This fictional drama of British economic imperialism in the 19th century lays out the problem quite nicely about unequal distribution of wealth, but provides no solutions except very tired Marxist rhetoric.
Sociology tells us how hunting and gathering societies give way to agricultural societies, which then give way to industrial societies. History does not paint a pretty picture, a lot of people get trampled in the progress of mankind. It's neither right nor wrong, it's just as phenomenon that exists. Of course what we should be studying history and sociology for is to find ways to cushion the blow. If we're not doing that, then what it's all about in school?
Queimada is the study of how one vigorous imperial power takes over an agricultural society that's run by another. Marlon Brando plays a British agent who foments revolution on a Portugese held island in order to put in a puppet government that will give the British a most favored status in trading for the island's one crop economy of sugar. Brando succeeds all too well as the idea of freedom with all its implications, especially with its charismatic leader Evaristo Marquez.
Oh, if Gillo Pontecorvo had only gotten Sidney Poitier as he originally wanted for the role that amateur Marquez had. Queimada might have been a far better film. Marquez is a charismatic amateur, but that's all, in fact the rest of the cast will be completely unfamiliar to American audiences.
One glaring error which I don't understand. This was originally to be a Spanish held island in the West Indies which certainly would have been more accurate. The British and Portugese have a traditional alliance, in fact the United Kingdom and England before that was a guarantor of Portugese colonies all over the world. Supposedly the Spanish protested and Pontecorvo gave in. So it was not only inaccurate, but if the Spanish were upset why would anyone not think the Portugese wouldn't be?
Pontecorvo being a man of no mean integrity left the Italian Communist party upon the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. Still like many on the left, he was eternally looking for that great just society that seems never to work in practice. He provides no answers in Queimada just diagnosis.
Still Queimada does raise thought provoking questions and should be seen and studied.
Sociology tells us how hunting and gathering societies give way to agricultural societies, which then give way to industrial societies. History does not paint a pretty picture, a lot of people get trampled in the progress of mankind. It's neither right nor wrong, it's just as phenomenon that exists. Of course what we should be studying history and sociology for is to find ways to cushion the blow. If we're not doing that, then what it's all about in school?
Queimada is the study of how one vigorous imperial power takes over an agricultural society that's run by another. Marlon Brando plays a British agent who foments revolution on a Portugese held island in order to put in a puppet government that will give the British a most favored status in trading for the island's one crop economy of sugar. Brando succeeds all too well as the idea of freedom with all its implications, especially with its charismatic leader Evaristo Marquez.
Oh, if Gillo Pontecorvo had only gotten Sidney Poitier as he originally wanted for the role that amateur Marquez had. Queimada might have been a far better film. Marquez is a charismatic amateur, but that's all, in fact the rest of the cast will be completely unfamiliar to American audiences.
One glaring error which I don't understand. This was originally to be a Spanish held island in the West Indies which certainly would have been more accurate. The British and Portugese have a traditional alliance, in fact the United Kingdom and England before that was a guarantor of Portugese colonies all over the world. Supposedly the Spanish protested and Pontecorvo gave in. So it was not only inaccurate, but if the Spanish were upset why would anyone not think the Portugese wouldn't be?
Pontecorvo being a man of no mean integrity left the Italian Communist party upon the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. Still like many on the left, he was eternally looking for that great just society that seems never to work in practice. He provides no answers in Queimada just diagnosis.
Still Queimada does raise thought provoking questions and should be seen and studied.