MovieChat Forums > Day of the Dead (1985) Discussion > The case for Captain Rhodes (he wasn't t...

The case for Captain Rhodes (he wasn't the bad guy.)


Yes, yes. The oft looked upon antagonist Capt. Rhodes. But after giving this movie another viewing, I came to the realization that while certainly not a people person, Capt. Rhodes was just doing what he felt was best for his men.

He was given an absurd situation, exasperated by the fact the so-called science team was doing nothing but getting his men killed. In light of this, instead of even trying to work with Rhodes, the science team (and the pilot/radioman) instead engaged in a multi-tiered mutiny to seize necessary equipment and abandon the soldiers in a tomb.

First off, I agree. Rhodes was a prick. But by the time it came down to brass-tax, he was facing what amounted to a rebellion of support staff. Rhodes wanted to leave the base early on in his taking command. He didn't say he was going to leave the science team behind, only that due to the recent complications that it was time to abandon the mission (as nothing had been accomplished anyway.)

Ironically, this is precisely what the "protagonist" and her crew were planning on doing only their plan included leaving the soldiers behind. When Rhodes fired shots in anger (at Logan feeding his men to zombies, and then at Fisher) both of these were simply desperate acts of a commanding officer faced with the situation the so-called protagonist put him in.

Granted, Rhodes became barbaric, but only AFTER the situation realized itself.

If anything, I'd say you could make the case that Logan and crew were the antagonists. They simply had a nicer smile painted on and more screen time.

While it is stated that the entire operation is civilian based, and the military was there to facilitate the science team -- it's safe to say martial law was in effect. After months and years of the science team failing to produce any applicable results (other than the death of military men, consumption of food and supplies, etc) it's only natural Rhodes, acting in the interest of his men, spoke out against the entire operation.

The very fact Rhodes granted them more time and allowed them to keep their own personal firearms proves he wasn't some tyrannical dictator.

Now, Rhodes was not a particularly good leader. He seemed more logistical than field worthy. For one thing, I'd make the argument he wasn't strict enough. He openly let civilian staff berate him in front of his men, he didn't stick by logical decisions, and he never forced any issue until the end. For instance, his stance on Sarah and Miguel. He should of locked up Miguel for being unstable, and imprisoned Sarah for being insubordinate. If you watch carefully, Dr. Fisher and Rhodes are going over documents without much issue until Sarah walks in and starts problems.

Rhodes was 100% correct when he told them that all they do is use the protection offered by the military, all the while getting his men killed. This was obviously a position held by ALL the soldiers.

With Steele, he obviously didn't like Sarah at all, but their relationship was more of a "You're dumb/You're a bitch" type of irritation. Rickles also had a soft side, you might notice in multiple scenes he had a wedding ring. Rhodes and Sarah seemed to really hate each other, and without knowing the back story, I don't know why Rhodes hatred only seemed to be directed to Sarah. I really wish we knew if they had a massive confrontation before Rhodes became commander, or if they actually did have some romantic relationship prior and he resented the fact she was now with Salazar (though I still don't know why Rhodes didn't shoot her the multiple chances he got if he wanted to kill her so bad.)

If I were in command, I don't know what exactly I'd have done with Salazar. It was unacceptable for Sarah to sedate him without Rhode's permission. I don't know what the day-to-day requirements were of the soldiers, all we know was they were short on men. For all I know, they might not have been able to spare Salazar.

One thing is for damn sure, he should have shot Salazar when he was bitten, but for whatever reason he took Sarah at her word. He actually let the Radioman and helicopter pilot threaten them with guns. He was way too lenient with them.

It really goes back to what I said earlier. Rhodes was not a good squad level commander. Steele (and he even said it) would have shot Salazar then and there (or come back with reinforcements.) Rhodes was being soft on Sarah for some reason, multiple times. I still suspect they had a romantic past or at least some level of connection prior to the movie.

If I were Rhodes, I would have promoted Steele to Sgt, or Squad Leader and let him handle the day-to-day at sub-officer/security level, and then I'd focus on the logistical problems.

