Rhodes: Misguided hero or tyrannical villain?

[JDFP]

Every character (worth merit in any good film at least), has more than one way of looking at him/her:


Rhodes: The Misguided Hero:

As a soldier, and a officer, Rhodes served under the leadership of Major Cooper. To become an officer, Rhodes has had to undergo years of training and deployments to earn the respect of his men and his commission. In an operation that was doomed from the beginning, Rhodes has helped keep his squad together against unbelievable pressure. Even after his men have started cracking (or have cracked in the case of Miguel) he has managed to keep them focused on their jobs and Sarah, which in all likelihood if this were to truly occur would eventually happen, from being gang-raped. While he doesn't believe in what they are doing there, as a pragmatist he believes in the power of results. In his own mental breakdown due to the events occurring, he focuses on his men in ensuring that they are safe and protected as a dutiful officer. Yes, he turns to his power as a means of establishing that he is in control. His control is the only thing that he has left as a man in a hopeless situation. It is not until he realizes that his men are being experimented on and fed to the ghouls that he pulls his ivory pistols like John Wayne and reeks out an ungodly vengeance upon those who would wrongly harm the soldiers under his command. At Rhodes' right hand is his favorite soldier and friend, Steel, and while not dealing with the shit the incompetent scientists are doing, he and Steel often discuss what it will be like finding a refuge from the insanity around them. As the events unfold and it is realized by Rhodes that there is no hope in what they are doing, he still turns to his soldiers in concern for their welfare in hoping that they can flee in the helicopter to safety and for a final valiant stand that he had always dreamed of from the films he watched as a child. Rhodes is an American hero like the old cowboys of lore, serving his country as a soldier and an officer, and he is betrayed by the very people he is attempting to work with to help ensure that the great stars-n'-stripes of America fly again, and his sacrifice for his country, are justly rewarded for his hard-work and dedication. As a hero to his nation, he becomes misguided not by the external forces of the ghouls and the whack-job scientists feeding him with moutfuls of nonsensical formulas and theorems, but by his own internal pressure of realizing the cause is lost and the only thing he has left to hold onto is his uniform and the authority invested into him by his rank that he so valiantly earned.

Rhodes: The Tyrannical Villain:

He always wanted the power that came with his own command. When given the opportunity to join the squad that go to the Seminole Facility he jumped at the opportunity. At last, the years of sweat and blood he put into attaining the power of rank and prestige would pay off. And if anyone wants to question him, then fuck them all. As Major Cooper and the scientists concerned with the welfare of the nation attempted to work to resolution, Rhodes sat in the background knowing that soon, oh yes, soon, he would have the power. As a great man that he knows he is, Rhodes finally takes command and God-help anyone who thinks that he doesn't mean business by being in charge. He will say the right things to keep the soldiers on his side, but he'd just as soon kill most of them, though knowing power only has its merits if you have someone to control, and those poor scientists will die before he feels pressured into feeling as if he is second to any other man or, absolutely not, woman. His only purpose is to bide his time until he can use whatever means necessary to escape from the doomed facility and break for mainland America where people, perhaps a colony of survivors, will give him the dignity and respect that he deserves as being the great man that he is as a person.

* * *

Personally, I think Rhodes is a mixture of both of these. But, it's fun to speculate on characters that you come to value from films. Who was Captain Rhodes? I think out of every character Romero has created in his films (with exception to Ed Harris from "Knightriders" who is in a league of his own) Rhodes is probably the most fascinating character created. Was he the misguided hero or was he the tyrannical villain? Or, perhaps, he was a mixture of both? Thoughts?

j.p.

[Legion2213]

Wow! You've probably put more thought into this character, his background and his motivations than GAR ever did! :)

All I can say about Rhodes with 100% certainty is that he has the best line in any zombie movie I've ever seen.


.

[sandrock74]

I like Rhodes, as a "good" antagonist in a movie. I wouldn't like him in real life. Take from that what you will.

[Mr.G]

I like the character but in real life I'd consider him a huge asshole.

