John W. Williams, Political Science

Principia College, Elsah, IL 62028

************************************************************************

This paper was presented at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

************************************************************************

Inequality is one of the factors behind most revolutions. It is exposed, and often exacerbated, by revolution. Among the vehicles for our knowledge of revolution is film, such as Warren Beatty's movie of the Russian Revolution, "Reds" (1981), and Gillo Pontecorvo's "The Battle of Algiers" (1965). The Cuban revolution provided the backdrop for "Che" (1969), "Cuba" (1979), and the recent "Havana" (1990) with Robert Redford and Lena Olin.

This paper examines how fictional films depict the fact and the fiction of revolution. Two films are used as the primary case studies. The first is Gillo Pontecorvo's rendition of revolution and counterrevolution on the fictional Portuguese Caribbean colony of Quemada in the 1968 movie "Burn," starring Marlon Brando. The second is "Cuba," a 1979 rendition of fictional events surrounding the 1959 Cuban Revolution, starring Sean Connery.

The two films stand in stark contrast to each other. "Cuba" has high production values and is set in within actual events. "Burn," or "Queimada" as it was known in Europe, has much lower production values and has no relationship to real events or people. However, "Cuba" is justly criticized for avoiding substantial discussion of any of the issues surrounding the Cuban revolution. The revolution is a thinly veiled excuse for a mediocre love affair between Sean Connery, as a former British intelligence officer assigned to advise Batista's army in the suppression of the revolution, and an aristocratic Cuban woman, played by Brooke Adams. "Burn," for all of its technical flaws, is a study in the construction and destruction of a revolution. The first half of the movie is the story of Sir William Walker, a British Admiralty expert, who travels to the Portuguese island colony of Quemada to foment revolution as a means of replacing Portuguese control with British commercial domination. The second half of the movie, set a decade later, has Sir Walker (played by Brando) returning to help the commercial elite suppress the continuing revolution. Both the techniques of revolution and the issues surrounding revolution are confronted in "Burn."

"Cuba" was a commercial theatrical release that surfaces on Sean Connery film retrospectives on PBS. "Burn," produced in Europe in 1968, was more than just a commercial undertaking. The nature of the film is revealed in one very brief line. After Walker succeeds in fomenting the overthrow of Portuguese, the new commercial elite ask him what he will do next. Before turning to board his ship, Walker replies, "The Admiralty is sending me to someplace called Indochina." "Burn" was an anti-war film.

The films have striking similarities and differences that would make one of the films more attractive of modern audiences. Both films are set in revolutions; both are set against colonialist or imperialist backgrounds on Caribbean islands--the very real Cuba and the totally fictionalized Quemada. The revolutions are qualitatively different, however. "Cuba's" revolution actually occurred, whereas "Burn's" revolutions are fictitious. Both films appeared in the middle and at the low points of the actors' respective careers, Brando's "Burn" in 1969 and Connery's "Cuba" in 1979. "Cuba" was filled with recognizable character actors and has generally high production values, whereas "Burn" was a Franco-Italian co-production with unknown actors, sometimes barely speaking English, coated in poorly applied make-up, surrounded with overwrought photography and soundtrack. The two films stand in stark contrast.

"Burn" was the English title for a French/Italian co-production also titled "Queimada" (French) or "Quemada" (Spanish and Portuguese). The 1968 film (released in 1969) was directed by Gillo Pontecorvo, who had recently directed the highly acclaimed "The Battle of Algiers" (1965). Pontecorvoís earlier film, a powerful politically-oriented reconstruction of the bitter early years of the war for Algerian independence against the French, received Academy Award nominations for best foreign film, best screenplay (for Franco Solinas), and for best directing (for Pontecorvo). The Algerian/Italian co-production created strong propaganda through its documentary style and its wealth of effective detail. Still recognized as a landmark political drama, the film was shot in grainy, neo-documentary black and white, using non-professional actors.

"Burn" was created by "The Battle for Algiers" team of director Pontecorvo, writer Franco Solinas, producer Marcello Gatti, and conductor Ennio Morricone. The movie starred Brando as Sir William Walker, an English agent provocateur sent to the Caribbean island to break a Portuguese sugar monopoly, and unknown actor Evaristo Marquez, as Jose Dolores, the reluctant revolutionary created by Walker. Renato Salvatori and Tom Lyon played plantation owners at first threatened by the revolution then willing accessories and beneficiaries.

