Customer Reviews

Viva Zapata! (1998 Re-recording)

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I really enjoyed this film directed by Elia Kazan with a screenplay by John Steinbeck (his only credited screenplay). Their vision of the Revolution is at once both impossibly romantic as well as bitterly cynical. The romance lies in the pure-hearted desire of Emiliano Zapata to bring justice and land reform to `the people'. The cynicism is expressed in the constant betrayal and manipulation of the Revolution by men who are either weak, self-seeking, or who have absolutely no commitment to justice or to `the people. Then there is the character of Fernando, deliciously played by Joseph Wiseman, the professional revolutionary who will never be satisfied with the attainment of objectives but only in incessant foment and agitation (in real life, Kazan detested doctrinaire Stalinists). Brando gives a brooding performance as the illiterate Zapata who inwardly burns at his inability to read. Anthony Quinn won an Oscar as Zapata's older brother, Eufemio. Virtually all of the characters in `Viva Zapata' are ground down by the realities of constant struggle of revolution. We are not to have illusions about the nature of Revolutions. And yet, Kazan and Steinbeck still leave us room to believe that the ideals of revolutionary struggle in themselves can be endowed with nobility and worthiness. The cinematography by Joe MacDonald is tasteful as is the music score by Alex North.

A bit of trivia!
I've seen Viva Zapata a number of times and even discussed the film personally with Elia Kazan in New York City.
Tyrone Power was to portray Zapata (Zanuck fought Kazan on that issue and won) and, thank God, Brando took over the role when Power refused to sign an extension to his contract with Fox. He would have been miscast - most likely.
Then for the part of Josefa, Kazan wanted Julie Harris. Zanuck insisted that he hire Fox contract player Jean Peters. In this case Zanuck was right. Jean had played other latino girls and looked the part. Harris would have had to wear a black wig and hide her numerous freckles (the Irish in her would have been hard to cover up). Brando also liked Jean Peters better than Harris, but for other reasons; he had intentions to romance the actress - although her chaotic encounter with his pet racoon who bit her in the rib-cage during the filming, dowsed all his efforts to bed her. At any rate, Peters was a good choice in the end. Despite Kazan's worries that she wouldn't be believable, she is first rate in this flick and has two great scenes (the one in the church in which she threatens Brando with her hair pin and the one where she teaches him to read on their honeymoon bed) - plus, of course, her final scene in the movie, in which she becomes hysterical and is outstanding.
Anthony Quinn got an Oscar for this one, and well deserved. Kazan, Brando and Peters would have probaly won recognition as well if it weren't for the fact that Kazan was called by HUAC (the MacCarthy witch hunt of the 40's and 50's) and had decided "to name names" to the investigating committee - that made him an unpopular figure in Hollywood and the film was ignored (and Brando became quite cool towards his favorite director after that).
As for the movie - even if it does not follow the life of the Mexican hero to the T, the John Steinbeck script is far superior than others depicting Pancho Villa, Che and other revolutionary heros - and this one is probaly more factual. Kazan's direction is enigmatic and the cinematography and camera angles used by Joe MacDonald are excellent.
This one is a MUST SEE!!!

Directed by Elia Kazan, this film focuses on the revolutionary initiatives of Emiliano Zapata (Brando) who was born on August 8, 1879, in Anenecuilco, Morelos. He was a mediero (sharecropper) and horse trainer, conscripted into the army for seven years attaining the rank of sergeant. As president of the village council, he campaigned for the restoration of village lands confiscated by hacendados. His slogan was "Tierra y Libertad." Zapata sided with Don Francisco Madero (Harold Gordon). Between 1910 and 1919, Zapata continued his fight for land and liberty, rebelling against anyone who interfered with his Plan of Ayala which called for the seizure of all foreign owned land, all land taken from villages, confiscation of one-third of all land held by "friendly" hacendados and full confiscation of land owned by persons opposed to the Plan of Ayala. On April 10, 1919, Zapata was tricked into a meeting with one of Venustiano Carranza's generals who wanted to "switch sides." The meeting was a trap, and Zapata was killed as he arrived at the meeting.

