From Heroes to Hegemons: Postcolonial Perspectives on Rambo and RRR

 This blog is written as part of the Thinking Activity on “Postcolonial Studies and Cinematic Representation”, assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. The activity encourages us to examine how cinema represents power, resistance, nationalism, colonialism, and marginalized communities through a postcolonial perspective. As part of this activity, I engaged with the assigned articles on Rambo and RRR and applied their theoretical ideas to cinematic representation. The blog attempts to understand how popular films can both reinforce dominant ideologies and provide visibility to histories of resistance, while also reflecting on the relevance of postcolonial thought in today’s globalized world.

Article 1

Heroes or Hegemons? The Celluloid Empire of Rambo and Bond in America's Geopolitical Narrative

click here

From Heroism to Hegemony: A Postcolonial Reading of Rambo: First Blood Part II

Introduction

Cinema is not merely a medium of entertainment; it is also a cultural space where ideas about power, nation, identity, history, and the “Other” are produced and circulated. Hollywood cinema, because of its global reach, has played a significant role in shaping perceptions of the United States and its geopolitical position. The article “Heroes or Hegemons? The Celluloid Empire of Rambo and Bond in America’s Geopolitical Narrative” explores the relationship between cinema and geopolitical power through the Rambo and James Bond franchises. It examines how popular films can function as forms of soft power, presenting military strength, national identity, and geopolitical interests through attractive narratives of heroism. The article becomes particularly relevant when Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) is examined from a postcolonial perspective.

Cinema as Soft Power

The article argues that the popularity of Rambo and James Bond cannot be separated from their political contexts. Rambo: First Blood Part II and Rambo III provide important examples of how Hollywood action cinema can reflect Western geopolitical interests. In First Blood Part II, the Vietnam War is represented through the story of an American soldier who returns to Vietnam and becomes a heroic figure seeking redemption. The Vietnamese are largely positioned as antagonists, while the American soldier remains at the moral centre of the narrative. In Rambo III, the protagonist travels to Afghanistan and assists the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union, reflecting the Cold War context of American support for Afghan resistance forces.

The article further suggests that such films contribute to cultural hegemony because their global circulation can normalize particular Western values and geopolitical perspectives. These films do not have to function as direct political propaganda. Their entertainment value, spectacular action, heroic protagonists, and emotionally compelling narratives can make particular political assumptions appear natural or unquestionable.

Rambo: First Blood Part II and the Construction of the Hero

Rambo: First Blood Part II is particularly useful for postcolonial analysis because it transforms a complicated historical conflict into a story centred on individual American heroism. Rambo enters Vietnam as a marginalised veteran, but he gradually becomes a symbol of American strength and redemption. The film therefore shifts attention away from the wider political and historical complexities of the Vietnam War and places the American soldier at the centre of the narrative.

This raises an important postcolonial question: Who gets to tell history? When a historical conflict is represented primarily through the perspective of a dominant power, other perspectives can become secondary or invisible. The Vietnamese characters are largely constructed through their opposition to Rambo rather than being presented as complex historical subjects with their own perspectives and experiences.

Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism helps illuminate this process. Orientalism explains how Western representations have historically constructed the East as different from, inferior to, or threatening in relation to the West. A similar representational pattern can be observed when the non-Western setting becomes the background against which the Western hero demonstrates courage, technological superiority, and moral authority. The “Other” therefore becomes important in constructing the identity of the hero.

Representation and Cultural Hegemony

The film becomes even more significant when read through the concept of hegemony. Antonio Gramsci’s idea of cultural hegemony helps explain how the values of a dominant group can become accepted as normal or common sense. In Rambo: First Blood Part II, American power is associated with individual courage, freedom, military capability, and moral legitimacy. The protagonist is not simply fighting enemies; symbolically, he is restoring American confidence.

This idea of a “celluloid empire” is significant because empire does not always operate through direct territorial control. It can also operate through images, narratives, characters, and cultural circulation. Hollywood’s global reach allows particular ideas about American power and identity to travel across national boundaries. Cinema can therefore become a form of cultural influence in which political values are communicated through entertainment.

However, it is important not to assume that audiences passively accept everything they see on screen. Viewers can interpret films differently, question their representations, or read against the dominant narrative. A postcolonial approach therefore encourages us to become critical spectators who ask what has been included in a narrative and what has been excluded.

The Global Relevance of Cinematic Power

The argument becomes particularly relevant in today's globalized world because cultural power has become increasingly important. Films, television series, streaming platforms, and social media circulate images and ideas across national boundaries at an unprecedented speed. Global influence is therefore not limited to military or economic power; it also involves the power to shape stories and perceptions.

This also raises questions for Indian cinema and other national film industries. If Hollywood can create narratives in which America occupies the position of the global hero, other film industries should not simply reproduce the same model by presenting their own nation as an unquestioned hero. Such a strategy could reproduce the same hegemonic structure in a different form.