The movie, filmed in DeLuxe and approximately 132 minutes in length, is available on VHS video. Unlike Pontecorvo's earlier political drama, "Burn" was shot in color and used at least one name actor, Brando. Perhaps because of the attempt at upscale production values, the film lacked the edge of his earlier work. Produced by P.E.A.-Les Productions Artistes Associes, the film was distributed in the United States by United Artists. It opened in New York on December 19, 1969. The American version was shorten by 20 minutes. In spite of the blood-letting, the film received a "PG" rating (under the old system).

In 1845 Sir William Walker, a former naval officer, is found in the back pubs of London by agents of the British Admiralty. He is recruited by the Admiralty to go to the Caribbean island of Quemada to disrupt the Portuguese sugar monopoly. As he sails near the island, Walker spies a giant white rock outside the harbor, as if covered in guano. The captain of the sail vessel corrects him. The white is the bleach from the bones of broken slaves, cast by the Portuguese upon the rock to die. "So," Walker asks as he scans the lush green tropical island, "Why do they call it Quemada?" To which the captain informs, "Because, in order to suppress a slave uprising, the Portuguese had to burn the entire island."

Taking notice of the execution of Santiago, the leader of the most recent slave insurrection, Walker decides to foment a revolt under the leadership of Jose Dolores, a dock porter whom Walker met upon arrival. Walker persuades Dolores to commit a bullion robbery, which (through Walkerís scheme) forces Dolores to massacre pursuing Portuguese troops. Following Carlos Marighellaís theory of the militarization of terror, the Portuguese overreact, massacring villagers, thereby forcing slaves from the sugar plantations to join Doloresí band of robbers. Walker encourages the reluctant Dolores to adopt the mantle of revolutionary leader, and the growing band succeeds in defeating ever larger army units and in uniting rural villages and slaves. Teddy Sanchez (Renato Salvatori), a liberal spokesman for the plantation owners chaffing under the Portuguese monopoly, is persuaded by Walker to assassinate the Portuguese governor during a Marti Gras-style celebration. The insurrection succeeds and the colonialists declare independence. Plantation owner Prada (Tom Lyons) declares himself general of the independent army, though the plantation owners are in no position to prevent the arrival of Doloresí peasant army.

The epitome of the over-wrought nature of the movie finds full expression in the reunion between the tattered rebel forces of Doloresí army marching along the beach toward the capital of Quemada. The camera fondly plays over the ragtag Negro army and its reluctant, misdressed leader, with sweeping chorale orchestration of "Quemada." Dolores raises his spy glass to his bow to catch a solitary horseman galloping toward him. With blonde mane and white waistcoat flowing, Sir William rides to greet and embrace his successful protege. No one in the all-black slave army thinks to raise a hand against this obviously upperclass white man charging at them.

Reluctant and with deep frustration the plantation owners bow to Doloresí force. Almost immediately the former slaves fail in their attempts to structure a new government. They have no idea how to use their newfound freedom. They lack the economic knowledge and political skills necessary to run the country. After a melodramatic walk among his cheering followers, Dolores follows Walker's advice and hands power over to the plantation owners. The slaves return to chopping sugar cane. In a prescient warning Dolores reminds Walker of the power of the masses, "We are the ones who cut the cane."

In a dialog with the plantation owners, Walker points out the benefits of employing workers rather than owning slaves. Looking around, Walker uses the ownersí whores as a metaphor. Walker says that a whore is better than a wife, for one in committed to caring for the wife forever, while a whore is responsible for her own care and can be cast off at anytime. The whore is more profitable than the wife, providing all the value without the costs. The worker is more profitable than the slave.

The revolution is complete. The English have broken the Portuguese sugar monopoly and established their own puppet government on the island. Teddy Sanchez is elected governor. His mission completed, Walker leaves Quemada to continue his work elsewhere. In the most revealing line in the film, when asked what he will do next, Walker responds, "The Admiralty is sending me to someplace called Indochina."

