Andrew Sarris on Platoon

Sarris on Platoon:

Platoon is, I think, de-Ramboizing the war, treating the enemy with a little respect, and sort of honoring the Vietnam veterans the fact that they were up against a tough, wily opponent, not really stabbed in the back but caught in a hopeless situation that made no sense and wasn’t their fault. In that sense I think it has a kind of therapeutic effect. He tried to get it off the ground for 10 years and nobody wanted it. They were putting out things like Top Gun and Rambo.

source: http://www.filmcomment.com/entry/andrew-sarris-university-of-washington-talk-march-1987-part-two

Stallone, 1993

ON THE SET WITH: Sylvester Stallone; All Right Already, No More Mr. Funny Guy

By BERNARD WEINRAUB

NYT, Published: June 09, 1993

"The down side was, I, Sylvester Stallone, became synonymous with mindless, monosyllabic violence. I was reduced to this prehistoric, bestial caveman. People were taking this fictional character and putting him in realistic situations. It was like defending your religion -- you could never win. And the more I protested, the more foolish I looked."

He continued: "Remember when Reagan bombed Qaddafi? He said, 'After seeing Rambo, I know what to do.' And then Saddam used it in his bunker. He said, 'This is not Rambo.' Can you imagine? It became synonymous with a mindset. I became a . . . symbol. I was always worried when I traveled abroad. There were always a lot of threats. When I went to Cannes they said I'd be dead. When I would go to third world countries, it was not so pretty."

And did it hurt him in Hollywood, which takes its politics and causes so seriously?

"Silently, I think it did," Mr. Stallone said. "I don't think people would vocalize it because 'Rambo' was a commercial idea, but politically I wasn't invited to the more genteel events. I didn't realize how liberal the Hollywood community was. And if you're a Republican you really stand out. And I was a Republican by association. When I went to the White House -- that did it. I had been there under Carter. But when it was under Reagan -- ooohh." He waved an admonishing finger.

1981 Top 25 Box Office

TOP 25 BOX OFFICE 1981

source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1981&p=.htm

1 Raiders of the Lost Ark

2 On Golden Pond

3 Superman II

4 Arthur

5 Stripes

6 The Cannonball Run

7 Chariots of Fire

8 For Your Eyes Only

9 The Four Seasons

10 Time Bandits

11 Clash of the Titans

12 Absence of Malice

13 Reds

14 The Fox and the Hound

15 Tarzan, the Ape Man

16 Taps

17 Sharky's Machine

18 Excalibur

19 History of the World, Part 

20 Bustin' Loose

21 The Great Muppet Caper

22 Endless Love

23 An American Werewolf in London

24 Neighbors

25 Fort Apache, The Bronx

Journal: 11/4/12

Got the reviewers’ comments back on the proposal, and generally quite happy and inspired by what one in particular had to say. More focus certainly is necessary, but I knew that even as I finished writing the proposal; I just wasn’t sure what would most interest people. Now it seems I can cut the 1971 chapter, which is a huge relief, because I wasn’t much enjoying researching it or planning it. Some of the books and articles the reviewer recommended are also useful, though the emphasis on Camera Politica made me think that book would be more closely aligned with my goals than it turns out it is (the library had a copy, and I picked it up yesterday). It is useful, and I’m definitely glad to know about it, but it’s weakened by doctrinaire marxism and generally predictable, often heavy-handed readings of the films. This is actually one of the things that inspires me to want to do this work — the majority of what I’ve read about 1980s popular movies is okay, sometimes insightful, but generally too easy. A lot of that work, especially from the late-80s and early-90s, does the necessary groundwork, but at this point we should be able to take a more nuanced and complex view of the 1980s.

I was also excited that the reviewer seemed really interested in the application to ‘80s films of Damasio’s ideas and Deleuze’s approach. These were both late additions for me, things I discovered as I was trying to figure out what I wanted to write about, so not as well developed in the proposal as they should have been, but that also happened because though they are things that excite me, they are also things I have very little background in, so am quite afraid I will misinterpret and make a fool of myself with. But one of the basic mantras I need going forward is, clearly: “More Damasio! More Deleuze!”

To help focus, I want, then, two main strands of the book—

1. Conjunction of films and paramilitary, far-right ideology
2. Emotional aesthetics in the politics and films

With those two goals in mind, I think I can fashion a new outline.