I would have approached Fisher and offered him liaison position with authority and basically said

"I don't trust Logan, and Sarah doesn't respect my authority. So Fisher, I am going to grant you military rank, and place you in charge of the science team."

This would have given Fisher a bit more confidence in the military side, and may have made an important ally in keeping Sarah and Logan in check.

An argument can be made about Rhodes cowardly behavior at the end. But honestly, all the soldiers suddenly behaved entirely out of character. It's as though Romero was running over-budget and just decided to find a quick way to knock them all off. I know he switched scripts in the beginning due to rating/budget issues, but that ending seemed completely unrealistic. Rhodes was a lot of things but he didn't strike me as a coward. And Steele abandoned his buddy Rickles for really no reason.

I would have ended the movie with the extra soldier getting gored by zombies, Steele/Rhodes/Rickles all get top-side and engage Sarah/John/McDermott. McDermott dies (or is mortally wounded,) and someone shoots Rhodes and he falls down the elevator and gets crippled, and zombies rip him to shreds. Steel/Rickles surrender, the helicopter crew let them drive off in a truck, Sarah and crew fly off in the chopper.

This would keep with the story and movie cliches, and be a bit more of a realistic ending in my view. Maybe the ending is John burying McDermott on a beach somewhere. This would have allowed for gore/action and just a generally more acceptable ending.

reply

This is such an awesome post, and well thought out. I just had to comment.

http://www.horrormoviefans.com

reply

This was a long ass post but damn was it spot on.

reply

lmao

When little kids think a teenager is sssoooooo cool!

reply

I have to agree. I feel that similar arguments can be made for all of the soldier 'villians' in the film. PVT Steele, in particular seemed to be an otherwise decent man being pushed to his limits by an impossible situation. Yes, he was crude and given to vulgar talk, but as a military member myself, I can attest that is simply the results of a subculture that requires a certain viewpoint.

Steele is painted as a villian early on with his antagonism towards Miguel, but look at the situation. Miguel nearly killed Steele's battlebuddy. Sure, Miquel was exhausted, but I can attest that if someone's mess up put a friend in danger, I wouldn't be very accomodating at the time. Later on, Steele is clearly extremely relunctant to shoot Sarah, a person I might add, who a few hours earlier had no hesitation pulling a gun on him.

Other than Steele's annoying pal, Wripples, we don't really get any feel for the remaining soldiers. And Wripples only real sin is just being annoying. Compare that to the technical crew, who while viewer friendly, were most definately going to abandon those men there. Couple this with Logan feeding those same soldiers to his 'pet', and yeah, I can agree that the friendly civialians were the true baddies here.

reply

I'm not entirely sure how I watched this movie a couple of times without noticing it. But you're completely right. Steele also was very upset to shoot his other comrade mid movie. And you're right about Sarah, too. She had no problem threatening to shoot Steele. Now that I think of that, you could also argue the support crew were more vicious than the soldiers (and lazier,) they simply got more screen time and were painted prettier.

reply

[deleted]

When I first watched it, I was thinking "Wow, Rhodes is always yelling and is really trying to threaten the science staff." But then I put myself "into the movie" and thought about the fact that if the science team had been acting the same way they were in the movie, for the several years prior to the film taking place, then no damn wonder Rhodes was yelling all the time.

reply

The Rickles character has always made me sad because of the emphasis on his wedding ring (we see it twice). In most zombie movies, you get to know a character's "story" as Riley calls it "Land of the Dead". You know that there was a "before" to all characters, good and bad. But in "Day of the Dead" you don't really know anyone's "story". You know that Logan's dad was also a doctor, but that's pretty much it. But when we see Rickles' ring, we know that there is a story there. Whatever happened, he was a happily married man at one point, perhaps with a family, and now he's alone. And that can go a long way to deciding whether or not he's annoying.

