Sunday, January 27, 2008

rambo (part I of II)

this could get out of hand rather quickly.

a large and raucous group of precocious 20-something males (and one begrudged female) sat side by side with red bandanas on head and eagerness in heart to watch the newest installment of the cinematic mastery that is Rambo. we yelled at the screen, laughed at sly stallone's sagging face, shouted commands at rambo throughout, and generally had a fantastic time watching this movie together (on a side note: this is how movies should be watched. the rest of the theater might not agree, but it was a community getting together and having a grand time. this is why snakes on a plane was such a great movie. it was ridiculous and wildly entertaining to watch and mock in community. i would never watch that movie by myself - where is the fun in that?)

so this is the occasion. it was a good time. and we all went out and got some drinks and kept our ridiculous head bands on all night simply to advertise the fact that we watched rambo tonight, everybody else did not, and we had more fun than you did, therefore we are better (something like that).

but here's the thing about this movie. i fully expected to laugh and generally enjoy the gratuitous and cartoonized violence reminiscent of my days growing up watching the former glory of arnold and bruce and segal and van damne. this happened. rambo ripped a man's esophogus out with his bare hands. people's heads got blown off. necks were broken. explosions and all of that. this was what we were looking for.

but we got so much more than that. and here i am, hours later and sober-minded, thinking about the implications of this film. being challenged by this film. contemplating life and death, good and evil, and war and peace because of this film. i didn't expect this. i read before attending the movie that 236 killings are depicted in this movie. i expected every one of these to be at the hands, bow and arrow, and large knife of mr. rambo, but alas, there's more going on here than deadpan lines given by a man with a poor accent and a lazy eye.

the wonderfully friendly bouncer at the gypsy hut stopped me on the way out of the bar last night to inquire about all these dudes roaming around with ridiculous head bands. and we talked about rambo. we talked about sly stallone. and he told me about an interview with stallone he heard earlier in the week, about how this stuff was real. about how sly stallone wanted to make a meaningful movie that grabbed the attention of the american public. this is a movie about the 60-year civil war in burma. this is a movie about genocide. this is a movie about hell. and they went there. stallone would have it no other way.

“I thought the Burmese setting would be ideal because it’s a story that’s not just about Rambo. It’s actually happening. It’s true. From the time I heard about it and began researching it, I thought, ‘If I could just combine the two – raising awareness of the Karen-Burmese civil war and giving the audience a good adventure story – that would be perfect.’”
- stallone interview: http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_13893.html

stallone: the activist? stallone: the artist? stallone: the crusader of human rights and justice? i know. whatever happened to stallone: the meathead? stallone: the muscles without morals? it's not here. read the interviews. this guy is saying something. this guy has a point. like neil young coming back two years ago and making "Living with War," stallone is rising up from the obscurity of being the butt of the joke, to making a statement. and we should listen.

“The biggest and most interesting crises in the world is the human crises. It never gets boring. Just like Shakespeare. You don't need a gimmick. It's just man against man, just their intolerance of each other.”
- stallone interview: http://www.collider.com/entertainment/interviews/article.asp/aid/6638/tcid/1

are we getting this? this is rambo. this is shakespeare. this is the human condition. and slyvester stallone is the spokesperson. the philosopher. the statesman and the theologian.

and speaking of theologians. i consider myself to be one who contemplates and studies and enjoys the pursuit of this massive undertaking of the study of God.

so what does God have to say about all this? apparently stallone was asking the same question. why else is rambo taking christian missionaries into burma? why else do we see this struggle? rambo the athiest becoming rambo the seeker of truth and love. he wears the crucifix given to him by the blonde around his wrist as he fashions his machette. does he just have a crush on this girl? he never comes down the hill to meet her and embrace and fall in love as you would expect after the final bloodbath. no, that's not what this is about. according to sly, this movie is about something else.

"There's some things that never change and are universal truths. As you get older, they become more and more apparent about how difficult life is … I think the lesson that is somewhat presented here, that war is hell and there is no winner ever and unfortunately people just have to find it out the hard way, will translate. And eventually after a man takes that journey, a woman takes that journey, you always hope that you can go back home, that there's still some gateway back to peace, peace of mind where you can start to rebuild. That's the only thing I hope works. I think it does work because they're just universal truths that never, ever change. No matter what society is, just everybody wants freedom, everyone wants peace of mind but it comes at a horrible price."
- stallone interview: http://www.collider.com/entertainment/interviews/article.asp/aid/6638/tcid/1

i have so much more to say, but i fear this post grows too long, and you and i are growing tired. perhaps part II will come soon. i want to seriously look at war. i've been reading augustine's just war theory in "CIty of God" and c.s. lewis' lecture, "Why I am not a Pacifist" and the gospels and the writings of Paul and the book of Joshua in the Bible and i think that all these things are related. i think that rambo has rocked the boat a little for me.

really? i know. i'm just as surprised as you are. but as John Rambo says, "Y'know what you are, what you're made of. War is in your blood. When you're pushed, killing's as easy as breathing."

1 comment:

Kevin Wesley said...

i'm going to need you to start looking at things from a more shallow, superficial level please. i understand all of the implications made from rambo, and i agree that the movie delves into some dangerous terrain and double edges. i was surprised too. maybe sly is becoming a crusader. who knows?

but can sly really overshadow the flags and whistles that go along with a new rambo movie? can he get an audience to understand and see the burmese plight the way he wants it to by trudging out a forgotten, gimmicky character. how can he lose the gimmick? the commentary's there and i applaud sly for that, but both the venue and context are faulty.

i may be playing devil's advocate here, but i severely doubt that most of the people that go and see this movie are sitting down to a round table discussion that will result in a cracking down and analysis of the genocide in burma.

i do still commend sly, however, because let's be honest, this film was way more than we thought it was gonna be. it had a dialogue that was more than just flying body parts.

i can't believe i just tried to intelligently analyze a rambo movie. yikes.