Ten years later Walker, now a drunken derelict in the London slums, is recruited by the British Sugar Company to put down another revolt led by Dolores. The British have long since replaced the Portuguese monopoly with commercial imperial control, akin to the British East India Company. Teddy Sanchez, the idealistic president of the new nation, has become the colonial governor. Walker returns to Quemada lead British troops against Dolores, whom Walker had trained in the art of guerrilla warfare. When Sanchez objects to Walkerís ruthless tactics as contrary to the original goals of the revolution, Walker conspires with General Prada to have Sanchez arrested and executed. Walker establishes a military dictatorship under General Prada. Eventually, using extreme and ruthless tactics, including destroying all of the sugar crop and forcing the slave population either into the mountains or into barbed wire hamlets (similar to the strategic hamlets of Malaya and Vietnam), Walker captures Dolores and offers the revolutionary clemency if he will leave the island. Dolores rejects the offer, understanding Walkerís mode of operation. Dolores is executed, creating himself as a martyr. The insurrection is finally suppressed at the cost of burning the island. The story has come full circle -- Quemada.

As Sir William Walker walks along the dock to board a ship for England, he hears a seemingly familiar voice. Expecting a reunion with the porter Dolores, Walker turns only to be knifed by another dock porter offering to carry his bags. Perhaps in the style of Crane Brintonís theory of revolution, the revolution of Quemada has eaten its own father. The thermidor is burning hell for both the island and for Walker.

"Cuba," released in 1979, was a United Artist release, filmed in Technicolor and approximately 122 minutes in length. It has been aired on public television Connery retrospectives. Perhaps because of the violence, the film received an "R" rating. The movie was created by a competent though not stellar staff. It was written by Charles Wood, produced by David Watkins, scored by Patrick Williams, and directed by American Richard Lester. Lester made his film mark in the Sixties with the Beatles movies, "A Hard Day's Night" (1964) and "Help!" (1965),the screen version of the Broadway musical "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" (1966), the antiwar film, "How I Won the War" (1967), and "Petulia" (1968). His subsequent films, including "Superman II" (1980) and "Superman III" (1983), have been mainly big-budget mainstream blockbusters.

Although Lester's films range widely in genre, from musicals and comedies to swashbucklers and social commentary documentaries, they reveal a consistency in style. Part of Lester's distinctive theme and style comes from his work in commercials and British television, including an association with Peter Sellers. His first film, "The Running, Jumping, and Standing Still Film" (1960), which featured and was produced by Sellers, was a fragmented but inventive slapstick short packed with surrealistic sight gags. Furthermore, his view of the world is a comic one. Both elements reveal themselves in "Cuba," which is slick in a commercial sense, and sprinkled with buffoonery, especially in the secondary characters of Martin Balsam, Denholm Elliott, and Jack Weston. Lester is also known for his technical virtuosity, using several cameras to shoot action simultaneously from different angles and relying on bewildering and dazzling cutting techniques, none of which were used in "Cuba." Lester also presents the "world" in a documentary style, with D'Artagnan's walk through the marketplace in "The Three Musketeers" (1974) as a prime example. One scholar wrote, "One sees a full-fledged market of that day and age. It is not forced upon the viewer; the background is incorporated into the main action naturally and without intrusion." One would thus expect, but does not find, a similar "walk through a revolution" in "Cuba." One could compare Lester's film with Roger Spottiswoode's movie "Under Fire" (1983), set in the midst of the Nicaraguan revolution. That movie, featuring Gene Hackman, Nick Nolte, and Joanna Cassidy, is about journalistic ethics and a three-way love story. It is set during the 1979-80 Nicaraguan revolution. Sight and Sound called it, "a complex, genuinely thrilling drama of commitment, the mercenary mentality and tortuous ironies of history." People who experienced the revolution were struck with the movie's atmospheric accuracy, aided in part by the turning of Oaxaca, Mexico, into a literal war zone.

Sean Connery starred as a British former Marine major sent to provide technical assistance and military advice to Batistaís collapsing army in its battle against Castroís surging revolutionary forces in late Fifties Cuba. Supporting Connery are a recognizable battery of solid character actors, including as Jack Weston (as a semi-competent American businessman), Denholm Elliott (as a semi-comatose English businessman), Martin Balsam (as a semi-competent Cuban army general), Hector Elizondo (as a competent, insightful, caring mid-level Cuban army officer), and Chris Sarandon (as the foppish epitome of the Cuban aristocracy). Brooke Adams plays the love interest, the daughter of an Cuban factory owner and member of the Cuban aristocracy. Although currently married to Sarandon, Conneryís arrival on the island rekindles a long-forgotten episode in Adams' past, when she was a journalist and he a marine officer.

