Summary
The year is 1909, and the people of Mexico begin to rise up against the tyrannical regime of President Diaz. This revolution is led by Emilio Zapata. a simple peasant farmer who wants to bring justice and freedom to his people. But as time goes by he is drawn deeper into a civil war where allies and enemies are often difficult to tell apart.
Section 1:Differences between Film and History
Viva Zapata! follows the traditional plot where the hero rises up after becoming disillusioned with the system that rules over him. This is shown at the beginning of the movie, where Zapata is portrayed as nothing but a simple farmer who ignores the calls to join the revolution in order to marry the love of his life, Josefa. However, upon witnessing the death of an innocent man he realizes that there can be no compromise with Diaz and joins the rebellion with his brother Eufemio. This was done in order to portray Zapata as the common man fighting for the people against Diaz’s and later Madero’s evil empire. However according to historyonfilm.com “this plot does not match Zapata’s life.” ((March 1st, 2012)“Viva Zapata!” https://historyonfilm.com/) In fact, as Britannica states, Zapata was actually the son of a mestizo peasant who trained and sold horses. (Alba, Victor (August 28, 2019) “Emiliano Zapata” Encyclopædia Britannica, inc.) This as historyonfilm.com expands upon by stating his family “ provided him with enough formal education to be able to read” which only goes destroys the movie’s image of Zapata as the stereotypical peasant leader but also contradicts the scene where Josefa rejects Zapata’s marriage proposal on the basis that he is poor. ((March 1st, 2012)“Viva Zapata!” https://historyonfilm.com/) Zapata was also always completely aware of the abuse Diaz’s regime brought upon his people, as Britannica brings up that he was arrested in 1887 for participating in a protest against the haciendas that had appropriated the lands belonging to him and other peasants in his village. This led to him being elected the village’s president of the board of defense in 1909 which allowed him to create the army needed to fight back. (Alba, Victor (August 28, 2019) “Emiliano Zapata” Encyclopædia Britannica, inc.) As Smith and Green explain the members of Zapata’s army had “seen their traditional land rights taken away by the haciendas who exploited the new laws of ‘liberal” inspiration”. (Smith, Peter. H & Green, James. N (2019) Modern Latin America (9th Edition) New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pp 57) And they felt by regaining their land “the Zapatistas saw the rebellion as a chance to restore justice.” (Smith, Peter. H & Green, James. N (2019) Modern Latin America (9th Edition) New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pp 57) This early chapter in Zapata’s life completely contradicts the image of Zapata as this simple man of the people fighting against the tyrannical elites of Mexico as seen in the movie.
Later on in the movie, when Zapata receives a message from Francisco Madero is in exile in Texas, the Zapatistas briefly discuss how wonderful the US Government is compared to the Diaz Regime with this line 'Up there they protect political refugees! They're a democracy! Up there the government governs, but with the consent of the people. The people have a voice! They also have a president, but he governs with the consent of the people! Here we have a president of no consent. Who asked us if we wanted Diaz for 34 years?' This line seems to imply that the Zapatistas were inspired by the united states revolution and wanted to implement a government similar to the United States after overthrowing Diaz. However, the real-life attitudes towards the United States by Latin American countries seem to contradict this idea. From around this time up until the end of WW1, the United States had complete control over the interests of most Latin American countries. This greatly upset Victor Haya de la Torre who like Zapata had seen the elite class of his country taking over their land in order to suit their interests. This led him to form the APRA (Popular Revolutionary American Alliance) in order to as de la Torre writes in his doctrine of anti-imperialism “Unite the actions of the countries of Latin American against Yankee (United States) Imperialism”. (de la Torre, Victor Haya “What is the ARPA?” The Labour Monthly Vol 8 (December 1926) pp 756-59) de la Torre goes on to explain that the governing class of their countries is actually allied with the US and that as a result of the imperialist policies “the natural resources which form the riches of our land are sold or mortgaged, and that the working classes are subjected to brutal servitude.” (de la Torre, Victor Haya “What is the ARPA?” The Labour Monthly Vol 8 (December 1926) pp 756-59) This movement goes against the movie’s idea that the Zipara lead revolution would support the interests of the United States as they too had seen the Mexican ruling class take away their village’s land through the previously mentioned laws of ‘liberal” inspiration as well as the authoritarian abuse brought about by Diaz’s regime. If anything, the real-life Zapatistas would be more inclined to focus their new government on The doctrine of anti-imperialism as both point 3 “The nationalization of land and industry” and point 6 “the solidarity of all oppressed people and classes” (de la Torre, Victor Haya “What is the ARPA?” The Labour Monthly Vol 8 (December 1926) pp 756-59) seem to fit the interests of the group much better and point 3 you can argue influenced Zapata’s “Plan de Ayala” written to create a true land reform of Mexico after Madero failed to implement them the way Zapata had demanded.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Section 2: Message of the movie
As history on film explains “It is vital to remember that the film was made during the early days of the Cold War when Stalin’s tyranny had become better known, so the film was meant to be an anti-Communist statement”. ((March 1st, 2012)“Viva Zapata!” https://historyonfilm.com/) This is justified as Viva Zapata!’s director Elia Kazan was a former communist member who wanted to educate people that power corrupted those in charge. He did this by rewriting history to make Zapata become President of Mexico despite that history on film telling us that Zapata never had any interest in politics and preferred to be left alone in his village of Morelos. ((March 1st, 2012)“Viva Zapata!” https://historyonfilm.com/) This leads us to a pivotal scene near the end of the film with President Zapata and Morelos farmers that mirrors the opening scene with Diaz and Zapata Zapata in the role of Diaz. The scene starts with the farmers reaming silent due to being intimidated by Zapata’s presence, with Zapata (just like Diaz before him) demanding an explanation on their visit. We then learn that the men are here due to Eufemio taking over their land that he had distributed just like how at the beginning of the movie, Zapata had lost his land to the Haciendas. Like Diaz, Zapata tries to get out of the situation he created by telling the men that he needs some time to evaluate his options, but is stopped by one of the farmers from leaving telling him that the matter needs to be taken care of immediately. Clearly taken aback by this farmer’s objection, Zapata tries to reason with the man by telling him that he should trust him as he is a man of the people, just like what Diaz did when Zapata questioned his authority. The farmer continues to challenge Zapata, he demands to know the farmer’s name so he can circle his name for death, just like Diaz. However, in the middle of the act, he realizes that he has let the power of the presidency corrupt him and make him a tyrant just like Diaz, and decides that he is unfit to serve as president and returns home to Morelos.
While the historical background of the scene was completely fictional, I actually believe the message behind it, is that power can corrupt anyone to tyranny because according to Smith and Green, we actually see this happen towards the end of the Mexican revolution. In 1917, Venustiano Carranza formally assumed the presidency after Pancho Villa and his forces were forced to retreat and the Zapatistas withdrew their forces. This allowed him to sign the Mexican Constitution of 1917 which brought multiple policies that the Mexican people (including the Zapatistas) wanted to be implemented since the days of Diaz such as Article 27 which empowered the government to properly redistribute the land (something that both Zapata and Haya de la Torre advocated for in their respective doctrines) and Article 123 that created labor rights that as Smith and Green described as “never been heard of in North America”.(Smith, Peter. H & Green, James. N (2019) Modern Latin America (9th Edition) New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pp 59) However, three years later, Carranza’s tyrannical side came when he appointed Ignacio Bonillas to be his successor. This was considered tyrannical as Smith and Green explain, “No re-election” had become an important symbol of the revolution in response to Diaz jailing members of the opposition in the 1910 election which included Madreo, which lead to it being implemented in the Constitution of 1917. (Smith, Peter. H & Green, James. N (2019) Modern Latin America (9th Edition) New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pp 59) So to the people of Mexico, this was seen as Smith and Green describe “Carranza violating the spirit of the rule by imposing who would act as his stooge”. (Smith, Peter. H & Green, James. N (2019) Modern Latin America (9th Edition) New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pp 59) With this in mind, I believe the movie’s message because if someone like Carranza let the power of the presidency corrupt him and cause him to go back on the ideas they were fighting for, it could theoretically be possible to assume that if Zipata became president he would do the same thing.
Section 3:Critique
A major flaw seen throughout the film is the historical inaccuracies and forced symbolism constantly ruining the real story of Zapata in order to tell its own narrative. Throughout the film, I felt less like I was watching the true story of the Mexican Revolution, and more of a rebel hero vs evil empire storyline with influences of the American revolution. I believe this because of the previously mentioned portrayal of Zapata as a simple, illiterate peasant despite the fact that in real life he was a well-educated farmer who was elected by his village to help them fight back against Diaz’s regime or the scene where Diaz’s army massacred a bunch of innocent farmers who are trying to back into their land of it was taken away from them by the haciendas. This ends up creating an image of the Mexican revolution that is similar to that of the American Revolution where the poor lower-class citizens of the country rose up against the repressive ruling regime. And while there were many similarities to both the Mexican Revolution and the American Revolution in cause, events, and characters, in reality, these two historical events are considered very different from one another. So by putting this shorthand reminding the American audience of their revolution, it blankets the movie in this cultural narrative of the US and its ideals as universal. This is further proven to me when the Zapatistas praise the USA's political system which as we mentioned earlier implies that the revolutionaries wanted to implement a government influenced by the United States. The US-driven narrative of the film as we mentioned earlier hides the rising anti-America ideology from people such as de la Torre as well as the fact that when the revolution was over, The PRI party that came into power, did not really add a fair election institution as the US had. So by giving The Zapatistas the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution, it creates a false narrative about not just Mexico, but all of Latin America that the US pushed for most of the 19th and 20th centuries that the region through acts like The Monroe Doctrine and the Good Neighbor Policy would be better if it were under the influence of the United States.
However. while not exactly historically accurate to their real-life counterparts, the acting does give you an emotional investment in the story. To start off, while his characterization of Zapata as an illiterate peasant did not actuate portray the real-life story of the man, Marlin Brando gives a passionate performance that gives a possible look at what Zapata may have been like and how he expressed his viewpoints. This was best shown when he argues with Madero about the land reform he fought so hard to give his people he shouts that “Time is one thing to a lawmaker, but to a farmer, there is a time to plant, and a time to harvest. And you can’t plant and harvest time!”; thus showing us the desire that he had to get the land reform he saw was best for the people that he felt Madero wasn’t gonna give as best seen in “Plan de Ayala”. Additionally, as history on film reveals, the character of Fernando Aguirre was actually a fictional character as part of the anticommunist message of the film basing him on “the people he used to know in the Communist party, who had all the answers”. ((March 1st, 2012)“Viva Zapata!” https://historyonfilm.com/) In spite of this Joseph Wiseman gives us a charming performance of a man wanting to push the right guy in charge for the sake of his own interests. This is best shown in the pivotal scene where Zapata decides he is not suited for the job of the presidency and heads back home to Morelos. he begs him not to go knowing that if he does so, Zapatw will die and he will lose his power by telling him “Zapata, in the name of all we have fought for, don’t go!” showing us his desperate state of both keeping his allies and power secure. Lastly, despite his brief appearance in the opening scene, Fay Roope plays President Diaz through a performance that shows both his benevolence and ruthlessness. At the beginning of the scene, he starts out as benevolent by calling the farmers including Zapata complaining about the haciendas taking their land “my children”, as if to show that he sees himself as a father figure to the Mexican lower class. However, as the scene progresses, his fatherly persona starts to fade away, replaced with his more ruthless side where Diaz would eliminate anyone who opposes him such as Zapata when he continues to beg to Diaz to give them back their land. As their conversation continues his voice gets stern and louder until he is proactively yelling manner demanding to know Zapata’s name to show him how much of a threat he can be as President.
Works Cited
- (March 1st, 2012)“Viva Zapata!” https://historyonfilm.com/
- Alba, Victor (August 28, 2019) “Emiliano Zapata” Encyclopædia Britannica, inc.
- Smith, Peter. H & Green, James. N (2019) Modern Latin America (9th Edition) New York, NY: Oxford University Press. PP 57 &59
- de la Torre, Victor Haya “What is the ARPA?” The Labour Monthly Vol 8 (December 1926) PP 756-59
Stuck on your essay?