#200 post! :)

[bassman]

He threatened to shoot a living person over some stupid shit and then later shot a living person for no reason. He's the asshole villain.

But at the same time, you can't help but like him because of his awesome quotes!:p

[Mike70]

Rhodes: The Misguided Hero:

As a soldier, and a officer, Rhodes served under the leadership of Major Cooper. To become an officer, Rhodes has had to undergo years of training and deployments to earn the respect of his men and his commission. In an operation that was doomed from the beginning, Rhodes has helped keep his squad together against unbelievable pressure.


true, rhodes would've had to complete a course of training and education become an officer but we really don't know from the film (and i don't recall it being discussed here) whether rhodes et al, are regular army or national guard. my money is on national guard. if he was national guard then there would be a rather large difference between his training "edge" and his experience at his rank from that of a regular army officer. this isn't to say national guard officers are no good. such a statement would be ridiculous but they aren't full-time professionals and that makes a difference.

as to whether rhodes was misguided or a tyrant, there really is no way to tell from the film because we have no idea what rhodes' personality was like before being locked underground with the same people for months on end. if we knew what he was like before the outbreak, then it would be quite easy to draw conclusions as to how the experience had changed his leadership style.

stress and despair can do strange things to people. the folks living in that bunker had stress and despair enough for a million people. i give rhodes the benefit of the doubt and think that the situation turned him into the asshole we see in the movie. i'm not saying he was a sweetheart but before the outbreak i seriously doubt that he would've been able to do what he did to fisher.

that's my bit. this is a fun exercise in character interpretation but without knowing what rhodes was like before the outbreak, it's impossible (to me at least) to come to any real conclusion about his behavior in the bunker.

[rightwing401]

Misguided heroes (particularly military officers) don't abandon their people at the first sign of real danger to save their own asses.

Now had Romero done something along the lines of having Torez falling down (still weak and out of it from the pounding he got from John) and Rhodes picking him up without hesitation even as the large numbers of the living dead were coming down the lift and carrying him back to the golf cart while having Steele and Rickles lay down some covering fire, then getting all of his men onto the cart and making a much slower get away, then yes. Under those circumstances, I would consider Rhodes to have been a misguided hero.

But since he high tailed it out of there to save his own ass, even going so far as to lock the his men out with the zombies to buy himself some time, he is without question a tyrannical asshole who was drunk on the small amount of time that he had absolute power.

[Trin]

He threatened to shoot a living person over some stupid shit and then later shot a living person for no reason. He's the asshole villain.


Misguided heroes (particularly military officers) don't abandon their people at the first sign of real danger to save their own asses.

I have to second both of these two opinions. And add that Rhodes made overtures of giving the rest of the men a shot at Sarah. Considering the lecherous look on his face as he contemplated it that was enough to propel him firmly into villain.

As opposed to Bill who protected Sarah when the guys where getting rowdy and John who jumped into the zombie pen to go save her. The guys who were totally checked out turned into heroes when needed. The guys who were trained to be heroes turned into putty.

[SRP76]

Rhodes wouldn't have been "a villain" if he weren't saddled with catering to a bunch of useless scientists that had utterly no worth in the movie.

The only non-soldier in the movie that actually served any kind of purpose was John. Everyone else just took up space.

[zombiekiller]

Misguided heroes (particularly military officers) don't abandon their people at the first sign of real danger to save their own asses.

Now had Romero done something along the lines of having Torez falling down (still weak and out of it from the pounding he got from John) and Rhodes picking him up without hesitation even as the large numbers of the living dead were coming down the lift and carrying him back to the golf cart while having Steele and Rickles lay down some covering fire, then getting all of his men onto the cart and making a much slower get away, then yes. Under those circumstances, I would consider Rhodes to have been a misguided hero.