Military advisor Connery (as Major Davis) arrives in Havana, as a civilian of course, to advise the Batista army on how to counter the revolutionary advances of the Castro forces. Cuban officer Elizondo serves as Conneryís host and escort. Elizondo also serves as the movieís conscience, helping to point out the flaws of both the revolutionaries and the elite in power. Connery bumps into old flame Adams (as the Cuban beauty Alejandra), now settled with her Cuban aristocratic family and husband Sarandon. The film follows the various characters, including a young Cuban boy who wishes to establish himself as a revolutionary hero, through their paces. Corrupt and incompetent Cuban general Balsam leads a corrupt and incompetent military expecting to fight a set piece war. Wily British expatriate Elliott struggles to survive and profit from the war. Naive and innocent American businessman Weston is totally confused by the mess into which he has stumbled. Adams and Sarandon watch as their economic futures collapse around them. Connery, the observer more than the participant, follows and learns from Elizondo, who is inadvertently killed by the young boy in a botched road block search. Elizondoís untimely and needlessly death represents the demise of the last element of hope and sanity. The young boy makes his way to Sarandonís palatial home, where he finally performs his act of revolution, shooting Sarandon in the chest. The Cuban aristocrat, representing the collapse of the elite, falls backwards into the swimming pool, to float Christ-like on the water. Adams evades capture by the revolutionaries and, moments before his death, walks out on Sarandon. This was her divorce from the corruption of the aristocracy.

All of the characters still alive come together in a pitch battle on the outskirts of Havana. Balsamís troops, on tanks and armored train, trek through sugar cane fields toward an oil depot. They are surrounded and defeated by Cuban revolutionaries. Connery, Adams and Weston flee through the battle zone in a beaten up Cadillac convertible (one is tempted to make jokes about the old ads for "Castro convertibles"), to be saved by a drunken Elliott flying an old plane. The revolutionary army, only briefly introduced, spares Connery and friends in an act of gallantry and mutual military respect.

There is little insight into the revolutionaries, aside from the young boy, who is dismissed in the end. Near the end of the film, a Castro-like character admonishes the young boy who is waving his pistol and threatening extinction to Connery, "We need brains in this revolution now." The revolutionaries are dismissively cast as highly moral cardboard heroes.

Marlon Brando's career has swung in cycles, with "Burn" coming during his interregnum low. Brando was born in Omaha, Nebraska, on April 3, 1924, and trained at the Dramatic Workshop of the New School for Social Research and the Actors Studio, both in New York City. He made his name as an advocate of "the method," an acting style based on the teachings of Constantin Stanislavsky. Method acting rejects the traditional techniques of stagecraft in favor of an emotional expressiveness. Brando studied the Stanislavsky technique in the 1940s, first at the New School and later at the Actors Studio. Under the influence of Lee Strasberg and Stella Adler, Brando became the exemplar of the method, influencing American film actors from James Dean to Robert De Niro. As the unappointed spokesman for his generation, the young Brando became identified with the character in revolt against something he did not understand. Brando's pose in "The Wild One" (1953), dressed in black leathers next to his motorcycle, has become a cult emblem. When asked in that movie, "What are you rebelling against?" he replies, "Whaddaya got?" Once he had become synonymous with the vulnerable rebel, Brando spent most of his career trying to purge himself and his audience of this identification.

Brando's career skyrocketed, plummeted, and returned. His first Broadway roles were in the sentimental hit "I Remember Mama" (1944), "Truckline Cafe" (1946), and "Candida" (1946) But Brando's breakthrough came with his searing portrayal of Stanley Kowalski in Tennessee Williams' "A Streetcar Named Desire" (1947). The role established a new level of acting intensity which soon led Brando to Hollywood.