"When there's no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth."

reply

Hmm, that's a very good point I never considered. The fact he's still wearing it is telling.

reply

I don't ever recall Rhodes threatening to rape Sarah. He made a lewd comment about her giving the other men a chance if Miguel was out of the picture, that was it. When he had the chance, after finally snapping he never threatened her with sexual assault, though tossing her and Billy to the zombies is pretty bad as well.

I'd never noticed Rickles' wedding ring myself. This does make the character much more sypathetic in my eyes.

reply

This is why I like discussing movies. I never realized that about the ring, either. Very cool observation, Blondzombie!

reply

That ring is merely a life assurance for a man.

reply

[deleted]

Yea that was completely out of his character.

reply

*The name isn't Wripples, but Rickles.

reply

Rhodes is the bad guy. Is his anger justified? Absolutely. Do I understand where he's coming from when he kills Logan? Of course. Is it necessary for him to kill Ted? Sure, he needs John to realize he's serious.

But he threatens Sarah with rape, and that makes him a bad guy.

"When there's no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth."

reply

But he didn't do it ;) and did he actually threaten to rape her? I remember him saying he'll let move Miguel to give the other guys a chance, but that was said more as spite any thing.

reply

No, he never actually threatens to rape her, but in critical analysis I've studied (I wrote my senior thesis in college on George's zombie movies, so I've had to really dig deep!) most critics sum up Rhode's lewd comment as "threatening rape", so I've come to say that as well. But he still threatens to remove the man in her life in order to leave her "vulnerable" - except she's the strong one in the relationship, so it's a flawed plan - which several critics deem to be a "rape", not necessarily in the "taking sex by force" way that is typically used today, but more of a "violation", which is how the term "rape" was formerly used.

"When there's no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth."

reply

The defense I would make is that Rhodes was in a position where if he wanted, he could have easily removed Miguel from the situation and took advantage of Sarah at the drop of a hat.

Yet, he never did, nor did he make any move to even after she openly disobeyed him and doped Miguel up again.

reply

This is funny. I was just answering the same question in another forum. This was my last reply to the question of Rhodes as a bad Guy...

Another thing about the character of Rhodes that I noticed is that he is more concerned about his command than anything else. When we first see him in the movie, he starts off by pacing around stating that he is in command. Also when he finds that Logan is feeding Bub the dead soldiers he doesn't state... "That's Johnson in there!" Instead he goes into hysterics, screaming "Those are MY Men in there!" He won't salute Bub because it is demeaning to his command. We he talks about "giving some of us a chance at some loving" it is clearly directed at himself. He even forces Steel to shoot Sarah because he commanded it. It's funny in a way, but rewatch the movie. Every speech he gives and all of his actions are about one thing only... Himself.

To sum up the theme of this topic... Yes, Rhodes was a bad guy. He was self centered, narcissistic, a murderer, a coward and selfish.

And if that doesn't clear it up, even Joseph Pilato states in the dvd extras that Rhodes was a very bad man.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I suspect the underground bunker was like a FOB that had been in operation without communication with a main base in many years, I expect that is the explanation for the lack of military bearing.

reply

This is funny, because I was in the army, and NO ONE ever behaved the way any of these guys do. Not that you couldn't have fun, but if Rhodes or the Major had run a tight ship, there wouldn't be anyone growing pot, having unshaved faces, having long hair, or being so out of shape as some of them were.


Historical context is important, Army discipline was much more relaxed following the Vietnam war. In the early 80's it wasn't uncommon (in my unit and probably others) for soldiers to smoke pot in their barracks during the day. Reagan changed all that very quickly.

|Statistics show that 100% of people bitten by a snake were close to it.|

reply

I think he deserved everything he got.
"he was facing what amounted to a rebellion of support staff" By that point there wasn't any government in my mind, so him seeing this as a "rebellion" is crap. He was pissed that he was losing control and Sarah didn't want to sleep with him.


Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

reply

He should be pissed about losing control. He's the COMMANDER. It's his job to maintain control.

And if he wanted Sarah to sleep with him, he would have made her.

reply

But there was no more "job"! It was over man!
And as for "And if he wanted Sarah to sleep with him, he would have made her." we don't really need any more proof of him being a bad guy, do we?


Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

reply

The job was not over. They had lost communication with DC because the radios they had weren't strong enough, that didn't mean their jobs and responsibilities were over.

And again, did he make her? No.

reply

Oh please DC was gone and they all knew it. And even though he didn't make her, he would have if he had had the inclination like you said, and any man who would do that is not a good guy.


Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

reply

He could have made her, and didn't. I could throw my cat out the third story window of my house, but I don't. Does that mean I'm a bad guy? You could shoot up a shopping mall. But you haven't. Are you a bad guy?

And you have no idea if DC is gone. When your cell phone has no signal, do you assume there was a nuclear war and give up on humanity?

reply

[deleted]

Let me know what you think.

reply

Intersting post I was with the army guys through the whole movie, it would have been good if they had showed more time with them as I didnt see them so bad especially what dangers they were having to put themseleves into by capture zombies all time. If I was in Rhodes postion I probley would have blown Logan away too I can understand where he was coming from when he was shouting at Logan early on about teaching a zombie trikes.
I was a bit dissapointed that the army soldiers all died at the end and didnt put up much of a fight.

reply

Yea, it really seemed like the end came and Romero just said "Ok, lets find a way to kill off all the soldiers."

They really went out of character. Rhodes became a coward, and Steele abandoned his friend, Rickles.

I would have ended the movie with the extra soldier getting gored by zombies, Steele/Rhodes/Rickles all get top-side and engage Sarah/John/McDermott. McDermott dies (or is mortally wounded,) and someone shoots Rhodes and he falls down the elevator and gets crippled, and zombies rip him to shreds. Steel/Rickles surrender, the helicopter crew let them drive off in a truck, Sarah and crew fly off in the chopper.

This would keep with the story and movie cliches, and be a bit more of a realistic ending in my view. Maybe the ending is John burying McDermott on a beach somewhere. This would have allowed for gore/action and just a generally more acceptable ending.

reply

I would've bought that.

reply

I would say I liked the way Rhodes acted at the end of the movie. He wanted to show he was way better than 'those useless scientists' and told them he would do anything for his men. But at the end he just left them to save his own life. Some leader ...

For those of you who are interessted, a little video featuring Rhodes the man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUTjWyKnU3I

________________________________________
THIS AINT A GODDAMN FIELDTRIP, PEOPLE

reply

[deleted]

When I was in the military, people (officers in particular) yell (or at least are generally disagreeable) all the time. If you take away all the yelling, it just seemed to me Rhodes really wasn't doing anything particularly bad up until the *beep* hit the fan. He was trying to maintain control of a really *beep* situation and the science team was making that task very difficult for him. They wouldn't compromise at all, even though Rhodes compromised with them (giving them more time, for example.)

I won't argue Rhodes was a particularly strong leader, but I think he was trying to work out a solution that worked out for everyone. Keep in mind, Rhodes and his men could have done whatever they wanted. There were more of them, and they had better fire-power. Yet, they kept helping the science team, they allowed the science team to work unsupervised and even let them keep their own weapons (until Rhodes discovered they had been feeding his men to zombies. He had no way to know it was just Logan and had to assume the entire science team was behind it.)

The one "out of line" thing he did was shoot the other scientist. But at that point, it was a full-fledged insurrection and Rhodes had no reason to believe that the support staff hadn't been murdering his men all that time.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

This is a very well thought out response, let me answer it point to point.




Yes, it was a civilian operation, the military existed to "facilitate the science team." But, the science team worked as the role of base medic, John and McDermott were radio and pilot. That's why they're technically, from a logistical point of view, the support staff. However, it's safe to assume Martial Law was in effect. Like it or not, missions in the field change. The science team was accomplishing nothing, and Rhodes knew this. He generously gave them more time and they squandered it.

Rhodes was 100% correct when he told them that all they do is use the protection offered by the military, all the while getting his men killed. This was obviously a position held by ALL the soldiers.

