Is there any chance I'll ever enjoy a new Sylvester Stallone movie
on an irony-free level? The odds are long, I grant you. Neither of us
is getting any younger. In the last three decades the closest he's
come to achieving that feat is Cop
Land
(1997) an inept movie of sincere, but modest, charm. Other than that, well . . . I
haven't seen everything
Stallone
has done. But I've seen more than half of his movies.
Which is to say I've seen a lot of crap.
Which is to say I've seen a lot of crap.
The
movies that run between the original Rocky
(1976)
and Rocky III
(1982) stand head and shoulders above the rest of Stallone's career.
F.I.S.T., Paradise Alley, Nighthawks, Victory
and
even Rocky II
showcase the charisma and talents of a journeyman actor flexing
considerable chops and steadily gaining the confidence of the camera.
But by Rocky III
we
see the “new” Stallone taking shape: a journeyman celebrity,
who steadily morphs into the Slab of Sly we know and watch today.
The
four non-Rocky
movies
drew a modest box-office, so a third trip to the Rocky
well
was pretty much expected. Prior to that, however, Stallone was
shooting the movie that altered his career more definitively than
even his award-winning brain-child, and shaped the public's
movie-going appetite for the next 20 years: First
Blood.
Although
First Blood
ushered
in many of the tropes of the '80s Action Movie — a muscle-bound
hero who levels swathes of enemy troops by using superior cunning and
a really big gun — it remains in many ways a quintessential product
of the '70s. Prior to this movie, director Ted
Kotcheff
(a Canuck!) had delivered The Apprenticeship of
Duddy Kravitz, Fun With Dick And Jane,
and
North Dallas 40
— three
stand-outs among other recognizable '70s fare. Standing beside him as
Director of Photography is Andrew
Laszlo,
who performed the same function for Walter
Hill,
in The Warriors (wp) — eschewing
zooms, and keeping the lenses wide, Laszlo pulls a certain grit into
the frame, a practice that eventually got polished into oblivion in
the decades that followed.
Consequently there are visual elements that belong to the '70s as
well. First, if we consider Stallone's trademark physique . . .
. . . the athleticism, while definitely a cut above even
physique-conscious types like Burt Reynolds and Clint
Eastwood, is nowhere near what Sly currently maintains. It is
even conceivable he achieved his original “Rambo” physique by
natural means.
Along
the same sight-lines: relative newcomers to Stallone might be
surprised to discover he is “vertically challenged” (William
Goldman
famously followed Stallone into a swimming pool just to ascertain
this fact). For decades now Stallone has been framed in such a way as
to give him the height advantage — not just with women, but men as
well. First Blood
however, shamelessly capitalizes on his true physical status, framing
him naturally as a smaller “underdog” the audience will root for.
Sly, all 5'7" of him, on left. |
Look Ma: no green-screen! |
The author photo should clear up any doubts |
However,
given this early run of movies, and the long dreadful onslaught
that's followed, I have to wonder if he didn't have someone in his
posse who could spot — and improve on — an already promising
script. The standing theory is either Stallone finally alienated this
person (an ex-wife?), or the actual punches he kept gratuitously
taking to his head finally robbed him of all narrative sense.
There
is, however, a third possibility: that First
Blood
was for Stallone what Last
Tango In Paris was
for Brando — a decimating personal apocalypse that forced the actor
to draw from previously unplumbed depths, and confronted him with a
terrible self-awareness which he spent the rest of his lifetime
fleeing.
“Wait,”
you say, “aren't we talking about an action
movie?”
Ah,
but First Blood
isn't
just your run-of-the-mill action movie — it's a brutal journey into
the Heart of Darkness that is American Masculinity.
Next:
The horror. The horror!
2 comments:
I was 7 years old when Rambo II came out. I wasn't allowed to see it of course, but it and Rambo III were such big hits in the 80 that you couldn't really escape them. they seeped into the culture.
I was very surprised then when I finally got around to seeing the first Rambo I. It was completely different than I had been lead to expect.
I've since talked to several people my age and some people younger, and many people seem to have had this experience. The popular image of Rambo is so different from what you actually get in that first movie.
If there is any evidence that there was someone other than Stallone in his posse who had instincts for script changes that worked, but who burned bridges and took off forever, it is in those subsequent Rambo movies. Stallone seemed to completely forget what that first movie was all about. Or maybe he just became cynical, and re-wrote the character to suit his "brand" as International Action Figure. In interviews, though, Stallone doesn't seem the cynical type. If anything, he comes across as naive.
Post a Comment