Brando's first film was "The Men" (1950), in which he portrayed a paraplegic war veteran struggling for his dignity. Rather than play the role for its inherent pathos, Brando created an embittered, incoherent manchild. The film version of "Streetcar" (1951) followed, pulling an Academy Award nomination for best actor and stamping the Brando image in the public imagination. Brando received Academy Award nominations for best actor in "Viva Zapata!" (1952) and "Julius Caesar" (1953). But it wasn't until "The Wild One," a motorcycle melodrama, that Brando had his first star-making vehicle. With his Oscar-winning performance in "On the Waterfront" (1954), Brando became a full-fledged Hollywood power. He received another best actor nomination for "Sayonara" (1957). However, even with roles against type, such as the effete Fletcher Christian of "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962), Brando's rebel persona had become a cliché.

In the early Sixties Brando succeeded in shedding both image and audience. He played a figure of authority, though flawed, in "The Ugly American" (1963), and parodied himself in "Bedtime Story" (1964). "Burn" (1969) falls in the trough of Brando's low point, along with "The Nightcomers" (1971), a prelude to the more notorious "Last Tango in Paris" (1972).

Brando regained his following and stature with "The Godfather" (1972), a movie made successful by factors beyond Brando's contribution. His sensitive role as Don Corleone won Brando his second best actor Oscar, noted as much for the controversy over his refusal to receive it. One of his crowning performances was as the self-destructive American in Bertolucci's disturbing "Last Tango," which garnered Brando another best actor nomination. Although he did little during the Eighties, Brando continued to influence film with his stunning Colonel Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now" (1979) and his engaging performance as a crusty South African civil rights lawyer in "A Dry White Season" (1989), which earned another best supporting actor nomination.

The cycles of Brando's career can be identified by the waves of nominations (and actual awards) for his performances, whether from the American Academy Awards, the British Academy, the Cannes Festival, the New York Film Critics, or others. He was repeatedly nominated in 1951-1954 and 1957, and in 1972-1973. Brando's midcareer decline has been attributed to a variety of causes, from his unwillingness to co-operate with directors (exemplified by the incredible difficulty he caused Francis Ford Coppola with "Apocalypse Now") to his political causes (as publicly revealed in how he refused to accept his Academy Award for "The Godfather").

Sean Connery was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, on August 25, 1930. A former body-builder, model, and chorus boy, Connery went on to repertory, television, and film in the Fifties after service in the Royal Navy. He was chosen by a London Daily Express readers' poll to play Ian Fleming's superspy James Bond in "Dr. No" (1962). His six James Bond features, including "Goldfinger" (1964) and "Thunderball" (1965), made Connery a household figure. He has been an enduring presence harking to the stars of the Hollywood studio system, although his range of has been within a narrowly defined span of roles. Connery has been the only Bond (such as George Lazenby, Roger Moore, and Timothy Dalton) to successfully transcend the role. He made four Stanley Lumet films during his tenure as Bond, including "Marnie" (1964) and "The Anderson Tapes" (1971).

The transition out of Bond in the late Seventies and early Eighties, however, was more difficult. Connery appeared in a number of mediocre or forgotten films, such as "The Next Man" (1976), "Robin and Marian" (1976), "Meteor" (1979), "Five Days One Summer" (1982), and a Bond reprise, "Never Say Never Again" (1983). "Cuba" (1979) fell in the middle of this span of films.

Since the mid-Eighties, Connery has made a smoother transition to older, fatherly roles, as in "The Name of the Rose" (1986), "The Untouchables" (1987), "The Hunt for Red October" (1990), "The Russia House" (1990), and "Rising Sun" (1993). He won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his role as the wise Irish street cop in "The Untouchables" and the British Academy Award for Best Actor for his wise monk in "The Name of the Rose."

Although Brandoís peaks and valleys were more pronounced, both actors experienced parallel career cycles, albeit nearly a decade apart.

In 1845 "Burn" imperial Britain takes control of the island of Quemada, whereas in 1950s "Cuba" Britain and the West can no longer effectively control events in the imperial manner. In "Burn" the British are portrayed as skilled imperialists ruthlessly adding to the overall strength of their empire. In "Cuba" the British lack the focus and intensity of commitment. In "Burn" the revolutionary leader Dolores is a common man who gains the will, charisma, and ideology of a black Thomas Jefferson--a thoroughly romantic image of a revolutionary. In "Cuba" the revolutionís romantic myth is ignored, even inadvertently debunked.

