MovieChat Forums > Land and Freedom (1996) Discussion > Was the American guy...(SPOILERS)

Was the American guy...(SPOILERS)

posted 13 years ago by Little_Korean
10 replies | jump to latest

...supposed to be an antagonist?

For most of what he see of him in the movie, he's the voice of reason against his more ideological colleagues, e.g. not wanting to get bogged down in wasteful debates on collectization when the war is still going on, wanting to integrate with the official Republican army for the better equipment. Then he storms out and when we next see him, he's a uniformed flunky to the Stalinist major wanting to shut our heroes down.

Seems a bit of confusion on Mr Loach's part. Good film otherwise.

When darkness overcomes the heart, Lil' Slugger appears...

[–] timlin-4 13 years ago

The most reasonable and efficient form of government is probably going to be something like fascism. So while that character has valid counterarguments, he unlike the hero doesn't see why they can be valid but wrong.

[–] Squeeth2 11 years ago

~~~~~The most reasonable and efficient form of government is probably going to be something like fascism. So while that character has valid counterarguments, he unlike the hero doesn't see why they can be valid but wrong.~~~~~

Is that why the fascist dictators ended up ruling the world? Oh hang on, they were beaten weren't they? Dictatorship is the least efficient form of government as recent decades should demonstrate. Look at the state of the USA and its European satrapies.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] alfa-16 13 years ago

He's a bit of a metaphor for American 20C overseas intervention.

Arrives with the best of intentions and a simple, single ideal, doesn't trouble to understand the conflict or its background, oversimplifies and dilutes everything to fit his own framework and ends up seriously damaging the people he set out to help.

[–] Little_Korean 13 years ago

Yeah, but where the others much better?

At least the American teamed up with the legitimate government. The other characters like the Liverpool bloke just stick with some militias who proceeded to take the war into their own hands, even if it meant going up against their own side (e.g. seizing control of the radio station).

Seems like the American at least put some thought into what he was doing, as opposed to blind emotion.

When darkness overcomes the heart, Lil' Slugger appears...

[–] ILikeTheTrees 12 years ago

I think the American was just supposed to represent how deep the arguments and divisions of the broad "Republican" group went, and that basically the most important factor in losing the war was the left's inability to reconcile these differences.

You're god damn right I did!

[–] alfa-16 12 years ago

The contrast between realpolitik and idealism. You pays your money and you choose your side. And then you just have to hope that history doesn't decide you got it wrong.

[–] Cogw 12 years ago

@ILikeTheTrees said, "I think the American was just supposed to represent how deep the arguments and divisions of the broad "Republican" group went, and that basically the most important factor in losing the war was the left's inability to reconcile these differences."

Yes, that was obviously Loach's intention. To show the viewer how broad the political spectrum of the Republic was. Gene the American was a man of pragmatism, but that pragmatism led him astray. He chose better equipment over the spirit of the revolution, and it ultimately clouded his mind and set him up against his comrades.

@Little Korean said, "Yeah, but where the others much better?

At least the American teamed up with the legitimate government. The other characters like the Liverpool bloke just stick with some militias who proceeded to take the war into their own hands, even if it meant going up against their own side (e.g. seizing control of the radio station).

Seems like the American at least put some thought into what he was doing, as opposed to blind emotion."

The militias urged everyone to keep fighting the fascists with everything they had. It was the Stalin-backed Popular Front that ultimately betrayed the POUM, not the other way around. The POUM stood for a democratic collectivist society, while the Popular Front sought to establish a hierarchy like the one that had been established in the Soviet Union after Lenin's death and Stalin's takeover.
The POUM were now staring either a Fascist Spain or Stalinist Spain (hint, there are fewer differences than you think) in the face - they had given their lives for nothing. They were the only true socialists in the war.
So yes - the POUM militias were better in almost every way.

[–] Squeeth2 11 years ago

I doubt that internal divisions were as important as that, considering that the rebels had German and Italian support while the British and French wrote the legitimists off after 1936.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] Squeeth2 11 years ago

~~~~~Arrives with the best of intentions~~~~~

That's not a metaphor for US imperialism! He seemed to me to be the parfait liberal, humouring the peasants, trying to postpone changes until they could be disappeared with a form of words and excusing his collaboration with power with more forms of words. He wasn't based on David Aaronovitch was he?

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] rob2661 12 years ago

Well there really was that divide in the Republican side. Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" deals with his own experience with a Stalinist crackdown on the anarchists.