Viva Zapata! (1952) User Reviews (69)

Emiliano Zapata 1879-1919

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 22 April 2008]

Although in fact Emiliano Zapata never became president of Mexico, for the most part this is a pretty good account of the illiterate peasant who became a romantic revolutionary. For this portrayal in his third film Marlon Brando got a second Academy Award nomination for Best Actor, but lost to Gary Cooper for High Noon.

And as a film concerning the turmoil in Mexico during the teen and twenty years of the last century Viva Zapata! is far better than MGM's Viva Villa that starred Wallace Beery. Then again Marlon Brando is a much better actor.

One critical thing that was left out of the story is how much land the Roman Catholic Church held in Mexico. It was not just the rich Estancias that kept the masses in Mexico in peonage, the Church had a really big share of the real estate there. If the story were written today the Church's involvement would be shown. My guess is in the years of the Cold War and the height of Joe McCarthy, no one in Hollywood wanted to make a film that criticized the church in any way. But even a few years earlier the overreaction against the church was done in the John Ford film, The Fugitive which takes place within 10 to 20 years after Zapata died.

Zapata as played by Brando may be illiterate, but he is possessed of a simple eloquence and a charisma that made him a revolutionary figure, in the same manner Che Guevara became forty years later. He tries hard to hold to the ideals of the revolution, but finds as most do that tearing down a government is relatively easy, building one from scratch is a task that has defeated many.

Anthony Quinn plays Emiliano's swaggering brother Eufemio who's not quite as idealistic as Brando. Quinn received first Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for the part. Quinn fills the screen with his bluster when he's on, it provides a perfect counterpoint to Brando's more idealistic role.

The guy who never gets praise for his performance is Joseph Wiseman. Wiseman, a product of the Actor's Studio in New York like Marlon Brando. This is a man whose type I've come across in numerous endeavors in my life, a professional stirrer of resentments. He's not happy unless there's some kind of battle going on. A type mind you that is ultimately dangerous for any movement. He intrigues for the sake of intrigue, but never accomplishes anything. It's a very good job by Wiseman, not often talked about for some reason.

Besides Quinn's Oscar and Brando's nomination, Viva Zapata! got Oscar nominations for Best Art&Set Direction for black and white film, Best music, and Best Screenplay. The last would have been a great honor for John Steinbeck, I'm not sure how many if any writers won a Pulitzer Prize, a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. That's three horse parlay that can't be beat.

For some reason Elia Kazan was overlooked for Best Director, possibly because he had won the year before for A Streetcar Named Desire.

Still Viva Zapata! is a work that stands up very well even with the historical inaccuracies.

Excellent recounting about the Mexican revolution with a terrific Brando

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 6 March 2007]

The picture chronicles the Zapata life from his humble upbringing , he played a leading role in the Mexican 1910-1920 revolution until his death . A peasant delegation from Morelos state go to visit Mexican President Porfirio Diaz when Zapata (Marlon Brando) reclaims their rights .Then Zapata along with his brother Eufemio (Anthony Quinn) back to Francisco Madero (Harold Gordon) , though resident in Texas , against Porfirio Diaz . Pancho Villa (Alan Reed) in the northern Mexico and Zapata in the southern fight against Porfirio's Army winning many victories in the field . For a long time Zapata , who seemed in line for leadership of Mexico , enjoyed the sympathetic interest of the United States . Finally, Madero rises to power but General Huertas (Frank Silvera)conspires against him . Huertas rules over , and murders President Francisco Madero . Then Zapata again takes arms against Huertas and he along with Pancho Villa getting the victory in Mexico city and an eventual Presidency but he finishes leaving as a disillusioned politician . But his main enemies , the President Carranza and Obregon will fight for the power against the Villa's revolutionaries .The movie portrays until his early death , but he was assassinated when gunmen ambushed him , like it is well developed in the spectacular final shots , and it is subsequently copied at ¨Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid¨ (by George Roy Hill with Newman and Redford).

The movie is an exciting retelling of Zapata's Mexican campaign , suffering and love , with broadened focus on the power abuse .The film gets influence from classic Westerns until famous Russian directors (Eisenstein , Pudovkin). Marlon Brando chewing up scenery in the title role in one of his best performances as the hot-tempered , simple-minded revolutionary.

Anthony Quinn won a deserved Oscar for his well portrayed secondary role as rough brother named Eufemio . Besides , powerful and insightful characterization by remainder supporting cast . Based on John Steinbeck's screenplay , plays with the facts , but overall , the movie is entertaining and interesting . Sensitive and evocative music by the two composer masters : Alfred Newman and Alex North . The motion picture was magnificently directed by Elia Kazan . It's a masterpiece and unforgettable classic movie for the cinema lovers .

Well-meaning but clumsily executed

[grantss · 6/10 · 25 June 2017]

Mexico, 1909. The people in the state of Morelos rise up against the tyrannical regime of President Porfirio Diaz. They are lead by a simple, illiterate peasant-farmer, Emilio Zapata. All he wants is justice and fairness for his people but as things progress he is drawn deeper into a civil war where allies and enemies are often difficult to tell apart.

Written by John Steinbeck, directed by Elia Kazan, starring Marlon Brando and Anthony Quinn, and based on a true story, on paper this has all the makings of a classic. The end result, however, is far from satisfactory.

The intention was good: show the life of a man of integrity and honour and the lengths he is willing to go to for the rights of his people, throw in a theme of how power corrupts, plus another theme of how a name can sustain a revolution.

Can't fault the performances either. Brando, in his third movie, puts in a strong performance as Zapata. The movie provided him with his second Oscar nomination, after only three movies (his first was in A Streetcar Named Desire, his second movie). Anthony Quinn won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 1953 for his portrayal of Eufemio, Zapata's brother.

No, it is in the execution, especially direction and editing, that things fall a bit short of their potential. The story is clumsily told by Elia Kazan. Scenes don't link well, some scenes seem entirely unnecessary and it is difficult to follow the history behind the sequence of events. No explanation is given for the seeming lack of continuity, eg Zapata is President, all seems well, then next we know it is back to civil war with Zapata a revolutionary. No detail for the change provided.

This sudden change of direction, without the events that changed the direction, is incredibly jarring and disconcerting.

So, in the end, you have a historic story with many of the historic details left out. Not ideal.

Overall, okay, but not great. While Elia Kazan was a great director, I can't help but think this movie would have been a masterpiece if someone like John Huston, or maybe John Ford, had directed it.

Zapata...Zapata !

[nandy-rinki · 9 June 2011]

I wonder how one of the reviewers found Brando a miscast, Brando is brilliant in the movie. With his intense anger and hatred for the exploiters and supported by good looks his performance is quite impressive. Kazan is a genius with his direction, all the main actors are superb starting from Brando, Quinn and the bad guy. I can't imagine why 'they' gave the Oscar to Gray Cooper for High Noon when Brando's performance in Viva Zapata clearly outdid Gary's, I have seen both the movies and Brando deserves it without a second thought. Well, Brando didn't care and that's the best part, he certainly is the BEST in method acting and this movie shows just how talented and gifted as an actor he was.

The movie overall is a classic, poetic, rebellious and based on the life of the revolutionary Zapata in Mexico. There are a number a similarities with Che Guevara, war tactics and the way he lives and spares no one when it comes to his ideals. It's must watch for the lovers of classic, artistic cinema.

Pure Hollywood

[johno-21 · 7/10 · 13 March 2006]

This is a pretty good 1950's action/drama considering Elia Kazan had never before or never would again direct an action movie. It's almost like a Western except the setting is the second decade of the 20th century between the years of 1910-1919. Marlon Brando is Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata in a role that earned him an Academy Award nomination. Brando is paired once again with Kazan who directed him the year before in A Streetcar Named Desire and would pair with him a couple of years later in Brando's Oscar winning performance in On the Waterfront. This film is well photographed by Mexican born cinematographer Joe Macdonald who should have been nominated for an Oscar but wasn't. In a rare role for Mexican born Anthony Quinn to be actually playing a Mexican as Eufernio Zapata for which he won the Academy Award for Best supporting Actor for 1952. Quinn's first nomination of four in his career and his first win of two. The film received three other nominations for Art Direction, Music and for it's John Steinbeck written Screenplay. This film is pure Hollywood however and is largely a fictional portrayal of actual events in it's romanticizing tale of one of Mexico's most beloved heroes Zapata. Despite the story by Steinbeck the dialog is weak. It's a good movie but Kazan is out of his element here, Brando is miscast and Steinbeck is lazy. I would give it a 7.5 out of 10.

Poetic, powerful and moving...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 9/10 · 5 November 2003]

Elia Kazan will be remembered as the director of some of the most vivid film performances of the fifties... In 'Viva Zapata', Kazan's 'Method' style of acting is applied to John Steinbeck's screenplay that power inevitably corrupts, with Brando again charismatic as the doomed Mexican revolutionary...

Kazan, not only shows us the extremely unpleasant world of poverty where life is hard, short and brutish, but also the story of the agrarian rebel who was Pancho Villa's first revolutionary ally...

Kazan paints a convincing emotional portrait of a mythical figure, who is considered as the 'Wind that swept Mexico.' Kazan explores a facet of the Mexican history, describing the reasons for the revolution fought by Zapata, and works on basic emotions as passion, anger, fear, aggression, ignorance and wisdom...

Brando projects the dedication and the anguish of an inspiring rebel... He portrays the illiterate Mexican peasant revolutionary who for ten years led Guerilla uprisings against dictators and presidents... Brando plays the part with fervor and passion, even transforming his features with special makeup and fake mustache to look amazingly like the Guerilla leader... For his performance, he was nominated for his third consecutive Oscar, but Gary Cooper won for 'High Noon'.

Anthony Quinn gives an effective portrayal of Eufemio Zapata , the swaggering, lecherous, bullying brother, and wins his first Academy Award as Best Supporting Actor... Through his consummate acting skills, Quinn creates in Eufemio a strongly characterization which, despite its brevity, was not overshadowed by Brando's Zapata...

Jean Peters portrays the typical educated girl of the village who falls in love with the wild man of the hills and marries him...

The film begins near the close of the 34th year reign of President Porfirio Diaz (Fay Roope) where a delegation of Indians from the State of Morelos have come to the capital for an audience with the great dictator... There they make known their strong objections over the stealing of their lands by the wealthy, powerful estate barons... Diaz addresses them paternally and instructs them they must examine their boundaries before they bring legal action, something he knows they are incapable of doing...

Burning with a sense of injustice, the simple Emiliano Zapata directs the president's attention to this point, requesting his consent to cross the railing of wires...

President Diaz was disturbed by the persistent Zapata and on the sheet of paper listing his visitors, he unpleasantly circles the name of this one humble man who has really came for 'something.'

Some time later Emiliano and his brother lead the farmers in a general inspection through their expropriated fields and as they do so, a squad of Diaz militia attack them, shooting and cutting down men, women and children indiscriminately...

Zapata and some of his followers fight back, and retreat to a mountain hideout... There they are located by a sly political agitator, a newspaperman named Fernando Aguirre (Joseph Wiseman), who brings news of Francisco Madero (Harold Gordon), exiled in Texas...

Zapata sends his friend Pablo (Lou Gilbert) to interview Madero and find out if he is worth following...

One day, and in a church, Zapata risks his life to speak of truth, and of love... But the pretty brunette Josefa (Jean Peters) rejects him, even though she admits to being attracted to him, and tells him he must improve his social position before she might think out his proposal...

When Espejo (Florenz Ameo) refuses to consider him as a suitor to his daughter, Zapata angrily leaves his house... He is immediately arrested by policemen and led away with a rope around his neck...

As the mounted police walk him behind their horses through the countryside they are gradually joined by peasants, who silently march along... The group increases into a huge number of farmers... Zapata comes to a realization, that the peasants have chosen him as their leader and that he has no course but to accept... Destiny has singled him out...

'Viva Zapata!' received 5 Academy Award Nominations...It is a greatly entertaining film, excitingly directed by Kazan who made its action sequences so intense and who permitted his actors full scope in developing their characters...

This Anglo mythologization hasn't aged well

[petrelet · 6/10 · 15 January 2017]

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.

A collaboration of giants

[david-greene5 · 10/10 · 11 December 2005]

When I read so many of the comments on this film featured here, I find it difficult to understand how so many viewers fail to appreciate the incredible nature of the collaboration that produced it. The very idea of a motion picture scripted by John Steinbeck, directed by Elia Kazan, scored by Alex North, starring Marlon Brando, co-starring Anthony Quinn........this is an almost unbelievable gathering of artistic giants.

Taste in movies varies and thus one can be certain that some will not respond positively even to this one. After over five decades of movie-going, I can look back and remember precious few pictures that rise to the high level of excellence to be found in "Zapata". With its spellbinding storytelling, superb cast in top form, its insightful examination of issues which are still crucially relevant today, I can not fathom why some would not praise it.

Like a long list of really fine titles that endlessly persist in remaining unavailable in DVD release, this film has me wondering once again why, in the vastness of the internet, one can not discover the reason why this major Brando star-vehicle continues to be withheld from circulation. Is such information so impossible to find that no one can unearth it?

You can tell from reading the viewer comments that not everyone will agree on this, but I would suggest that anyone who appreciates literate, superbly crafted classic motion pictures should make every effort to see this one. I wish I could invite you all to a great gala screening of it. I know you would be dazzled by its splendor.

Toiling for the soil

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 4 December 2017]

Emiliano Zapata (Marlon Brando) was a principled, charismatic revolutionary who led peasants from Mexico in the early part of the 20th century against the dictator, Porfirio Diaz who might had proclaimed himself the father of the nation but was stealing land from the poor farmers.

What Viva Zapata shows that the cycle of betrayal is endless, one dictator goes and another one emerges. When Zapata is President his brother Eufemio (Anthony Quinn) regards it is his right to take land and property by force.

With at times a literate and clever script written by John Steinbeck, direction by the then leftist Elia Kazan the film is too uneven. There are at times some great black and white photography but the film lacks action, the plot is messy and it does not always makes sense.

Brando gives a sombre and moody performance but does look odd as a Mexican. A more natural rough-hewn performance is given by Quinn.

America's Favorite Foreign Revolution?

[theowinthrop · 9/10 · 19 December 2005]

The history of Mexico, our southern neighbor (and sometimes victim) is better known to American movie goers than the history of most countries.

You begin with the Maya (KINGS OF THE SUN), the conquest of Mexico (THE CAPTAIN FROM CASTILE), then to the founding of Father Serra's missions in California (SEVEN CITIES OF GOLD), and then the Spanish in the southwest and California (THE MARK OF ZORRO). Mexican - American history begins with the Texas War for Independence (THE ALAMO, THE LAST TEXAN, etc.). We skip to the French "intervention": JUAREZ and VERA CRUZ. Then we tend to skip the long reign of Porfirio Diaz.

Then comes the Mexican Revolution. The number of films that deal with the revolution is vast. But here are just a few titles: VIVA ZAPATA, VIVA VILLA, VILLA RIDES, THE OLD GRINGO (about Ambrose Bierce's probable death in Mexico's revolution), VIVA MARIA (a spoof but it touches on some issues), THE THREE AMIGOS, THEY CAME TO CORDURA (regarding the American Intervention under General Pershing in 1916), THE FUGITIVE (dealing with the anti-Catholic policies of the 1920s and 1930s), and even THE TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRES (when you see the business with Alfonso Badoya's bandit gang against the Federales).

The Mexican Revolution had many heroes. Many were heroes for one group but devils to another. Madero and Carranza stressed the need to have a nation that was loyal to a written constitution. Zapata would be one of the leaders of the land reform movement. Starting with Francisco Madero, going through Pancho Villa and Eufremio Zapata, going to their enemy Venusiano Carranza, to Obregon, Calles, and the great land reformer Lazaro Cardenas - the leadership was varied. The largest concentration of films is on the colorful (and murderous) Villa (a recent cable television movie was about Villa and his contract with D. W. Griffith to shoot a movie, AND STARRING PANCHO VILLA). But historians usually feel that while Villa tended to be on the side of the peasants, he had too much of the bandit in him to be a leader of the revolution's reforms. Zapata, on the other hand actually tried to reform the division of land. His work never got as far as he wanted before he was assassinated, but it was burned into the souls of the people from his region of Mexico (who still call themselves Zapatistas when involved in political protests to this day), and it did help set the stage for Cardenas' reforms in the late 1930s.

With direction by Elia Kazan and screenplay by John Steinbeck, VIVA ZAPATA is a wonderful, if simplistic view of the Revolution for American audiences. Brando underplays the lead for the most part - Zapata was not an explosive personality like Villa. Anthony Quinn is the explosive brother, whose more selfish attitudes leads to his own disaster. Of the supporting players, Alan Reed is good in his scene as Villa, where he discusses the future of Mexico with Zapata. Joseph Wiseman is properly sinister as an constant malcontent agent provocateur, insinuating each leader is too weak or unreliable to lead.

There are great set pieces - like Kazan's symbolic assassination of Madero by General Huerta's goons who drown out the little reformer/orator's voice as he tries to scream with a siren (but it makes the screams of the unheard martyr like a clarion call to Mexico).

Is it real Mexican history? Not quite - it is a version of it. But it is a really well done version of it.

Zapata's defiance toward power, including his own, caused his demise... but built his legend...

[ElMaruecan82 · 7/10 · 6 June 2014]

Surprisingly introspective and frustratingly 'quiet', "Viva Zapata!" contains more talking and less fighting than what its exclamatory title suggests. But it might not come as a surprise for a film written by John Steinbeck and directed by Elia Kazan : through the portrayal of Emiliano Zapata, the legendary Mexican revolutionary played by the no-less legendary Marlon Brando, it's the very notions of power and leadership that are questioned, much more their corruptive effect.

And the result is a strange mixture of conventional Western-like escapism with the local texture provided by sombreros, white outfits for men and black dresses for women and more ambitious attempts of a character study. I particularly like the scene where a group of peasants come to ask the President of Mexico to help them and get treated with patronizing contempt ("my children" repeats President Diaz) until Zapata with quiet and confidence emerges from the crowd, asks the right questions, earning the attention of the elderly leader.

At first, Brando strikes as an odd choice, with this constant expression of so non-leader-like puzzlement he carries in his eyes, but that's the way Brando 'felt' Zapata, an enigmatic and somewhat tortured man. He takes a courageous distance from the archetypal flamboyant hero, illuminating his character with a very odd modernity, even at the risk of being boring sometimes, the whole "I can't read" subplot was too underdeveloped to be of any use for the film and toned down some moments of relief the film needed.

And it's not totally wrong to assume that Anthony Quinn, who was more ethnically fitting, would have made a more believable, if not better, Zapata. After watching the film for the third time, I must say that the casting of the two brothers is perfect. Brando was made to play ambiguous characters, never satisfied with any achievement because of an obsessive capability to look beyond his own existence while Quinn, with his Latin charisma had to be the Yang to Brando's Yin : a colorful, larger-than-life, more human but no less flawed character.

As Eufemio Zapata, Quinn is not just the brotherly right hand's man; he's also the counterpart to Emiliano's personality. After all the fights, and all of the corruptions' attempts, he wants to retire like a general, with all the honors and awards. He embodies the path his brother refused to take in order to let the governors govern… and people being governed. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Machiavelli would know the implications of a leader bribing a general, and much more a general refusing to be bribed because it contradicts the values and ideals he stand for.

Yet the power of the film isn't to romanticize Zapata, but to assess his constant status as an outcast. During one of the film's best scene, he unconsciously dismisses peasants just like Diaz did. He doesn't "my children" them, but his "it'll take time" earned him the same answer he gave years before : you can't plant corn on patience. Zapata understands the inner corruption of power from the way he became and his preoccupations are soon confirmed when he confronts his brother, a decadent 'general' outrageously spoiling people from lands and wives.

"Viva Zapata!" is never as interesting as when it questions the notion of power and its influence of men, and the interaction between Brando and Quinn, followed by another powerful moment with his wife, played by Jean Peters, reveal the true self-perception of Zapata, not a leader but more of a catalyzing force. Wealth and honor don't interest him, because he learned from the arrogance of his father-in-law that these considerations poison a man's value. What matters is that people are aware of their power, the irony is that after his death, peasants in a poetic denial still consider him as the true leader, and much alive prophet, the white horse hiding in the mountains.

That's the reality Zapata failed to perceive, people need a leader for their own good, otherwise, like Fernando Aguirre (Joseph Wiseman) warned him: someone else will come, nature hates emptiness. Many political convictions confront one another in the film, Diaz as the patronizing patriarch, the old general treating the well-meaning reformer like a puppet, while Fernando is the cunning tactician, with no roots, no other goals in life than power in the most absolute meaning. Men like Zapata and his people can only think in terms of land, of food, of survival and this attachment to the most basic values of life is their strength… and their curses.

A paradox indeed, but that's what Zapata is, he strikes as an idealistic figure but like his friend Pablo says, what good can come from a man who endures such hardship, how can peace can even be salutary for such a mind. This brilliant exchange reveals perhaps Zapata's most heroic trait: his detachment. Zapata dismisses the very idea of being a strong man, for it applies that without him, people will be weak. And maybe it's this detachment that deprived the film from the required battle scenes, as if it tried to exhilarate the pride the legendary General inspired in this people, rather than true and palpable achievements. Kazan's directing is intimate in most cases, as if Zapata himself was reluctant to forge a legend out of his character, well, he obviously failed.

My only regret is that some abrupt ellipses leave many holes in the narrative, we never know exactly what happened between scenes, or we're never sure about the people they're talking about, but Brando and Quinn's performance (Oscar-winning for the latter) and the intelligence of the script, redeems these little weaknesses, although the film isn't on the same caliber than the two Kazan's masterpieces, both starring Marlon Brando, "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "On the Waterfront" and will forever live under their glorious shadow.

Still, as far as Cinema is concerned, I would always say Viva "Viva Zapata!"

MY Favorite Movie

[herb-55 · 10/10 · 24 October 2004]

this was Marlon Brando and Anthony Quinn at their best ---the entire supporting cast was superb.

Steinbeck hadn't written anything as powerful as this since he did his tale of the Okies during the depression. Zapata is truly one of the great heroes of the 20th century, and Brando captured this along with the frustration of trying to do the right thing and yet being hamstrung by the bureaucrats who manage to survive every change in government, no matter which way in turns.The final scene in the movie leaves Zapata as a legend --- did he die, or does he still live to help the millions of peons in Mexico.

Elia Kazan's direction was terrific.

Brando as a Mexican Indian

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 2 April 2015]

It's 1909 Mexico City. Rural Indians from Morelos come to plead with longtime President Porfirio Diaz about a land baron who had stolen their land. Emiliano Zapata (Marlon Brando) tries to speak up against the condescending Diaz which gets him noticed. The villagers are attacked while trying to verify the boundary marker stone. He and his womanizing brother Eufemio Zapata (Anthony Quinn) become wanted men. The volatile illiterate Emiliano chases the determined Josefa (Jean Peters) who refuses to lower her standards. He accepts her father's help to get a pardon. However he rails against injustices and revolts with his brother. Pancho Villa revolts in the north all under the idealistic reformer Francisco Madero (Harold Gordon). The new government is too slow and filled with the same corrupt politicians. Madero offers to reward Emiliano with a ranch and demands that his men disarm. The treacherous General Victoriano Huerta (Frank Silvera) takes Madero captive and attacks the Zapatas.

Marlon Brando is barely passable as a Mexican Indian. He's doing mumble acting but this time with a flat accent. Anthony Quinn does better work and he simply has the more fitting look. Elia Kazan's directions are functional. It has moments of cinematic beauty. John Steinbeck taps into the discontent of the downtrodden. Brando is the key. He has the machismo and the sensitivity to care. He has all the acting power. He also has a silly mustache and the fake tan. I don't always buy him as an Indian and I wish Hollywood could have given the role to Quinn back then.

Authenticity Is Lacking In A Movie That Does Have Some Strong Points To It

[sddavis63 · 3/10 · 27 October 2008]

There are some good things about this movie. There's a reflection on what can so easily happen to a revolutionary movement when it takes power, as Madero (Harold Gordon) betrays the people he supposedly fought for by not pursuing land reform after he becomes president of Mexico; there's a very moving and eloquent speech by Zapata (Marlon Brando): "if they take your corn, grow more; if they kill your children, breed more," etc., etc.; there's the reflection contained at the end of the movie when it becomes clear that to kill a man does not kill the ideas the man represented. So, in terms of political commentary, there's a lot of good stuff here. There was also a pretty good performance from Brando, who portrays Zapata as brooding and sombre throughout - a man who finds little time to enjoy the pleasures of life (even his beautiful bride) because he spends so much time fighting for the people. It was a good portrayal.

Unfortunately, that powerful content is submerged in a movie that is often, to be blunt, quite dull and actionless, with a number of scenes throughout in which very little happens. Twice I sat down to watch it; both times I missed part of it because it put me out. Through both watchings, I think I've seen the whole thing, but that says something to me. In all honesty, the movie lost me somewhat right off the top when my initial impression of what I was seeing was that it was a bunch of American actors running around in sombreros pretending to be Mexican. It lacked authenticity to me. (Fay Roope as Porforio Diaz was especially unconvincing.) That made it hard for the movie to maintain my attention, even given the strong parts that I've mentioned. I end up rating this as a 3/10, still noting that the strong content is diluted by what I found to be an overall unengaging story.

Hollywood Does the Mexican Revolution

[dougdoepke · 12 February 2012]

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.

"You people want honest politicians. There are none!"

[elvircorhodzic · 7/10 · 23 October 2016]

VIVA ZAPATA! is a film that brings the spirit of wild and hungry peasants revolt in the south of Mexico. The story follows a rebel Emiliano Zapata and his peasant life from childhood, through periods of glory and power to his death. The main protagonist is a man of wild passion that is dedicated to fighting for the rights of the poor and oppressed. Despite noticeable firmness and stubbornness, the figure of the main character is a rather romanticized and dedicated to the eternal struggle for freedom.

The atmosphere in the film really is reminiscent of the contours of the revolution, including the powerful, almost historical moments and consequences. The dynamics is of the top, so I have to say that this film is pretty exciting. The focus of this drama is placed on social injustice, imbalance and savagery as a kind of form of primitivism. I think this movie not only shows the life of a rebel and the people around him, but unwillingness to arranging state leading to permanent tragic consequences. The director tried to make it more realistic picture. In the film there are "separate" scenes where you can see the brutal killing of hungry peasants in the fertile cornfields, murder, anxiety and rebellion on the dusty streets ... etc. The highlight of drama is tragic frustration of a man who out of ignorance or impatience can help your neighbor in the right way.

Marlon Brando as Emiliano Zapata He seems a little lost. His character does not change. His jokes and outbursts of love sometimes act inappropriately. I have the impression that Mr. Brando wanted the film finish as soon as possible. However, its wild and natural acting left a strong stamp. Anthony Quinn as Eufemio Zapata was in one emotional performance left much better impression. A man of flesh and blood. His character knows exactly what all the fighting.

Other actors are pretty solid. Joseph Wiseman as Fernando Aguirre He is insensitive, dark and power hungry. Lou Gilbert as Pablo He is adaptable companion, the only character who understood the essence. Jean Peters as Josefa Zapata is a strong female character, a real lady who was unsuccessfully trying to come to grips with the wilderness in her husband.

I have the impression that the story in this film remained sketchy. The battle continues without the hero, and he will remain in the hearts of those who love him.

¡Viva esta pelicula!

[artzau · 10/10 · 20 July 2001]

This film is one of my favorites. I remember vividly seeing this film as a high school student. I was impressed with it then and am impressed with it today. It's still wonderful...but, then, why shouldn't it be? The performances of Brando, Peters, Quinn, Wiseman and others is still breathtaking, but Quinn and Brando steal the show from the get-go. This is one of Brando's finest roles and while Quinn always outdoes himself (even in that god-awful Walk in the Clouds), he IS Eufemio Zapata. There are few reviews here of this film and one reviewer has completely missed the point, but no matter. The film stands on its own and there's always someone to complain at excellence. This script came from none other than Steinbeck and the photography and background is likewise excellent. Is it accurate historically? Well, there are a few embellishments but the thrust of the film is not marred by any deviations from recorded history. This is portrayal of a people's struggle, one which continues today and doesn't pretend to be a chronicle of the actual events that took place in Mexico. As a film, this stands on its merit as a superb work of art. The acting is wonderful. While one reviewer found the music to be like the kind you hear while eating a combination plate on Olvera Street in LA, I might point out, that's what Mexican music is. Rent this film. While it is listed as not being available, I rented it recently and watched it again, for the nth time, as indeed, I plan to watch n times again.

Viva Zapata - Powerhouse Talents Involved

[krocheav · 6/10 · 2 June 2019]

It had been a long time since I'd seen this one, back then it was a favourite. Fox has given this semi-classic a rich DVD transfer but its impact seems to have diminished over time. While it has superbly talented names in all dept's, something was lacking. Perhaps it had a little to do with the political witch-hunts that were brewing in the 50s leaving many creative talents a tad nervous about attracting attention? Brando was still rather new so he was working hard to build his following (before his ego took the main stage). He had a top writer scratching out lines in John Steinbeck, a powerful new director in Elia Kazan, a mainstream producer in Darryl F. Zanuck, and they all had the tremendous B/W Master photographer Joe MacDonald to cover their work.

This great D.O.P. knew all there was to know about B/W film stocks - along with the correct range of filters to use to give it that creative edge (this man even made TV of the day look like cinema - quite an achievement). If anyone should have been honoured on this production it was he. As for the script, it came across as manipulative and way over romanticised - leaving several elements floundering for believability. Still, it looks terrific and has several striking aspects; including a fascinating & haunting Joseph Wiseman performance (an underrated screen presence) lovely Jean Peters, exciting Alex North score, Award- winning Anthony Quinn character, and fact-based historical background. Certain plot developments tend to be overlooked so you may have to fill in some spaces.

Should still interest fans of the considerable talent involved, also those discovering the tragic and corrupt history of this land and its people (at least those elements that haven't been fictionalized).

A very fine forgotten film

[JGDullaart · 9/10 · 21 June 2003]

I saw Viva Zapata 50 years ago, when I was 15. And all those years I hoped to see it again sometime. But in the Netherlands it's not available on VHS or DVD. I remember the great performance of Marlon Brando as Zapata. And how I hated Wiseman who played the ultimate traitor. In a magazine I read that Brando, before they shot the picture, spent several weeks in a remote Mexican village to learn the habits of the Mexicans, and he WAS a Mexican in the film! What a performer! I do hope to see once again some day! 9 out of 10.

Hans Dullaart Delft Netherlands.

Disappointing Given the Talent Involved

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 11 May 2018]

One would think a film starring Marlon Brando and Anthony Quinn, directed by Elia Kazan, and written by John Steinbeck would be a sure thing. But "Viva Zapata!", while not a bad film by any means, never manages to live up to the expectations one would justifiably have for it given its pedigree.

I know casting Caucasian actors as people of color was a common convention in earlier cinematic times, and that one needs to just suck it up and go with it if one is going to bother watching a movie like this in the first place, but my goodness was it hard to get past Marlon Brando as a Mexican revolutionary. The makeup they put on him looks distracting at best and actually disturbing at worst, and he makes absolutely no effort to sound Mexican. The film is oddly static and has none of the dynamic momentum Kazan could bring to a film like "On the Waterfront." Even "A Streetcar Named Desire," which essentially has a cast of four and no action sequences, feels more full of movement than this film. And much as it pains me to report, the weakest link in the chain is John Steinbeck's screenplay. It's extremely disjointed and disorienting, with major plot developments happening off screen so that Brando (in one example) goes from being a revolutionary in one scene to president of Mexico in the next without anything in between to explain the transition. It's like reading a novel with chapters missing.

Quinn received the first of his two Best Supporting Actor Oscars for playing Zapata's brother, but I'm not sure why. His performance is the consummate Quinn performance, all yelling and shouting. It's criminal that he beat Richard Burton that year in "My Cousin Rachel" when Burton was in literally every scene of his movie and played his character expertly. Brando won his second of four consecutive Best Actor nominations, Steinbeck was nominated for Best Story and Screenplay, and the film received two technical nominations for its black and white art direction and its score (by Alex North).

Not exactly a dud, but definitely a disappointment.

Grade: B-

The poor striving for rights that still goes on

[lora64 · 10/10 · 27 June 2001]

I'm no expert on the historical facts of the 1911 Revolution but can appreciate this movie's absorbing tale just as it stands. The photography is notably excellent and draws you into the story more and more. I think Brando as the illiterate peasant leader does a superb job of carrying the film along, creating the tender or serious moods that make for compelling drama throughout. I've always admired Jean Peters in any movie and her sensitive acting poignantly rounds out the love interest so well. Of course Quinn is his usual volcanic self, and in this instance garnered an Oscar as best supporting actor. It's a serious and sad tale about a real-life struggle of the people.

Hollywood Zapata

[EdgarST · 7/10 · 1 January 2004]

Surprisingly good Hollywood approach to the life of Emiliano Zapata by Elia Kazan and John Steinbeck, the kind of film that if made today would cause a controversy due to its lack of authenticity in self-representational terms. Marlon Brando, who plays the peasant leader victimized by the powerful, would later join the opposite party in Gillo Pontecorvo's "Queimada!"

surprising performances, touching direction, good (not masterpiece) screen writing

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 26 April 2009]

At first he doesn't look much like we remember him - Marlon Brando appears as his Mexican Emiliano Zapata with a stern face at the Mexico Priesidente demanding, simply, land rights and making sure boundaries can be drawn. His name is circled on the President's desk, not a good sign, and from here on in Zapata is fighting and fighting (what one character says is as simple as it is - it's all he knows) so that the farmers can have their land, as opposed to time and patience, to grow their corn with.

When Brando first appears as this revolutionary figure he doesn't quite look like himself, and at the same time does very much, and it's disarming. I didn't buy it entirely in the first scene... and then the scenes kept coming, and Brando, playing Zapata as stubborn and headstrong and without much in way of a sense of humor as a leader as a General (and rightfully so as revolutionary figures tend to be, see Che for more details), is spot on. It's worthy of the rest of his oeuvre at the time, if not quite up to the monolithic status of Streetcar and Waterfront then at least as good if not better than the underrated The Wild One. This is vintage Brando every step of the way, absorbing us in this figure who reminds us all why it's necessary to have such heroes - but also the lacerating side of the double-edged sword where-in those in power will do all they can to destroy the hero. That and, well, revolutions and movements of ideas amongst people end up turning things pretty damn bittersweet; just look at the very end for that, as four peasants talk of Zapata's status as an idea as well as a man.

Viva Zapata! presents Mexico in some fresh and amazing cinematography, sturdy and sometimes clever and heartfelt direction from Elia Kazan, always best with his actors (even Anthony Quinn who again proves why he was best as taking on an ethnicity and making it believable, if only up to a point as his powerhouse turn shows here), and some very interesting writing from John Steinbeck. The script sometimes takes its turns and movements that don't make it quite flow as well as it would in a book; individual scenes are knock-outs, mini-masterpieces of words exchanged with underlying meaning or trying to find the meaning in how people can persevere, or not as it turns out (one such scene I loved is when Zapata has been installed as the President- as Pancho Villa says there's "no one else"), and the farmers he says he knows comes and demands the same things he did once before, but at a personal price.

There's lots of great things like that, or just the uncomfortable but true rapore between Zapata and his future-wife's family when they talk in metaphors. If only Steinbeck didn't sometimes jerk the story ahead without some warning (it will be hard to explain, you just have to see it to understand, though this may have more to do with the direction than writing, more research is needed for this assumption) it would be unstoppable as a classic. As it stands though Viva Zapata! is an essential chronicle of a rebel with a cause, an honest man of principles who tried to do too much good in a country where it just wasn't possible. Or, perhaps, things like this just aren't possible; one can see the parallels and maybe even find this to be like a condensed version of Soderbergh's Che in taking a sobering look at the sweet highs and sobering lows of rising up against the powers that be (and yes, this is quite the leftist movie, all the more odd considering it's John McCain's favorite film!)

give the country people what they deserve

[robertodjuniorr · 6/10 · 11 March 2022]

Cool movie about zapata some parts fictionalized but f1ck it the spirit that matters the director was a scumbag as a person, but his movies are great viva zapata.

What a terrible film from a great director!

[murliman · 5/10 · 24 July 2020]

The direction, the pacing, the screenplay are a bad, very bad. Can't believe it is the same director/actor duo that gave us A Streetcar Named Desire and On The Waterfront, both, engrossing films.

The only saving grace in this film is Joe McDonald's exquisite cinematography, through which he brings to bear his considerable expertise with film noir. It's the only thing worthwhile in this film and it is worth the price of admission.

For the life of me, I can't understand all the high praise being showered on this film. Don't waste your time and mood watching it.