Pearl Harbor, Rambo - First Blood - Book Report/Review Example

Unbeknown to many, international relations has often been a of many contemporary films. Espionage movies and movies dealing with civil, cultural and world wars and crises, military intervention or humanitarian mission are among those that portray aspects of international relations. However, not all these films portray international relations as convincingly and accurately as the texts we read and study at scholarly journals, international relations textbooks or history books. As rude as it may sound, these films are what one might consider as “ridiculous” in the sense that the principles of international relations are being undermined in their contents to give more emphasis on the unnecessary and the profitable. The following is an enumeration of my top five most ridiculous films about international relations: 1. Pearl Harbor Despite the large fanfare, Pearl Harbor (2001) has a lackluster reputation as an international relations film because instead of having a clear understanding of the Pearl Harbor incident, viewers tend to focus on the love story and not the political issue surrounding it. Had the title been altogether different, rather than a significant event in World War II, it would, as critics say, just be another “sappy” romantic film with no real social and academic relevance (The Internet Movie Database (IMDB)). It makes one wonder “Why is the movie entitled Pearl Harbor when the story does not center on the impact and implications of the real incident but on the sensationalized lives of particular individuals?” The film evidently shows a lack of historical research. Real-life characters have been misrepresented, the weapons and equipment used in the war are not accurately accounted for, and the movie has no respect for proper chronology to the annoyance of many historians. The film is supposedly based loosely on the lives of two soldiers who were childhood friends and later participated in Pearl Harbor (IMDB). It would have been more meaningful if the movie zooms in on their contributions to the war. As it happens, the Pearl Harbor incident does not portray the main characters as witnesses to an actual international political conflict. 2. Rambo: First Blood, Part II. Rambo: First Blood, Part II (1985) reflects American revisionist sentiments on the results of the Vietnam War. The film is ridiculous solely in the fact that there seems to be a lot of sourgraping and a bitter longing for “what might have been.” Many Americans still believe that they should have won the war. It is incredible how a poor militant group from a poor country like Vietnam can actually have the means to defeat them (Hoffman and Bailey 261-2). No matter how impossible, violent, and racist, Rambo’s action-packed deeds in the film have pacified several wounded and begrudging American egos. The killing of fourteen members of the Viet Cong with just one bow and the rescue of thirty-nine American hi-jacking hostages in Beirut are just a few of Rambo’s death-defying stunts that have revised the actual events of the Vietnam War and may have convinced those who have no knowledge of this part of world history that America did win (Hoffman and Bailey 261). 3. Raiders of the Lost Ark Indiana Jones is a known adventurer and an icon of adventure, thanks to the film Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), which has spurred him to stardom. The film borrows from international political events and weaves portions of it around its plot. As an action-adventure film, this may have been one of the best. However, in the category of international relations, the movie is nothing more but ridiculous for using important events to put some excitement into Indiana Jones’ adventure and reinforce his heroism. This is simply a repeat of the Rambo and Pearl Harbor movies which center on the personalities involved until the issues they are fighting for or the important historical events in which they are catapulted into are relegated into the background. Raiders of the Lost Ark also mystify the events of the Holocaust, making it seem as if the Nazis killed the Jews because they suspect them of hiding information about the Ark. Not only that, there is a racist tone in the movie that is clearly at odds with the aims of international relations. The Arabs are depicted as accomplices of the villainous Nazis, who get their just desserts along with the villain themselves (Kotwal). These subtle racist hints can somehow reinforce the “clash of civilizations’ that Samuel Huntington mentions in later years. 4. Lord of the Flies There is no question why William Golding won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1983, but since he has no direct hand in the movies based on his novel, it is safe to say how ridiculous they are, especially the 1990 adaptation. What makes this particular version ridiculous is its one-dimensional view of human tendencies. Even if the story is just a realist metaphor for the manner in which states relate to each other in international politics during the war-torn early half of the 20th century, the movie deviates from the theoretical and moral questions of realism in Golding novel’s and focuses more on the violent effects of anarchy and how these appear on the screen instead. The original novel has been subtle about the violence being portrayed and has successfully created a balance between the struggle to build a proper civilization through diplomacy on Ralph and Piggy’s side and the armed aggression and degeneration into savagery of Jack’s group. However, in Harry Hook’s version of the film, the savagery seems to dominate. Some important characters that play a crucial role in the book like Simon and Roger have also been neglected in the film. The racist overtone in the film clearly imposes itself when the British boys of the original novel have suddenly turned into Americans. Furthermore, realism, an important international relations perspective in the Lord of the Flies, has been reduced to a mere act of violence. Without prior knowledge of the book, the movie is nothing but a ridiculous international relations movie that only breeds more ambiguity—and perhaps profit—rather than enlighten viewers on world issues (Robbins 92-3). The overarching effect is that the political implications in the screenplay and the political relevance of the film have been much diluted. 5. The Day the Earth Stood Still Like the four other most ridiculous international relations films, The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) shares the same racist and America-centered hints. Although it claims to express concern for the planet and supports the green movement, it is incomprehensible why an alien Keanu Reeves, assuming the name of Klaatu, would want to land in New York of all places while decades before he comes to NY, his race took some blood sample from an exhausted mountaineer stranded in the Himalayas to generate his human body. Later, it is discovered that this being intends to talk to the United Nations. By saying this intention to the US Secretary of Defense, rather than directly going to the UN, this movie seems to hint at the world’s power structure, where states must go through America first and foremost and the superpower state shall judge whether the actions of Third World and other subordinate states are favorable to it or not. More importantly, of all people, it is an American scientist, who is able to convince Klaatu that humanity is worth saving (Turan). Is it an implication that only America “can convince” the world to change? Ironically, environmental matters have not been fully emphasized, making Klaatu the center of attention instead. Works Cited Hoffman, Frank and William Bailey. Arts & Entertainment Fads, Volume 1990, Part 2. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.   Kotwal, Kaizaad. “Steven Spielbergs Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom as Virtual Reality: The Orientalist and Colonial Legacies of Gunga Din.” The Film Journal. The Film Journal, n.d. Web. 10 June 2010. . Robbins, Randy. “Lord of the Symbol.” Paper to Flesh: Explorations of Performance Senior Seminar. University of West Georgia, West Georgia, GA. 2001. Web. 10 June 2010. . The Internet Movie Database. “FAQ for Pearl Harbor.” IMDB.com. IMDB, n.d. Web. 10 June 2010. . Turan, Kenneth. “Klaatu Returns to Save the Earth.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 12 Dec. 2008. Web. 10 June 2010. . Read More