Rambo and Reagan: Partners in Crime?

Expectations have been high, at least among some, before the return of the weight-lifting, ‘roid-eating, baby-oil soaked massacre known as John Rambo, to the big screen. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus once said that “War is the father and king of all things.” I am not sure this is true, but war is definitely the father of Rambo, as he returns in what turns out to be one of the most violent war-movies I have ever seen, and by far the most gory of all the Rambo movies (which in itself is quite a feat). If you can not distance yourself from extreme violence, this movie is probably not for you - it practically makes Shaving Ryan’s Privates look like Sgt. Bilko.

Most reviews have ranged from reluctant endorsements, from those who appreciate a simple no-nonsense action flick, to condemnations from those who felt morally affronted by the outspoken violence and gore. I personally feel that the reviews that judge the film on its own premises, as a last breath of a genre long gone (only held alive by the artificial respiration of Jean Claude Van Damme and the likes), are the best. This movie obviously is not intended to spur reflections over the meaninglessness of war, albeit the message of the movie is probably deeper than just “death to commie tyrants – and pencil-pushing bureaucrats” (as you will se below). New York Times (surprisingly) has got one of the best reviews out there, and Ruthlessreviews.com another. 

For a Reagan-esque, commie-hating, right-wing nut-job such as myself the film managed to live up to just about every inch of expectations that I had, but not more J. For anyone who likes 80es action flicks, this one is a must-see. Sure, the morals are the usual, simplified Manichean “good vs. evil” that you will find in any good 80es action classic – the bad guys are practically not even worthy of the label “human”, and the heroic and self-sacrificing character of the good guy (Rambo, and some of the mercenaries, now that Colonel Trautman unfortunately has deceased) is almost immaculate. Before the onslaught really takes off, the movie manages to convince you that practically every single member of the Burmese army is a reincarnation of Cerberus. This is the primary reason why you will find the various ways these demonic cockroaches are dispatched to meet their maker, the most satisfactory acts of retribution recorded on film in years - and most likely years to come. The culprits are strangled, knifed, slashed, burned, blown apart, mutilated with heavy guns, perforated by arrows, decapitated, disemboweled and terminated in just about every other excruciatingly painful way imaginable. My personal favorite is when Rambo tears open an enemy’s throat with his bare hands. By the end of the gorefest, the death toll has reached somewhere between 230 and 240 corpses, according to one count. Again the violence is extreme, but to me it was so over the top that it became hard to take it seriously, and most other members of the audience seemed to share these sentiments. Laughter and loud rooting for Rambo was widespread. One thing that was conspicuously absent, however, was the classical homoeroticism of 80es action-flicks, including the other Rambo-movies. Not once did we get to see Rambo’s trimmed, muscular torso soaked in baby-oil – maybe the time has passed for this peculiar feature of a classic genre.

So the violence is entertaining, but another area where this movie really excels to me (as a political scientist), is in its simple but accurate political message. I know my views on Rambo and politics will most likely cause more than one pair of eyes to roll, but I always thought there was more to the Rambo movies than simple violence and “The biggest biceps wins”-attitude. In the Danish news-paper “Politiken”, the movie has, somewhat ambiguously, been labeled “Reagan-esque” and “Neoconservative”. I am not sure what the author means by “Neoconservative”, but I know that it is one of those left-wing buzz-words that they apply to anything they do not approve of (much like “fascism“). Which of course entails that the term ends up being so inconsistent that it becomes devoid of meaning.

First of all Reagan was, to the best of my knowledge, not a neoconservative – the fact that he shared their points of view about the coalescence of ideology and military strength in foreign policy, does not make him a neoconservative. Neoconservatism is first and foremost a domestic political view, and a very (social) statist one, unlike Reagan’s anti-statism. Second, I don’t think the views of the Rambo movies are very neoconservative, especially not this one. I perceive of them as mainly critical of the American system (who abandoned their Vietnam vets after the war), and as realist accounts of world politics – Rambo explicitly states over and over again that you can’t change the world. And it delivers a cogent blow to all of the do-gooders out there, who think that everyone can be saved if they just get a little [insert pharisaic means of salvation here – God, humanism, welfare benefits etc. etc.]. Rambo’s relevant point is that in this world assholes will be assholes – they can’t be changed, and this is the reason why they must meet their brutal demise at his vindictive hands. And let’s be clear about one thing: Rambo’s message is NOT that we should go and turn everyone that CAN be converted, into faithful humanitarians and exterminate the rest. His message is simply that we should stay out of their affairs, unless they mess with us (hardly the philosophy that led us on the tracks to the Iraq War). In fact, the only reason why Rambo feel compelled to enter the domain of the inhuman tyrants, is that a bunch of do-gooders (in this case a group of Christian missionaries, but that could as well have been Amnesty International) against Rambo’s advice and their own best interest, proceeds into the Burmese inferno only to find themselves caught in a realm they do not understand or know how to survive in. Eventually they must come to terms with the reality that without brute force, they are lambs among wolves and they need the very means they only have contempt for, for protection. Their road to revelation reaches a climax when their leader, the most arrogant and complacent God-boy of the bunch, is forced to smash an enemy’s head with a rock! Maybe might is not right, but right does not stand a chance without military might. And to some extent, it seems that even the pessimistic Rambo eventually realizes that at least some things can be changed a bit for the better, so everybody learned something (maybe except for the Burmese, because of their deplorable condition of… well, being dead and all).

Does all of this sound very neoconservative? Not really, but I admit that it does sound kind of Reagan-esque. Reagan was a staunch idealist and supporter of human rights, democracy and freedom. But he also believed that these values could not just exist on their own – strong reactionary forces would do everything in their power to put out the candle of liberty, even if it would entail their own downfall. This is why he realized that the only way to force the Soviet empire to give up their expansive aspirations was not by diplomacy alone, but by speaking softly and carrying a big stick (well, true, he started out speaking toughly AND carrying a… growing stick. No fallic allusions intended). The intuition that good intentions cannot stand alone without physical force to defend it is probably the biggest legacy of Reagan, and it is a torch that is being carried on by Rambo.