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

It blows me away that it's still occasionally posted in. Day of the Dead remains one of my favorite movies.

reply

[deleted]

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

reply

Very nice, detailed analysis. Apart from killing Fisher on the assumption that the entire science team had a hand in Bub's feedings (and mostly everything after that), It's easy to see how fair Rhodes was throughout the movie.

reply

Even him killing Dr. Logan was understandable. Not entirely justifiable, but you can certainly see why that pushed him over the edge.

reply

A lot of writers fall into this trap, where they think in order to cement the idea that someone is "bad" they have to give him every negative trait that exists. So right at the end, they say "Oh yea! Well he's also a buddy *beep* coward!"

I'm surprised they didn't say he was a Nazi pedophile.

reply

Wow. Rhodes falling and being crippled then eaten would've been cool.

reply

Hmmkay. Honestly I think you're a bit far fetched saying Captain Rhodes was the protagonist. First of all he did not take interest in the lives of his men, he only thought about protecting himself. He only said he was doing it for the sake of his men to make sure they are on his side, with them on his side he would have better chances of survival. But at the end he ran away as the coward he is without thinking twice he was abandoning his men. A leader does not run away to save his own skin at the price of his men's lives. No. That is what a coward does.

Second of all Captain "the big hero" Rhodes was the most aggressive among all the characters. He barked at people, threatened and pushed them around and that aggressive behavior implies strong fear. He was not only afraid but he often succumbed to his fear; leaving himself completely incapable and incompetent to make any logical reasoning and decision. That makes him a dangerous person, combined with his incompetence being so strong he couldn't see his own incompetence. That strengthens my claim of he was a coward and an incompetent leader. If you're in doubt, have you ever seen a frightened puppy? Frightened puppies can bark a lot. Any animal for that matter will get aggressive in the face of a threat. If I were in Rhodes shoes I would be scared too but I would not walk about oppressing others just so I can feel comfortable.

Third of all, yes Frankenstein's experiments went above all ethics and dignity. But executing him right then and there is just plain stupid considering there were less than a dozen people left. I am not saying what "Frankenstein" did can be justified but killing him can not be justified too, considering it was at the hands of a cowardly, incompentent leader. "Frankenstein" lost it because he was spending too much time secluded and being surrounded by the living dead it made it worse. With some reasoning and understanding the situation could have been diffused.

Fourth of all, the "antagonists" could see not only Rhodes' cowardice; but also his sheer incompetence that he thought he was capable of any logical decisions and what he decided was for the good of mankind. I wouldn't hang out with "Frankenstein" or tolerate his experiments but I sure would not be anywhere near what the "antagonists" was planning to abandon. I don't trust incompetent people who think they are capable of something when the only thing they can do is point fingers and blame others for failure, that is the kind of character Rhodes was.

Sarah was really just there to try and release the tension between the scientists and the soldiers, what Rhodes did was making things worse by being hotheaded and being too eager on the trigger. That led to an atmosphere choke full of tension and fear all the time people reacted naturally by rebellion. So what Rhodes did was making things worse. So in short, I disagree with you.

reply

If I called him the "protagonist," I misspoke. He's not the protagonist because he wasn't the one the film featured, regardless of intentions.

But up until the very end, I don't see how he was any worse than the support staff (scientists/pilot/radioman.)

Rhodes and his men were making nearly all the sacrifices, they were doing all the dangerous work (and considering the others never accomplished anything during the film, you could presume Rhodes and his men were doing 100% of the physical work.)

Effectively the soldiers were used for everything.

Eventually that dichotomy falls apart, especially when Rhodes demanded results... ANYTHING to support further sacrificing of men.

To put it in a question, Rhodes gave the scientists three opportunities to prove what they were doing had shown any results what-so-ever. Do you find it unreasonable for him to demand this?

I won't argue Rhodes was an *beep* but Rhodes seemed to be the only person in the entire film who expressed concern about his men dying.

reply

So, he's a racist and a psychotic, and he's a hero? Sure, why not?

reply

he was destructive to their cause. an idiot and a racist moron.

reply