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.)

posted 15 years ago by user-769
216 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] jscott867 14 years ago

I was just watching DayOTD today after a number of years and was surprised at how much I immediately wanted Cpt. Rhodes to be ultimately vindicated.....

I'm totally convinced now that he is the voice of reason shouting to deaf ears in this movie.

His anger was ahead of its time....he's like a proto-Hank Hill losing it over ants on his lawn or Homer Simpson choking Bart.

I'm also surprised at how much I like [Day of] now compared to when I saw it in 1985.....if it could only have had a decent, ominous soundtrack instead of the ball-less 1980's syntho-tangerine dream-track that it had....it could have really rocked at the time as well.

[–] robk86 14 years ago

Definitely a very well thought-out and deep debate. Some of you would make competent lawyers. I actually enjoyed reading every post. As far as I'm concerned, the military was in the right. Here's why:

(1) Who had authority? From what I've read regarding other posts, the issue came down to whether or not it was a civilian mission accompanied by military support in which the scientists would be giving the orders, a civilian mission with direct military oversight and intervention, or a military mission accompanied by consenting scientists. The third option can be scratched off right away given the fact that they were there at that facility to find a cure for the situation. The scientific team had an established purpose for being there. Sending troops alone would accomplish nothing. In my opinion, the military's role is what distinguishes between the first two choices. If we agree that the military was there to provide security and to aid the scientific team in matters that required such security, than option 2 is the best fit. I believe Rhodes said it best: "You need us the way I see it, I'm not so sure we need you at all. I'm not sure what the hell it is you're doing in there, just what it is my men are risking their asses for." Could the scientific team round up the specimens themselves if armed? If not, which was the case in the film (neither Fisher nor Logan participated in the capturing of specimen at least from what we saw), than the CO, assumed by Rhodes through the chain of command, was the source of all vital decision-making in the bunker and thus had complete oversight. He provided the means and method for rounding up the dead. Without this, the scientists have no chance of accomplishing their objectives. I guess what I'm saying is that nothing would happen without military involvement, hence they had oversight of the project.

(2) If the scientific team was not in charge, were they to be subject to military codes and law? I believe the answer is 'yes.' The military provided them with weapons. If they had not been armed, there would be cause for debate as there would be no strings attached. Some might argue that they needed protection. Wrong for two reasons. First, the military was their protection. If their job was to find a cure, and the military's was to provide security, why did they need their own personal protection? Their job wasn't to pull the trigger, it was to test hypotheses-- it conflicts. Second, Sarah chose to trash the theory of "protection" the moment she pointed at Steele. After that, it no longer was solely for protection against the living dead, which was the scientists' premise for arming themselves. By arming themselves, they discretely admitted to working for the military and thus are subject to its codes. As it was, Sarah should have been punished for even contemplating killing Steele. Why Steele didn't inform Rhodes of such a mutiny is beyond me.

(3) They were all over the edge, not just Rhodes and his men. For example:

Logan- need I explain.

Fisher- continued to test theories, which he admitted to not believing in (see beef treats scene). I believe another poster provided a definition of insanity as fervently doing the same thing without any positive results.

Sarah- similar to Fisher. She even stated, "what do we hope to accomplish" after the failed beef treat scene. She can also be viewed as going insane by drugging Miguel. While his psychological condition was more prevalent than the others, did she really think that doping him was going to cure it and not make it worse? All that aside, she was probably the most unsympathetic character in the cave and frequently quarreled with just about everyone, except maybe Fisher (including Logan, McDermott, and John). She preaches that Rhodes and the military should "get along" yet she is unwilling to herself.

McDermott- the booze. Similar to Miguel being drugged, it messes with your mind, something that can spell disaster in such a situation.

John- while he definitely was the most level-headed there, he also boozed, and thought of nothing but getting into Sarah's pants. Yea, I caught this line: "As long as there's me and you and 'maybe' some other people, we can start over, start fresh, 'get some babies'...." That's sweet considering that she's the only woman there. While the soldiers may have joked about ravaging Sarah, John seemed to fantasize about it. I think he also copped a feel when he met up with them in the dead-infested caves.

This is just my opinion. There is obviously no fact about who was right and wrong since it ultimately fell apart and both sides lost in a sense. While John, Sarah, and McDermott may have survived (until the credits), the mission failed and the world was no better than when it started--except maybe for the progression of Bub.

[–] agw2000 14 years ago

@ user-769, that is a very respectful observation. However, in my own opinion, the character of Rhodes lost all decency of character when he abandoned his men & locked them out to be killed by all the new 'gate-crashers'. Had it been the scientists in the same situation, I doubt any of them would have done the same thing.

[–] A_Fistful_of_Pennies 14 years ago

Rhodes did some really bad things, but he's not any worse than the scientists really.

The scientists were honestly not helping the situation at all. In fact they wasted a lot of time on useless projects that could never work. It's not like they could teach all those zombies to be good! They didn't have the time or the means to do so. Logan was not being sensible and was honestly doing some really strange and horrible things. He was always covered in a ton of blood.

Miguel was IMO the most villainous character. He got 2 soldiers killed because of his stubbornness. He was very weak minded and was abusive toward Sarah. He then purposely allowed the zombies to murder the remaining soldiers.

It's no wonder Rhodes got fed up. The scientists got his men killed and then Logan experimented on their dead bodies. Rhodes was wrong to try to kill the scientists but he was just trying to take control. Logan kind of had it coming IMO, he was psychotic and dangerous.

Rhodes wanted to leave earlier which would have been a much more sensible plan of action. They could have gone and found some supplies somewhere, ammunition at least. They could have better equipped themselves to fend off the zombies.

[–] Storm_Thunder_Infantry 14 years ago

Let's also not forget Rhodes wasn't even commanding officer in the first place because it is mentioned there was a man with the rank of major with them but died before the events of the film.

Not to mention Rhodes probably lost plenty of men he'd known during the earlier stages of the outbreak and as we see the graves, a few more upon when they settled in the bunker.

Miguel on the other hand, how he even qualified for military service is beyond me.

Let the world change the punishment for sexual-related crimes to execution

[–] Gibski 13 years ago

"Miguel on the other hand, how he even qualified for military service is beyond me."

lol

[–] Gibski 14 years ago

what I don't get is why Rhodes didn't even get more guns? He runs to the room with all the guns and ammo and then runs out with his weapon not even loaded? eh? that made him a crap soldier first of all.

second of all, when he drove out without his other men, Steele and the other guy - that also made him a crap soldier. cos he would be stronger with them with him and with their guns. the idiot had no guns on him and they both did. they had guns and ammo and they themselves were useful ammo for him. they increased his chances of surviving. he was still their commander. why would he drive away from their guns.

the guy just turned into a moron at the end... or he always was a moron and the end just showed what a moron he really was.

Steele at least went out in some style. took out a bunch of the zombies and shot himself. also had the sense to shoot the door open.

[–] user-769 14 years ago

I still say Romero just killed him off.

[–] Gibski 13 years ago

if he "Just" killed him off... then... why didn't he "just" kill him off? lol

it took a while for starters.

so what do you mean exactly by "Romero just killed him off"?

maybe you've already covered that earlier.

[–] user-769 13 years ago

All of the soldiers acted out of character at the end.

[–] Gibski 13 years ago

Perhaps.

[–] Tish-The-Scorpion 13 years ago

Though I wonder if Romero was also trying to highlight our unwillingness to co-operate

at the end of the day i think this got lost in the debate. Rhodes may have had reasonable intentionss, but at the end of the day he wasn't a good person....period. all of them except MAYBE Sarah were uncooperative jack asses. that's always been the core theme of all of Romero films. humans are petty and spiteful jack asses whom can't work together for the greater Good. hell we can't even agree on what's the greater good.

[–] Gibski 13 years ago

Hell's the greater good.

[–] SteveResin 13 years ago

OP, you make an interesting and well written post, but you seem to be missing the simple fact that Rhodes was insane.

--------------------
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SteveResin 13 years ago

^ True enough

--------------------
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime

[–] ricky_may1 13 years ago

Rhodes was a villain in my book. he was like Miguel pretty much collapsing from stress and plus the fact his men were being butchered by Dr. Logan added to his anger and so i believe he was justified in killing Logan (he did not kill him in cold blood as Billy states he killed him because he was a butcher).

Rhodes is a classic example of a good guy gone bad. He was prick but he wasnt evil (the situation just made him crack).

"You've lost one man. We've lost 5!!" this is good example of Rhodes being a good guy. it showed he deeply cared about his men and was angry at the staff for being so arrogant as to suggest they were getting the crap end of the stick. the scientists werent the ones going out and rounding up the zombies (not fisher not billy not even wise guy John they showed their cowardice by walking away)

Plus Rhodes was wearing a wedding ring. this to me gives the character some sympathy and the fact he wears it still says something.

[–] user-769 13 years ago

Good catch on the wedding ring... that certainly does add a bit of character to the role.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Englandizer 13 years ago

To be honest i got the same Idea abut Rhodes, he was nuts but so was the Doc.

The other support staff were lazy and some in a dream world.

The support staff seemed a liability, I mean, Men under Rhodes command died for the Docs obsessions

Rhodes was still a Villian, but all were villians and guilty also

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Englandizer 13 years ago

One thing though, Rhodes driving off and leaving them seemed more like selfishness than cowerdness.

I mean, when hes going to Grab his M16 Rifle before bub shoots him, hes not flailing around panicking, infact hes quite carm, gets his rifle, walking down the halls in a calm fashion, its only because he was "ambushed" and shot by pub and dropped his magazines (which he unwisely didnt just load straight away) that he goes a screaming, but hes just been shot!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheRaceIsLong 13 years ago

The one thing that can't be justified was Rhodes running away from his men and leaving them to die. Everything else I tend to see where Rhodes was coming from. If they would have actually stayed together and went back into the compound to the weapons room, they would have had more than enough ammunition to kill the zombies who came from the lift and the tunnels (150-250 zombies total?)

I think this may have actually been a more interesting scenario, instead all the soldiers seem to break character and just go nuts at the end.

Look at my power over your weak predictable mind.DON'T READ.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shookones02 13 years ago

The facts:
-It's a civilian operation
-The military is there to provide assistance

The assumption (and this is the main point) is that the military (especially Captain Rhodes) believes that the government/society has fallen, putting this "civilian" project to an end.

They are no longer U.S. citizens, working for the government, working on this project, or in a position where they must follow orders. This is out of the assumption that there is no more government. It is explained that they had lost contact and the majority of the crew (especially the military) believed it was over.

Marshall Law does not apply here because, again, the assumption is all hell has broken lose and society/laws/orders do not apply. What applies is who has the guns and since Captain Rhodes is respected as the leader at this point, the military without saying it out loud, agree that he is the new person in charge of the group (a group of survivors at this point, not workers).

Without contact with DC or the scientists producing any results, the soldiers have a good enough reason to revolt against the scientists. They do not want to kill at first and even go as far as offering to take them when they leave the bunker, but when Rhodes finds out what the scientists have been doing, it's already too late.

Based on the assumption that society has crumbled and there is no order, Rhodes is correct. Of course he was arrogant and failed to act as a leader many times, but put things in the correct context: he was new on the job, his predecessor had been killed, his men were dying, the assumption was that the government had failed, and the scientists were producing zero results. He was an inexperienced leader who had reasonable views, but he did not plan it out in the end. Although on his defense, he did not plan on seeing his predecessor being fed to zombies by the scientist.

[–] fabian5003 13 years ago

You're absolutely right. Even at the end I was kinda hoping he could kill that stupid armed zombie. He was just trying to do the best for humanity. He's more misunderstood than the Wicked Witch of The Wizard of Oz.

Great reading!

"The things you try to hide always turn out to be the things you can't forget."

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fabian5003 13 years ago

I don't see how was he being selfish, racist or sexist.

If you see the big picture you'll see he was doing the best! Let's face it, the science team was not making any progress at all but waisting resources and putting at deadline a lot of the military crew. Rhodes did what was best for them. We don't know how much time had happened since the spread but I'm pretty sure it was more than two years, and the scientists had not accomplished anything relevant.

He commanded to shoot Sarah because she was a threat for rebellion. And most of all because she kept working at a task which results might as well never be seen.

Why was he racist? because he was against International Zombie Rights?

"The things you try to hide always turn out to be the things you can't forget."

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] user-769 12 years ago

He had no intention of executing her. If he did, he would have done it. That was an act to demonstrate two very important things.

1: That he was in fact, in charge. This was a display for HIS SOLDIERS. They were drinking and laughing like hyenas. Rhodes was making it clear that from now on, that would not be tolerated.

2: No longer will such levels of disrespect be tolerated from ANYONE including the support staff. He clearly didn't want to have Sarah executed, because had he wanted her dead, she'd be dead.

[–] So_In_Love 12 years ago

"I'll kill them all one at a time unless you get your Black ass out here..." that kinda qualifies as a racist statement... I laughed my ass off when he said it because I absolutely didn't expect that!

