A 19th century British diplomat instigates a revolution on the island of Queimada in the Caribbean between the black slaves and the Portuguese colonials in order to break Portugal's hold on the sugar market. An odd bit of political rabble-rousing and quasi-history from director Gillo Pontecorvo, who also worked on the story but seems far more comfortable gazing at the vistas and landscapes of the region rather than staging a riot. Marlon Brando (grizzled, and with a precarious accent) gives a necessarily unsympathetic performance and has some amazing bits and pieces, yet the picture really only comes to life during the montages, sweeping panoramas as scored by Ennio Morricone (whose work deserves the highest praise). United Artists, afraid of offending the Spanish movie market, changed the nationality of the villains from Spaniards to Portuguese in an eleventh-hour move designed for box-office; it was a misguided decision, particularly since U.A. hardly distributed the picture after the critics' reviews were less than enthusiastic. It has only recently acquired a cult following, mostly due to Morricone's majestic music. ** from ****

Some call this a Marxist view of colonialism and history, but I'd only partly agree. American liberals, Marxists, and Europe's Left-wingers will surely want to claim ANY revolution or revolt in history as their own, i.e. fitting in neatly with Karl Marx's deluded little theories. Same with movies: they basically watch a film and see what they want to see. However, the revolt in Queimada isn't portrayed in such simplistic, idiotic, black-and-white terms, as we find them in that pitiful Bible of the Left. Once Dolores wins his first revolt, there is the realization that he and his rebels are light-years away from being capable of maintaining a functioning economy. While Marx, in his endless arrogance and ignorance, saw the proletariat as the proper force to guide a country and even all of mankind itself, even Dolores - "formerly a nothing", as Brando called him - himself realizes that the working class/the oppressed lower class/the proletariat/the lowest cast/whatever does not have the necessary education or abilities to achieve anything beyond a successful armed resistance. It is easy to destroy; building a society is quite another matter...This brings us to the more left-wing aspect of the movie: the overly simplistic portrayal of Dolores. The fact is that nearly every black revolutionary established a dictatorship in which the people lived far worse off than under the colonial power in question. Africa is a failed continent today (the only one with minus growth!) not because of white influence but because of a lack of it. The African continent has been far too quickly abandoned in the name of "equality, justice" and other notions, leaving the as-yet-unready and too uneducated black populace to find their own path in a world which was marching off, progressing at a rapid speed. Nearly every African/black country sports a tyranny in which the elections - when there are any - are a mere joke, more like a pathetic circus set up to fool those in the West who really think that the transition from tribal life or slave to modern capitalism is achievable overnight. Hence to portray Dolores as such a self-sacrificing idealist in the William Wallace "Braveheart" vein is utterly absurd and infinitely naive. In fact, William Wallace himself was no squeaky-clean individual. There is no such thing as a "revolutionary saint", the way Marxists, aided greatly by their sympathizers in the Western media, have tried and mostly succeeded in propagandizing mass murderers like Che Guevara into. People who lead the desperate into revolt very often have their own agendas, and aren't rarely intelligent psychopaths (Castro) who see a clever opportunity to get wealthy and powerful by riding on waves of the populace's desperation and genuine idealism and hope. The Marxist notion of the "noble proletariat", who have very little education, yet march bravely and with success toward a prosperous new modern world is just as fantasy-based as the idea of someone like Jose Dolores actually existing in the past or present. Marxists are all ultra-idealists, and what else is idealism but an over-simplification of truth, and an escape into flights of fancy that are nearly always based on wishful thinking rather than a sobering nose-dive into harsh reality."Queimada" is less black-and-white than that, fortunately. It shows the cold realities of economics and human development: one race dominates another, a nation dominates another, a class dominates another class. Empirically, objectively, there is nothing evil, immoral or despicable about this - it's just the way humans are, just the way human psychology coupled with biology works. Animals kill each other in the trillions every single day: it may seem cruel and pointless to us "civilized" Westerners, but only because we have become too soft in our cozy, comparatively luxurious existence. Reality is never what idealists tell you it is - or can be. Besides, the struggle isn't merely one of black against white (now, wouldn't have Hollywood's Oscar voters just loved that...) but there are different interest groups on the island, all with their own problems and enemies.The movie is visually interesting, having that grimy late 60s/early 70s look. I was not bothered by some oddities, such as there being no scenes of the bank robbery, or scenes showing the first clash between Dolores's men and the Portuguese. Good, unusual soundtrack.

A new generation might not know how to take this film, since the production values are sometimes threadbare and the screenplay is very straightforward, but it's still a movie worth watching if you want to understand how the New World (including America) got to where it is today. (No, it's not historically accurate since Portugal never had Caribbean colonies, but it's clear that Portugal is just a stand-in for Spain or England or any other European colonial power.) From the start it is hard not to get involved in the struggles of the Queimadan slaves (who we see powerfully both in close-up and in mass scenes), after we first see the heartbreak and indignity of a widow and her small children forced to cart the headless corpse of their husband/father across the island themselves after he is executed by the slave masters for rebellion. It is also hard not to simultaneously appreciate and loathe the slick operations of Sir William Walker, an English agent provocateur who expertly manipulates one courageous man, Jose Dolores, into fomenting an effective rebellion that is actually planned to ultimately fail ten years later. Marlon Brando gives a masterful performance as Walker. (Even if you think you don't like Brando as an actor, you may be very surprised with him here. He considered this his best screen performance and his judgment was probably correct.) The ideas laid out in "Queimada" may seem old hat to today's audiences, but are also character-driven in a way that escapes most didactic modern treatments of racist imperialism. (Translation: It's a much better movie than BLOOD DIAMOND.) The most important message still relevant for today is that what we think of "freedom" often really isn't "free,", depending on whether we take it for ourselves, or if it is given to us (and who is doing the giving). Still an important lesson for "free" peoples around the world to keep in mind.

In some areas, this film actually manages to be a progression from Pontecorvo's masterpiece Battle of Algiers, but unfortunately, the 'sinking lips' mask what may have been great performances making it hard to engage with the characters. The audio quality is most disappointing with regard to Brando's character William Walker. Walker is a cunningly constructed Machiavellian manipulator reminiscent of a Lady Macbeth (with less guilt) and Iago (with arguably less motive) that is, nonetheless (and most impressively), believable. William Walker is potentially one of the greatest roles in film history played by one of the greatest actors of his generation. Sadly, the character, performance and film are diminished by poor quality audio (at this point I feel that it is important to not that I am not referring to the film's excellent musical score). Although the score may benefit from digital re-mastering the dubbing of actors' dialogue would not, and therefore Pontecorvo's Burn may never surpass being an almost great film. An admirable effort – smartly constructed narrative held back by dodgy audio – close to greatness.