Tuesday, January 15, 2008

“We called it Che Guevara crossed with Jesus Christ by way of Andy Warhol”

Hi Blog,

It turns out I was right: Rambo is Che and... Jesus?! (Nope. Musta missed that part...)

After snooping around on-line for more info, I found that a certain monsieur 'Cheesesteak the Impaler' of the coolly name Bostodelphia blog actually scooped me on the whole Rambo/Che thing that I wrote about in a previous post. After contacting him about it he just posted back a response mentioning that he had uncovered some new info about the who Rambo/Che ad campaign. As it turns out The New York Times ran an article on January 13th (pic above) called "Tough Guys for Tough Times" (written by Alex Williams) which focuses on the new rise of 80s action stars and their new pop-cultural status.

Comments in the article run from the typical "Everyone is talking about change...[people] want to go back to the way things were, the things they knew." to "Everything seems to be up for grabs; we don’t believe in institutions. This country needs stability, and in an archetypal, hyperbolic way, that’s what these figures represent.”

But the real mind blowing one is the what I have chosen to call this post, courtesy of Lionsgate's co-president for theatrical marketing, Mr. Tim Palen:

It helps that these figures need no introduction. “Stallone and Rambo are huge, iconic images already,” said Tim Palen, who works at Lionsgate, the “Rambo” studio, as a co-president for theatrical marketing. “It’s really kind of holy territory, especially when it comes to young males, and males in general.”

WHEN marketing executives were deciding on a strategy to sell the new “Rambo” film, they shunned splashy posters in favor of a minimalist image of a black spray-painted stencil outline of Rambo’s head on a white background.

“We called it Che Guevara crossed with Jesus Christ by way of Andy Warhol,” Mr. Palen said. “In a way, he’s all of those.” (Link.)

There's a lot I suppose I could write about this, but in the end I agree with Cheesesteak's analysis of it all -- which you should go and check out if you have a moment -- and that is: as long as it gets tickets sold, no one cares about what it actually means.

I'll let you decide if that's problematic or not-- idiotic though it may be-- I think you can guess what I think.

(My previous post is here.)

No comments: