It’s just occurred to me while watching Lions for Lambs that Rambo may be the fictional solution to all of America’s problems. He’s the ultimate, all-American guerrilla war hero set in THE infamous guerrilla war in which the States suffered many embarrassing losses and defeats. The Vietnam War lasted from 1959 to 1975. The first three Rambo films – First Blood, First Blood pt. II and Rambo III were released in 1982, 1985 and 1988 respectively – the aftermath of the defeat of the anti-Communist forces. Patriotism and national pride in the US were, presumably, at an all-time low. The populace needed a pick-me-up. The character of Rambo in the second and third films was the perfect, unrealistic portrayal of American military gun-ho, fighting back against the evil of Communist forces with techniques that the real forces were unable to master.
It’s worth mentioning here that this Rambo is a changed character from the Rambo of First Blood – the novel by David Morrell portrays him as a man broken by war and his experience as a POW, and is a testament to the difficulty experienced by veterans in adapting back to their civilian lives in the face of an unaccepting and unsympathetic society. It’s not exactly a scathing attack on the careless attitude of the US government towards its veterans, but it’s certainly close when compared to the movie sequels – the first film, I’ll give it it’s due, almost did the novel justice. Relatively speaking.
Er, apart from the bit where Rambo died at the end of the novel as a result of his inability to let go of the military nature and training and trauma that had become an integral part of him. Apparently, at the beginning of the second Rambo novel, David Morrell wrote a disclaimer saying that he acknowledges that Rambo did in fact die at the end of the last book, apologising to the readers and basically explaining that the film producers offered him a LOT of money to write for the next movies (although I’ve yet to find evidence for this).
So, now, 2008 comes along – 20 years after the trilogy was put to rest, and Rambo is resurrected. It’s random – everyone thinks so. It’s also plotless and tragic, and I fail to remember anything Rambo actually said or did (most of the body count wasn’t even attributed to him), but never mind that for now. Now, attempts by Sylvester Stallone to get his career on the move again may be a big motivating factor (Rocky Balboa was released around the same time after a similar hiatus), but I think the reason is that there was a national demand for it – America is in a similar political and military situation that they were when the last films were made. They’re stuck on the losing end of a guerrilla war (Afghanistan) which has been drawn out for years already (as Meryl Streep’s character says, WWII only took 5 years) with no end in sight.
The film failed in its objective, regardless, as it was utterly dire and I fail to see how anyone watching it can avoid succumbing to abject despair, let alone be inspired with a patriotic fervour. Rambo goes into Burma to rescue the Christian missionaries, whose prior presence there had done bugger all to make any difference to the suffering of the locals. All of the military personelle he takes in with him die, as do most of the missionaries, then Rambo (after causing the deaths of an obscene amount of local infantry and civilians) and the few survivors leave, and the political and social status of the area remains, if not worsened, then at least unaffacted. But, I still conclude, Rambo is the fictional answer to America’s military problems.
However, my favourite film of the night has got to be Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula. I mean, on the surface, it’s fairly awful – the visual aspects and special effects border on cheesyness, but then, it came out in 1992, so concessions must be made. Winona Ryder is adorable – I love her. She must be nearing forty now, but I don’t think she’ll ever look any older than 25. A young 25. With HUGE eyes. But what really made the experience of watching it worthwhile was Gary Oldman as Dracula.
