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

You've put FAR too much time considering all of this. You need to find something else to do with all of the time you've got on your hands.

reply

Rhodes really WASN'T the bad guy. If you look closely, he's actually quite liberal. He let John and McDermott keep their guns even after they threatened him. Hell, he would have been justified in executing them on the spot. He was a raging dick, yes, but he wasn't the fascist monster that a lot of people make him out to be, and I think Romero did that intentionally.

reply

While I agree that Rhodes wasn't a villain, he certainly was a jerk. Still, that's not enough to be deemed an antagonist though.

Welcome to my Nightmare- Freddy Krueger

reply

While I was long winded about it... this sums up my point.

reply

@user-769
It's awesome you're still following this thread, User-769. Has been almost 3 years ago since you created it.
Found it to be a really great discussion and i still drop by from time to time to see how its going.

Take care!



"Every day humans come one step closer to self-destruction." - Albert Wesker

reply

[deleted]

Yea, Rickles and Steele were probably the most "likable" characters, in my opinion.

reply

An antagonist and a bad character aren't always the same thing. The antagonist is just somebody set against the protagonist, who is just the main character, not necessarily the good character. Regardless of his motives, Rhodes is still technically an antagonist because he is hostile to the main characters. As an actual character, he's sort of an anti-hero, but his place in the story is that of the human antagonist.

reply

I would agree.

Captain Rhodes isn't completely tyrannical as you said, and the woman scientist isn't that innocent and good either.

Day of the Dead demands repeated viewings. The more you watch it, the more complex it gets in terms of the human interactions.

reply

Agreeable, I would get pissed if the science team was getting my soldiers killed all the time.

reply

Rhodes is clearly the villain, he was the one who commanded genuine fear into the rest of the characters.

reply

Rhodes is portrayed as the villain. However, really, neither side is much worse than the other, they are just portrayed as such. Remember that Romero typically thinks of human interaction as the evil, and the zombies are just filler. He even sympathizes with the zombies. Therefore, after some great comments on this thread, we can see that both sides are good and bad. Rhodes is an *beep* yes, but he is also very much reacting to the situation. The science team is doing the same. Neither side thinks of their actions, only reacts to the other side. Things get out of hand, and no one thinks about the other side's point of view. Classic human misunderstanding follows. And yes, Rhodes does get quite out of hand, but one can sorta trace it back to the stress of the situation coupled with the misunderstanding and his reaction to a scenerio that seems to be out of control.

Just remember that the science team then has to react to his played hand. While the soldiers are jerks, neither side is truly evil really. Both sides do what they think is right.

Great discussion everyone! Glad to see it has lasted so long!

Cheers mate!

reply

God, this thread stretches over 3 years and every point imaginable has been stated and re-stated, and re-re-stated, there's nothing left to say really. Every ounce of pulp has been squeezed from this somewhat interesting topic. Let it die now. Let it die...

The dreams of youth are the regrets of maturity

reply

True. You can only state something so many times. Allow me to summarize: Rhodes was an inept and arrogant prick who was handed a bad situation (like President Obama) and tried, in his own un-personable, to keep things going. He was obviously a weak leader (I mean, his men were burning doobies right in front of him, not REAL commander would stand for that *beep* a raging dick, but he wasn't just some paper-thin bogeyman. He would have been well within his rights to have Sarah, John, and McDermott shot for that little stunt they pulled at the meeting, but he wasn't strong enough to do it (despite his false bravado), and it ended up biting him in the ass.

reply

Still, it was an interesting read. And I just read on page 1 of this forum someone started a new topic about pretty much the same subject.


"Every day humans come one step closer to self-destruction." - Albert Wesker

reply

Imo, Rhodes wasn't really bad, he was just a prick. I liked & disliked him
at the same time. Pilato was great yet a little over the top as the
character and had some funny lines.

