Sob Fogo Cerrado

If you want a documentary about the Sandinista's, go watch a documentary. If you want a thrilling love-story set around a fast-paced, intelligent script about people who want to do the best they can under difficult circumstances, then this is the film for you. Good acting, superb music, a good use of locations and atmospheres. This must be one of Nolte's best performances. Of course Rafael did not exist, but this is a movie, not a portrayal of real facts. The story works perfectly in this movie, and that is what's important. If you're looking for a flick that entertains, touches you without being too sentimental, and you like some action, then Under Fire is certainly worth seeing.

Some reviewers compare this film with Oliver Stone's fine Central American film, Salvador (1986). That's a legitimate comparison, but my feeling is that films should be primarily judged on their own merits. In that sense, Under Fire succeeds superbly, not least because of the first-rate staging. The peasant favelas are real slums, desolate, degraded, and perfect backdrop for the grassroots revolution underway in 1970's Nicaragua. It's easy to see why the Sandinista revolt would succeed even against the armed might of an American sponsored tyrant (Somoza). The movie makes a point of showing ready peasant support for anti- government personnel and even non-government journalists like the Americans. However, more contrast between the despoiled favelas and Somoza's swanky uptown precincts would have been even more powerful. Still, Somoza's gilded mistress, Miss Panama, does speak volumes.

The story itself is well-woven into the larger political backdrop, no easy accomplishment. At first, the three American journalists take their new Nicaragua assignment as just another war to cover and maybe a chance to win a few more awards. Russell (Nolte), in particular, can't seem to get beyond his camera shutter. To him, the human drama unfolding might be on a planet far away, while he snaps one frame after another. But then he is a journalist, with a set of professional ethics. If he takes sides in any dispute, then his work can no longer be trusted. Same for print journalist Alex (Hackman) and interviewer Claire (Cassidy). So the conflict between natural empathy for the downtrodden and oath to the profession sets up the basic conflict. Russell, in particular, is pinned on the horns of the conflict when rebels ask him to fake a photograph of their iconic leader, Rafael. I needn't reveal how the conflict plays out, except, crucially, it does resolve in a credible manner.

The acting is also first-rate. Too bad the three principals were passed over for Oscar nominations. In my little book, Nolte particularly shines in an understated role that could easily have gone over the top. And happily Cassidy's Claire avoids any hint of glamor, yet still manages a magnetic presence. At the same time Hackman has perhaps the most difficult role. His Alex must waver between friendship with Russell and attraction to Claire, while having to choose which political side he's on. Nonetheless, he brings them off persuasively. Still, I certainly don't envy Harris' thankless role as the unscrupulous opportunist, Oates. Apparently he thinks just being an American in a Third World country excuses everything.

Note in passing, the aerial leaflet drop, the only way, I suppose, the rebels have of mass communication since the government controls the media. And shouldn't overlook the two vintage rattletraps our journalists are stuck riding in. The tin jalopies get shot, cannonaded, slammed, and still they roll over debris strewn streets like real troupers. So, hats off to Detroit's finest!

Anyway, the movie's an expertly produced thriller of some depth. Too bad it's drifted into relative obscurity now that the political fires have lessened over time. One thing for sure—I'll bet Spottiswoode's film never screened in Reagan's White House.

A version of this comparison has already been posted over at "Salvador" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091886/

Salvador is Olvier Stone's best work and James Woods' finest performance. Perhaps my only regret about this movie has to do with it not going nearly far enough in depicting the brutality of the US client regime in El Salvador. But this observation does not count, as it doesn't have anything to do with the film as presented. A critique of Salvador would do much better to note that there are very few films about the political situation in Central America, period. Persons who are interested in the subject matter might do well to compare this Stone effort with the much earlier Under Fire (1983), a film which boasts superlative performances by Nick Nolte and Gene Hackman. Under Fire is perhaps one of the most under appreciated films, not just of the 1980s, but of all time. Both Under Fire and Salvador are head and shoulders above Ken Loach's limited tale of a Nicaraguan refugee's individual trauma - Carla's Song (made much later in 1996). Both earlier films were made at the time Central America was a major obsession of the Reagan Administration (which went so far as to suggest AK-47 toting Sandinistas were about to invade the Texas border). On account of this background alone, the respective cast and crews of both films deserve the sort of praise we should usually reserve for true artists rather than Hollywood's employees.

Both Salvador and the much earlier Under Fire are very close in their subject matter: portraying disinterested journalists who only after becoming aware of the gravity of the situation in which they find themselves turn unsympathetic towards clients of the American Empire. The sort of journalists which have been entirely purged from the corporate-owned "mainstream" or "embedded" press in the United States (and the EU too).

