.jpg)
Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 16, No. 17. September 11, 1952
[Introduction]
"There is much in "Viva Zapata" that is impressive and refreshing. Its director, Elia Kazan, has, for the most part, left the theatre well behind him and has packed his unit off to Mexico to film what is essentially a cinematic subject. After "A Streetcar Named Desire" this project is welcomed by all those who know what is the real duty of the Cinema—to portray human actions against a background of reality, not a stage backdrop or a stage property. If "Viva Zapata" does not succeed in being as good as it should be, we cannot blame the basic idea, but should examine the script-writing or direction.
The villain of this piece is scriptwriter John Steinbeck, the famous novelist. My conception of Emiliano Zapata has always been that he was a simple, illiterate ruffian who by some means became a leader of the Indian revolutionists in the 1911-19 South Mexican civil war, and afterwards a legendary national hero. In fact, History tells us that Zapata had, in real life, less integrity and sincerity than his fellow land-lovers gave him in legend, but of course Steinbeck, in the grand Hollywood tradition, has chosen to bowlderise him. Worse than that, Steinbeck has endowed him with ideological concepts of Freedom, Democracy, Dictatorship, etc, that bring Zapata about 30 years ahead of his time and make him twice the philosopher he was. This is the first fatal step in the breaking of the film's unity.
Next, all hope of unity is lost when, almost haphazardly, Steinbeck mixes fact and fiction, folklore and reality. Both Emiliano Zapatas may make enthralling film figures, but in the making of this film Steinbeck and the producer should have chosen one and stuck to him. I prefer to think that they were after tne Zapata of reality, but if so, there is no room in the script for legendary white horses.
These points about unity would probably worry only those unbearable bores who always judge a film as a work of art. However, those whO go along merely to be entertained may be worried because they can't follow everything that is going on. If it's any consolation, it's not their intelligence that's lacking but Stein-bock's script again. Episodes of the revolution are strung together in as much chaos as the revolution itself. Scenes often have no connections (contrast Graham Greene's script for "The Third Man") and confusion is added for the spectator when too many sequences and too much dialogue arc added to illuminate the main theme—the theme that power corrupts.
The film is primarily a visual art and there is never an excuse for a sermon to interrupt the visual flow of the story.
And may I say that because of over-elaboration Steinbeck has made his sermon become trite and commonplace?