This week we were asked to watch Viva Zapata! an American film directed by Elia Kazan depicting a fictionalized account of Emilliano Zapata’s resistance in the Mexican revolution. His key role in the revolution is certainly recognized and narrative works well to shed light on the underdog and community driven nature of his fight. One thing that seems strange in the movie was the character played by Joseph Wiseman, Fernando Aguirre. His purely ideological motives seem to have been dropped into the story out of nowhere. So, I looked it up and apparently he was. Kazan was under pressure from his studio to not make a radical film that would alert the House Committee on Un-American Activities (created to investigate American citizens with communist ties). Kazan was eventually called before HUAC where he argued that the film was anti-communist and controversially outed some of his previous colleges.
Zapata’s struggle in the real world is one that existed long before the revolution (Cajemé, Juarez, Teresita…) and continues long after (Wixáritari automous communities, Zapatistas, Nahua resistance…). However, Zapata played an important role in militarizing the fight and cementing it in the wider public conciseness with his success. In 1911 he and his army were able to take the town of Cuautla after six days of battle, which took place alongside the Battle of Ciudad Juarez fought by other revolutionaries in the north. This led to the end of Porfirio Diaz’s dictatorship and the institution of Francisco Madero as the new leader. However, this was just the beginning for Zapata’s struggle as Madero who failed to act on land reform was eventually overthrown and replaced by several new leaders throughout the next 10 years. Zapata continued his resistance against those in power until his assassination in 1919.
His movement was one of the indigenous/campesino people and was deeply rooted in the struggle for land. In the Plan de Ayala, Zapata’s main concern after overthrowing Madero was to restore the land to the people. He states that upon the successful revolution, “the pueblos or citizens who have the titles corresponding to those properties will immediately enter into possession of that real estate of which they have been despoiled by the bad faith of our oppressors, maintaining at any cost with arms in hand the mentioned possession.” I believe that this focus is part of what makes his fight different (and arguably more successful) than other revolutionary struggles. Zapata it is not seeking to create a new social structure, he is fighting off dictatorship and capitalism to restore autonomy in indigenous/campesino communities. By centering land he is acknowledging its inherent connection to freedom.
Span 280 
I already knew that Fernando Aguirre was not an actual person, but I had no idea that he was deliberately written to make the film anti-Communist. However, it makes a lot of sense considering how blatantly opportunistic Aguirre becomes towards the ending. It’s also kind of telling that a historical film had to make a character up to push its ideological message.
LikeLike