"Rambo" is one of those important titles that have left a noticeable mark on world culture, pop culture, and humanity. At the same time, it is one of a dozen or so paintings that I have never seen. When I was a kid, "Rambo" didn't get much esteem in my house. Sure, my father and uncle, who had a huge impact on my interests, watched the movies in this series, but they preferred Terminator, Alien, Star Wars, which they infected me with. When I try to recall some memories of "Rambo", all I can see is how the 5-year-old me is staring from behind the partially closed door at the TV screen, where John Rambo is massacring soldiers. They are not too long, because I was always quickly sent to the children's room by my grandmother or father. In this case, the "forbidden fruit" syndrome did not work for me because I never felt the need to know why I was thrown into my room. Contrary to my colleagues living on the same street as me or attending the same school. It was different from "Robocop", but it was due to the sci-fi elements that were more attractive to me then. At that time, I did not appreciate this film, I understood its content only after several decades when my consciousness matured and I gained more knowledge about the world and people around me. It would be similar to "Rambo" and I am doubly glad that I have never seen it. As a result, my impressions were completely fresh and I was not burdened with previous experiences.
As I wrote in my part of the text about "Fullmetal Alchemist", which I am writing with Karol (it will be posted on the blog by the end of November), I love watching special units in action. Although this is not my hobby, I do not throw myself into every movie, series, anime, or book that touches on this subject, but it is an important factor for me to watch. I like to watch how counterintelligence, strike groups, and infiltration groups work on specific examples - from fueling conflicts, through espionage, ending with blurring traces (elimination of witnesses, evidence, leaving the field as if secret service had never appeared there). The movie "Rambo" shows well, because in this field it has not aged a bit what a skirmish would look like between a police unit with not little firepower and good equipment, and a lonely, well-trained commando, who is a living and extremely dangerous weapon. Sure, the outcome of such a battle consists of dozens of different factors, including some that a layman like me hasn't even noticed. Luck / bad luck, terrain, amount of elements that can be used, smarts/stupidity, available tools, weather, etc. I may, however, risk saying that many of the fights in which the police force vs. OneManArmy would have been a defeat for the former. Putting aside the commando skills and the advantage of the police in terms of equipment for a moment, the fight in the forest perfectly shows what kind of slaughter a single man with qualities like The Witcher can perform (insensitivity to emotions, reflexes, lack of scruples, greater resistance to pain, better conditions) physical). This police unit was not at a level that could be described as "good", but if there had been a better group in their place and all the events had turned out the same and the same way, it would not have made much difference. It would have ended up in a slaughterhouse on a comparable scale.
Although most viewers liked the fight, blood, and explosions the most (which is indicated by the path taken in the later parts), these elements are only an attractive background for telling a deeper story and showing more important threads. By this, I mean presenting the ideas of libertarianism, PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), and human loneliness in the context of abandoning someone like garbage. Or a person who has fulfilled its task, and now that it is no longer needed, nobody cares about her fate. Each of these threads has not aged even a bit, and can also be interpreted in many dimensions. Well, I will say more, during these several decades I would have to really think and do deep research to find titles that presented this at a comparably high level.
Starting with libertarianism, I personally consider this to be the best ideology that, combined with the introduction of capitalism with a human face (and a few other restrictions), would make the Earth a much better place to live. I will skip a longer lecture and focus on what "Rambo" shows, although if you want, I will develop this idea in a separate text. One of the sacred principles of libertarianism is the non-aggression axiom, which is well illustrated in this film. In short, the NAP (Non-aggression principle) assumes that people do not interfere too much in someone else's life, do not act on their own feelings (unless provoked earlier), and do not build their happiness on someone else's misfortune. On the internet you will find various quotes by different people from different historical periods, each saying more or less the same. I will use the text by Herbert Spencer - "Every man can do what he wants, provided that he does not infringe the equal freedom of another man." How does that relate to the movie? John Rambo lives quietly, wanders from town to town, acting as God pushes him (a variant for a believer) or nature, or himself (a variant for atheists and nihilists). It can be assumed that this is a person who does not care about aggressive solutions to matters but only wants to do his thing in a calm way. This is also evident in the fact that he does not kill the policemen, but only temporarily neutralizes them. He kills dogs, but in this case, he had no other choice - the animal cannot be reasoned with words. Nothing would have happened if his life had not been interfered with by a policeman with a broken ass because someone had dared to challenge his authority. It is worth adding that he had no grounds to attack the veteran and it was only due to offending his overgrown ego and a slight breach of his comfort zone. Similarly, with our history, we would avoid many problems, traumas, or misunderstandings if we did not ignore other people or bend to our will. To conclude this paragraph, I am not anarchy. There must be some order, and selected people should have the right to enforce it to a certain extent (e.g. teachers against students, commanders against soldiers, parents against children, etc.). However, it depends on well-defined factors that should be clear and understandable for both parties.
