Queimada

Marlon Brando here perfects the portrayal of an upper class Englishman that he first essayed in Mutiny on the Bounty. His British agent, Sir William Walker, is patrician, duplicitous, sardonic, manipulative, charming - the embodiment of perfidious Albion. This exploration of colonialism is one of the better films Brando made in the sixties, if not the best. In it he was able to realise his long-expressed wish to make films of a serious, political nature and this one, which charts Britain's involvement in a Portugese colony in the Antilles during the mid 19th century, offers an unequivocally Marxist analysis of the struggle for freedom on the part of the black sugar cane workers. Gillo Pontecorvo, the Italian director, had previously made the much admired Battle of Algiers on the theme of French colonialism.

Walker is sent to the island of Queimada on two occasions in furtherance of British interests in the sugar trade. Initially he is employed by the Admiralty to incite a rebellion against the Portugese and install an independent government. Ten years later he returns, this time on behalf of a major sugar company, to destroy the rebel leader he himself has created.

Walker, however, is an ambivalent figure, only too aware of the contradictions in his nature. His stance is that of the professional who tries 'to do a job well, and to see it through'. At the same time, he admires Jose Dolores, the rebel leader, and is contemptuous of those not fighting alongside him. ('Why aren't you up there with them on the Sierra Madre?' he asks a bemused government soldier.) When his successful counter-insurrection leads to Jose Dolores' capture, Walker offers him the chance to escape execution, and is then puzzled by his refusal. As a man without political conviction, Walker cannot comprehend it in others.

The film is not without its flaws. Some fairly ruthless cutting leaves the plot difficult to follow on first viewing. The middle section, accounting for the intervening years in Walker's life, is unconvincing. If he is a disillusioned man, reduced to drinking and brawling (through self-loathing?) there is no sign of it on his return to Queimada. And whatever happened to his next assignment in, ironically, Indo-China?

The rest of the multi-national cast are no match for Brando, who has most of the dialogue and is seldom off screen. Jose Dolores, for example, is played by a young Colombian who had never seen a film before, let alone acted in one, and the imbalance between the two performances is all too evident. Pontecorvo orchestrates the big crowd scenes well, and they have the documentary feel of Battle of Algiers, but they cause the film to swing unevenly between action and ideas.

Making the film was apparently an unhappy experience for all concerned. Shot mainly in Colombia, working conditions were appalling with the cast and crew subject to illness, bad weather and threats of violence. With Italian, French, English and Spanish speakers involved, there were major problems of communication. Brando and Pontecorvo had different views on the main character - the director wanted him portrayed as an unmitigated force of evil while Brando pushed for more light and shade - and relationships between the two deteriorated rapidly. Filming was finally completed in Morocco after Brando, who was at a very low ebb in his life, walked off the set and threatened to quit the production altogether.

Despite its flaws, it remains a fascinating film, with a literate script, a strong anti-racist message and a central performance of great intelligence and wit. Why has it never been released on video in the UK?

Albert Oyahon (a previous review) seems to have said it all. This indeed is a deeply complex, gripping and deeply political film. For those who are used to simple moral tales it will seem confusing, uncomfortable even, but for those who relish the complexity of the human condition it is a challenging and thoughtful film. The number of truly outstanding political thrillers can be counted on the fingers of one hand (A Man For All Seasons and Z come to mind) but this ranks amongst the best. With the possible exception of On The Waterfront, it is difficult to think of a film in which Brando gave a better performance. He is outstanding as a complex political manipulator. The film also has qualities that arise only when different cultures (in this case Europe and The Americas) come together. To an intelligent filmgoer I cannot recommend this film too highly.

Marlon Brando is just amazing in this intelligent film.Most people don't understand Brando's career choices during the sixties.But I think that as years go by,they will.His ideas were way ahead of his time.His talent and range were unbelievable.Every actor tries to imitate his intensity (deniro,penn,nolte,.....) with no success.Definitely the king of acting.

