Queimada

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!")

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.

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.

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 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?