A genuinely postcolonial cinema should instead question simple divisions between hero and villain and provide space for multiple perspectives. It can bring marginalized voices, alternative histories, indigenous experiences, and suppressed memories into the centre of representation. In this sense, postcolonial cinema does not merely challenge Western dominance; it also questions every form of cultural dominance.

Engaging with the Article

The article’s central question—whether cinematic figures such as Rambo and Bond should be understood as “heroes or hegemons”—is important for a postcolonial reading of popular cinema. Rather than treating these characters simply as entertaining action heroes, the article examines how their narratives participate in larger geopolitical discourses. The concept of a “celluloid empire” is particularly significant because it suggests that power can operate through cultural representation as well as through military or political institutions. Hollywood’s global circulation allows particular ideas about Western power, freedom, national identity, and political legitimacy to reach audiences across cultural and geographical boundaries.

The discussion of Rambo: First Blood Part II is especially relevant. The film places an American veteran at the centre of the Vietnam narrative and transforms his return to Vietnam into a story of individual heroism and national redemption. The article connects this representation with the larger geopolitical context of the Vietnam War and the desire to reconstruct American military confidence. The discussion of Rambo III further demonstrates how cinematic narratives can intersect with Cold War politics: Rambo’s involvement with Afghan resistance fighters corresponds to the historical context of American opposition to the Soviet Union. The article also brings the James Bond films into this discussion, showing that such geopolitical narratives are not limited to a single character or franchise.

These observations make the article valuable for postcolonial criticism because they shift our attention from what the hero does to what the hero represents. The heroic individual can become a symbol through which a nation imagines its own moral authority and geopolitical power. Consequently, the question is not simply whether Rambo is a hero, but whether his heroism also reproduces a particular hierarchy between the West and the non-Western “Other.”

Conclusion

The article “Heroes or Hegemons?” demonstrates how popular cinema can participate in geopolitical discourse by transforming political ideologies into compelling stories of heroism. Rambo: First Blood Part II illustrates how Hollywood can reconstruct a complicated historical conflict through the perspective of an American hero and contribute to narratives of American power and redemption.

A postcolonial reading pushes the discussion further. Instead of asking only whether Rambo is a hero, we must ask: Who is allowed to become the hero? Whose history is being represented? Whose voice remains outside the frame? Cinema becomes politically significant precisely because representation is never completely neutral. In a globalized world, where cultural narratives travel rapidly across borders, questioning hegemonic representations becomes an important part of postcolonial thought. The purpose of postcolonial cinema should therefore not be to create new hegemons, but to create space for multiple histories, perspectives, and voices.

Article 2

Reimagining Resistance: The Appropriation of Tribal Heroes in Rajamouli's RRR

click here

From Tribal Resistance to Cinematic Appropriation: A Postcolonial Reading of RRR

Introduction

Cinema does not simply represent history; it also participates in the process of remembering, interpreting, and reshaping history. This becomes particularly significant when mainstream cinema represents the struggles of marginalized and indigenous communities. The article “Reimagining Resistance: The Appropriation of Tribal Heroes in Rajamouli’s RRR” examines how S. S. Rajamouli’s RRR (2022) reimagines the historical figures Alluri Sitarama Raju and Komaram Bheem as revolutionary heroes fighting British colonial rule. The article argues that although the film brings tribal resistance into popular culture, it also transforms the specific historical and social struggles of these figures into a larger nationalist narrative. Their resistance, which was closely connected with land, forests, water, and community rights, becomes part of a spectacular story of national unity and anti-colonial heroism. This tension between representation and appropriation provides an important basis for a postcolonial reading of the film.

Reimagining Tribal Resistance in RRR

RRR presents Alluri Sitarama Raju and Komaram Bheem as two fictionalized revolutionary figures whose friendship eventually develops into a united struggle against British colonial authority. The film creates a powerful image of resistance through spectacular action sequences, emotional conflict, and heroic characterization. Bheem is introduced as a tribal man from the Gond community, while Raju is associated with the revolutionary struggle against the British. Their coming together produces a powerful cinematic image of unity against colonial oppression.

However, the article encourages us to look beyond this nationalist representation. Historically, the resistance associated with Alluri Sitarama Raju and Komaram Bheem was connected not only with opposition to colonial rule but also with the protection of tribal land, forests, resources, and traditional ways of life. Komaram Bheem is particularly remembered through the expression “Jal, Jangal, Zameen”, meaning water, forest, and land. These words represent much more than physical resources. They signify livelihood, cultural identity, community, territory, and belonging.

The film therefore creates a productive contradiction. It gives tribal resistance enormous visibility, but at the same time it changes the emphasis of that resistance. The specific struggles of tribal communities become incorporated into a larger nationalist narrative. The question is consequently not whether RRR represents resistance, but what happens to a particular form of resistance when it is transformed into mainstream popular cinema?

Appropriation and the Question of Representation

The concept of appropriation is central to understanding the film. Appropriation occurs when the history, symbols, or struggles of a marginalized community are taken up and transformed within a different cultural or political framework. In RRR, tribal heroes are brought into the centre of a highly commercial and internationally successful film. This can be considered empowering because audiences across the world become familiar with figures who might otherwise remain outside mainstream historical narratives.

At the same time, the cinematic transformation can make their original struggles less visible. Bheem becomes a larger-than-life action hero, and his resistance is presented through spectacle, emotion, and nationalism. The complexity of tribal political struggles is therefore simplified into a universally recognizable conflict between the oppressed Indian hero and the British colonial oppressor.

This raises a significant postcolonial question: Who has the power to represent the subaltern? If marginalized communities are represented by mainstream cinema, their histories may gain visibility, but their voices can also be reshaped according to the expectations of the dominant culture. Thus, RRR simultaneously challenges colonial representation and participates in a new process of representation in which tribal history is adapted for a mass audience.

Nationalism and the Subaltern

The film’s nationalist dimension is one of its greatest strengths as well as one of its limitations. By bringing Raju and Bheem together, RRR creates a symbolic unity between different communities in the struggle against British colonialism. The film suggests that resistance to colonialism can unite people across differences of region, community, and social background.

However, from a postcolonial perspective, nationalism should not completely replace the specific identities and struggles of marginalized communities. A tribal resistance movement cannot be understood only as part of a larger Indian nationalist struggle because it also involves questions of land ownership, cultural autonomy, environmental rights, and community survival.

The article is therefore important because it encourages us to distinguish between celebrating a tribal hero and understanding the tribal struggle. A film may celebrate Bheem as a national hero while still leaving questions about the contemporary rights of tribal communities unanswered.

From RRR to Environmental Justice

The connection between tribal resistance and environmental justice makes the film especially relevant to the present. The struggles represented through “Jal, Jangal, Zameen” continue in different forms whenever development projects affect forests, rivers, agricultural land, or indigenous communities.

The Ken–Betwa River Linking Project, for example, raises questions about development, displacement, ecology, and the interests of communities living in affected regions. Such issues can be read alongside the historical significance of tribal resistance represented through Bheem. The larger question is similar: Who has the authority to decide how land and natural resources should be used, and whose voices are included in that decision?

This connection shows why postcolonial studies remains relevant in the age of climate change. Colonialism may have formally ended, but unequal relationships involving land, resources, development, and political power can continue in different forms. Environmental justice therefore becomes an important part of contemporary postcolonial thought because indigenous and marginalized communities often experience the consequences of environmental transformation most directly.

Cinema in a Globalized World

The global success of RRR demonstrates the power of cinema to carry local histories across national boundaries. A story rooted in Indian history can now reach audiences who may know very little about colonial India or tribal resistance. This global circulation can create greater visibility for marginalized histories.

Yet globalization also creates a responsibility for representation. When a local history becomes global entertainment, there is a danger that audiences may remember the spectacular hero but forget the social and political struggles behind that hero. Therefore, the task of postcolonial cinema should not simply be to replace colonial heroes with nationalist heroes. It should encourage audiences to question whose history is being represented, whose voice is being heard, and whose experience remains invisible.

Conclusion

RRR is a powerful example of how cinema can recover, reshape, and popularize histories of resistance. Its representation of Komaram Bheem and Alluri Sitarama Raju gives tribal resistance a highly visible place within mainstream Indian cinema. However, the film also transforms historically specific struggles concerning land, forests, water, and community rights into a larger nationalist spectacle.

A postcolonial reading therefore requires us to recognize both sides of this representation. RRR can empower marginalized history by bringing tribal heroes to a global audience, but it can also appropriate that history by reshaping it according to the demands of nationalism and popular cinema. The significance of Bheem’s legacy should consequently not end with his cinematic heroism. The idea of “Jal, Jangal, Zameen” reminds us that resistance is also about the continuing struggle for land, resources, identity, dignity, and environmental justice. In this sense, RRR becomes more than a historical action film: it becomes a site for thinking about how postcolonial resistance is remembered, represented, and continued in the contemporary world.

Works Cited

Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, International Publishers, 1971.

“Heroes or Hegemons? The Celluloid Empire of Rambo and Bond in America’s Geopolitical Narrative.” ResearchGate, 2024, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383415195_Heroes_or_Hegemons_The_Celluloid_Empire_of_Rambo_and_Bond_in_America's_Geopolitical_Narrative.

Rambo: First Blood Part II. Directed by George P. Cosmatos, TriStar Pictures, 1985.

“Reimagining Resistance: The Appropriation of Tribal Heroes in Rajamouli’s RRR.” ResearchGate, 2024, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383603395_Reimagining_Resistance_The_Appropriation_of_Tribal_Heroes_in_Rajamouli's_RRR.

RRR. Directed by S. S. Rajamouli, performances by N. T. Rama Rao Jr., Ram Charan, Ajay Devgn, and Alia Bhatt, DVV Entertainment, 2022.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, 1978.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, University of Illinois Press, 1988, pp. 271–313.