In 1845 Britain was an imperial culture. It was powerful, ruthless, yet civilized (in the Western definition). The British operated the worldís largest navy as well as controlled one of the largest empires, upon which "the sun never sets." Field agents of the British government and its allied industry were ruthless in extending power, including burning the entire island of Quemada in order to end the revolution of Jose Dolores. Nevertheless, the British, as represented by Sir William Walker, were civilized with an elaborate and intentional set of manners. Walker combined these characteristics, selling his British principles to the Royal Sugar Company. In the end, he admitted his lack of integrity when he said, "I donít know what I believe or what I should do, but whatever I do, I will do it well." Walkerís clothing revealed his decline and abandonment of his espousal of revolutionary ideals. In the revolutionary phase of the film, Walkerís clothing remain pristine, pure white. However, as the counter-revolutionary phase of the movie develops, Walkerís white gowns and blouses become progressively soiled and dirty, as his hands might be guilt of the atrocities he is committing. Additionally, Teddy Sanchez, the executed liberal president, represented the death of principle at the alter of economics.

In contrast, Sean Conneryís Major Davis lacks character or character development, unlike Connery's earlier soldier-turned-adventurer in "The Man Who Would be King" (1975). This, inadvertently Iím sure, reveals the confusion of twentieth century Britain over the principles of democracy, the actions required of a great power, and Britainís heritage as a world power. Cuba, a thoroughly American production, has no pretension of containing a message, unlike a Pontecorvo film. Thus, analysis of "Cuba" is a Sophist exercise, but fun nevertheless. Interesting messages are inadvertently buried in entertaining films.

Like Walker, Major Davis is an expert for hire, although with due regard for the modern era, he hires "only to countries with legally elected governments." However, he is challenged a the young revolutionary who accuses Davis (hence Britain and the Untied States by extension), "So you decide which governments are legitimate or not." Davis is ashamed and embarrassed by this accusation. Sir William Walker would have responded in the spirit of "No, I just do my job." Major Davis acts in a scrupulous manner, never advocating or committing atrocities. He witnesses government atrocities, such as the collecting of ears of dead guerillas, with disgust and some contempt. However, Davis is not successful in intervening in the events, perhaps revealing that a high degree of arrogance, ala Walker, is absolutely crucial for a man to interfere effectively in the affairs of another nation. Indeed, Conneryís character is distracted by Adams to the point of neglecting his job. This makes it difficult to assess whether Major Davisí decision to abandon the corrupt Batista regime is based on principle or distraction.

The film takes pointed though peripheral jabs at both the American and British incompetence with political and international reality. Denholm Elliott plays the British expatriate fleeing the collapse of yet another bit of the empire, while Jack Weston, the ignorant and innocent American business man, represents Britainís incompetent replacement as a world power, the United States. In a humorous side episode, two American accountants struggle to finish auditing the books of the Batista regime after the Castro forces march to victory. A stereotypical Cuban secret policeman is more pragmatic. He stuffs cash in his suitcase and flees the city.

During Britainís imperial years, revolutionaries did not have the military power to stop the British. The revolutionary Jose Dolores is the classic romantic image. In the beginning, he is a common man forced by circumstances, or more cynically viewed, maneuvered by Walker to start a revolt against the oppressive Portuguese. When the revolution against the Portuguese is won and the British begin to oppress the people of Quemada, Dolores, now an elder statesman with the air of a black Jefferson, starts another revolution. His principles have become part of his being. In contrast to Walkerís clothing, which become progressively shabby and dirty, Doloresí hair becomes white. Perhaps this reveals the purification of an ignorant man who began as a thief and died a martyr. Doloresí principles are no match for Walker when the British agent sets out to destroy the revolution by any means possible. If Quemada is a metaphor for Vietnam, then the only way to defeat the Vietnamese would be the total destruction of Vietnam.

Conneryís Davis never becomes involved in the revolution or the people of the revolution. His only connection, the officer played by Elizondo, is severed before it truly develops. His relationship with Adamsí Alejandra is a continuation of an earlier love affair. On the other hand, Brandoís Walker become deeply involved. In gaining dominion over Quemada, Walker is professional and detached at almost all times. However, his relationship with Dolores disrupts his professional mask. Walker allows himself to befriend Dolores, setting himself up for the pain of rejection during the suppression of the second revolution, when Dolores rejects Walkerís friendship for the principles of freedom. Walker loses his professional balance, responding with a ferocity of suppressive tactics. Walkerís parting, dreamlike reaching for the now-martyred Dolores ends in Walkerís assassination on the docks of Quemada. Walker might have survived had he followed his own principles as a professional without principles.