Queimada is a film I grew up with. I saw it for the first time in Kolkotta, India, in 1970. It's a film with one of the finest scores of Ennio Morricone and an ambiguous performance by Marlon Brando--that makes you wonder if the William Walker role is merely to be viewed as that of a mercenary. In my view, this is Brando's best performance. Recently, I found out that Brando himself stated this performance was "the best acting I've ever did" during a Larry King interview on CNN. It appears that his explanation on why he considered this was cut short by King, who evidently knew little about the film or the filmmaker. And so we will never know why Brando thought this was his best performance. But I think I can guess the reasons.

I have watched the film several times and loved Gillo Pontecorvo's direction of the scenes at the port, which are one of my favorite sequences in cinema. Pontecorvo wanted Brando to create an evil figure of "Sir" William Walker, who was a real person though not a British knight. He was an American mercenary who even went to Indo-China. Brando apparently argued with Pontecorvo that the character instead of a clear-cut evil figure should be more ambiguous and this led to major differences between the two. On viewing the film, it is evident Brando won the argument.

Franco Solinas, the screenplay writer, was a brilliant Leftist who contributed to Pontecorvo's success on "Battle of Algiers" and "Kapo." However, their films rankled the far Left and the far Right. Quiemada's script upset the Spanish government, and the filmmakers changed the details from a Spanish colony to a Portuguese colony. But Brando who probably was aware of the American connection of the lead character must have enjoyed the parallels of the story--knowing his personal love for the native Indian cause.

The film is a witty, cynical portrayal of colonial designs on impoverished poor. Sugar was the commodity in vogue then. A century later you could replace "sugar" with "oil." The film is replete with a brilliant speech penned by Solinas, spoken by Brando that begins by comparing the economics of having a wife versus a prostitute. He then ends the speech comparing the gains of a slave with that of hired labor. The political philosophy is unorthodox but hard hitting.

The visual effect of Brando's blonde hair and white clothes against the black natives is a visual metaphor. It is perhaps most anti-racist movie that I have seen with William Walker in all his glory unable to comprehend the political conviction and values of a native worker who refuses a chance to escape a cruel execution.

This film has a small but significant role for Italian actor Renato Salvatori.

I have seen hundreds of political movies--but this will remain my all time favorite. The film won Pontecorvo in 1970 the best director national award in Italy. The mix of Brando, Pontecorvo, Solinas, Salvatori and Morricone is a heady cocktail that will be a great experience for any intelligent viewer.

In the Nineteenth Century, the cynical and pragmatic British agent William Walker (Marlon Brando) arrives in Queimada, a Portuguese colony in the Antilles, to promote a revolution and benefits the sugar trade with England. He finds in the water and luggage carrier José Dolores (Evaristo Marquez) the necessary potential to be the leader of the slave revolt, and the Portuguese troops are expelled from the island; then the provisional government of President Teddy Sanchez (Renato Salvatore) assumes the power with the support of the British government. Ten years later, William is hired by the Royal Company that is exploring the sugar cane plantations and the Queimada government to chase José Dolores that is disturbing the economical interests of England in sugar cane with his army of rebels.

It is impressive the timing of director Gillo Pontecorvo to make and release "Burn!". In 1969, the South America was under military dictatorships promoted by the United States of America to improve their economical and political interests in the region. There are many parallel situations in the colonization process between what was happening in South America in that historical moment and in the fictitious island of Queimada in the previous century. Marlon Brando performs one of the most Machiavellians characters of the cinema history and very similar to the American advisors that supported the foregoing dictatorships (despite not using torture). His character is fascinating as well as his political capability to envision the consequences of his actions; he is indeed the personification of the thoughts and concepts of Machiavelli in "The Prince". My only remark is the use of English language in a Portuguese colony; Mr. Pontecorvo should have casted actors that speak Portuguese to be more accurate. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Queimada!" ("Burn!")