Queimada

Most people have not seen this film and I think its a shame because its very interesting in a Costa Gavras sort of way. Brando is always fascinating to watch and this script gives him a chance to play the type of character you would come to expect from him. I have to warn you that he tries an english accent here and its not very good. I thought that Evaristo Marquez who isn't really an actor did a fine job and carried the film well when Brando wasn't on screen. Watching Brando use and manipulate Marquez like a pawn to instigate a revolt is both appalling and riveting to watch. Fascinating story is shot in an almost documentary style but the rough look of the film seems to enhance the story. Nothing glossy, but a hard look at a character with shameless motives. If you liked "Z" then you definitely will want to see this film.

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!")

In the 1830's, the island of Quemada in the Antilles is a Portuguese colony - that is, until an English agent provocateur arrives and inspires the black slaves to rise and expel the colonial authorities. However, as is always the way with revolutions, a group of middle-class power brokers seizes political control and the people's aspirations are betrayed.

Ten years pass, and the sugar industry now requires peace and stability on Quemada. The continuing guerilla campaign by the dispossessed blacks is harming profits. The very same English adventurer is once more despatched to the island, this time to hunt down and eradicate the revolutionaries he created.

Marlon Brando plays Sir William Walker in his best Fletcher Christian English accent and a blonde wig with a life of its own. His is a thoughtful performance, putting across the complexity of the man, a character who is undoubtedly cynical and unscrupulous, but who is also an emotional man and something of a political philosopher. He is certainly effective at what he does.

The direction of Gillo Pontecorvo is somewhat erratic at times. There are points where the narrative is confused, and the gold robbery which drives the plot somehow got left on the cutting-room floor. Jose Dolores' rise to power is the most significant event in the story, but we see nothing of it. During the voodoo carnival, two of the participants are wearing 20th-century soccer shorts. The film's central pivot, the passage of ten years between Walker's two visits to the island, is handled very sketchily by means of a few incongruous London scenes and a voice-over narration.

But there are good things, too. When Santiago's widow hauls her husband's body away, the masonry of the fort stands as a silent metaphor of colonial power - harsh, overbearing and sterile. Brando has some fine speeches, musing on the nature of political legitimism. The fire scenes are visually arresting (though it would have sufficed to have two or three guerillas being shot as they emerged from the burning sugar cane: seven or eight is labouring the point), and Walker is positively luminous against the tortured black shapes of the charred forest, showing in symbolic form that this man thrives on the suffering of the blacks, and that destruction is his natural element.

Marlon Brando's involvement in the making of "Burn" came about directly as the result of his politician idealism and his desire to make films with a comment on the human situation… In 1968 he was deeply concerned in supporting civil rights causes, particularly those to have reference to black and Indian conditions, and, according to his friends, he was greatly disturbed and depressed by the assassination of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King…

"Burn" begins in 1845 as Sir William Walker (Brando) arrives on the island of Queimada, truly as far as can be judged as a harmless traveler but actually an agent of the British government ordered to incite a revolution that will shatter the Portuguese control on the island and permit the British to put their hand on the valuable sugar-cane total product… Queimada has a population of two hundred thousand, of whom only five thousand are Europeans…The main town is a well-protected port with a fort and a garrison, a governor's palace, a cathedral, a bank, a hotel and a brothel…

The English gentleman recognizes he must play the part of a political Pygmalion… He looks around for a suitable subject to train as a revolutionary and he selects José Dolores (Evaristo Marquez), a large, handsome black dock-worker with an air of confidence… Walker also recruits Teddy Sanchez (Renato Salvatori), an almost-white clerk with political ambitions… Walker persuades José Dolores to steal the bank of the island, and once he does, Walker reveals his name to the government, thereby turning Dolores into a hunted bandit… The ingenious Walker then teaches Dolores and his followers in the use of firearms and gradually absorbs in them ideas and feelings to overthrow the Portuguese government…

The film is quite obviously political in tone, and is a passionate piece of propaganda in the anti-colonial struggle… Brando's interpretation of Sir William Walker is apt to call up memories of his Fletcher Christian… This is another Englishman, whose gentle speech and soft manners disguise with courage and determination…Walker is not a villain but a cold, inflexible pragmatist with a hard work to accomplish

Seldom has a movie set in an earlier century displayed such contemporary relevance. Brando plays a British version of the CIA sent to wrest a Carribbean island away from the Portuguese empire and its slave-holding planters. It all seems rather noble, until we discover that he is to deliver the emancipated Africans into a fresh form of slavery: the wage slavery of the global sugar market. The machinations fly fast and furious as Brando double-deals a British company into the reins of power. His character proves a sometimes fascinating study in professional pride versus grudging respect for the darkskinned foe. Film-maker Pontecorvo (Battle of Algiers) is particularly alert to the many subtle and not-so-subtle modes of European domination, and I like the way he lingers over African crowd scenes, neither romanticizing nor denigrating their presence.

Small wonder this film disappeared quickly from American screens. It's a no-punches-pulled, heady stuff even for the rebellious 1960's. Brando was always an anti-imperialist, and I suspect this film amounted to the one he long hoped to make, despite many years of bad choices. The movie itself remains an insight into the ugly realities behind the dressed-up facade of history books, proxy armies, and cosmetic governments. And although, not Brando's best performance (dialects never brought out his best), the screenplay stands as a testament to a political conviction which, despite the early years of McCarthy red-baiting, never wavered and even smouldered to artistic heights during that same period. ( Disregard Leonard Maltin's characterization of the film as "muddled"-- his staff apparently failed to follow the twists and turns of the power struggle, which, despite Maltin's myopia, pursues a reasoned course on all sides.) Then too, catch up with the uncut European version if you can.