"Burn," unlike "Cuba," gives the viewer a sense of the oppression among the people. In "Burn" the slaves are constantly beaten and killed, exploited by the Portuguese (and later the British) sugar company, and live in complete poverty. The oppression becomes a visual focus, if overplayed, of the film. This does not happen in "Cuba," in which the main focus in the relationship between Connery and Adams. The viewer never sees the need or rationale for revolution, other than the incompetence of the elites, in "Cuba." As a result, one student wrote, "I viewed ëBurní as a serious film about revolution, and ëCubaí as a weak love story taking place within a revolution."

Another difference between the films is that the viewer comes to know the revolutionary, Jose Dolores, of "Burn," whereas neither Castro nor any of his cadre are introduced. When Dolores is executed, the viewer feels some emotion, whereas Castro or his surrogates are irrelevant to their movie.

Film critic Leonard Maltin considered "Burn" "muddled," though visually striking. He wrote, "Ed Harris plays the same role in 'Walker,'" the movie about the real-life American adventurer who invaded and attempted to conquer Nicaragua. Film historian Leslie Halliwell was less kind when he wrote, "An indigestible attempt to combine adventure with the film of ideas; very tedious." Another scholar criticized Pontecorvo's attempt to employ Hollywood techniques as self-defeating, writing, "Though he [Pontecorvo] was again exploring the clash of interests inherent in colonialism...his employment of Hollywood stars and styles failed to convey the intended irony, instead diluting the film's impact." Likewise, in comparing Pontecorvo's earlier masterpiece, a critic wrote that "Burn" "dealt less successfully with a similar theme--the self-destructive nature of colonialism." In spite of their criticism of the handling of the theme of colonialism, scholars and critics identified the theme.

In comparison, the absence of theme, especially a political theme, in criticism of "Cuba" is noteworthy. Film critic Leonard Maltin easily summarized "Cuba" as "entertaining adventure film/love story has mercenary Connery renewing an old affair with factory manager Adams, set against the fall of Batista in late '59. Director Lester is in pretty good form, with most scenes punctuated by memorable throwaway bits." Film historian Leslie Halliwell was less kind, describing the film as "aimless romantic melodrama which gets absolutely nowhere and might have been better played in the 'Casablanca' vein."

While "Burn" presents an unusual and intriguing study of the creation and countering revolution, "Cubaís" depiction of revolution is superficial and secondary to a love story. "Cuba" uses the Castro revolution as a backdrop to the primary action between Connery and Adams. Although there is much reference to the revolution throughout the film, the primary action centers on their characters who have little direct effect on the conflict. Both the Connery character and the film are distracted from the revolution, which is view almost entirely from the side of the rich factory and landowners. To its credit "Cuba" does not justify the eliteís position while it ignores other points of view. "Burn," an inferior movie in terms of production values, simply has a depth which "Cuba" does not even aspire to in exploring revolution and the people, principles and tactics of the struggle.

Both films, at least on the surface, broach issues of international intervention. However, except in the more general terms, neither film explores deeper issues of ideology. Nevertheless, the portrayal of the ideologically-touched topic of colonialism and foreign intervention may be a direct reflection of the political atmosphere within which the two films were made. "Burn" was filmed in 1968 and released in late 1969. The United States had just suffered the humiliation of the 1968 Tet Offensive in its war in Vietnam and the "Days of Rage" at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. President Lyndon Johnson had announced that he would not run for reelection, and both Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated. The war in Vietnam was proving to be impossible to win without a total commitment to the devastation of Vietnam, the price for which the American public would not accept.

At this time, Brando was steeped in political issues, especially his identification with the causes of racial minorities. His refusal to accept the 1971 Best Actor Oscar and the speech by his surrogate, a Native American woman, is the most public example. One scholar believes that Brando's involvement in these issues may have contributed to the uncertainties of direction at this point in his career. The scholar wrote, "This concern undoubtedly led him to accept the leading role in Gillo Pontecorvo's "Queimada," which deals with negro revolution in the Caribbean."

