Why ‘Rambo’ (2008) Is Modern Exploitation Done Right

January 25, 2023

They drew first blood.
Then, they sent him back to war.
Then, they sent him back to war…again.
Twenty years later, the conflict came to his doorstep.

His name is John Rambo. And his story got so out-of-hand, but it doesn’t matter because gratuitous action and mauling intensity are the names of the game in Rambo (2008)… or is it?

The fourth installment of the Rambo franchise opens in Burma, where war rages. Major Pa Tee Tint (Maung Maung Khin) lead his forces into villages, pillaging and playing sadistic games with the Karen villagers. Just south, John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) has retired to Thailand, working as a snake catcher and boatman-for-hire. When he’s approached by Michael (Paul Schulze), a missionary doctor, to take him and his party upriver to provide medical aid to the Karen people, Rambo relents at the plea from Burnett’s fiance, Sarah (Julie Benz).

On the way, they encounter a group of pirates that bring to light the realities of their situation when Rambo must take armed action to stop the kidnap of Sarah. Undeterred, the group convinces Rambo to drop them on the shores of Burma. It isn’t long before the aide workers are caught in a firefight and captured by Pa Tee Tint’s troops. When a band of mercenaries requests his ferry services once more, John Rambo jumps into action, unable to shake his nature. He not only frees the prisoners but decimates the battalion with bloody resolve.

What started in 1982 as a heart-wrenching story of a Vietnam war vet harangued by a small town police unit until his PTSD snapped turned into a raucous chaos of “how much damage can one man do?” sequels through the ‘80s. Now, this may sound like a criticism, but it’s really just the truth that what started as a gut punch to how veterans are treated turned into blood-soaked mayhem follow-ups that are no less enjoyable for their lack of spirit. And Rambo takes the machete in terms of outlandish stunts, spew, and grue. If Rambo had a mask instead of a headband, this would be an out-and-out splatter picture.

But it’s not; it’s Rambo, and it’s about the realities of war.

Which begs the question: where is the line between exploitation and awareness? News and sensationalism? Does Rambo exploit the conflict in Myanmar (formerly Burma), or does it bring a holistic awareness to the civil war in a shocking yet digestible way for a larger audience?

Looking into the history of exploitation cinema, we find some of the most transgressive yet morally complex films ever made. While exploitation denotes taking unfair advantage of a person or situation for self-gain, i.e., banking on uber-violence to promote a sub-par product, exploitation cinema is often celebrated on a cult level despite its b-movie status. Historically, exploitation films are low-budget, promoting the most outrageous sexual and violent aspects of their narrative to sell tickets. In this way, the exploited party is the audience.

RELATED: ‘Hell Comes to Frogtown’: A Look Back at Roddy Piper’s Weird, Amphibious Sci-Fi Flick

And Rambo was not necessarily a low-budget project, though it was $13M less than his previous jaunt with the character. With $50M for production and a director that left due to creative differences, Stallone took the mantle of director. Albeit reluctant at first, he later came to love the idea of “Rambo directing Rambo” and bringing the vision of the character through the lens. They traveled to Thailand for part of the filming and even encountered the Burmese military, who took aim at their production. “We had shots fired above our heads,” Stallone told USA Today. He also “witnessed survivors with legs cut off and all kinds of landmine injuries, maggot-infested wounds, and ears cut off.”

Even so, with a more limited budget, Stallone decided to make up the difference in blood. Fake blood, that is. To make the film memorable, they turned up the gore and violence to eleven, which follows suit on the nature of exploitation films to make up for production shortcomings with ultra-violence.

This definition of “exploitation” has expanded since the 1970s, as filmmakers and audiences alike celebrate the craftsmanship and professional components of exploitation cinema. In more modern sensibilities, the object of “exploitation cinema” focuses on the exploitation of the subject matter itself. In the case of Rambo, one could argue that Stallone and co. exploited the violence of the conflict in Burma for the gain of their own pocketbooks.

But that’s not what’s happening here.

Our modern Western sensibilities may look back at Rambo and think it’s a gross exploitation of the Burmese people. And yet for the Burmese Freedom Fighters, “Live for nothing, or die for something” became a battle cry after the film’s release. Maung Maung Khin, who plays the sadistic SPDC officer, was a Karen freedom fighter. Despite the safety of his family in question if he took the role, he accepted it regardless, feeling how important it was to bring global awareness to the Saffron Revolution.

