A Guerra do Fogo

Stanley Kubrick's classic "2001" celebrates the first weapon, when a hairy primate through some burst of savage genius turns a useless thigh-bone into a dominating club. He thereby takes a giant first step in humanity's long pursuit of bigger and better weapons. On the other hand, "Quest for Fire" dramatizes humanity's other side: the civilizing arrival of the campfire. But not just any campfire; instead it's the security found in mastering the technique to make fire any time the tribe wants. As a result, the Cro-Magnons have for the first time some control over their environment and can take time to relax. That's made apparent at film's end when the clan gathers happily around crackling embers to relate stories through crude gestures and grunts. Perhaps the evolution of complex linguistic forms had its origins in just such relaxed moments, when imagination and thinking could take hold and get expression in the company of others.

There's also that overlooked moment when Naoh humbly approaches the lordly herd of marauding mastodons. Tufts of grass in hand, he bows his head in an unmistakable gesture of submission, to which the herd responds-- not very plausibly --by chasing away the attacking cannibal clan. The point here is that Naoh understands in that quiet moment that we must live humbly with those forces much greater than ourselves if we want to survive-- a possible seed of what would later become religious belief, whether in the forces of nature or in the supposed power of the supernatural.

Of course, this is all speculation. The filmmakers don't exactly hit you over the head with their messages. However, the point is that the film succeeds admirably in getting you to think about the natural history of what these lowly but momentous origins must have been like. Moreover, there are other suggestive moments, such as when the camera transitions from Rae Dawn Chong's pregnant belly to the distant full moon and humanity's far-off future. Some reviewers point out scientific flaws in the script and reject the film on that basis. But that misses the point. Of course the film is not a documentary, so no serious researcher would base a study on it. Nonetheless, the movie remains just that, a well-staged and provocative ninety minutes of unusual filmmaking. I've seen nothing like it before or since.

Much has been said about the movie and all I want to add is what I think are the two best scenes in the movie. The first is when the clay covered tribe member took Naoh into the cave and showed him how to make fire by friction. The look on Naoh's face could not express more wonder if he had pulled a buffalo out of his ear. The second scene was after they returned to their own tribe and tried to narrate to the rest of their tribe the things that they had seen along the way, seemingly inventing language as they went.

Many of my friends laugh at me when I mention this movie. I don't know what makes so many of them hate it so.. Perhaps the lack of understandable dialogue? Too much like thinking to understand what is going on? Whatever it is, I am one of the few I know who feel this is a very underrated movie.. I know it is not accurate from a scientific perspective... The time line is all messed up.. but so what? I sat there in the theater just thinking.. "suppose live in our distant past WAS something like this movie. Fire=Life=Fire. Along comes a superior tribe and I realize that I could summon the flames at MY WILL. How powerful I would feel.. Almost G-d like! The photography is lush and there is a tinge of humor when the backward tribe learns to laugh. I enjoyed the story and the acting... everything. Rent it! See it twice if you must. Just maybe... we ARE looking back at ourselves.

I caught this in Boston back in 1981. They played it in the biggest cinema they had in 70mm and in stereo sound. I had only the slightest idea of what it was about but it sounded interesting. When I realized it was a caveman movie I almost left, but the beautiful wide screen cinematography kept me in my seat. Slowly it worked on me and by the end I was mesmerized.

There's not really much of a plot--the caveman discover fire and different sexual positions--and there's no dialogue that we could understand but it didn't matter. The whole cast was excellent--especially Ron Perelman and Rae Dawn Chong (who had guts to do this). Their whole performances had to be done using some foreign language and body movement but they pulled it off. I heard Anthony Burgess was called in to develop the language used and coach the cast in how to use it. The cinematography is just breath-taking and the prehistoric animals look realistic all the way. I can't exactly say why I loved this movie but I did.

20th Century Fox deserves credit for actually acquiring the film and releasing it. Naturally it bombed badly here in the US but it seems I'm not the only one who likes it--when I mention it to friends I just get a blank look back. I haven't seen it since 1981 but it's never left me. Try to see it on a big screen TV. I give it an 8.

Raw and at times brutal, this story follows three primitive warriors who make a cross-country journey in search of that most precious of natural elements ... fire. In prehistoric times, having fire meant survival from the cold and protection from predators.

In this film, facial gestures, hand movements, general body language and mannerisms of the characters are all consistent with conclusions about early man, as a result of thorough anthropological research. In lieu of modern language the film's dialogue consists of some 350 invented words and sounds, also based on research. In addition, an important part of the film is attention to detail in costumes and makeup, for which the film won several awards. All of these technical cinematic elements combine to create a reasonably accurate visual and audio impression of mankind as it existed some 80,000 years ago.

As you would expect, the film is shot entirely in rugged, remote locations, resulting in landscapes that are stunningly beautiful. Background music is generally low-key and ethereal, like what you might hear in a sci-fi film. There's lots of flute sounds, which reinforce the simplicity of the time period.

For all its technical achievements, this film's main weakness may be the screenplay. When you take away the artifacts of modern life, you're very limited in the kind of story you can tell. And that clearly is the case here, with a plot that drones on with a monotony and repetition that can be tedious, and at times difficult for some viewers.

Although the story's entertainment value may be marginal, "Quest For Fire", with its low tech cinematic style, is interesting not only for its technical elements but also for its over arching theme of modern human's continuity with prehistoric man, based on the element of fire.