But since he high tailed it out of there to save his own ass, even going so far as to lock the his men out with the zombies to buy himself some time, he is without question a tyrannical asshole who was drunk on the small amount of time that he had absolute power.
i disagree with the comment of him being a tyrannical asshole, it just proved he was human. his instinced(i know i spelled it wrong.) of fight or flight kicked in.he just picked the one that came to his mind at the time,in otherwords,he freaked out and jetted forgetting everything else.

[Mike70]

i disagree with the comment of him being a tyrannical asshole, it just proved he was human. his instinced(i know i spelled it wrong.) of fight or flight kicked in.he just picked the one that came to his mind at the time,in otherwords,he freaked out and jetted forgetting everything else.

i think that rhodes, like everyone else down there, was hovering on the edge of being loco for choco puffs. the ways one ought to act or is expected to act can easily go out of the window after months of isolation, stress, and despair.

another way to look at it is that rhodes, like many loud-mouthed bullies was, at heart, a complete and total coward. folks like that are only capable of appearing strong/tough when they have their cronies doing the dirty work for them. once they are confronted with a situation where their ability to push people around because they are physically larger or are armed is lost, they crumble very quickly.

don't worry about the spelling. you are from hamilton after all. :p:D i'm totally kidding dude and mean offense to you. however, i'm sure that you've been around long enough to know that hamilton is the butt of a lot of jokes in this part of ohio.

[deadpunk]

Personally, I think Rhodes is a mixture of both of these. But, it's fun to speculate on characters that you come to value from films. Who was Captain Rhodes? I think out of every character Romero has created in his films (with exception to Ed Harris from "Knightriders" who is in a league of his own) Rhodes is probably the most fascinating character created. Was he the misguided hero or was he the tyrannical villain? Or, perhaps, he was a mixture of both? Thoughts?


I'd like to disregard the quality of Rhodes as a man and focus a bit more on the statement I made bold in the quote...

Really? I love ya JP, no homo, and your posts are always thought invoking, but really? Bro, have you never seen a war movie?

Personally, I found Rhodes to be a rather generic version of the soldier who winds up in command and succumbs to the pressure. He could have wandered straight from Marlon Brando's tent in Apocolypse Now...

GAR has traditionally handled military characters with a huge sense of ineptitude. Rhodes, Steele and the whole lot are nothing more than cookie cutter versions of PTSD Vietnam Soldiers that were popular in film at the time.

I thought Bub had more depth....;)

[Mike70]

GAR has traditionally handled military characters with a huge sense of ineptitude. Rhodes, Steele and the whole lot are nothing more than cookie cutter versions of PTSD Vietnam Soldiers that were popular in film at the time.


word. romero seems to have some very, um, quaint and ridiculous ideas about the military.

[SRP76]

I don't think Romero singled out the military people. He might have wanted to, but he neglected to make everyone else look good, either.

Sarah - ran around and pissed and moaned a lot.
Logan - cut up some dead soldiers.
? (scientist that got his head shot) - breathed a lot of air.
McDermott - said to know electronics, but we don't see him get so much as a VCR working throughout the film.

So, where's the "adept" people in Day? We see John actually pilot the helicopter, and that's it. Nobody else accomplished jack shit. If Romero really wanted the soldiers to look like useless buffoons, he should have had the others do something right for contrast.

[deadpunk]

I don't think Romero singled out the military people. He might have wanted to, but he neglected to make everyone else look good, either.

Sarah - ran around and pissed and moaned a lot.
Logan - cut up some dead soldiers.
? (scientist that got his head shot) - breathed a lot of air.
McDermott - said to know electronics, but we don't see him get so much as a VCR working throughout the film.

So, where's the "adept" people in Day? We see John actually pilot the helicopter, and that's it. Nobody else accomplished jack shit. If Romero really wanted the soldiers to look like useless buffoons, he should have had the others do something right for contrast.

Personally, I feel this was a budgetary issue. The dead could have easily been contained with some well placed air strikes. GAR just didn't have the money to pull off the FX involved. His lack of heavy military response is a matter of funding, not scripting.

[JDFP]

I'd like to disregard the quality of Rhodes as a man and focus a bit more on the statement I made bold in the quote...

