MovieChat Forums > Queimada (1970) Discussion > Any else find the narrative messy? (spoi...

Any else find the narrative messy? (spoilers)

posted 17 years ago by Tashtago
7 replies | jump to latest

Brando is my favorite actor and also a fascinating personality, and I know he thinks this is his best work and has said he tried hard to capture the character of William Walker. Maybe it is his best work but I've never been able to watch the whole movie. The narrative is a mess, and the acting by everyone except Brando is poor bordering on amateur. But the most annoying thing about the film is it's confusing plot. Early on there's a sequence involving Brando and the rebel leader- they have stolen a large box of coins and are trying to get off the island. The village they're in is surrounded by Portuguese soldiers. CUT. The next scene Brando is speaking to a group of Portuguese high rollers about the benefits of having a prostitute instead of a wife. How did he get out of the village? This is just one example of the crazy jumps the narrative takes. Also the countless shots of countless , nameless slaves/rebels walking,dancing, fighting so on. At any rate for this reason I've never thought much of Burn as much as I've tried hard to like it.

[–] Sid-Blitzen 17 years ago

Yes, I too found the narrative messy. And I don't think there ever was a Portuguese-held Caribbean island that got transferred to British rule (or was it the other way round?). And do we see some Indian troops in British service as well? I don't recall Britain ever employing Indian troops in the Caribbean. Surely there are plenty of real examples of historical colonialism that they could have based this movie on?

[–] Theo87 17 years ago

i agree about the messy narrative and your historical doubts are justified. pontecorvo tried to stay true to a lot of the facts from an incident that occurred in 1520 on the island of Quemada. the spanish government was opposed to have him put one of their worse parts of spanish history on screen. the filmmakers had to put an "I" into the name of the island and everything related to spain was changed to portugal. therefore the historical problems aren't a fault of the filmmakers.

[–] mason22 17 years ago

Yes, the narrative becomes disjointed to the point that the film is reduced to having an off-screen narrator bridge some gaps at the films mid-point. That's generally an indicator of sloppy screen-writing. All-in-all, though, I enjoyed the film. Brando's performance and Ennio Morricone's score are both top-notch, in my opinion.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] benjaminschooley 17 years ago

The editing jumped around like that because I think they were trying to convey the impression that Brando's character was playing both sides and only feigning an alliance with either. He was only ever out for himself. As far as their being an actual island named Quemada, it just isn't so. It's fictional though and a fairly representational version of Haiti (they even mention Leoverture's name once). I guess they thought if they called it Haiti it wouldn't get released in the US for political reasons.

[–] ScopeWatcher 14 years ago

"The editing jumped around like that" because distributor United Artists cut 20 minutes out of the film after Pontecorvo had completed it. Brando's character wasn't "out for himself" -- he was a British agent, acting in the interest of the British government by acting AGAINST the interests of Portugal, England's enemy (according to the film's script, if not history).

[–] Eumenides_0 14 years ago

This movie is not about the life of William Walker, it merely uses his life as a jumping start to a fictional story. There is no Queimada either. They used the events of the 1971 revolution in Saint Domingue to create the movie's story.

It seems that in these times of true stories and biopics, people forget movies once upon a time made up (more interesting) stuff.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.