The case for Captain Rhodes (he wasn't the bad guy.)
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Day of the Dead
user-769 — 16 years ago(September 16, 2009 01:20 AM)
Yes, yes. The oft looked upon antagonist Capt. Rhodes. But after giving this movie another viewing, I came to the realization that while certainly not a people person, Capt. Rhodes was just doing what he felt was best for his men.
He was given an absurd situation, exasperated by the fact the so-called science team was doing nothing but getting his men killed. In light of this, instead of even trying to work with Rhodes, the science team (and the pilot/radioman) instead engaged in a multi-tiered mutiny to seize necessary equipment and abandon the soldiers in a tomb.
First off, I agree. Rhodes was a prick. But by the time it came down to brass-tax, he was facing what amounted to a rebellion of support staff. Rhodes wanted to leave the base early on in his taking command. He didn't say he was going to leave the science team behind, only that due to the recent complications that it was time to abandon the mission (as nothing had been accomplished anyway.)
Ironically, this is precisely what the "protagonist" and her crew were planning on doing only their plan included leaving the soldiers behind. When Rhodes fired shots in anger (at Logan feeding his men to zombies, and then at Fisher) both of these were simply desperate acts of a commanding officer faced with the situation the so-called protagonist put him in.
Granted, Rhodes became barbaric, but only AFTER the situation realized itself.
If anything, I'd say you could make the case that Logan and crew were the antagonists. They simply had a nicer smile painted on and more screen time.
While it is stated that the entire operation is civilian based, and the military was there to facilitate the science team it's safe to say martial law was in effect. After months and years of the science team failing to produce any applicable results (other than the death of military men, consumption of food and supplies, etc) it's only natural Rhodes, acting in the interest of his men, spoke out against the entire operation.
The very fact Rhodes granted them more time and allowed them to keep their own personal firearms proves he wasn't some tyrannical dictator.
Now, Rhodes was not a particularly good leader. He seemed more logistical than field worthy. For one thing, I'd make the argument he wasn't strict enough. He openly let civilian staff berate him in front of his men, he didn't stick by logical decisions, and he never forced any issue until the end. For instance, his stance on Sarah and Miguel. He should of locked up Miguel for being unstable, and imprisoned Sarah for being insubordinate. If you watch carefully, Dr. Fisher and Rhodes are going over documents without much issue until Sarah walks in and starts problems.
Rhodes was 100% correct when he told them that all they do is use the protection offered by the military, all the while getting his men killed. This was obviously a position held by ALL the soldiers.
With Steele, he obviously didn't like Sarah at all, but their relationship was more of a "You're dumb/You're a bitch" type of irritation. Rickles also had a soft side, you might notice in multiple scenes he had a wedding ring. Rhodes and Sarah seemed to really hate each other, and without knowing the back story, I don't know why Rhodes hatred only seemed to be directed to Sarah. I really wish we knew if they had a massive confrontation before Rhodes became commander, or if they actually did have some romantic relationship prior and he resented the fact she was now with Salazar (though I still don't know why Rhodes didn't shoot her the multiple chances he got if he wanted to kill her so bad.)
If I were in command, I don't know what exactly I'd have done with Salazar. It was unacceptable for Sarah to sedate him without Rhode's permission. I don't know what the day-to-day requirements were of the soldiers, all we know was they were short on men. For all I know, they might not have been able to spare Salazar.
One thing is for damn sure, he should have shot Salazar when he was bitten, but for whatever reason he took Sarah at her word. He actually let the Radioman and helicopter pilot threaten them with guns. He was way too lenient with them.
It really goes back to what I said earlier. Rhodes was not a good squad level commander. Steele (and he even said it) would have shot Salazar then and there (or come back with reinforcements.) Rhodes was being soft on Sarah for some reason, multiple times. I still suspect they had a romantic past or at least some level of connection prior to the movie.
If I were Rhodes, I would have promoted Steele to Sgt, or Squad Leader and let him handle the day-to-day at sub-officer/security level, and then I'd focus on the logistical problems.
I would have approached Fisher and offered him liaison position with authority and basically said
"I don't trust Logan, and Sarah doesn't respect my authority. So Fisher, I am going to grant you military rank, and place you in charge of the science team."
