petrelet Okay, I am not -entirely- going to pan this movie in the way it would certainly be universally panned today (to start with, you have to look real hard to find any actual Mexican@s in the cast - the only one I found in the named cast was Margo playing an unnamed "soldadera", though there are some others in the uncredited list).Furthermore, I think it's worth seeing for some of the theatrical bits that have entered the collective consciousness, like where Zapata demonstrates to Madero that political power really does grow out of the barrel of a gun, as Mao would later point out. And you can look at it as a sort of useful Anglo-American children's intro to the fact that, yes, there has been revolutionary history in Mexico that is worth knowing about.But still. Okay, you can look at this movie one of two ways. First, it is it really a biopic? No, it's nothing like that. Movie-Zapata is this naive, illiterate, pure son of the soil, too trusting, too honest, who shuns the corruption of real power, sort of like a movie version of Joan of Arc. The real Zapata had a merchant's education, composed the Plan of Ayala, and was an important military and political figure. Everyone else in the movie is a caricature of one kind or another also.Another way to look at this movie is that it's a romantic portrayal, a movie version of a myth. Okay, that would be all right. But then you are responsible for the kind of myth you are propagating. If you are going to falsify history in the name of didactic storytelling, let's talk about the story and about who is telling it.This is a myth about Mexican history told by Anglo-Californians Edgecumb Pinchon and John Steinbeck. I suggest that a lot of the magic-peasant-saint feel of the film is precisely due to that.It came to the screen at a time when Steinbeck, Elia Kazan, and all of Hollywood were under great pressure from the government and the film biz to disassociate themselves from communism. And it's left its mark on the film, notably in the character of Fernando (Wiseman), who is supposed to be some kind of international communist agitator, always preaching violence and ending up in the camp of the murderous generals, because, as movie-Zapata says, "Your kind always does." Also, the United States is a land of freedom and democracy and you never hear about the occupation of Veracruz for example. And it also bears on the whole tenor of the film, which is all for peasants rising up against injustice, but which is very ambivalent on the issue of what the state should do and whether or how anyone should actually be in it.Also, I can't help noting that movie-Zapata never pays any attention to anything women have to say about anything, which may or may not be historically based, but a movie which is telling a myth, not history, has to be judged for it. Furthermore movie-Zapata is offended that anyone would consider him an "Indian", and one never hears about Indians in the movie, whereas real-Zapata was reportedly fluent in Nahuatl and the actual revolt in Morelos (then as now) had serious indigenist elements.There is a scene in the movie which is on the one hand really good and on the other hand really exasperating which illustrates some of these issues. Zapata has been taken prisoner and is being led from his village with a rope around his neck by mounted police, who intend to either jail him or shoot him. But, as they travel along, "the people", who have arranged themselves all along the road and through the hills in advance, get up from the ground or come down from the heights and wordlessly join the party, in groups of two or six or ten. Eventually the police catch on to the fact that they are traveling in the midst of a throng that completely outnumbers them. Finally their path is blocked by Zapata's mounted riders, and they release Zapata without a struggle.On the one hand, who can be insensible to this picture of the power of the people? On the other hand, the aggravating part is the pure and mystical way this supposedly all happens, as if because of being in tune with the soil itself these people all arranged themselves in the right places without any actual discussion. Not even in Morelos does it go like this. If one wants a better and more informed picture of how struggle actually takes place, Steinbeck's "In Dubious Battle" is a decent candidate.Anyway, I ultimately feel that the real Zapata deserves a better movie. Maybe the 1970 version is that movie - I intend to give it a look.

MartinHafer If it weren't for yet another weird casting decision, I might have scored this film even higher. Who else but Hollywood would not cast a charismatic half-Mexican-American (Anthony Quinn) in the supporting role instead of in the lead? And who would cast a white bread guy like Marlon Brando as a Mexican revolutionary?! Remember--this is the same group of folks who cast a man of Swedish descent (Warner Oland), Mickey Rooney AND Marlon Brando all as Asians?! Now I am not saying Brando did a bad job--he was quite good. But why not cast a Hispanic man in the role?! If you can ignore the odd casting, the rest of the film is pretty good and a decent overview of part of the Mexican Revolution. I say part because Emeliano Zapata only led part of the revolutionary forces--other leaders like Huerta and Villa are barely mentioned in this film. Now this is no complaint--just letting the viewer know it's only a portion of what happened in the war. But as far as Zapata's career as a revolutionary goes, it is pretty good--sticking reasonably close to the facts and explaining his peasants' campaign for land reform reasonably well. And, with writing by John Steinbeck and direction by Elia Kazan (a great director, by the way), it's not surprising this film is far better than average. Well worth seeing and quite inspiring.

dougdoepke No need to recap the plot. The movie works best as a cautionary tale on the seductions of political power. We see a succession of Mexican presidents exploit the corrupting opportunities power provides, including the tragically conflicted General Madero. Even Zapata (Brando) gets a timely reminder from an aggrieved peasant (Henry Silva), at the same time his brother (Quinn) succumbs to the temptations. The ending itself remains powerfully symbolic.Unfortunately, the movie stumbles outside of the cautionary context. The narrative itself comes across as disjointed, at best, John Steinbeck or no. Major developments, such as game changing wars, are either left out or only briefly alluded to, while too much of the dialog is that clunky pseudo-poetic phrasing Hollywood identified with noble primitives. Then too, director Kazan achieves little of the dramatic intensity he was famous for. Likely, he was hampered by the broad historical canvas that had to be crowded into a relatively brief space.Which leads to Kazan's most famous protégé, the redoubtable Marlon Brando, who appears to have swallowed a lemon since his entire performance consists of a single sour expression. We realize the burdens of peasant liberation are great, but does it have to be quite so tedious. On the other hand, Quinn projects enough boisterous personality for them both, becoming as tiresome in its own way as Brando's one note. However, neither of the stars can compete with the outrageous over-acting of Florenz Ames as the snooty father. Nevertheless, there are some good scenes, especially where Kazan choreographs the latent power of the peasantry. But on the whole, the movie is a disappointing follow-up to the previous year's Streetcar…. Looks to me like the lesson may be that action features are not the best venue for stage directors and actors, no matter how good they are.

Roger Burke I recall seeing this one while still at school in 1954; I was much impressed by the battle scenes, the struggles of the Mexican peasants and, of course, the assassination of Zapata (Marlon Brando) at the hands of his betrayers (that's common knowledge and no spoiler for this narrative).Seeing it again recently, those impressions still remain and are now reinforced with this repeat viewing so long after. Now, in addition, I can appreciate the fine script by John Steinbeck, the capable direction by Elia Kazan, the simple but so effective black and white cinematography and the quality of the overall production under the ever-watchful eye, no doubt, of Darryl F. Zanuck.This is a film worthy to be called a classic: an epic story of the struggle for democracy during the turbulent times of the early 20th century and is, arguably, a depiction of the first great proletarian uprising of modernity which, as some would say, began in 1910.Sensibly, the production team chose to portray a very human story about a visionary but simple man who was thrust into open rebellion to help his people achieve democracy. The fact that Zapata failed in his cause before he died is neither here nor there, because this is the story about the struggle and not the end.As Zapata, Brando is nigh on perfect, even down to the large droopy mustache, wide sombrero and dark eyes (look up photos of Zapata on the web); Anthony Quinn as Zapata's brother, Eufemio, is mercurial, boastful, resourceful, arrogant and deadly; the lovely Jean Peters acquits her part of Josepha competently, looking radiant in white a lot of the time; and Joseph Wiseman as Aquirre provides the quintessential turncoat character, developing it into something almost Shakespearean.Take particular note of the one-liners and sparkling repartee, most of which I'd missed or had forgotten after I first saw this film. The long scene when Zapata comes courting to the parents of Josepha is a sheer delight; the first meeting of Zapata and Aquirre is riveting – and funny; and, watch Aquirre's face, much later, when he prevents a messenger from delivering an urgent letter – because Zapata "is busy" disposing of a traitor who was once a trusted friend.Add to all that the madcap innocence, even naiveté, of President Madero (Harold Gordon), the affable and unctuous Pancho Villa (Alan Reed) and the slimy and slippery General Huerta (Frank Silvera), and you have a film and story that begs to be seen and appreciated.Highly recommended for all.