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-

This is what we should still be protesting for the whitewashing. Not just because it blows away every bit of the culture they were fighting for, but because its so badly done. Marlon Brando and Anthony Quinn, especially, sound like Marlon Brando and Anthony Quinn. Not a sliver of acting in most scenes. Plus overbearing music, a title card because exposition is for suckers, hamhanded editing, the occasional awful soundstage cut, an awful lot of focus on Zapata appealing to the upper classes and getting distracted by his girlfriend's family, etc. etc. Just awful head to toe. Surprised this talent could make a movie this bad, and I do not get why anyone would like it. Baffling.

I've always loved the look of this film and assumed it was filmed in Mexico. After reading Elia Kazan's autobiography, "Elia Kazan: A Life", I now know it wasn't and the reason why.Kazan and John Steinbeck, who did the screenplay, originally wanted to film it there, but the Mexicans wanted to make their own film of their hero, and made it pretty well impossible for the Hollywood production to be made there. It was eventually shot close to the Mexican border, but in the U.S.A.I see in some places where it's claimed that Kazan was influenced by Roberto Rossellini's "Paisan". Maybe so, but I think a bigger influence was John Ford. Just look at the way the landscape is used and the way the action is handled: the horses and the dust. In his book, if Kazan mentioned any director he admired it was John Ford.He knew Ford, and although they certainly weren't buddies, Kazan was impressed with his work. He also learned from Ford not to be too much of a nice guy if he wanted to make films his own way. Ford's "The Fugitive" made 4-years before and filmed in Mexico, would have to have been an influence.Although Kazan's early films were studio-bound, he was determined to shoot future films on location. They were tough projects, but from "Viva Zapata!" on they had a unique visual style. Kazan led from the front; he inspired his crews by enduring the same conditions they did; the results speak for themselves.Kazan could always get the best out of actors and Brando and Quinn brought a lot to the film. However, there are dull spots, the courting scenes with Josefa's father almost seem as though Kazan was trying to do for the Mexicans what Ford did for the Irish. However the longueurs are outweighed by one brilliant sequence after another, and Alex North contributed a powerful score steeped in Mexican music.Kazan had joined the communist party back in his Group Theatre days, but quit shortly after - he resented the heavy-handed influence of the party on their work. Some of his feelings about the demagogues he encountered seem reflected in Joseph Wiseman's character.It is easy to find subtext here, but "Viva Zapata!" is a fair retelling of complex history. That aside though, it still comes across as a visually powerful and heartfelt film.

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.