I'm definitely on Rhodes' side against the science team because they weren't accomplishing ANYTHING! He was making the most sense and his line, "What the *beep* is wrong with you people!? They're DEAD!!! They're *beep* DEAD! And you wanna teach 'em tricks!?" pretty much sealed it for me.

Rhodes wanted actual RESULTS in stopping the zombies, whether it was a cure to make them die and STAY DEAD, or whether it was to blow the piss out of them - he wasn't playing around, he wanted them eradicated! Logan was goofing around, did he think that training Bub would curb the problem? Ok, it stopped ONE zombie from wanting to attack and eat humans, but did he think he could train the millions of other zombies?? He said the zombies outnumbered humans 400,000 to 1, did he think he could train 400,000 zombies at the rate he was training Bub? It'd take FOREVER to do that!

Rhodes snapped when he realized that NOTHING was being accomplished. The science team didn't agree with ANYTHING he said, and they didn't start to take him seriously until he started PROVING that he was being serious. Sarah didn't get back into her chair until she realized that Rhodes was not fücking around about having her shot.

I'm definitely with the OP about Romero needing a quick way to end the film with Rhodes abandoning his men. He never struck me as a coward, especially with the way he died. He didn't once quit the fight until Bub shot him in the abdomen. Rhodes was a badass! Never a coward!

Always an active American Gladiator!ü
Lance Henriksen is KING!
RIP MASK!

[–] user-769 12 years ago

That's what is baffling. Rhodes left his men, but then he didn't even leave the facility (he could have.) Instead, he went and retrieved weapons and magazines to fight.

Romero obviously just said "Ok, well there's 5 soldiers left. They could kill a hundred zombies with even the slightest bit of unit cohesion, so I guess we'll just have them behave like cowardly idiots and kill them off."

A coward would have stayed in the safety of the unit, not ran off in various directions INTO the zombies.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] user-769 12 years ago

Exactly. Rhodes felt the original mission was futile, and wanted to pack up and leave, which is ironically the same thing the support staff intended on doing. The only difference was the support staff was doing so subversively and intended on abandoning soldiers and steal equipment.

[–] Skull_Face 12 years ago

I have to say this post was epic. I read all the pages in one sitting.

Rhodes may not be the bad guy, something I never thought about until now, considering that he was within the legal limits of military authority. But also citizens do hold the responsibility, not the necessarily the right, to stand up and rebel against their corrupt oppressors. Was Rhodes, or his side of the operation, corrupt? That's all determined by your point of view, I suppose, military or civilian. However, there is no debating that Rhodes was an A-Hole, which in movies, is sometimes enough for people.

Great topic!

http://www.thebookpatch.com/BookStoreResults.aspx?search=southern%20go thic&ddl=any

[–] user-769 12 years ago

Thanks... it's always good to have a fun debate. Glad you enjoy it, too!

[–] Ore-Sama 12 years ago

If you see the big picture you'll see he was doing the best! Let's face it, the science team was not making any progress at all but waisting resources and putting at deadline a lot of the military crew.

and as has been said constantly throughout the film, they had sh!t equipment to work with. Science takes a long to do with up to date equipment. Expecting quick results with what they were working with?

Rhodes, like the other soldiers, were dimwits with no understanding of the scientific process. They were a bunch of meat heads who thought they could get what they want through force and violence, that the scientists were supposed to work miracles.

Rhodes did what was best for them.

Rhodes did what was best for Rhodes. We saw that at the end of the film. No one in a position of command is going to say they don't care about their men. Rhodes kept talking about his men, but what he really meant was what was best for him. He abandoned his men because they were no longer helpful to him.

He commanded to shoot Sarah because she was a threat for rebellion.

Exactly, his authority, his power was at stake. It was all about him. It's not like the scientists were getting ready for a fire fight with them. He just needed to show he was a strong commander, cause he wasn't going to let someone else stand up and take charge.

And most of all because she kept working at a task which results might as well never be seen.

They had made some form of progress, despite his meddling. In fact that's what brought Rhodes down: Bub.

We keep telling you that you're wonderful but you never listen! What's wrong with you?!

[–] user-769 12 years ago

1: Rhodes offered to give them more time, despite the fact both Logan and Sarah openly disrespected him, and that neither of them had produced any applicable results in their entire stay.

2: What was best for Rhodes would have been to gather his men and leave from the beginning, instead he gave the science team more time.

3: A lead doesn't let someone upsurp their authority.

4: Bub was a curiosity, not progress.