Book Vs. Movie - First Blood

  So a few months ago Rambo: Last Blood was released, the latest in a series of movies that, much like its lead character, refuses to die (though personally I really do think that this will be the last one). I didn't actually see Last Blood – in fact I've only seen the first and fourth Rambo films – but it got me thinking that maybe it'd be fun to read the David Morrell novel where it all started: First Blood. Author David Morrell was inspired to write First Blood after witnessing the effects of the Vietnam War on American society. This made him wonder what might happen if a returning veteran were to bring the war home with him. Published in 1972, First Blood became a big hit with Morrell selling the movie rights to it immediately. After several rewrites – none of which involved Morrell – and a decade in development hell First Blood stormed the theatres in 1982 with Sylvester Stallone in the starring role. First Blood is one of the best action movies of the 1980's and one of my favourites as well. So how does it stack against the novel? Let's take a look.

  First let's recap the plot which generally remains pretty similar from book to film. Rambo is a homeless, shell-shocked Vietnam veteran hitchhiking around, making his way through a small town looking for a place to eat. Distrustful of such scraggly-looking outsiders, local top cop Will Teasle gives Rambo a lift out of town. Refusing to be pushed around, Rambo returns to the town in spite of Tealse's warnings leading to his arrest. “The kid” proves to be uncooperative and the police's attempts to shave him triggers a frightening flashback from the war. Rambo freaks out, overpowers the cops, breaks out of the police station, and leads them on a chase into the nearby mountains. Multiple officers start searching for him – both on foot and by helicopter – but Rambo's expertise in stealth and guerilla warfare give him the upper hand; he incapacitates them all with Teasle barely making it out. In the following days a massive manhunt takes form with the involvement of state police, the national guard, and civilian volunteers. Teasle receives advice (which he refuses) from special forces Colonel Sam Trautman who reveals that the kid was a highly decorated member of the Green Berets in Vietnam. Eventually Rambo is cornered in an abandoned mine/cave complex. After navigating the cave he finds an exit and makes his way back into the town to confront Teasle. Rambo blows up a good chunk of the town before the two engage in a climactic gunfight with Trautman not far behind.

  I think the biggest differences between the book and film can be seen in the portrayal of its main characters, Rambo and Teasle. The novel almost evenly splits its focus between the two of them and they're both made out to be flawed and complex characters. Whichever one – if either – is the good guy and the bad guy is left ambiguous as each man has his reasons and his faults. In contrast, the movie First Blood simplifies things by making Rambo – who in this version is given the first name John – the sympathetic main character. The film begins with Rambo looking for one of his old war buddies only to find that he's died from the effects of Agent Orange. Once he's arrested, the kid is treated rather viciously by the sadistic policemen (in the book the policemen seem agreeable enough). In addition, movie Rambo only inadvertently kills a few dogs and one police officer (which arguably wasn't his fault) and during the manhunt scene in the woods he dispatches all of Teasle's men, including Teasle himself, non-lethally as a warning to leave him be. This contrasts heavily with the book version of Rambo: he kills dozens of people. During his escape from the police station, he uses the razor to slash open and disembowel a cop, during his escape the next day he manages to shoot down a helicopter that had two people in it, he methodically slaughters the cops that were after him one by one, he knifes two civilian volunteers to death, and he blows up the police station with people still in it (in the movie he only shoots up the station once everyone but Teasle has gone). Before his arrest, book Rambo – who doesn't have a first name – has plenty of opportunities to back down and de-escalate the situation but he can't stop provoking Teasle. Once things have gotten out of hand, Rambo admits to himself that against his better judgment he wanted the fight, that it gives him a sense of purpose, and the thought of surrender seems disgusting to him. Compare this to the film version of Rambo who tries surrendering after Deputy Galt dies, but is forced to flee after Teasle opens fire on him. It's clear that this version of Rambo was just minding his own business and wanted to be left alone.

