Who knew breaking down in tears (and sometimes defecation) made a tough guy tougher? David Morrell, that's who. Millions of viewers were shocked and deeply affected by tough-guy Stallone executing his heart-wrenching monologue at the end of the movie version of Rambo: First Blood. In the novel, however, that emotional turmoil is more gradually developed throughout the story. The blockbuster magic that Morrell accomplishes in the novel is that he gives "tough guys" permission to feel.
But there's a lot to unpack with this novel and its infamous movie adaptation. The most notable difference between the novel and the movie version of First Blood to me is Rambo’s good guy designation. In the movie version, there’s no question we should be rooting for Rambo. He’s been booted out of town for no good reason then hunted down like a wild animal just for his inconvenient existence as a “vagrant” in a small town with even smaller minds.
But in the novel, Rambo’s character is cast in shades of gray. The reader starts out rooting for him, but then he starts killing dogs. Lots of dogs. And an owl, which just seems like a cruel and unusual choice for a foraged dinner. If that wasn't enough to turn off a reader, by the final quarter of the story, he’s devolved into a vigilante who just wants to burn it all down.
Not saying a reader can’t relate to that (this reader most definitely can), but simultaneously, we’re shown the softer side of Sheriff Will Teasle, which has to be the most on-the-nose fictional character name I’ve ever seen. In the movie version Teasle is a cardboard cutout of a stereotypical cop. But in the novel he’s going through marital problems and dealing with personal losses when friends (and their dogs!) that he called in favors to help hunt down “the kid” start dropping like flies at the hand of Rambo’s wrath.
In the novel, Teasel and Rambo trade places. At the beginning of the novel we’re rooting for Rambo over Teasel, but by the end Rambo has scorched so much earth that he is unredeemable. There’s a lot to unpack thematically about how the story relates to the US military industrial complex, and perhaps the trading places is poetic in that way. Perhaps Rambo's infamy lies in his contradictions. We love to watch him burn it all down so that we don't have to.
XO
B
I also thought he was close to being irredeemable in the second half of the novel. I really wanted him to be more sympathetic to the dogs and rethink his plan on burning the town, but considering his PTSD, there was not going to be a reasonable way he could escape. What's interesting to me is how the book builds up this high-stakes case by bringing in the military. I think adding more soldiers and dogs just heightened his fears and paranoia to a ten.
ReplyDeleteI still rooted for Rambo even at the end. I love dogs more than people, but I understand why he killed them. He was a trained killer above all else. Killing machine created by the US Gov and eventually taken out by them.
ReplyDeleteThe animal deaths definitely reinforced the theme of we created this killer & now we have to deal with him. Still a dick move though.
DeleteNot only is Morrell showing that letting yourself feel your emotions can be tough, but he also demonstrates some of the pitfalls of repressing emotions. Rambo and Teasel might admit their feelings to themselves at times and find closure with their traumas by the end, but in the length of time it took them to meet those terms, countless law enforcement and civilians die for these two men measuring their pride.
ReplyDeleteChris, yes, the consequences of suppressing your emotions is almost more important in this novel.
Delete