Week 3 – Viva Zapata!

This week we watched Viva Zapata! – a fictionalized film the depicts the life of Emiliano Zapata, a Mexican revolutionary. In the start, Zapata is a simple peasant, coming to President Diaz with his fellow countrymen to complain about having their land stolen. Diaz tells them the courts will handle the matter, but Zapata shows distrust in the system. He eventually helps Madero come into power, overthrowing Diaz in hopes that the land that was taken would return to him and his people. However, while Zapata is rewarded with land, he is displeased because his people’s land isn’t given back to them. Eventually, Zapata comes into power, and a very similar scene occurs again. Countrymen come to complain of land stolen by Zapata’s brother, and Zapata tells them he will deal with it when he has time. Just like Zapata, a man comes forth and stands up to Zapata, and Zapata circles his name just as Diaz circled Zapata’s. Zapata realizes how everything has come full circle and decides to try and change it. Eventually he is killed, becomes a symbol of freedom. He says that things change slowly, through people, not by a leader. If the people are strong together, they don’t need a strong man to lead them. Which is just like we have talked about in our discussions, that change has to come from below the current power.

What is interesting is yet again we see that while people start revolutions with good intentions, they can become corrupted once they themselves hold the power -Zapata’s brother is an example of this, taking what he wants regardless of law because “he is a general and he fought for it.” Some people fight only for themselves, instead of the ideals that they thought they were fighting for. Another point is that some people are in revolutions only for destruction, or to cause chaos. I might be getting this name wrong, (please correct me) but the representative of Madero who eventually works under Zapata and then betrays him (Fernando??) is this person who just wants destruction. He switched sides to whoever would win the fight, so that he could keep fighting.

A few quotes really stuck with me, for different reasons. Zapata says that “a monkey in silk is still a monkey.” Even if someone gains power, it doesn’t mean they have become a good person. While we might root for Zapata, there is at least one thing about him that I can’t get over -his treatment and thoughts on women. While it is made out that he is a romantic, and Josefa swoons over him, he objectifies her. He says that “a man is fire, a women is his fuel” and that “a woman born beautiful is born married.” Both of these sayings reduce women to objects. In his eyes a woman is only there to support a man, and beauty is the main quality of a woman. In the movie, the women seem to like these lines a lot. However, he did not take her by force, as his brother suggested.

 

 

Week 3 – Viva Zapata!

4 thoughts on “Week 3 – Viva Zapata!

  1. George says:

    Yes, I agree. Zapata wants change or better yet revolution that comes from beneath and not in the control of one person or leader. He wants everyone to be able to bring forth this change

    Revolutions can turn astray and that is what Zapata learned. So what started as a tool to bring positive change has become manipulated into something destructive. I guess that also shows the power of human thoughts and ideas

    And yes, I find interestering how those quotes Zapata said about women, their beauty, and as “fuel” for men, were taken in positive light by the women in the movie. I think this is one of the weakenesses of movies in that it doesn’t reveal the truth. Contrarary to what the movie says about women, women were second to men and yes were treated as “objects”, Objects of obedience and objects of use.

    Like

  2. What is doubly curious about the (horrible) treatment of women in this film is that it is the introduction of the Zapatista National Liberation Army in 1994 that begins to make legal provisions for not only women but also Indigenous women in Latin America and they take their name from Zapata, who doesn’t appear to exemplify feminist values anywhere in this film. (I got this information form an article entitled The Emergence of Indigenous Feminism in Latin America by: R. Aida Hernandez Castillo which is available online in the UBC library I believe, if you want to check it out.)

    Like

  3. Simon says:

    The film’s depiction of women as passive objects that sit around and wait on men really does seem strange, especially when considering the case of the Soldaderas, the many women who fought alongside men in the Revolutionary armies. The film could have based a feminist message around them, but with it being 1950s Hollywood there probably wasn’t much chance of that happening.

    Like

Leave a comment