  By the same token Will Teasle's character is changed up even more than Rambo's. In the book he's kind of a jerk but this is partially due to some personal issues he has at the moment. He'd lately been fighting with his surrogate father, Orval, over nothing and he's also anxious about receiving a phone call from his recently estranged wife. (There's a line in the film where upon walking into the police station Teasle says “hold my calls.” Possible reference?) He narrowly manages to escape Rambo in the woods by crawling though some thick brambles in an exhausted panic. It's this chase that prompts a serious heart condition but Teasle repeatedly refuses to rest/seek medical attention and instead loads up on painkillers because he feels guilty about starting this whole murderous affair and he's determined to see it through until the end. Towards the end he develops a bizarre admiration for Rambo as well as an uncanny ability to anticipate where Rambo is going. This differs wildly from the movie version of Teasle who is simply a proud, stubborn policeman who's mad that things aren't going his way. You don't learn much about his backstory, his motivations, or his sense of responsibility: he's just a jerkwad. This downgrade in Teasle's character comes with a corresponding downgrade in Orval's character as well: he's a major supporting character in the novel but in the movie he's nothing more than an angry redneck.

  It's these differences between Rambo and Teasle's portrayal that change First Blood's whole tone and theme. This can be explained by the fact that both versions of the story are very much products of their time. You see, many Americans in the early 1970's were getting sick and tired of crime and hippie culture and were longing for stern authority figures to reestablish law and order in the country (see 1971's Dirty Harry). One must also remember that the United States was still involved in the Vietnam War when this book came out and the public was very divided on how returning veterans should be viewed. Rambo's beard, long hair, and roaming loner lifestyle would have led many readers to label him as a hippie and therefore not as agreeable as a small town police chief. However, by the 1980's the American public was ready to view Vietnam veterans in a more sympathetic light. As a result, the veteran-focused themes in First Blood the movie are given far more attention than in its novel counterpart. More importantly, action movies in the 1980's were becoming more in-your-face as audiences' appetite for destruction swelled. This was the era of the underdog, one-man-army action films featuring a lone hero on a destructive rampage: Commando (1985), Robocop (1987), and Die Hard (1989) all owe at least some measure of their success to Rambo's first cinematic outing in 1982.

  The tonal change can also be seen in how Colonel Trautman's role was expanded. In the book, Trautman and Rambo had never met; Rambo only recognized the man's name and voice as one of the commanders of the army base that had trained him. But the movie makes their connection way more personal; Trautman commanded Rambo's squad on missions in Vietnam and is now basically the only friend that Rambo has left. As such the movie version of Trautman makes more of an effort to save Rambo by talking him down. There's an interesting line in the movie where Teasle asks Trautman , “What would you have done with [Rambo] if he came in? Wrap your arms around him, give him a big sloppy kiss? Or would you've blown his brains out?” Depending on the version of First Blood you're going through, Trautman did both!

  That's the other huge difference between the book and movie: the ending. In the novel Teasle chases Rambo through town and successfully sneaks behind the kid. The two deliver mutually fatal gunshots to eachother. Rambo survives long enough to crawl into some nearby woods with Trautman and a stumbling-yet-determined Teasle in pursuit. Hoping to coax Teasle into killing him – and thus go down fighting – an unsteady Rambo hits the policeman with a shot that he actually meant to miss. Trautman responds with a shotgun blast to Rambo's head. The colonel delivers the news to Teasle as he dies peacefully. In the movie Rambo makes his way towards the police station where Teasle waits for him alone. Rambo sneaks inside and a brief gunfight ensues with Teasle shot and Rambo about to kill him. Trautman shows up – moments ahead of hundreds of national guardsmen who surround the building – to talk Rambo out of it, insisting that there's no chance of escape and reminding the kid that he's the last of his army unit. An incensed Rambo throws his weapons away and starts to rant on his frustrations with losing the war, how unfair and unsatisfying civilian life is, and how sad he is that all his army buddies are dead. Now in tears, the despondent Rambo embraces Trautman who escorts him outside to surrender to the police.

  These are both really great endings, each one well-suited to the story preceding it. Book Rambo was a violent man who got what he wanted: a violent death. But since the movie version of First Blood tried to bring veterans issues like post-traumatic stress disorder to the forefront, it makes sense to let the main character express his grievances to a world that turned its back on him. It's not often you see an action movie where the hero breaks down and sobs helplessly at the end. And this is helped by the fact that Sylvester Stallone is an excellent actor in this film. (Fun fact: this wasn't the original ending to the film. Initially Rambo was supposed to beg and then force Trautman to shoot him dead. This ending didn't go over well with test audiences and was thus reshot.)

