambo appear as a victim rather than a victimizer.

In this regard, the cinematic adaptation of First Blood resonated with Reagan’s political ideology that urged the nation for a return to the heroic values that characterized his beloved Hollywood War World II flicks of the 1950s. Indeed, by removing Teasle’s substantial combat expertise gained in Korea, the film is reduced to the story of a disaffected war veteran who single handedly defeats the National Guard, the fundamental backbone in the US military structure. Thus, First Blood can be seen as an allegory to Reagan’s political rhetoric that blamed the Carter administration for producing a fragile, unprepared, and ill-equipped nation.

If First Blood is an allegory to what Reagan alleged were the failures of the Carter administration, then Rambo: First Blood II would become a metaphor to Reagan’s goals, values, and political ideology. In the sequel, Rambo is sent back to Vietnam on a top secret mission to photograph Prisoner Of War (POW) camps. When the authority institutions backstab Rambo when he attempts to rescue the POWs, he takes matters into his own hands. As expected, the Ramboid solution to the problem results in the total annihilation of all the Vietnamese and Soviet advisors that conspired against America. In addition, by film’s end Rambo also violently confronts the treacherous government official that abandoned him in the jungle.

Perhaps that morning Rambo had too much caffeine ...

Perhaps that fateful morning Rambo just had too much caffeine ...

In spite of his obvious loyalty and devotion to his country, Rambo’s attitude is representative of the postmodern action hero archetype that surfaced during the late ‘60s and ‘70s. The postmodern action hero reflected the torrid political climate of the era, and he did not symbolize the attributes of authority institutions. On the contrary, police and military forces are shown as weak, inefficient, decadent, and bureaucratic, often creating more trouble for the hero than help to solve the crisis at hand. As such, the postmodern hero is usually portrayed as an outcast and the victim of a social crisis.

It is important to note that this cinematic representation is in strong contrast with the one found in most flicks from the ‘50s, where the military and the police were effective and trustworthy. Arguably, such a shift was a reaction to the popular general discontent and frustration felt towards authority institutions following the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.

Furthermore, let us recall that one of the major domestic accomplishments of the Reagan administration was to attack the welfare state as incessantly bureaucratic and utterly incompetent. Just as the postmodern heroes of the era, Reagan had to fight Congress and skeptical citizens to carry out his political agenda. Therefore, it is undeniable that Rambo swiftly embodies the national strengths and conservative political ideology promoted by Reagan.

More explicitly, Reagan often referred to Rambo: First Blood II as a model for his domestic and foreign policies. For instance, in his 1985 Labor Day speech, Reagan stated that he would clean the federal tax system “in the spirit of Rambo”. Reagan also used Rambo to exemplify his attitude towards the Soviet Union, the Middle East, and Nicaragua. Quite amusingly, Reagan was so deeply linked to Rambo, that he was often called “Ronbo”. Such an intriguing relation was made visual in a humorous doctored image of Reagan with the body of Rambo, which was quite popular during the 1980s.

As such, Rambo stood not only as an exemplary American, but also symbolized the entire political, ideological, and military might of the nation under Reagan. Even at its most awkward moments, Rambo provided a context to understand the Reagan administration. For instance, during the Iran-Contra affair, Colonel Oliver North was often compared to Rambo, in the sense that both were patriotic heroes that had been let down by the American government. As a consequence, Rambo truly became an internationally recognized national emblem, just as the flag and the anthem.

The second sequel, Rambo III, also embraced Reagan’s ideology and took it one step further. In this memorable film, Rambo travels to Afghanistan to rescue his mentor, Colonel Samuel Trautman (Richard Crenna), who was captured by the invading Soviet army. By far, Rambo III has the most narrative and visual excesses of all the films in the franchise. Rambo not only defeats the entire Soviet detachment, but in the process he drives a tank and knocks down a flying helicopter. Unfortunately, these impossible situations undermined the film’s credibility as a cultural product conveying relevant ideologies, which impeded critics and academics to provide a serious assessment of Rambo III.

Nevertheless, Rambo III remains the most ideologically heavy entry of the entire franchise. For instance, even though Rambo had an opportunity to fight the Soviets in Rambo: First Blood II, in Rambo III the Cold War conflict is far more explicit. Indeed, Rambo joins ineffective and untrained freedom fighters, and then leads them to fight Soviet expansionism. Therefore, Rambo III boils down to a militaristic fantasy where a single man, embracing the noblest American ideals, is able to destroy an entire invading army.

As such, Rambo III overtly embraced Reagan’s rhetoric of America fighting the “Evil Empire”. As with many films of the ‘80s, the popular representation of the Cold War was intimately tied to a wrestle between the forces of good and evil. Then, Rambo III deeply resonated with Reagan’s rhetoric that urged the nation to develop a mightier military force to battle a formidable enemy. Furthermore, in a circular process, as much as Rambo informed Reagan’s policies, the presidential rhetoric influenced the American people to cheer for a fictional hero that defends his country against a terrifying adversary.

Rambo: First Blood II and Rambo III presented a very abrasive national ideology that reflected Reagan’s attitude towards foreign policy. That is, by demonizing the USSR, demeaning Third World countries, and presenting military action as the only solution to political problems, the ideological inclination of the series is evident.

Similarly to First Blood, Rambo III appeared to support Reagan’s criticisms to the previous administration. That is, one could argue that Rambo III exposed the failure of Carter to prevent the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

It’s ironic that by the time Rambo III got released in theatres across the nation, the USSR had already announced the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan. Furthermore, Gorbachev had already shattered the Soviet Union with his perestroika and glasnost reforms. As a consequence, the success of Rambo III was not as overwhelming as it had originally been expected. As Stallone once remarked, of all people, Gorbachev is the only one who managed to defeat the seemingly invincible Rambo.