RELATED: ‘Dragons Forever’ Blu-Ray Review: A Deserving Release for This Legendary Film

As for the grue, many critics chastised the M2 .50-cal heavy machine gun finale as so gory it was unrealistic. However, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who had used the machine gun and saw the damage that same weapon can do in actual combat noted that the wounds were not only accurate but possibly toned down for reality. And while an arrow piercing a man’s skull and slingshotting him into a landmine may be gratuitous action fodder, the realities of the situation in Burma were handled with an intimate understanding that shock brings audiences, which brings awareness, and breeds civic action.

While the film is banned in Myanmar by the military ruling party, the opposition youth group Generation Wave copied and distributed the film as anti-Tatmadaw propaganda, and bootleg copies can be found in the country. Burmese refugees overseas have praised the movie for its unrelenting portrayal of the military oppression of the Karen people. And though the film was released 15 years ago, the conflict continues to this day, making the film a prolonged and relevant statement on the ongoing crisis.

To assert that Rambo is exploitative, one would also point the finger at CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN, and even Discovery with all its true-crime my-husband-has-two-families expose. Covering the news still has a profit margin, and the more sensational the story, the more eyeballs on TVs, and the more cash in pocket. It’s a testament to the filmmaker, in this case, Sylvester Stallone himself, as co-writer and director of the film, who took his time to understand the intricacies of the situation and brought it to Western audiences with the help of a beloved character.

Stallone discovered the conflict and took the time to talk to international experts at the United Nations. They shared their expertise on the Burmese junta’s mass murder of the Karen people. Stallone decided this was the perfect setting for the next Rambo, wanting to highlight the 60-year civil war (the longest civil war in history) that was being largely ignored by the media and, subsequently, the public at large.

And Rambo isn’t just a story of raging overseas conflict, but an intimate portrayal of John Rambo himself and his metonymy for the struggle of veteran life. While critics whined at a reductive, wooden de-evolution of the character, writer of the novel First Blood (1982), David Morrell, said of the film, “This is the first time that the tone of my novel First Blood has been used in any of the movies. It’s spot-on in terms of how I imagined the character – angry, burned-out, and filled with self-disgust because Rambo hates what he is and yet knows it’s the only thing he does well.” This somewhat bipolar portrayal is masterfully laid out through the narrative.

John Rambo consistently denies the calls to action that would fulfill his nature. He refuses the aide workers, holds back with the pirates, and listens when he’s told, “the boatman stays with the boat.” But his nature takes over, executing the pirates and playing ranger when the mercenaries are in danger. Even in the rescue, they play it safe with a stealth night operation, reducing the amount of actual conflict. Only after that, when the heat is on their tail, and his team is threatened, does John Rambo go full… well… Rambo on their asses. He does only what is necessary right up until what is necessary is full slaughter.

RELATED: James Hong Wants Lo-Pan to Return in ‘Big Trouble in Little China’ Sequel

On top of all that, it’s a lean and mean movie. Rolling in at just over 90 minutes (almost a miracle for a theatre-bound action movie in 2008), it doesn’t make you sit too long in the bloodshed. Everything serves its purpose and wraps up with Rambo returning home to the family ranch happily ever after. Or, at least until a Mexican cartel shows up eleven years later.

It is in the roots of exploitation cinema that Rambo was created, perhaps unintentionally, but following the pursuant course that “lower budget = excess of blood/sex/violence” to capture audience appeal. But this transgressive process has evolved to evoke aesthetics, irony, and, in Rambo’s case, a moral center. To write the film off, as one reviewer did, as an “orgy of violence, ghastly as any video game” is to dismiss the significance of its cinematic aesthetic. The awareness brought to the conflict in Myanmar ignited a movement and inspired the Karen people. The commentary on veteran life and living with PTSD is carried behind every flying bullet.

And sure, it is also a popcorn action flick, but therein lies the catharsis at the core of every good cinematic experience. And to this day, Rambo remains a perfect continuation of John Rambo’s quest for peace.