On the course website it says we could watch the movie, so that is what I did. It was very short. Around 40 minutes. Nevertheless, even with the 40 minutes there is quite a lot to say. I must say, this is up to now the only work that really gives us a sense of what it was like in a revolution. In the texts and movies we’ve seen regarding the Mexican and Cuban Revolution, they show what it is like from the perspective of soldiers in battle. However, in Fire from the Mountains we get a little bit of that, but also however, short interviews with the local people, and their thoughts about the revolution and its impact on the country.

To begin, the movie starts off with this background music and us looking at the mountains (the movie also ends in the exact same manner). And when we get both of these scenes of the mountains there is a person in the background describing the mountains using words such as majestic, spirits, undefeatable. He even says that the mountains are being romanticized. I find this quite interesting. Unlike in the works concerning the Mexican and Cuban Revolution, this movie seems to treat the mountains as a living and very important actor. At the end of the movie when it shows the music and the mountains, the man also says that the mountains “are the genesis of history”. He goes on explaining that it is up there where Sandinismo began, where the revolutionaries lived and forged their plans. He concludes the movie by saying, “as long as the mountains exist, there will be hope”. So it seems clear that the movie, but also the revolutionaries, view the mountain very highly. It is an identity of the revolution and is being heavily romanticized.

But even the term romanticized is brought into question in the movie. In one incidence in the movie one of the local people pointed out that Nicaraguans have for a long time been romanticizing things such as in the economy. They think they know everything and he admits that by romanticizing things the people have made a lot of mistakes and should therefore be very careful about using and practicing the term.

One thing different about this revolution as opposed to the other two we’ve studied is, in the Nicaraguan Revolution the people involved are a bit more diverse. Here we see more local people taking action and even student uprisings. This is important such as in the case of Mexico where there was a student uprising because of Mexico holding the Olympics. I believe it actually led to student massacre at the plaza of Tlatelolco where the Mexican army sent it its tanks and started killing students. But the point is student uprisings are starting to characterize modern times and revolutions, and this I think is important. It shows that the YOUTH are starting to act as a force of opposition.

There is more I would like to say but I leave with one more thing and that is what the revolution meant to most of Nicaraguans. After the revolution the situation, one could argue, was worse than before as now there was a lot of buildings destroyed due to the war, and one key factor was the scarcity of food. So for many Nicaraguans the revolution was a time of hunger and uncertainty. But even when the revolutionaries won in 1979, defeating Somoza, then there were the Contra-revolutionaries, those who went against the revolutionaries who took down the government. So even though the revolution ended, there was still shooting on the streets between both sides. Therefore, if we were to ask what one of the consequences of the revolution was, it’s that it did not do much, just put one person in power but still the people were hungry and there was civil unrest. Several local people in the interviews said that Nicaraguans simply want peace. They don’t want all this fighting. I think this is something that we need to ask ourselves and try and see if we can apply it to the case of the Mexican and Cuban Revolutions. The revolutions in those two cases, was it a unanimous decision. Did everyone agree to it? Or was it just the interest of a small group? Revolutions, although they may be seen as a way to bring change, they do leave behind many casualties. Does this make revolutions an effective means to change? Is it justified? These are important questions to ask.

This movie however has done the best job of talking about revolutions and its impact on the people in a more objective way, rather than just on the perspective of a soldier fighting. And for that, I really liked it.