This would have given Fisher a bit more confiden -
DrivingOverMissDaisy — 16 years ago(September 19, 2009 06:44 PM)
This is such an awesome post, and well thought out. I just had to comment.
http://www.horrormoviefans.com -
veisbier — 16 years ago(September 19, 2009 11:01 PM)
I have to agree. I feel that similar arguments can be made for all of the soldier 'villians' in the film. PVT Steele, in particular seemed to be an otherwise decent man being pushed to his limits by an impossible situation. Yes, he was crude and given to vulgar talk, but as a military member myself, I can attest that is simply the results of a subculture that requires a certain viewpoint.
Steele is painted as a villian early on with his antagonism towards Miguel, but look at the situation. Miguel nearly killed Steele's battlebuddy. Sure, Miquel was exhausted, but I can attest that if someone's mess up put a friend in danger, I wouldn't be very accomodating at the time. Later on, Steele is clearly extremely relunctant to shoot Sarah, a person I might add, who a few hours earlier had no hesitation pulling a gun on him.
Other than Steele's annoying pal, Wripples, we don't really get any feel for the remaining soldiers. And Wripples only real sin is just being annoying. Compare that to the technical crew, who while viewer friendly, were most definately going to abandon those men there. Couple this with Logan feeding those same soldiers to his 'pet', and yeah, I can agree that the friendly civialians were the true baddies here. -
user-769 — 16 years ago(September 20, 2009 01:12 AM)
I'm not entirely sure how I watched this movie a couple of times without noticing it. But you're completely right. Steele also was very upset to shoot his other comrade mid movie. And you're right about Sarah, too. She had no problem threatening to shoot Steele. Now that I think of that, you could also argue the support crew were more vicious than the soldiers (and lazier,) they simply got more screen time and were painted prettier.
-
user-769 — 16 years ago(September 21, 2009 02:40 AM)
When I first watched it, I was thinking "Wow, Rhodes is always yelling and is really trying to threaten the science staff." But then I put myself "into the movie" and thought about the fact that if the science team had been acting the same way they were in the movie, for the several years prior to the film taking place, then no damn wonder Rhodes was yelling all the time.
-
BlondeZombie — 16 years ago(September 21, 2009 01:29 PM)
The Rickles character has always made me sad because of the emphasis on his wedding ring (we see it twice). In most zombie movies, you get to know a character's "story" as Riley calls it "Land of the Dead". You know that there was a "before" to all characters, good and bad. But in "Day of the Dead" you don't really know anyone's "story". You know that Logan's dad was also a doctor, but that's pretty much it. But when we see Rickles' ring, we know that there is a story there. Whatever happened, he was a happily married man at one point, perhaps with a family, and now he's alone. And that can go a long way to deciding whether or not he's annoying.
"When there's no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth." -
veisbier — 16 years ago(September 21, 2009 07:24 PM)
I don't ever recall Rhodes threatening to rape Sarah. He made a lewd comment about her giving the other men a chance if Miguel was out of the picture, that was it. When he had the chance, after finally snapping he never threatened her with sexual assault, though tossing her and Billy to the zombies is pretty bad as well.
I'd never noticed Rickles' wedding ring myself. This does make the character much more sypathetic in my eyes. -
BlondeZombie — 16 years ago(September 21, 2009 01:24 PM)
Rhodes is the bad guy. Is his anger justified? Absolutely. Do I understand where he's coming from when he kills Logan? Of course. Is it necessary for him to kill Ted? Sure, he needs John to realize he's serious.
But he threatens Sarah with rape, and that makes him a bad guy.
"When there's no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth." -
BlondeZombie — 16 years ago(September 22, 2009 06:39 AM)
No, he never actually threatens to rape her, but in critical analysis I've studied (I wrote my senior thesis in college on George's zombie movies, so I've had to really dig deep!) most critics sum up Rhode's lewd comment as "threatening rape", so I've come to say that as well. But he still threatens to remove the man in her life in order to leave her "vulnerable" - except she's the strong one in the relationship, so it's a flawed plan - which several critics deem to be a "rape", not necessarily in the "taking sex by force" way that is typically used today, but more of a "violation", which is how the term "rape" was formerly used.
"When there's no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth." -
user-769 — 16 years ago(September 22, 2009 04:44 PM)
The defense I would make is that Rhodes was in a position where if he wanted, he could have easily removed Miguel from the situation and took advantage of Sarah at the drop of a hat.
Yet, he never did, nor did he make any move to even after she openly disobeyed him and doped Miguel up again.
and did he actually threaten to rape her? I remember him saying he'll let move Miguel to give the other guys a chance, but that was said more as spite any thing.