"You've given us a mouthful of Greek Salad!"


reply

I'd have given Joe a gold medal for his performance. As for the Captain Rhodes character as a whole - he's not necessarily villainous, no, but he does show a LOT of negative qualities that certainly don't help the situation. Every time I watch the film, I think to myself: "Is he off his head or does he have a point?" Maybe a bit of both. I think the moment when Rhodes DOES cross the line and becomes a full-on bad guy is at the start of the climax (just after killing Logan for his "experiments"). Up until that point, his behaviour was understandable.

reply

[deleted]

I'm shocked it's still going haha

reply

By the way... it's 2 November. Happy Day of the Dead :)

reply

Belatedly to you, as well!

reply

Wow interesting case for Rhodes.

I love his character and I love Pilato's performance: but let's face it - the character is a psychopath!

reply

Maybe.

But had they listened to Rhodes, there would be A LOT less dead people, considering he was absolutely correct about the entire operation.

reply

But had they listened to Rhodes, there would be A LOT less dead people, considering he was absolutely correct about the entire operation.

You mean if he had listened to Sarah about Miguel's psychological condition, there would be alot less dead people? Yeah but Rhodes didnt listen to her and look where it went.

Rhodes was an a$$hole only concern about his position in giving orders when it was never a military operation in the first place. The science team tried to work things out with Rhodes and the only response they get is "Im in command, Im running this monkey now, so you better have some results"

They couldnt reason with a paranoid gun wielding psycho who wants something that cant be givin to him on the spot.

reply

It's like trying to reason with an authoritarian mum/dad/teacher - you can try, but in the end, you're going to end up like a prostitute on her first night on the job.

reply

Nope, it wasn't a military operation. However, that doesn't mean that Rhodes isn't allowed command of his own soldiers. He has the command ability to abandon the facility (what he threatened to do if the science team failed to show results.)

Rhodes never said they couldn't stay and play doctor, but it would have been without military support if they didn't show him that they had accomplished anything with the lives of his men lost in their protection.

A civilian operation aided by military escort doesn't mean the civilians get to command the soldiers.

Had they packed up and left when Rhodes said it was prudent, none of what happened would have been necessary.

Regarding Miguel?

Since Rhodes said they shouldn't be endangering themselves gathering those specimens in the first place, the point is moot. But a civilian doctor has no authority to sedate a soldier without expressed permission of the chain of command. This is why there are MILITARY doctors who should have been involved. Absent that, Sarah should have consulted with Rhodes BEFORE doing it, not after.

If it was a medical imperative that Miguel be sedated, she should have informed Rhodes of the importance of sedation, instead of simply telling him to *beep* off essentially.

At minimum Rhodes is due a detailed explanation of what lead to the medical action.

If you were in command of this horrible situation, and someone approached you and essentially said

"You know how upset you are about the continual loss of your friends' lives to do something that you think is a waste of time? Well I know how short staffed you are, but I went ahead and sedated one of your men, conveniently the one I'm dating, to get him out of the doing the dangerous work. DEAL WITH IT!"

would you have been satisfied? You wouldn't demand a serious explanation as to why the boyfriend of the civilian doctor you continually bump heads with, is now essentially making command decisions by taking her boyfriend out of his dangerous duty shift?

Now maybe since it's a movie we're missing a big chunk of things happening behind the scenes, and before the movie. But the science team makes no effort to work with Rhodes. Rhodes, however, makes SEVERAL compromises throughout the movie.

He continues to stay there, even though he doesn't want to.

He continues to allow them to run experiments that jeopardize the life of his men, even though he doesn't want to.

He gives them more time, TWICE, even though he didn't have to.

He allows them to disrespect him, publicly.

Rhodes just appears to be less cooperative in the beginning because he's always yelling. But notice he doesn't yell until he's being seriously disrespected. He's working quietly with Fisher, or his men up until someone is rude to him.

