Reaganite Cinema – Hollywood Propaganda or Clever Social Critique Essay Example

metaphor for the U. S. stance of international disengagement during the Carter period. ”[2] This allegory may seem tempting; however, the meaning may be somewhat different. John Rambo, man betrayed by the authorities in “First Blood Part 1”, betrayed by his own country in “First Blood Part 2”, certainly isn’t a first choice for typical American hero.

The image of muscular Rambo in Thai monastery surely seems ridiculous, but cannot we also suppose that Rambo actually is better off living a quiet life with the monks? The very fact that he decides to flee the United States in order to find some peace in his life can tell us a lot. Surely, he cannot deny his nature completely, so he participates in street fights, but he uses the money he earns in them for a good cause, helping the monks. Another logical argument to support Princes tatement might be that it of course is more comfortable to stay idle and ignore the problems around you, just like the United States did during the Carter era, just like Rambo does in Thailand, but in the end, one must always rise and do what is right, just like the United States did during the Reagan era and just like Rambo did in Afghanistan. Or did he. Yes, Rambo does go to Afghanistan, but not initially. Only when Trautman, the only person who every did anything nice for him, a father figure of a sort, is captured by the Russians, Rambo decides to go, or has to go, to be more precise.

There is no other way for him, he must save his hero, his “father”.

This could implicate, on one hand, how important the traditional American values (friendship or family in this case) are for Rambo, but on the other hand this doesn’t really implicate anything positive about the United States policy, which leaves Trautman to his own fate in Russian captivity and has to count on Rambo to save him, in a nearly suicidal mission. As New York Times journalist Janet Maslin noted in her review of Rambo III: “Rambo III'' is dedicated ''to the gallant people of Afghanistan,'' and it clearly intends that its politics be taken seriously.

The plot sends Rambo into Afghanistan on a rescue mission after Trautman, who has been educating Afghan freedom fighters in the ways of Stinger missiles and is taken prisoner by a smirking, strutting Soviet colonel (Marc de Jonge). This casts Trautman in the unenviable role of political mouthpiece, as he lectures the colonel about Soviet foreign policy. And it makes the Afghan fighters, who are this film's noble Indians, entirely one-dimensional. ''What we must do is stop this killing of our women and children,'' one fighter earnestly explains. And the film, for all its grandstanding, never goes any deeper. [3] This brings about another problem. When we put aside the fact, that portrayal of Afghan rebels as freedom fighters is, especially in this time, arguable, there is still the extensive amount of cliches, which make it impossible for the film to be taken seriously, despite the noble intentions Mr. Stallone might have had about the ideological impact of Rambo III. It is a fantasy, pure fun, a typical blockbuster. This could be interpreted as a failure to transfer the

ideology to the screen, by the Americans, who try so hard to demonise the Soviet Union that they, in the end, fail.

Absolutely crucial dialogue takes place after the Russian helicopters bomb the village Rambo has been staying in. The leader of the local rebels, Mousa, tells Rambo: “Now you see how it is here. Somewhere in a war there’s supposed to be honour. Where’s the honour here? Where? ” All of the Rambo films carry a strong Vietnam trauma with them and it is not difficult to find a parallel here as well, especially when Trautman, while being interrogated by Russian commander, tells him: “You know there won’t be a victory. Every day your war machines lose ground to a bunch of poorly-armed, poorly equipped freedom fighters. .. You can’t defeat a people like that. We tried. We already had our Vietnam. Now you’re gonna have yours. ” This could be interpreted as a direct critique of invasive foreign policy and resonates even more now, with the complicated situation in the Middle East. Very important part of some of the Reaganite cinema films is the criticism of the current consumer society, lack of morals, extensive use of technology and high dependence on the media. Rambo III is not a part of this group, as it doesn’t take place in the United States at all. However, other films can be used to prove this point, for example Rocky IV.

