Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 16, No. 17. September 11, 1952

Viva Kazan and Brando! — Good Direction—Bad Script

Viva Kazan and Brando!

Good Direction—Bad Script

"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?

The Direction

The other departments are almost faultless. Except for the fact that he deals with the fantasy and folk-lore handed to him by his scriptwriter, in the same taut journalistic style he uses for the realistic scenes, Elia Kazan's direction is pretty good. He has missed no opportunities in conveying the atmosphere of the Mexican scene, with the broad hats, the details of the mannerisms and customs of the men and women, the broad sweep of the Mexican landscape, the camera intimacy of the Mexic in village. He achieves some amazing effects with Steinbeck's script (the moving reading-lesson on Zapata's wedding night, for example) but it is interesting to note that his most brilliant moments conic when Steinbeck's script is well out of the way. He handles with his usual cleverness in using camera angles, vividness and concentration such sequences as Zapata's arrest and his contrived rescue, the fights between his and the dictator's men, his final death (although I wish there wasn't so much emphasis on that legendary white horse!) and the scene showing the death of the sin-core Madero. All are full of suspense and excitement, all full of the local colour (or so I imagine); on fact Kazan's direction so intoxicated me that I almost overlooked the film's shortcomings. But alas one more reservation about his work: I would have liked to have seen a little more pace. It's not beyond him as he showed in "Panic in the Streets."

The Acting

The standard of acting is uniformly highm. Of the minor parts Harold Gordon's weak but sincere Madero lingers unpleasantly in my mind, and our old friend the criminal from "Detective Story" gives us an effective performance as the revolutionist turned traitor. But, of course, the actor who dominates the whole film and indeed gives the film the only [unclear: real] unity it possesses is Marlon Brando as Emiliano Zapata. Brando has given us three film performances: the weak invalid in "The Men." the brutish Stanley in "A Streetcar Named Desire" and now the simple, sincere Zapata. The first two were more striking parts that fitted Brando's personality like a glove, but now he can bring his infantile charm to a part that demands more internal conflict than external fire. The internal conflict is perfectly conveyed and we can feel his craving to help his fellows, the gnawing of his conscience and his pathetic desire to learn to read. Of course Brando was forced to mould his performance from the clay provided by his script-writer's conception of the character, so if his present performance falls below his other two. I would blame the dialogue provided by Steinbeck.

The Verdict

So you see we have a film that in presentation is very good indeed, but as an artistic unit it is a failure. It has shown us, above all, that in the film today the script's the thing and no amount of brilliant direction or acting can wholly compensate for a poor one. I've said that before, but it seems that the quality of scripts is not going hand in hand with technical advancement, but if perhaps another "Bicycle Thieves" or "Brief Encounter" were to come along I'd shut up. But in the meantime we must be content with "Viva Zapata." It's a little empty, but it's skilful in direction and acting, and most people seen; easily entertained by just that.

I.R.