I completely agree, his propensity to yell all the time definitely doesn't help the situation. But neither does constantly poking him.

reply

[deleted]

Completely agree. The worthless pilot said it best

"That's the trouble with the world, Sarah darlin'. People got different ideas concernin' what they want out of life. "

To me, this was the entire plot of the movie in a single line.

reply

You're right, and it's the second Romero zombie movie in which the bad guy is correct and the hero has the wrong idea. And in the end the hero ends up taking the course of action the bad guy wanted to do all alone. But the 'hero' is brave, charismatic, intelligent while the 'bad guy' is mean, cowardly and bigoted so the audience sympathizes with the 'hero'.

In the original Night of the Living Dead, the cowardly 'villain' wants to hide in the basement, the most defensible part of the house. Which is exactly what the 'hero' ends up doing and why he survives until he is mistaken for a zombie and shot.

reply

Absolutely! Our minds think exactly alike.

In both the original, AND the remake, Harry Cooper's character is right all along.

Of course, having an exit is a valid concern, but in the end Harry Cooper's idea was the one that would have saved them all. In the original, Ben literally does exactly what Harry was demanding they all do the entire time.

In Day of the Dead, Rhodes believes the science team is wasting his time and his men's lives, so he suggests leaving the bunker. In the end, a ton of blood is shed just so the "hero" can abandon the bunker haha

I firmly believe (if it were a real event,) that if Sarah approached Rhodes and said "You're right. This *beep* isn't going well. We should either stop the science BS and fortify this base for long term survival, or form an organized and safe exit plan," that Rhodes would have sat down and calmly had a conversation. I base this on the fact he allowed the science team to have more time when they requested it, even though he clearly didn't have to give it to them. It was a COMPROMISE.

Rhodes only starts yelling when everyone poked at him.

reply

[deleted]

Except that Rhodes didn't "take anything over." He said he was going to leave them to do their own work, and he didn't want to sacrifice more of his men for an obviously failed mission.

reply

[deleted]

Does he not state that he's taking his men and leaving if they don't provide evidence of some sort of progress?

The operation had failed. He was under no obligation to continue the status quo.

reply

[deleted]

It's the apocalypse. Relatively sure a failed operation that can't even reach their home operations center is no longer subject to preapocalypse rules and regs.

Rhodes was under zero obligation to do anything for the science team anymore. Regarding the chopper? While he threatened it, it wouldn't fit his men in it. So yes, they'd be in ground vehicles or on foot.

reply

wow, a lot of deleted posts by admin...

"Every day humans come one step closer to self-destruction." - Albert Wesker

reply

[deleted]

Where in the movie was it said that the science/helicopter crew were planning on abandoning the soldiers...? He commanded Steel to shoot Sarah just for disobeying an order to sit down. He only agreed to give Logan more time after Logan pointed out that he had no where else to go.

Shooting Logan was a huge overreaction, and the following sequence CLEARLY shows that he was the bad guy. You can't just say that he shot Fisher as a desperate act. He didn't know that the zombies were coming down at that point, so he thought he had plenty of time to do whatever he wanted at that point. Then he just throws Sarah and John to get eaten alive despite the fact that it'll make it LESS likely for him and his men to get out of there.

Yes, you can say that some people made it hard on him and it was a tough situation, but he was the bad guy. Nobody else.

reply

Captain Rhodes: Listen, egg head, let me bring you up to date on what's...
Dr. Logan: Excuse me.
Captain Rhodes: Let me...
Dr. Logan: Excuse me! Is there food?
Captain Rhodes: I'm runnin' this monkey farm now, Frankenstein, and I wanna know what the *beep* you're doin' with my time!

I love Rhodes lol

reply

Captain Rhodes: Listen, egg head, let me bring you up to date on what's...
Dr. Logan: Excuse me.
Captain Rhodes: Let me...
Dr. Logan: Excuse me! Is there food?
Captain Rhodes: I'm runnin' this monkey farm now, Frankenstein, and I wanna know what the *beep* you're doin' with my time!

I love Rhodes lol


I still laugh about this 

reply