Classic Review: First Blood

Stars:  *** out of Four

Summary:  While not revolutionary on a visual level, ‘First Blood’ brought a deep, heartfelt performance from Sylvester Stallone on par with ‘Rocky’, a great musical score from Jerry Goldsmith, and a very iconic character into cinema history.

Guess whos coming to dinner...

Guess who's coming to dinner...

Review:  A dusty road in a backwoods part of the country is unveiled to us, the audience, as Jerry Goldsmith’s iconic music fills our ears with a mournful, slightly adventurous tune.  Enter John J. Rambo, a Vietnam veteran turned drifter, as played by Sylvester Stallone.

And action movies would never be the same.

Based on the novel of the same name by David Morrell, ‘First Blood’ confronts the mistreatment of soldiers who had returned from Vietnam, while providing constant, gripping action.  Unlike the many imitators and sequels that followed, this film focuses on the character’s internal drama, which in turn fuels the action, rather than the inverse.  The idea of Rambo being a dumb killing machine is actually a misconception fueled by the sequels, since in this film he is very conscientious and obviously intelligent.  Stallone doesn’t play him like a generic antihero.  Arguably, he puts the same amount of emotional depth into the character that he does in his similarly iconic role as Rocky Balboa.

Along with ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’, ‘Die Hard’, and ‘Lethal Weapon’, this film framed the modern action film.  In this case, it inspired the common trope of the misunderstood soldier and his inability to adjust after being exposed to the horrors of war.  I can see inspiration from ‘First Blood’ in films ranging from the ridiculous (‘Commando’) to the surprisingly emotional (‘The Bourne Identity’ and its sequels).  Films like ‘Commando’ capitalized on the allure of the “super-soldier”, while ‘The Bourne Identity’ captured the same dramatic depth of character that is evident in ‘First Blood’.  Having not seen any of the ‘Rambo’ pictures until recently, I was very pleasantly surprised by the first installment.  One major element that contributed to this reaction is the movie’s restraint.

Unlike, say, the fourth ‘Rambo’ movie, this is a film that knows when to pull punches and when to throw them, hard.  Arguably the goriest moment is a man accidentally killed by John Rambo, the man being a deputy who tumbles out a low-flying helicopter to a bone-crushing death on a riverbed below.  Even then, no blood splatters, we simply see his heavily bruised remains afterward.  The second goriest moment is when another deputy is hit with a brutal trap set by Rambo, which impales his legs, but leaves him painfully alive.  Much ado is made of Rambo’s unwillingness to hurt innocents, or even misguided enemies.  What traps Rambo in this fight-or-flight situation in the first place is simple mistrust and prejudice from a small town’s sheriff.  Rambo even lets the deputies mistreat him without lashing out, until his post-traumatic stress disorder forces him to.  Though obviously having elements of a hero, while I was watching ‘First Blood’ I was convinced that Rambo was more the victim than the strict protagonist.  To me, the protagonist is his former CO, Colonel Samuel Trautman.  Trautman represents the moral ground zero, and, is the intellectual foil of the corrupt sheriff.  Trautman does his best to bring Rambo back from the edge of possible insanity, and when Rambo refuses, the question is, should Trautman give him up to the law or not?

Contrasted with the modern action film, this film is actually surprisingly tame, as noted above.  Were it not for several instances of the F-word, it would be a shoe-in for a PG-13 nowadays.  That said, the action is kept realistic and gritty enough that we feel its impact.  Speaking of impact, the film seems to owe one of its action scenes to another redefining action film, ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’.  Rambo hijacks a truck and gets involved in a brief chase, pushing a police vehicle off the road and crashing through barriers, with cinematography that is strikingly similar to the now famous truck chase in ‘Raiders’.  Considering that ‘Raiders’ came out a year before this film, it is plausible that the filmmakers wanted at least a nod to the previous year’s megahit.

The ending- which I will not spoil, as is tradition -is down/up.  Something is very clearly lost, yet something is very clearly gained.  It was unexpected and cathartic, so I wouldn’t want to say exactly what happens, only that Stallone pulls off a very difficult performance at a critical moment.

The technical aspects of the film are solid.  It doesn’t feel as dynamic in cinematography as ‘Raiders’ or ‘Die Hard’.  The special effects, which are still impressive today, thanks to the lack of CGI trickery, have body and are quite memorable, similar to the previously mentioned films.  The music, which I mentioned at the beginning of this review, is pitch-perfect.  The late Jerry Goldsmith, echoing the film’s story, took what could have been a generic thriller and gave it dimension.