Many of our problems also result from ignoring people and not fully closing certain matters. I do not mean not talking to each other, cutting contacts, because it is a separate topic and is not related to it. "Rambo: First Blood" perfectly shows what effects ignorance or jamming your conscience can have on the principle "I caused this problem myself, but I will not take responsibility for it". The example is large, but it can be applied to minor issues. It is not so bad when it comes to some objects or facilities, such as stadiums where the Olympics were held. You can secure them, put a dozen or several dozen signs "Attention, you enter only at your own risk", or something like that. If someone comes and breaks his head or breaks his limbs, it's "Volenti non fit iniuria" - nobody told you to do so, so don't cry. It is different when leaving a living person or being in this way. Even if we are insensitive cocks and we are not moved by the sadness of a given character (by the way, Sylvester Sylvester played the scene where the commando broke and started to cry), the cases we started should be closed. Even though it will hurt both sides more or will end up in a worse option. We delegate responsibility to someone who is aware of their duties, we close the topic, providing the person with living conditions (and possibly monitoring them to help in case of emergency), in an extreme scenario we kill the given being (if it is a Rambo or, for example, someone we have adopted dog).
Will you say that this is at odds with what I wrote above about the non-aggression axiom? Yes, you are right. However, I wrote on purpose that this is an extreme scenario, I also mentioned these two examples, not by accident. Starting with the commando - then people knew much less about the human psyche and psychology. They probably already knew what PTSD is, but this phenomenon has not been described and recognized by science in the form we perceive it today. However bad it may sound (I intentionally put it this way), John Rambo is an object, and more specifically a living weapon. You can try to correct it, but it will not always be possible (because the army will not have the budget for it, because Uncle Sam will decide to ignore the problem, etc.), but you can get rid of it. Likewise, dogs that are abandoned by their owners for a variety of reasons, most of them can be summed up as - you are a loser who cannot live up to your obligations to other creatures. However cruel it may sound, if we cannot leave our dog to another owner who will love him, it is better to kill him than abandon him. Animals are not humans, of course, but they will get used to us and have feelings of their own or some equivalent. Abandoning him is letting go of responsibility, handing it over to a blind fate, or avoiding high-minded words, is throwing a domesticated dog into an environment it does not know and in which it will most likely die. Frightened, lonely, poor, not understanding his situation. You probably still disagree with me, but I will stick to my point that this solution is less bad than the examples mentioned above. If something has screwed up, you have to take 100% responsibility for your decision and live with its consequences. When it comes to PTSD strictly, "Rambo" is not a psychological drama or movie, so not everything is explained in detail. If you do not have sufficient knowledge on this topic, some things may not be fully understood or strange to you. You can confuse PTSD with mindless aggression, an unjustified desire to destroy, especially when you saw the later parts, much more focused on brutality and elements characteristic of action movies. John Rambo is not a mindless beast, he prefers to avoid violence, and if he has to use it, he does it in response to an earlier attack or uses it automatically, because he has flashbacks from Vietnam before his eyes. John Rambo is a victim who behaves just like any healthy person. Lord God or evolution or nature (choose your answer depending on your attitude towards religion) made people react aggressively to everything that exceeds their understanding or makes them feel a mortal threat.
As for the summary of the film itself, it deserved its cult status. In my opinion, this is not the level of both parts of "Terminator" or "Rocky" (judging these productions in isolation from the sequel or the prequel), but it is close. Literally, a single, stronger push that would push the movie from 9/10 to 10/10. I missed something in the second half of the movie, but I can't put it into words. But that's just my opinion, I can talk nonsense. Either way, my allegations are really worth little compared to his greatness. The great, thought-provoking plot, action scenes that have only aged in such a way that you can see weaker colors, worse lighting, the best role in Sylvester Stallone's history, Ted Kotcheff brilliantly led one of my favorite actors and used his strengths perfectly ( natural expression of emotions - be it anger or contentment). The battle passages are satisfying accordingly, and the message of "Rambo" should touch our heart or mind. Or both.
Thanks to Karol for his help in writing this text.
Oh, and one more thing, "It's a Long Road" is a great song.