Both films do an outstanding job of noting the protagonists' rivals in the form of spin doctors for the regime whether from the US State Department or the corporate media. Characters like Salvador's ANS reporter Pauline Axelrod (played by Valerie Wildman) force us to recall the perverted scribblings of James Lemoyne (New York Times), the godfather of Embedded American Journalism; his students honored in that tribute to the corporate press, Welcome to Sarajevo (1997). Call that film for what it is: the anti-Salvador.

Under Fire goes much deeper than Stone's film in questioning the ethics of journalism and the sort of circumstances which compel individuals to look at the bigger picture. The depiction of the conflict between Hackman and Nolte, on both personal and professional levels, makes it a very rewarding film. Salvador's portrait of a troubled has-been photojournalist who undergoes a sort of radical shock therapy in a war zone is different, but certainly no less interesting.

I have to give the decisive edge to Under Fire for drawing much more attention to the nature and breadth of the foreign support upon which the corrupt Central American dictatorships relied. Salvador has a US helicopter turn up in the middle of a battle, an ambassador portrayed as indifferent, and that's about it. Under Fire, in contrast, has excellent performances by a young Ed Harris and Jean-Louis Tritignant as pro-regime killers, roles which draw attention to the nature and morality of those embattled dictatorships.

Salvador counters with a much more interesting profile of some of the members of the so-called "government" and its military. In Under Fire, we just see Anastasio Somoza depicted as an insignificant car salesman type in the background who also happens to be the latest heir to the dynasty which ruled over Nicaragua for much of the 20th century. This was a wee bit dissatisfying.

The major differences between the films are technical and stylistic. Some may prefer Stone's use of tight editing and rather fanciful action sequences. I personally preferred Under Fire's determined efforts to bring out as much stark realism as possible on screen especially in the battle scenes, which are among the most authentic attempts to portray urban and guerrilla warfare in the history of cinema. No, it's not as pretty as Tom Cruise dropping bombs to the accompaniment of Kenny Loggins, and any film which reveals as much deserves special praise. One wonders if "Under Fire" or "Salvador" could be made in Hollywood today.

A 9/10 for Salvador and a 9/10 for Under Fire, and again hats off to all associated with films which one can hardly imagine being made in this Orwellian or "embedded" age.

Nicaragua 1979 sees the rebel uprising reaching a peak and causing an inflow of foreign journalists including photojournalist Russell Price and Claire. As the conflict rages around them Russell and Claire fall in love, despite her relationship with anchorman Alex Grazier.

My plot summary of this feels a little false - it makes it sound like a romantic drama rather than a political drama. However it's closer to that than it is to being a look at the conflict in Nicaragua. The story made me think it would be a look at the conflict, but rather this is a look at the conflict through the eyes of foreigners including CIA and journalists. It's still interesting - but would have been better looking at it from the rebel's point of view - but then I guess the American audience wouldn't have been interested. The focus on the US stars makes this a drama with the war as a backdrop, this takes away from the impact of the conflict onscreen.

One of the last scenes of the films has an elderly lady talking to Claire following the death of an American journalist at the hands of the Government. Due to this death the USA has thrown their support behind the rebels and the Government has fallen. The lady essentially says that "50,000 Nicaraguans have died but it took only one American death to convince the US of the true nature of the Government here - we should have killed one a long time ago" (rough quote!). This is a good point, made in criticism of the USA's foreign policy and how they value lives of different nationalities. However this criticism can also be levelled at the film itself - it focuses on the Americans more than the Nicaraguans, the American characters are more important than the Nicaraguan characters - you can't have it both ways, you can't criticise someone else for something you're guilty of. The story is still interesting but it's so USA focused that it almost forgets the main players in the story (the rebels & the Government) and relegates them to bit parts.

Nolte is good in the lead, but I thought Joanna Cassidy was a bit outclassed by the rest of the cast. Hackman is good as always but had very little to do. Ed Harris is good, but again his character was the only soldier really given a character or a story (and of course, he's an American mercenary).

Overall an interesting story but the main point of the film (as voiced by the elderly lady) is also a criticism of the film itself. I wanted to know more about the conflict but instead knew more about the love triangle - a political drama that manages to cheapen the very political war that it sought to highlight.

This is one of those movies which starts out with good intentions, but somehow misses the mark at the end. Nolte is an adrenalin-junkie journalist on a mission to shoot (with his Nikon) the leader of the Sandinista rebels in the Nicaraguan war. Shades of El Cid. The rebel leader, Rafael, is dead, but Nolte photographs him to make him look alive. This has the desired effect, and the rebel forces are revitalised. Nolte, however, has to come to terms with both compromising his integrity, and the burgeoning relationship between himself and Cassidy, Hackman's former lover.

Cassidy and Hackman give performances which one has come to expect from artistes of their calibre, but for me, the real star of the movie is the music. It was worth the second trip just to revel in what must surely rank as one of Jerry Goldsmith's masterworks.