Is this movie antipolice?
-
rj-27 — 10 years ago(May 14, 2015 10:01 AM)
After having seen this movies more than a dozen times, it strikes me as anti-war and anti-police [state].
They are two sides of the same coin.
Rambo represents unbridled military aggression, trained to kill without hesitation or remorse, even if in doubt. He is a successful product of the military's killing machine program. Trautman was sent to find out "why his machine blew a gasket". Aptly put by Teasle, but not without irony.
The police represent authoritative aggression. "Is there any law against me getting something to eat?" "Yeah. Me." Teasle is typical of the power drunk cop who seems to be itching for someone like Rambo to come along just to show him who's boss. And his top deputy is the worst. Both of them blew their respective gaskets or there never would have been a violent confrontation.
Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H.L. Mencken -
TheAdvocator — 10 years ago(December 04, 2015 06:06 PM)
What John is going through has nothing to do with his training. It's all about his P.T.S.D. causing him to lash out and protect himself as the result of the police who go against procedure.
With good reason to as there was nothing to indicate he could have came through that booking process unharmed.
A good review of "Inside Out": -
!!!deleted!!! (47421091) — 10 years ago(May 16, 2015 11:55 AM)
I am both a big supporter of the police and our servicemen, but didn't feel a bias either way.
Teasle was a tool, should have let the dude eat and run. Rambo was a tool and resisted all attempts to be interviewed and fingerprinted.
Neither one acquitted himself very well. Both had issues, both made mistakes. I'm glad the story was changed
that neither one died in the final scene. -
!!!deleted!!! (47421091) — 10 years ago(March 14, 2016 04:37 PM)
Why wouldn't he resist he had to reason for being arrested in the first place. He was just minding his own damn business. Teasle was out of line by confronting him in the first place.
Tell me: exactly what good will come out of resisting arrest? -
GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 — 10 years ago(May 22, 2015 06:51 PM)
Neither one acquitted himself very well. Both had issues, both made mistakes. I'm glad the story was changed that neither one died in the final scene.
I wish they would've kept Teasle's character like the novel where at the end he feels compassion for Rambo and Rambo sort of feels compassion for Teasle. Instead Teasle would rather be blown apart by a machine gun.
Green Goblin is great! -
spookyrat1 — 10 years ago(July 12, 2015 08:20 PM)
Overall the film is sympathetic towards Rambo as we can see the stuff that took place about which Teasle is not telling the authorities. But the film also doesn't hold back from letting us believe that Rambo has let the provocations send him way over the top due to the PTSD he is experiencing, as well as the alienation from mainstream society he feels.
Trautman is right. The mission is well and truly over and Rambo has to stand down. -
berringercross — 10 years ago(November 22, 2015 02:28 AM)
I love this film and I can safely say that I have never felt a direct anti-police or anti-military sentiment in the picture. For the longest time, I've felt something different from the screenplay and I think that's what makes it such a watchable (and re-watchable) film. I've always loved the morality play floating just beneath the surface of "First Blood" that illustrates the grey areas humanity subjects itself to by simply not listening to each other either through reasoning or conditioning.
Teasle doesn't listen to Rambo when he only wants a place to get some food because of his reasoning that drifters cause too much trouble for small towns. Rambo doesn't listen to the officers who want to fingerprint him and process him because of his military conditioning not to divulge information about himself to the enemy. Galt doesn't listen to Teasle when he tells him not to fire upon Rambo from the helicopter. Teasle doesn't listen to Mitch when he asks why the state troopers can't handle the situation and Teasle also doesn't listen to Trautman when the Colonel suggests simply letting Rambo go and picking him up in a peaceful manner when Rambo resurfaces somewhere down the line. Hell, even Clinton doesn't listen to Teasle when he says he wants Rambo taken alive at the mine.
Each time someone doesn't listen to another human being, the situation escalates until it likens itself to a juggernaut progressing to an inevitable conclusion. I think the actors reflect these shades of personal reasoning and conditioning very well and I find those little nuances to be a fascinating part of the "First Blood" experience. -
VictorGrey — 10 years ago(November 26, 2015 09:34 PM)
I think the movie is, anti- police-behaving in that particular manner, particularly toward vets.
Generally though, I think moral of the whole film, is to not kick a man while he's already down.
To show people dignity.
The police in the film have a duty to uphold law and keep the peace, same as reality. I think the dialog in the film does that does some justice to the notion.
They're trying to do their job. The manner just isn't the right way.
The lesson brought across in the movie, is the best way to do that with people who are deeply troubled like the character of John Rambo, isn't necessary the coldest most efficient-seeming solution. (Confronting him, driving him out of town, meeting his force with always stronger force, ect.)
Rambo is mentally geared to respond in kind. He hands back any of that thrown at him, with as much or even stronger (and vicious) retaliations. Starting even, by completely sulling up verbally to confrontational language.
In complete contrast to that, when he's finally encountered at the very end of the movie by Trautman, with a level of respect and appeal to reason, he completely breaks down.
What took a half of a battalion of people to accomplish with force, was done by a stern word or two from one person showing him some dignity. -
frankzappayay — 10 years ago(December 12, 2015 11:36 AM)
When I first watched it in the 80's, I never would have thought it was anti-police. It was clearly anti THIS police department - they are clearly all idiots and abusing their power. But I never would have thought that was a common issue. However when you look at how America is today. and all the regular police shootings of innocent people (there are many, look it up), it's like this movie was prophetic. Even down to the over reliance of military hardware - like when Rambo tries to give up near the start of the film when he puts his hands up down by the river and they all end up unloading magazines at him with fully automatic rifles. And how they also have machines guns and a rocket launcher. All of this for a 'vagrant'.
-
dakotajmathews — 10 years ago(March 14, 2016 11:10 AM)
Considering how the police are portrayed as the enemy and how they portray the war (how it scarred Rambo and took his friend Delmore) I definitely see this film as anti police, state, and war. Which is definitely a theme that helps suck me right into the film.
-
frankzappayay — 9 years ago(September 06, 2016 01:51 PM)
It is what it is. It isn't anti police in general, but it is very anti this particular police department, and that is a big problem for many regions, not just in America. The police are given so much power and control and leeway, if one bad cop abuses it, or worse one bad department, it can be really bad.
-
Lunda2222 — 9 years ago(January 23, 2017 06:37 PM)
I always thought of the movie as a message on how the government failed to care for it's soldiers with PTSD.
That and the potential conflicts that might ensue because of that neglect.
It`s far easier to start a war than to end one.