Really? I love ya JP, no homo, and your posts are always thought invoking, but really? Bro, have you never seen a war movie?



I should have clarified my statement and said in Romero's flicks, Rhodes always seemed like the most interesting character -- save for Harris from "Knightriders". As far as war movies, I don't think much of anything can hold a torch to "Das Boot" -- that flick (the unedited non-butchered full-length version) is probably the finest war flick out there.

j.p.

[Mike70]

. As far as war movies, I don't think much of anything can hold a torch to "Das Boot" -- that flick (the unedited non-butchered full-length version) is probably the finest war flick out there.

j.p.

man, "das boot" rocks the galaxy as far as war flicks go.

"the odd angry shot" is also way, way up there on my list of war flicks and is one that i would label a must see.

[fulci fan]

Rhodes is the kind of guy you love to hate. Plain and simple.

[SRP76]

Rhodes is the kind of guy you love to hate. Plain and simple.

So he's the Rowdy Roddy Piper of zombie movies.:p

Actually, that would work in that other discussion about who could have played Rhodes other than Pilato. Piper could have done it well. I think everyone here has seen They Live at some point.

[bassman]

So he's the Rowdy Roddy Piper of zombie movies.:p

Actually, that would work in that other discussion about who could have played Rhodes other than Pilato. Piper could have done it well. I think everyone here has seen They Live at some point.

Yeah, but They Live is a cheese fest. I don't think Piper had the acting chops to pull off something more serious like Rhodes.

[JDFP]

Opening this thread back up for a bit. There are some newer members here that may appreciate some input into this. And, well, because I had another question to consider in positing here.

Rhodes definitely had the opportunity at any juncture after the death of Major Cooper to do whatever the hell he wanted to with Sarah. He would have been intelligent enough about it to come to her lab while she worked late one evening (with her friends out in the cave). Who would have stopped him? Honestly, the only answer I can think of would be Steele. While Steele was a minion of Rhodes and may have been an asshole, I think he was probably the most intelligent of the military individuals there. We really need a good thread on him one day. The man was many things, but I think he was just a decent guy in the wrong place in a tight squeeze between following orders and his own conscience of things. If events had gone differently, could Steele have perhaps sided with the 'good guys' instead of his military background and orders?

So, if Rhodes was such a cut-throat asshole, who gave no thought to anyone but his own masochist desires, why didn't he attempt to have his way with Sarah before everything fell apart? Wouldn't someone of nothing but pure devious evil think of 'getting some' from the only available source before it all fell apart first? Or was the timing just not right for his "Sarah and Rhodes alone in a corridor late at night" moves?

j.p.

[mista_mo]

As weird as this may sound, I always sort of felt bad for Steele. He wasn't half as much of a dickhead as Rhodes was, and actually hesitated when he was ordered to shoot Sarah. He even showed genuine concern for the other soldiers, which was very evident when 2 of them were killed removing ghouls from the corral.

I sort of wish that there had been an alternate ending with him siding with John and the others.

As much as I love Day, one thing always bothered me. Why didn't Rickles, Steele, and Torres stick together, head to the armory and systematically wipe out the assaulting ghouls? I mean, it seemed like he had some authority over the other soldiers (if only because he could beat the shit out of all of them with no trouble at all), so I don't think that it is outside the realm of possibility. I do guess that we wouldn't have the feeding scene, but I would've been much happier with the film if Rickles, Steele, and Torres survived, ended up finding Rhodes hiding away in some hole, and blasting him away.

That being said, the only reasonable person in Day was John.

[Trin]

So, if Rhodes was such a cut-throat asshole, who gave no thought to anyone but his own masochist desires, why didn't he attempt to have his way with Sarah before everything fell apart?
This is actually a really interesting point. And personally I'm very happy that Rhodes never tried anything like that. I think it would've ruined his character.