While both of these movies attempt to present an effective portrayal of revolution, "Burn" far exceeds "Cuba" in every aspect. Interestingly, the effectiveness achieved in Pontecorvoís film is the result of strong passionate political views, exactly the same passion that could fire an effective revolution. Lester's film fails in its attempt to present a truly meaningful portrait of revolution and only manages to be a superficial Hollywood film. Perhaps the depth found in "Burn," in spite of its production flaws, can be attributed to the political upheaval of the day. Likewise, the superficiality of "Cuba" can be attributed to the lack of political passion at the beginning of the Reagan years.

About "Burn," one student suggested, "It should not surprise anyone that a film made about a struggle over ideologies should contain an ideological struggle in its story." In contrast, she noted, ""'Cuba,' however, was filmed in 1979, not as a political statement, but rather as an entertainment film. Therefore it should surprise no one that this film fails to present any strong evidence of ideology, because the intent of the movie is NOT to make a political statement." The student concluded, "Consequently, 'Burn' is not only a more effective movie, but also a movie of depth and interest, testing the skills of the intellect [and] challenging the viewer to choose right from wrong. An effective revolutionary movie should have the same depth of ideology that makes a successful revolution."

"Burn" can be seen as a parable about Vietnam, albeit oblique for many, made by an obviously political director and an actor at the height of his politicization. A Vietnam veteran, responding to a discussion of the film, noted, "'Burn' is one of the two superb metaphorical films about Vietnam; the other was 'Breaker Morant.'" The burning of Quemada raises the specter of the US Air Forceís justification for bombing a South Vietnamese village in that "we had to destroy it in order to save it." Similarly, the tactics of "Burn," such as the gathering of slave families into strategic hamlets, is essentially Vietnam. "Burn" can be viewed as one of the earliest Vietnam War films, while "Cuba" will remain just another movie.

Auster, Albert, and Leonard Quart. How the War was Remembered: Hollywood & Vietnam. New York: Praeger, 1988.

Bawden, Liz-Ann, ed. The Oxford Companion to Film. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1990.

Brinton, Crane. The Anatomy of Revolution. New York: 1965.

Cuba. Dir. Richard Lester. United Artists, 1979.

Curie, Howard. Review ("Burn"). Take One. Vol. 2, No. 11, p. 29, 1971.

Dittmar, Linda, and Gene Michaud, eds. From Hanoi to Hollywood: The Vietnam War in American Film. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1990.

Furhammar, Leif, and Folke Isaksson. Politics and Film. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971.

Giannetti, Louis. Understanding Movies. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.

Gow, Gordon. Review ("Burn"). Films & Filming. Vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 54-55, July 1971.

Green, Calvin. Review ("Burn"). Cineaste. Vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 35-36, Fall 1970.

Hanson, Patricia King, and Stephen L. Hanson, eds. Film Review Index. Phoenix, Arizona: Oryx Press, 1987.

Hitchens, Ralph (Vietnam veteran). Interview. 23 April 1995.

Katz, Ephraim. The Film Encyclopedia. New York: HarperPerennial, 1994.

Klein, Michael. Review ("Burn"). Film Quarterly. Vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 55-56, Winter 1971-72.

Lanning, Michael Lee. Vietnam at the Movies. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1994.

Lyon, Christopher, ed. The International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers. Chicago: St. James Press, 1984.

Maltin, Leonard, ed. Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide. New York: Plume Book, 1993.

Marighela, Carlos. The Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla. Various editions.

Monaco, James, sr. ed. The Encyclopedia of Film. New York: Perigee Books, 1991.

Morris, Richard, and Peter Ehrenhaus, eds. Cultural Legacies of Vietnam: Uses of the Past in the Present. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company, 1990.

Queimada (also Quemada and Burn). Dir. Gillo Pontecorvo. 1969.

Searle, William, ed. Search and Clear: Critical Responses to Selected Literature and Films of the Vietnam War. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1988.

Walker, John, ed. Halliwell's Film Guide. 8th edition. New York: HarperPerennial, 1991.

Williams, John. "Carlos Marighela: The Father of Urban Guerrilla Warfare." Terrorism. Vol. 12, pp. 1-20, 1989.

Wilson, David. "Politics and Pontecorvo." Sight and Sound. Fall 1970.

i