It’s very telling that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Reagan administration, Rambo would pretty much disappear from the predominant cultural sphere. However, after a 20 year hiatus, the gallant war hero returned to the big screen in 2008 with Rambo, perhaps the movie with the most unimaginative title in the history of motion pictures.

In this movie, Rambo travels to Burma, a country engulfed by a ravaging civil war. His self imposed mission is to rescue a group of American missionaries that have been captured by a brutal war lord. By any means, this is the most violent and gory Rambo film in the series. Indeed, when Rambo gets his hands on a high caliber machine gun, heads, limbs, and torsos fly apart all over the place.

Page 1 of 2      Go to:  1 2 >
First Blood (1982) - Trailer

Marco Lanzagorta received a PhD in physics from Oxford University and has worked at prestigious research institutions in England, Italy, Switzerland, Mexico and the US. During the past 18 years, he has conducted research in physics, computer science, and neuroscience. Currently, Marco is a scientific consultant for the US Department of Defense at a major research laboratory in Washington DC, and an affiliate associate professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

Comments

I am by no means a Reganite however this article does lead me to remind other readers that the country was never more polarized then during the Revolutionary War. And although extremely dramatized, stories such as Rambo’s have basis in reality in many times and places throughout history. It’s all to easy in an organized society such as ours, so removed from our animal instincts, to dismiss stories like Rambo as propaganda. However the at the root of everyman is the ability to act as judge, jury and executioner and it is only our responsibility as a citizen that stands between order and chaos. You should also remember that you could find yourself on the wrong side of town, at the wrong time of night in most large cities even in this great nation and you to might become a Rambo, hope you brought your red bandanna.

Comment by Jason Wollam from California — December 5, 2008 @ 6:20 am

I suppose I’ve been waiting most of my life for someone to finally and engrossingly sum up all of my feelings about Mr. Rambo into one article. My fascination began in 1983. As a returning Vietnam vet, I watched the first film with an uneasy feeling…not really knowing if it would involve any facts about my own experiences with him in Saigon, circa 1967. My near nausea was calmed after about 20 minutes as I slowly realized that the movie was about a returning vet, set in the USA. I remember John Rambo. He was a very shy and unassuming guy and as we entered the shower stall one misty morning, I saw that he was sporting a sizable knife taped to the inside of his left leg. After we finished, I remarked upon the quality of his weapon and how it looked as if it could easily carve the flesh of an astute bull in twain with but the flick of a wrist. He stared dreamily into mine eyes and responded that indeed, the blade was his and would remain his even until his final tour of earth was completed. To attempt to wrest it from its attachment place would invoke the code…the code. Later, I watched him wrestle 3 pythons that dangled beneath a rocky mount by a dilapidated tent near our encampment. After the ordeal, he reached into his magic bag and brought forth my wife Greta, now a 68 year old ex-beauty queen from Dallas. And that was the beginning of our love feast.

Comment by Sgt. Bernerd P. Blackwell (retired) from The Center of No Mind — December 5, 2008 @ 2:49 pm

Interesting article, however the Hitler reference was a bit over the top. More interesting is the compulsion of pop-culture journalists to analyze popular movies that do not reflect the standard leftist ideologies and beliefs.

Of course there must be something disturbing about the Rambo movies—and the audience they attracted. Who, in their right mind, would actually believe the Vietnam War was lost because of decisions made by politicians and unelected bureaucrats in D.C.? Who actually believes Communism was a threat to Democracies around the world? Why would anyone believe Ronald Reagan was anything other than a warmonger and an old, senile actor who hated poor people?

Opinions are awesome and I believe we are so lucky to live in a country where we are free to exchange them. In that spirit, I have to say I also believe articles like this are written from a political perspective void of any diversity of thought or understanding.

Rambo might be a symbol of right-wing warmongering to a person who believes there are no problems in the world that can be solved using the American Military. Audiences in mass, however, appear to believe there are causes worth fighting for and as such have embraced the character of John Rambo, no matter how preposterous his adventures.

Comment by John Rambo — December 6, 2008 @ 12:17 am

Hi John Rambo, thanks for your comment that highlights interesting issues about identification of political ideologies. Not an easy issue by any means, a few years ago a drear friend of mine wrote her doctoral dissertation at Oxford on this theme.

First of all, my main interest in film is the horror genre. Then, for most of the time I am writing and thinking about a genre that has a predominantly leftist political inclination. Nevertheless, I love the Rambo films. The original version of this article was a review, and I gave the films a solid 10. Furthermore, I am a proud owner of replicas of the 4 Rambo knives.

From an objective point of view it is extremely difficult to ignore, for instance, the conservative politics of Rambo or the liberal politics of Night of the Living Dead. As a consequence, I believe that their ideological content is pretty much independent of the personal political inclination of the film critic.

On the other hand, I believe that the contrast between the political ideology of the film and the critic may impact the final subjective rating given to that film. That is, most probably conservative critics will give Rambo a higher rating than liberals. Judging by my interest and fascination with Rambo and Night of the Living Dead, I appear to be at right hand side of the left.

Finally, I do believe that there are times when it is necessary to deploy all the might of the American War Machine. For instance, I tend to criticize that the US did not enter World War II before Pearl Harbor, and I agree with the use of atomic weapons against Japan. I support all the military operations from Gulf War I. And if I had any power, I would send every single soldier available to Afghanistan to hunt and kill Bin Laden. On the other hand, I believe that the invasion of Iraq was one of the most misguided and dumbest blunders in the history of the world. 

Marco

Comment by Marco Lanzagorta — December 6, 2008 @ 11:20 am

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the sequence of letters and numbers you see in the image above. Do not include any spaces.