Rambo

We have recently seen TV footage of Burmese monks being butchered. The new Rambo film, where Sylvester Stallone assumes control of a band of mercenaries to rescue a group of Christian missionaries there, has been banned in Burma and criticised by some human rights workers. An Australian democracy group accuses it of ‘muddying the water’ of peaceful resistance. True, Aung San Suu Kyi, the deposed democratic opponent to the brutal military regime, has advocated peaceful resistance. But she is no Gandhi fighting a (relatively) civilised colonial power. For 60 years all protest, peaceful and otherwise, has been ruthlessly crushed.

It is not surprising that the film has become a bootleg hit in Burma. Stallone plays the mythical hero warrior. No superpowers, he's just a devastatingly efficient and ruthless fighter. Says Stallone: “I called the United Nations. I asked them ‘What is the most under-reported, most graphic and devastating abuse of human rights on the planet?’ And they said 'Burma'.”

Whether it is a help or a hindrance, let the viewer (and maybe history) be the judge. Whether Stallone should have bothered making yet another Rambo movie, let the audience alone decide. I am not a big fan of this type of movie, but for me it did what it said on the tin. The Rambo character was well-crafted, a believable fighting machine, and the battles were unstintingly realistic and violent. If we have movies like this (and there will perhaps always be a demand), then is it better to glorify police vs gang brutality, vigilante-ism, controversial wars, or fights against supremely corrupt and real-life regimes?

Rambo uses Burmese/Thai actors and crew, including real refugee rebels, amputees, land mine victims and former Burmese soldiers. The filming is done in and around Chiang Mai, northern Thailand, in a setting that closely mimics the area on both sides of the Thai/Burmese border. Surprisingly, many of the refugees already knew of Rambo as a hero character before casting began. When half a century of peaceful protest fails (after the collapse of British colonialism at the end of WWII), people need heroes to give them hope and a reason to carry on, even if the hope never materialises.

Rambo works the river, catching and selling deadly snakes to a hospital. A Christian missionary group wants to hire his boat to get into Burma, hand out medicines and deliver religious tracts. The Vietnam veteran is reluctantly convinced. When they don’t return, a second pastor hires a group of mercenaries to retrieve them and again presses Rambo’s boat into service. But this time Rambo insists on tagging along.

The gun-toting crew are unfamiliar with the terrain and the army they are up against. Their lack of any higher purpose beyond getting paid saps their cohesion. Rambo proves his prowess not only in combat but morally and as a leader. It is not heavy intellectual stuff. I did not find it ethically abhorrent. One doesn’t go to see Rambo and not expect violence. I was worried that it would maybe promote some pie-in-the-sky Christianity-saves agenda, but it was silent on the missionaries’ position except in using them as a plot device. Their actions ultimately (and pointedly) resulted in great loss of life, but on the other hand those of that faith might believe it is worth it.

The film is even ambivalent about the violence of its protagonists. It is a violent film, but Rambo’s belief is that nothing anyone can do, peaceful or non-peaceful, will change anything. Its main contributions are threefold. It is perhaps the best film about the Rambo icon, it is reasonably good entertainment on its own level, but most of all, it can help to raise awareness of the systemic rape and torture by the Burmese army of its own people. And if the Burmese gain hope from it, it could be the icing on the cake or the safety off the gun.