That said, the film is not as complete an emotional ride, to me, as ‘Raiders’ or ‘Die Hard’.  Both of those films I give higher star ratings.  ‘Raiders’ is such a revolutionary film, which managed to succeed by using tropes establish near the very beginning of commercial film, that it has more artistic and visual merit.  ‘Die Hard’ takes the action hero, which was fast becoming a cookie-cutter character (and usually is, anyway), and lets him doubt himself, which is actually very similar to the character of Indiana Jones in ‘Raiders’.  ‘Die Hard’ is more entertaining than ‘First Blood’, to be completely frank.  The key flaw to ‘First Blood’, then, isn’t in general a flaw; it isn’t a film that manages to deliver on entertainment and spectacle quite as well.  Conversely, ‘First Blood’ is a great deal more serious than both of the former, and isn’t about spectacle or entertainment to the same degree. Nevertheless, as this article is about my subjective opinion, I give it a solid three stars.

Hopefully, action films will take a turn back in this direction, coupling restraint with a solid internal logic, and a compelling, iconic character.  There are still movies that deliver on this level, but as has always been the problem with cinema, and with art in general, it is far easier to find the bad than the great.  Until the day we get another icon like Rambo, “It’s a long road…

Classic Review: Lillies of the Field

By contributor Patrick Zabriskie

Stars: ★★★★

Review:  To recognize both the conclusion of Black History Month and the recent Academy Awards Presentation, I thought it would be fitting to review Lilies of the Field, the first film to give the award for Best Actor to an African American, Sidney Poitier.

The opening shot of Lilies of the Field does not do much in the way of grandeur—an old car driving down a desert highway with a simple song in the background.  It’s not epic, it’s not grand; it’s comfortable, cozy.  In many ways, this shot sets the tone for the rest of the movie.

The film introduces us to Homer Smith (Poitier), a self described “black Baptist” and a drifting handyman, who stumbles across a convent in the Arizona wilderness and is hired by its nuns to do some maintenance work.  Homer first works in order to make a quick buck—something the Mother Superior, the other lead in this movie and something of an antagonist to Homer, promises but never gives.  Still, she manages to coerce him to stay, work, and even drive the nuns around.  A bond begins to grow between Homer and the religious sisters.  The center event of the movie though, is when the Mother Superior asks that Homer build for them a chapel near their convent.  At first reluctant to do so, Homer soon finds that this chapel is a matter of pride for him, and with faith, humility, and hard work, the logical “happy ending” is reached.

Though depicting Catholic nuns and having a famous Bible quote, the “lilies” passage of Mathew 28, as the movie’s theme, this film manages to not feel overly religious.  Catholic, even Christian, elements are kept to a minimum.  Jesus, for example, is only mentioned in song.  The presence of God, though he himself is commonly mentioned, does not saturate this movie.  Yes, it’s about faith, but it’s also about human relationships.  The constant struggle between Homer and the Mother Superior is iconic, as each side represents a strong personality that holds out to get what he or she wants, only to find in the end that each must give in order to receive.

As I said in the beginning, this is a film that gets much of its joy out of quality simplicity.  Sidney Poitier gives a performance deserving of his Oscar as Homer.  It isn’t five minutes into the movie that we, the audience, completely accept him as a convincing and believable character, despite the fact that we know nothing of his past.  Still, his performance doesn’t feel overly dramatic.  He’s no Ben-Hur, but for this movie he certainly doesn’t have to be.  Lilia Skala as the Mother Superior plays an equally convincing role, again never failing to incite believability in her character.

Lastly, though the technical aspects of this movie are not mesmerizing, they flesh out the movie quite well.  It was shot on location in the desert, and a real sense of progress is felt as the chapel gets closer and closer to completion (an actual crew labored through the night to achieve this effect).  Finally, Jerry Goldsmith’s score, with its folk-grassroots sound and use of a popular Baptist hymn, complements the movie beautifully and is in itself a treasure to simply listen to.
In conclusion, Lilies of the Field is a touching little movie.  A sort of diamond in the rough, this film gets two thumbs up from me, and I cite it as an example of how great movies need not be expensive.