With Steele, he obviously didn't like Sarah at all, but their relationship was more of a "You're dumb/You're a bitch" type of irritation. Rhodes and Sarah seemed to really hate each other, and without knowing the back story, I don't know why Rhodes hatred only seemed to be directed to Sarah. I really wish we knew if they had a massive confrontation before Rhodes became commander, or if they actually did have some romantic relationship prior and he resented the fact she was now with Salazar (though I still don't know why Rhodes didn't shoot her the multiple chances he got if he wanted to kill her so bad.)

Rhodes was not a particularly good squad level leader. He seemed to be more of a logistical commander, but didn't do so hot when dealing directly with the men under his command.

If Rhodes had been more strict, things might have gone differently. For one, had he locked Salazar up, Salazar wouldn't have been able to let all the zombies in.

But, in this case I feel it was one of those "hind-sight is 20/20."

If I were in command, I don't know what exactly I'd have done with Salazar. It was unacceptable for Sarah to sedate him without Rhode's permission. I don't know what the day-to-day requirements were of the soldiers, all we know was they were short on men. For all I know, they might not have been able to spare Salazar.

One thing is for damn sure, he should have shot Salazar when he was bitten, but for whatever reason he took Sarah at her word. He actually let the Radioman and helicopter pilot threaten them with guns. He was way too lenient with them.

It really goes back to what I said earlier. Rhodes was not a good squad level commander. Steele (and he even said it) would have shot Salazar then and there (or come back with reinforcements.) Rhodes was being soft on Sarah for some reason, multiple times. I still suspect they had a romantic past or at least some level of connection prior to the movie.

If I were Rhodes, I would have promoted Steele to Sgt, or Squad Leader and let him handle the day-to-day at sub-officer/security level, and then I'd focus on the logistical problems.

I would have approached Fisher and offered him liaison position with authority and basically said

"I don't trust Logan, and Sarah doesn't respect my authority. So Fisher, I am going to grant you military rank, and place you in charge of the science team."

This would have given Fisher a bit more confidence in the military side, and may have made an important ally in keeping Sarah and Logan in check.

Your main contention is the civilian aspect of the situation. Unfortunately, rules of engagement change in the apocalypse. If the civilian team can't produce results, the commanding officer has the authority to pack up and leave. Rhodes never said the science team had to come with him.

reply

[deleted]

I'm really glad to see some people really discussing this. I don't think Day of the Dead gets much thought for the most part. And in my opinion when you really watch it, not just look at the screen, but try to understand the characters, it completely changes the movie.

It's almost like watching an entirely new movie when you sit down an analyze it! I also appreciate the time you're taking in your responses.

This may be one of the best IMDB discussions I've seen.



Regarding your answers, you're probably right. The best solution would have been just to say "*beep* it."

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

The official hierarchy of course was led by Dr. Frankenstein. But in the real world, there is something called Command Override. It allows for military personnel to seize control of ALL operations in a conflict zone. Rhodes was in his authority to balance the loss of men against the mission parameters. Of course we don't know what Acceptable Loss Parameters were in effect.

On a mission, the CO makes the determination to setup acceptable loss ratios (in percentage form.)

If we assume their were 7 soldiers left, and 5 that died plus a CO that would mean they had taken losses at 45% PLUS leadership casualty. From a realism standpoint, there is no way that operation would have continued. That is 22.5% casualty ratio PER YEAR.

Since I think it's safe to say Posse Comitatus wasn't in effect (and Martial Law was) Rhodes was in his right to make demands. Otherwise they wouldn't have sent a military team with them at all, and it would have been civilian security contractors OR they would have had a military commander of rank leading the science team.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

This is awesome, I look forward to your return.

reply

Actually I thought that the only true good guys were john the helicopter guy, and the booze-hound communications guy. Both the military and scientists were a-holes.

reply

[deleted]

Hmmm.. interesting. I think I'm going to have to watch it again and try to see it from Rhodes' POV.



Yeah...well, that's just like your opinion, man.

reply