In a particularly expressive scene, Apollo Creed arrives to a boxing ring, where his exhibition match with Drago, Russian boxer, takes place. He wears the American flag on his trunks and he dances his

way into the ring, while James Brown sings and attractive women in costumes dance around him. As Stephen Prince notes: “It’s all empty razzle-dazzle, and Drago watches with silent and lethal disgust. ”[4] Viewer might actually share Drago’s feelings. The concentration on pure entertainment and apparent, extremely high national confidence can be seen in every second of this scene.

The ultimate loss of Apollo is then inevitable and the spectator could actually feel it is deserved. When Rocky wants to avenge his friends death, he doesn’t train in the United States with erudite trainers, but he flies to Russia, where he stays in the wild, while lifting tree trunks and running through the snow-covered fields and forests. The implication is quite clear – sometimes artificial intelligence and science must stand aside and succumb to the old-fashioned hard work, common sense and honesty. Only when we are true to what we are, can we defeat our enemies.

This essay aimed to clarify why some of the films that are considered to be part of the Reaganite Cinema could actually criticize some of the aspects of American society, culture or politics. Examples of the films Rambo III and Rocky IV were used. Rambo III, which is considered to be a typical representative of the group, can actually be seen as one of the most ambiguous films of the era. While muscular Rambo might at first sight resemble a typical American hero, the character itself is tragic and betrayed by its own country. Rambo First Blood Part One is, by many, considered to be an anti-establishment statement.

This could, in some way, be said about

each of the films of this series. Another problematic aspect is how the intended political message is delivered to the audience. The extensive use of cliches and simplifications doesn’t enable the spectator to take the film seriously, which brings about the question, if the film wasn’t meant to be a pure entertainment, box office blockbuster, whose only purpose was to earn the money, using a familiar topic to attract the audiences. The weakness of the American society, the decadence and focus on entertainment are shown very well in the film Rocky IV.

The supposed message is, that we need to stay true to ourselves and focus on honesty and traditional values, but have we done that? Have the United States, and the whole Western civilization, at that point, ever really turned away from the focus on entertainment and consumerism? Can our democratic society survive, when we are undisciplined, individualistic and our only focus is to buy more things, eat more food and enjoy more entertainment? The dialogues that take place between the Russian commander and Trautman, as well as between Rambo and Mousa, the leader of the rebels, have a strong hint of peace statement encoded in them.

Several references to Vietnam show the spectator how strongly the Vietnam trauma still resonates within the American society. A parallel could be drawn to the current situation in Afghanistan or Iraq. The same could be said about other films from the group. In the end of Rocky IV, after beating Ivan Drogo, Rocky delivers a speech, which is basically nothing else but a very strong peace statement, finishing with the immortal sentence: “If I can

change and you can change, everybody can change! ” With the times of Cold War far behind us, the Reaganite cinema films can be watched for the sake of pure entertainment.

However, it might be worth considering them a little deeper. They are a priceless expression of the people’s worldview at that time. Contradictory to the belief of many, they are not just a declaration of US power and patriotism. They are not only celebratory. They can, sometimes subtly and wittingly, mock or criticize the very aspects of the American society they should supposedly celebrate. Katerina Dvorakova ----------------------- [1] Stephen Prince, Visions of Empire: Political Imagery in Contemporary American Film (New York: Praeger, 1992), page Nr. 6 [2] Stephen Prince, Visions of Empire: Political Imagery in Contemporary American Film (New York: Praeger,???????????????????????????? 1992), page Nr. 64 [3] Janet Maslin, Stallone’s ’Rambo III’, Globe-Trotting Cowboy For the 80’s Audience, http://www. nytimes. com/1988/05/25/movies/reviews-film-stallone-s-rambo-iii-globe-trotting-cowboy-for-the-80-s-audience. html? pagewanted=all&src=pm [4] Stephen Prince, Visions of Empire: Political Imagery in Contemporary American Film (New York: Praeger, 1992), page Nr. 73