One of my pet peeves is that all the post-apocalyptic stuff depicts the military as never more than one step from being rapists. Just look at 28 Days Later. One month into things and the military is corraling women and raping them. I don't personally think that it is realistic to believe that moral decay is so quick in these situations. The military - trained to protect the innocent - should see this as their time to shine. Not be the first to succumb.


As weird as this may sound, I always sort of felt bad for Steele. He wasn't half as much of a dickhead as Rhodes was, and actually hesitated when he was ordered to shoot Sarah. He even showed genuine concern for the other soldiers, which was very evident when 2 of them were killed removing ghouls from the corral.
Steele was considerably more sane and in control than Rhodes. If he'd been in charge I suspect the scientists could've worked with the military. He wasn't power-trippy and he had some natural leadership qualities. It'd be interesting to see how he'd deal with Miguel, or how he'd deal with the fatigue in the men.

[AcesandEights]

Well, to be fair to Rhodes, someone can be an asshole, even one that might be inclined to murder in the 'right' circumstances, and not actually want to indulge in rape.

Bad guys that are willing to do anything can be cool, but a bad guy who is up for any evil act, that happens to be available for him to perpetrate, is one dimensional. I liked that Rhodes gave (genuine?) lip service to the idea of how important his men were.

Also, I think they did a good job with skirting the line of how sexually threatening the situation was for Sarah, too much and it may very well have detracted from too many of the other elements in the film.



One of my pet peeves is that all the post-apocalyptic stuff depicts the military as never more than one step from being rapists.

Well, they're relatively organized people, trained to kill, with weapons at hand in a situation where the shit has hit the fan at epic proportions. Hell, regular old wars bring out the ugliness in people, not just 'the bad guys' (admittedly to varying degrees), so I don't think a group mentality, given way to a siege-mentality that goes over the edge is actually unrealistic in cases where the end is nigh.

[Neil]

Misguided heroes (particularly military officers) don't abandon their people at the first sign of real danger to save their own asses.

Now had Romero done something along the lines of having Torez falling down (still weak and out of it from the pounding he got from John) and Rhodes picking him up without hesitation even as the large numbers of the living dead were coming down the lift and carrying him back to the golf cart while having Steele and Rickles lay down some covering fire, then getting all of his men onto the cart and making a much slower get away, then yes. Under those circumstances, I would consider Rhodes to have been a misguided hero.

But since he high tailed it out of there to save his own ass, even going so far as to lock the his men out with the zombies to buy himself some time, he is without question a tyrannical asshole who was drunk on the small amount of time that he had absolute power.

Good point! +1

[Wooley]

Neat thread. I think Rhodes was probably just keeping it together, same as everyone else, by leaning on something-he had his command, the soldiers had their duties, the scientists had their 'research' and John and McDermott had getting shit-faced.

Like Mike said, we don't know what the months underground has done to the man, nor what kind of leader he was before. So I'll go with him seizing on the idea of hyper discipline and complete obedience to his orders as a hedge against completely losing it and eating his sidearm in the lunch room, which is why he ordered Steele to shoot Sarah during the meeting. Sitting down isn't a big deal to us, but her act was insubordinate and insubordination, especially during time of war or emergency is a big deal in the armed forces.

Yeah, the military detachment was supposed to support the science mission, which would imply a level of subservience to civilian command but I think at that point, Rhodes had decided the science mission was going to be under military command.

I think he realized the scientists mission had become a fool's errand, but was willing to tolerate it since it gave the illusion to the civilians that there was a point in what they were doing until he found out his KIAs were being used as "Bub treats." At that point I think he saw the science mission as an unacceptable cost and decided to end it.

Now, we know George doesn't groove too highly on the military, since he comes off in his writing and direction as making them out to be a pack of sinister thugs or violent morons, so Rhodes abandoning his guys after the ramp came down was either Romero writing Rhodes as both a thug and a moron, or Rhodes' mind simply saying screw EVERYTHING and choosing self-preservation at that point. Leaving Steele and Rickles and the others was a dick move, but I think Rhodes mind had had it by then and he was simply looking for a way out.