Burn! / Queimada (1969)

[Neville]

Plot: British mercenary Sir William Walker is sent to the tropical island of Queimada to cook up a revolution and put the island -and most importantly, its sugar cane plantations- under British hands. He achieves his goals by turning an illiterate worker, José Dolores, into a revolutionary leader. Years later, Walker's services are required again: there's a rebellion against the puppet government of Queimada, and its leader is José Dolores.

Review: Under its wrappings of period drama and war film, "Queimada" is clearly a political movie. Nothing surprising, if we consider two of its makers are Gillo Pontecorvo, then fresh after the success of "The Battle of Algiers" and writer Franco Solinas, who penned at least two of the most emblematic political spaghetti westerns, "Tepepa" and "A bullet for the general", and who would end up writing for Costa-Gavras.

They both use the story -which involves colonialism, mercenaries, guerrillas, revolution and slavery- to mirror the conflicts of the era. It's not difficult to notice similarities between England's urge to control the sugar cane traffic with the western world's interference in third world countries in order to make sure their exports -often as mundane as sugar, cocoa or pineapples- reach the supermarkets at convenient prices. And, in the second half of the film, which focus in the fighting between rebels and pro-British troops and their anti-insurgent tactics, it's hard not to think of the Vietnam war or similar conflicts.

Well, and is it any good? I'd say it comes close to being great, but it doesn't go much further than "good". To start with the film's strong points, the writing is both smart and moves things at a good pace (no surprise here, given Solinas experience in the spaghetti western), the locations look very authentic and Marlon Brando delivers a terrific performance. His William Walker is part adventurer and part trickster, and as the film progresses he develops traces of conscience, and all of this is transmitted by Brando flawlessly. No kidding, this is sure one of his best works ever. Another strong point is the score by Ennio Morricone.

Then come the film problems. And I'd say many of them are caused by Pontecorvo's vision. He had shot "The battle of Algiers" in pseudo-documentary style and using non-professional actors whenever possible, an style he continues using here. But this kind of approach and "period movie" don't make a very good combination. A testimony to Pontecorvo's talent is that his choice doesn't ruin the movie, but at the same time it lessens the impact of the battle scenes in the second half of the film. And it's a pity, specially considering how well conceived they are: a particularly striking sequence has stationary British troops shooting rebels coming from a burning cane field, an image that could have become iconic, but is given instead a disinterested look.

And then there's the casting of non-professional actor Evaristo Márquez as the rebel leader José Dolores, of pivotal importance to the film. He certainly does what he cans, but boy, he does look unconfortable, specially when he can't use dialogue to express his emotions. Sidney Poitier was scheduled to play him, and he certainly would have done a better job. Still, even this tremendous mistake doesn't ruin the film, as the character of José is absent during most of the film's mid section.

So, all in all, I' still say "Queimada" is a must see. I'd say it's sort of a "thinking man" period movie, as it certainly is more worried about delivering its anti-colonial message than in creating a series of picturesque postcards, and Marlon Brando's performance alone makes it noteworthy.

[Rev. Powell]

This is better known in the US under the title BURN!  I saw it and remember being quite bored, but I think I may have been too young to appreciate it at the time.