When writing the screenplay, John Steinbeck took several liberties with these and other historical facts to serve the interests of the film's narrative. Nonetheless, I am fascinated by Brando's portrayal of Zapata and intrigued by Kazan's association with a film so unrelated to his work on stage and film before or since. There are several memorable moments. My personal favorites are when the captured Zapata is led through the countryside by captors who eventually release him (for reasons best revealed in the film), when he later approaches Josefa Espejo (Jean Peters) and her family during a church service, and later when he is gunned down in a village square. The supporting cast is first-rate. Anthony Quinn received his first Academy Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role as Eufemio Zapata, the other for his portrayal of Paul Gaugin in Lust for Life. The performances by Gordon, Joseph Wiseman (Fernando Aguirre), Frank Silvera (General Victoriano Huerta), and Arnold Moss (Don Nacio) are also noteworthy. As for Peters, she was given little to work with and did the best she could with it. I wish Kazan and Steinbeck had developed her character in much greater depth.

Brando's is a studied, subdued portrayal of an essentially simple man with a few basic principles. His Zapata is a reluctant but (when necessary) passionate leader of oppressed people. After seeing Viva Zapata! again recently, I again wondered what Kazan's primary objective was when he agreed to direct it. (Comparisons with On the Waterfront are inevitable.) I continue to think about this film and, as of now, am as yet undecided as to its meaning and, especially, its significance.

Actually this was the film that triggered my interest on the Mexican Revolution.
I've seen it many times and always found new details to take into account. As I read more and more on the subject my appreciation of this movie increases.
It presents the viewer with a big fresco of the Revolution that convulsed that country for more than ten years.
I admire the strange capacity of the film to show condensed in each scene, many key issues of why and how the Revolution exploded and continue growing along the years, with an immitigable fire.

Director Elia Kazan has been criticized for his appearance on the Un-American Activities Committee that lead many people related to cinematography to be ostracized.
This been said, regardless of his political stand, he had directed many great Oscar winner films as: "Gentleman's Agreement" (1947), "Streetcar Named Desire" (1951); "East of Eden" (1955); "Splendor on the Grass" (1961) and the present "Viva Zapata!" (1952).
He had directed two "Movie Icons" as Marlon Brando (more than once) and James Dean obtaining the best from them. All his films explored the inner depth of human soul with unflinching stare.

Since the first shot, showing a very accurate characterization of President Porfirio Diaz (Fay Roope) and giving an inkling of the type of ruler he was, an enormous gallery of Mexican historical figure are made known.
Francisco Madero's (Harold Gordon) personality and idealistic naïveté is depicted with very few strokes.
Huerta's (Frank Silvera) wickedness and treachery is shown too.

Above all of them Emiliano Zapata's figure impersonated by an inspired Marlon Brando stands with an epic height. His ideals, stubbornness, charisma and internal sorrows leading him to the final sacrifice, are shown convincingly.

A special mention must be done of Anthony Quinn's superb performance, which entitled him to win the Oscar. He not only has the physique du role, but an internal conviction to give flesh to Eufemio, Zapata's brother, a semi cultured and brave centaur, product of his times and environment.

Josefa (Jean Peters) the fiancée and later wife of Emiliano shows all the traits of a high middle class woman romantically requested by a rural hero. The scene played with Brando in the church's atrium is wonderful.
The only character that gives a discordant note is the fictional Fernando, representing an addict to revolution for revolution in itself.

Joseph MacDonald's black and white photography is very beautiful. Steinbeck's screenplay has a solid internal coherence that shows all along the film.

A Classic Movie not diminished by the more than fifty years passed.
Reviewed by Max Yofre.

I agree with Rico that Viva Zapata is not a "perfect" movie in the sense that phony accents, invented crises ("I cannot read..."), and make-up in this film are not perfect. But, there are the many set pieces that ring true (the peasants surrounding Zapata's horse), the numerous inspiring, ringing speeches (Zapata speaking to the peasants over his dead brother) that jolt any moral soul upright, and the characterizations that are distinctly portrayed and historically accurate (the execution of Modero) that make the imperfections trivial. Also, Steinbeck took great care to research and emulate the locations and manner of the Mexican peasants in Southern Mexico. For all of its American actors, it really has a Mexican feel to it, from the dozens of tiny details of behavior to the dress and background. I played this for my college students, most of whom think any old movie was made after 1970, and they were fully engaged in their attention and discussion afterward. (I play this with "The Ox-Bow Incident" and "Bad Day at Black Rock" for similar reasons--all get an rousing A from the students!) It is hard to find American movies of substance, films that go beyond stars and entertainment qualities and tackle real issues and characters. This is one of those films of substance that portrays idealism that was actually practiced by Zapata and his followers, and one not to be missed.

A great film directed by Elia Kazan, written by John Steinbeck and scored by Alex North. These are the ingredients of a great film. Brando plays the brooding Zapata in fine style. Joseph Wiseman a standout as a corrupt revolutionary and Alan Reed as Villa.

Anthony Quinn shows us all how to win an Oscar when your screen time is so little. Quinn, as Zapata,s, brother takes the viewer to another world of acting a role, his performance is a knockout.

Louis Gilbert has a soul for the times..and this is a good chance to see " Margo" in one of her later films.Quinn,s execution scene is one of the best two minutes put on film in a very long time. No video collection should be without this film.

Visually opulent in Black a White CP

I do not have too much to say considering I did not actually purchase the movie for myself, but I wanted to make it clear that the packaging is all in Portuguese an the movie and the menu are in English.

This music demonstrates why Alex North was known in the tiny soundtrack community as "The Boss" during the 1950s. It's passionate music with a Mexican theme, by one of the very best Hollywood composers, and one who had studied Mexican music with Silvestre Revueltas himself. A score from the period when composers believed in their work. Every North score I've heard was good; many were outstanding. This is one of his best. (I'm listening to it now.) Compare, by the way, Korngold's score of around 1940 for the film Juarez (if you can find it.) Not one of his finest, but worth listening to.

This is, in my opinion, the best work Brando has ever done. He is Zapata. I remember taking my father to see this movie in '52. When we came out of the theater, he had tears in his eyes. He remembered Zapata. He met him as a young man and was a big supporter of the Mexican Robin Hood. The photography is just splended. And all the actors were outstanding. Anthony Quin certainly deserved best supporting oscar. But I thought Brando was most deserving of a Best Actor award. I just can't believe that stone face Gary Cooper took the top honor for High Noon. Viva Brando!!

This brilliant film, which seemingly is forgotten, was one of the seminal movie experiences in my youth. When I saw this as a boy, it made me want to be brave, it made me want to be part of a just cause, even a losing cause, it made me value the nobility of simple lives, it made me want to be better than myself. Romantic? Oh absolutely. It was the romance of film that entralled me with uplifting and inspiring stories of flawed men and women who could embody nobility and the yearning for freedom and value in life. As I write this, the Arab streets are full of people expressing this desire, for freedom and worth and value in their lives. But, as this film so pointedly portrays, revolutions are often co-opted and betrayed, and the lust for and manipulation of power will undermine the noblest of intentions. Alas, revolutions are romantic, and hard realities play hell with them.

Written by John Steinbeck and directed by Elia Kazan, and starring Marlon Brando at the height of his power and charisma, this story of the Mexican revolution is beautifully told and filmed with nothing short of brilliance. Elia Kazan could tell a story! You can see how scripts then were worked and polished like hard diamonds until often sprawling stories could be told with economy and concision, without wasted camera work or dialogue. The rise of Emiliano Zapata from illiterate peasant to revolutionary to President of Mexico is told plainly, but with great emotion and inspiration. Brando here absolutely owns the screen and his brooding intensity perfectly matches the character of a man without formalities of education and wealth but with great depth of character and belief. And Anthony Quinn is the perfect support as Emiliano's earthier and pragmatic brother, a role that won him the Oscar. Jean Peters is gorgeous, and the black and white photography is superb.

I cannot attest to the historical accuracy of the film. I don't really care. This is a movie that speaks to the plight, the sorrow and the glory of common people. It speaks to the never-ending longing for freedom. Rose-colored glass romanticism? Probably. Again I don't care. For around 2 hours during the course of this film, I want to believe. This is a film that speaks to the heart. And yet, Steinbeck and Kazan were not so carried away on their dream that they ignored the harsh reality that befalls the dreamer.

I consider this amongst the finest films of its era. That it seems to be lost in time I find a terrible shame. Anyone wondering why Brando dominated generations of actors should see his work here to understand. Brando seemed to absorb and become the romantic ideal he was portraying within the details of a closely observed reality. He is magnetic and alive on screen in a way few other actors have ever managed to attain.

There are moments in film that stir the heart and imagination. When Brando as Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront, picks up his jacket and tells Eva Marie Saint "I'm going down there (to the docks)....and get my rights!" was one, and the scene in this film when Zapata is being led back, on foot, by horsemen with a rope around his neck and the peasants come silently out of the hills and quietly surround him until his captors see the wisdom of releasing him is another. Just great stuff.

I hope people will re-discover this film. I could not find it for many years until it recently played on TCM and I could see it again with new eyes after so long. It still has its power, and it is still worth seeing.