  One other difference I wanted to bring up is the setting. Whereas the book took place in the small town of Madison, Kentucky, the movie takes place in the small town of Hope, Washington. I'm not sure why the filmmakers chose to change locations but I certainly am in favour of it for purely selfish reasons. First Blood was filmed in Hope, British Columbia, which is just down the road from where I live! Some of the locations in the film are places I've been to and whenever I find myself in Hope I can't help but think of Rambo movies. Pretty neat, huh? Just thought I'd share that.

  And speaking of tangents, here is a list of a bunch of other differences whose effects on the film are slight and were probably only made to save the filmmakers time (which normally happens with adaptations):

• The book takes place in early October whereas the movie takes place in December.
• In the book Teasle is the Chief of Police but in the movie he's the Sheriff. I'm unsure if this makes any practical difference.
• Teasle's status as a Korean War veteran isn't given any attention in the film. However there is one shot where you can see some military medals in his office.

• Sylvester Stallone has no beard, which makes the whole shaving scene in jail a bit confusing.
• In the movie Rambo escapes the police station in boots, jeans, and a sleeveless shirt. In the book he was bare-ass naked.
• The movie does go to great lengths to recreate the cliff scene from the book. However, the police helicopter isn't shot down and considerably fewer people die in this version.
• The owl that Rambo caught and ate was changed to a pig.
• The novel's version of Rambo's escape through the caves is considerably more hazardous and longer than in the film. Most of it happens in complete darkness, he gets attacked by bats, and he even comes across the skeleton of someone else who also got lost a long time ago. At one point things look so bleak that he briefly considers committing suicide.

  And that's First Blood, both a gripping thriller novel and a fine action film. Both pieces of media do a fine job at what they've set out to do while telling a story that is mostly the same, but with two radically different tones, themes, and endings. For that reason I recommend trying both the movie and the book. I say start with the movie and if you're left hungry for more, for something meatier and more sinuous, check out David Morrell's novel, which I believe is the better version of the two.

Movie Review -- The Gentlemen

  While I have seen a few Guy Ritchie movies, his direction never left much of an impression on me. So when I went to go see his latest film, The Gentlemen, I didn't know what to expect. From what I can tell, he's famous for his crime comedies of which The Gentlemen is definitely one. So is it worth a watch? Let's find out.

  The Gentlemen tells the story of Britain's marijuana kingpin Mickey Pearson. He wants to sell off his underground empire and retire but there's plenty of schemers and blackmailers out there who want a piece of the pie. A great big mess ensues. It's a story with lots of twists and surprises, mostly because it doesn't take itself too seriously. The film's playful and humourous tone is highlighted by sharp, tangent-laden dialogue. In this regard, The Gentlemen is roughly similar to Pulp Fiction except much faster-paced. Try not to blink because this plot is on the move and it's easy to miss things.

  One thing you can't miss, however, is the acting: it is superb throughout. Colin Farrell gives a memorable comedic performance as the nonaligned MMA instructor Coach. Charlie Hunnan is confident and in-control as Pearson's badass consigliere Raymond Smith. Ironically, it's lead actor Matthew McConaghey's performance as Pearson that stands out to me the least. He certainly isn't bad in this movie, but he comes across as restrained. For me the actor who steals the show is Hugh Grant as the cocky, self-assured, and slightly deranged private investigator Fletcher. What's really great is that for the first half of the film Grant serves as a narrator-of-sorts so you get to hear his take on all the events unfolding.

  This narration is given life through the film's energetic directing and editing. Scenes playfully jump back and forth, sometimes out of order and with plenty of flashbacks. And since the narrator – sometimes narrators – isn't always reliable, we even end up with a few “what if” scenarios. Even the aspect ratio and filmstock aren't immune from being messed around with.

  All in all, Guy Ritchie has crafted a very enjoyable experience with The Gentlemen. If you like your comedies with a bit of a rough edge – or conversely, if you like violent gangster films that have a great sense of humour – then I'd very much recommend it.

Grade: