The Storm That Swept Mexico (2011 TV Movie) User Reviews (2)

Well What Did You Expect? It's Mexico After All

[verbusen · 5/10 · 8 October 2011]

Any Gringo like me interested in Mexico's history will probably sum it up after reading about it as "it's a mess". It reminds me of reading about the Dark Ages in a place such as Dacia (Romania), one feudal ruler after another with virtually no achievements for their country to be proud of. So when I saw this PBS made special on Mexico's 20th century I thought I'd give it a try as I enjoy history and maybe this would clarify why Mexico is in such a mess. It is a good documentary to watch as it puts a definite time line on Mexico's political dynasty's which is nice to know as we interact increasingly in our lives with immigrants from Mexico. I mean I think it's nice to know where they are coming from and to be open minded to Mexico's achievements to the entire world. Since it is from PBS it has a heavy focus on social justice movements and organized labor, and it talks of Mexico's moves to the left and socialism in seemingly glowing terms. So there you have it, to sum it all up, Mexico is in such bad shape because it has been run by a series of corrupt leftist regimes. Of course since it's done by leftist PBS they make Mexico sound like some kind of paradise which of course we all know since anyone watching this has been to Mexico probably quite a bit, and we know that Mexico is hard core third world despite having abundant riches and a vast pool of cheap labor. I first noticed how PBS changed the course or take of historical events when I was reading about Henry Clay Frick a very rich Steel industrialist and his attempted assassination by anarchist (communist) Alexander Berkman. The favoritism given on the PBS site about Berkman is really obvious and actually changes what he did not mentioning how badly wounded Frick was by him (shot in the neck). So yeah PBS, outside of Frontline, is an outfit run by hard core liberal elitists and they have such a monopoly on their hard core leftist audience that they can present history anyway they want to further their view of history. Overall, it was nice to watch this and learn about Mexico some more and I'm sure Mexican's enjoy this so I would recommend watching it if you have an interest, but it's really blatant how leftist this production is and how it is ignoring all kinds of the reality that is Mexico. 5 of 10 for my tastes, but 10 of 10 if you are a leftist and believe Mexico is a nice place now.

Mexico Through a Red Lens

[kayaker36 · 21 September 2011]

As you might expect from a documentary of Marxist orientation, all of Mexico's manifold problems are laid at the feet of the **gringo**.

As history this film is both biased and selective. For example, for all the mention it gets in, the Christero Revolt of 1927-29 against the atheist President Plutarcho Calles might as well never have occurred. As to bias, even Francisco Madero, a man of undoubtedly good intentions and unquestioned integrity, is rated as not sufficiently radical to suit the documentarian because Madero did not want to break up the **haciendas** into tiny, uneconomical plots. Yet when Madero is overthrown and murdered by the generals, that, too is the fault of the United States, we are told.

The two most often seen talking heads are Alex Saragoza of the Ethnic Studies department at UC Berkley and the late Friedrich Katz who established and headed up the University of Chicago's department of Mexican Studies. Neither are authentically Mexican.

The Austrian-born Prof. Katz was an actual Communist Party member as an adult, his refugee family having settled in Mexico in the 1930's after having been refused entry to the USA due to his father's Communist affiliation. Prior to coming to America, Friedrich Katz held a professorship at Humboldt University in the former East Berlin, an institution so closely wedded to the Communist regime that it had to be made over after unification of the two Germanies.

The radical-Chicano-chic Prof. Alex Saragoza has shown a knack for grabbing headlines and going up against the System but his knowledge of Mexican history is weak. He never attended school in Mexico, having been born (of Mexican parents) in California's San Joaquin Valley.

There are some minor contributors of Mexican nationality, one a participant in the Communist-inspired student revolt that paralyzed Mexico City in 1968, another a professor at the mammoth, thoroughly politicized National Autonomous University. Former presidential candidate and Mayor of Mexico City Cuautemoc Cardenas, makes a brief and noncommittal appearance near the end, supplying some details about the 1934-40 presidency of his father Lazaro Cardenas who persecuted priests and nationalized the oil industry,

The documentary is strongest in its first half, covering the **Porfiriato** and early, revolutionary period, supplying some little-known details on the lives, activities and deaths of its two most colorful figures: Zapata and Villa. Gen. Francisco "Pancho" Villa, operating in the north, had a policy of allowing the wives or girlfriends of his soldiers to accompany his army on campaign. These much-photographed **Soldaderas** became famous in their own right. Emiliano Zapata with his base in the province of Morelos just south of the capital, was apparently not in favor of having a huge mass of camp followers weighing down his fast-moving troops.