The story of Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, who led a rebellion against the corrupt, oppressive dictatorship of President Porfirio Díaz in the early 20th century.The story of Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, who led a rebellion against the corrupt, oppressive dictatorship of President Porfirio Díaz in the early 20th century.The story of Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, who led a rebellion against the corrupt, oppressive dictatorship of President Porfirio Díaz in the early 20th century.
- Won 1 Oscar
- 3 wins & 9 nominations total
Rico Alaniz
- Guard
- (uncredited)
Daniel Armijo
- Undetermined Secondary Role
- (uncredited)
Ross Bagdasarian
- Officer
- (uncredited)
Salvador Baguez
- Soldier
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- John Steinbeck
- Edgecumb Pinchon(uncredited)
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaAnthony Quinn was very disappointed when Marlon Brando was cast as Emiliano Zapata - he thought that with his Latin appearance, he would have been a better choice. To solve the argument, both actors competed to see which of them could urinate furthest into the Rio Grande. Quinn lost the bet, but he won an Oscar for the best supporting actor as Zapata's brother.
- GoofsThe page of the 'Mexican' newspaper which Señor Espejo is reading (headline: 'El General Pancho Villa') is formed by clippings from an Argentine newspaper (from around 1935).
- Quotes
President Porfirio Diaz: These matters take time. You must be patient.
Emiliano Zapata: With your permission, my President, we make our tortillas with corn, not patience.
- Crazy creditsOpening credits prologue: Mexico-1909
A delegation of Indians from the State of Morelos have come to the Capital for an audience with their President, Porfirio Diaz.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Marlon Brando: Wild One (1994)
Featured review
Hollywood Does the Mexican Revolution
No need to recap the plot. The movie works best as a cautionary tale on the seductions of political power. We see a succession of Mexican presidents exploit the corrupting opportunities power provides, including the tragically conflicted General Madero. Even Zapata (Brando) gets a timely reminder from an aggrieved peasant (Henry Silva), at the same time his brother (Quinn) succumbs to the temptations. The ending itself remains powerfully symbolic.
Unfortunately, the movie stumbles outside of the cautionary context. The narrative itself comes across as disjointed, at best, John Steinbeck or no. Major developments, such as game changing wars, are either left out or only briefly alluded to, while too much of the dialog is that clunky pseudo-poetic phrasing Hollywood identified with noble primitives. Then too, director Kazan achieves little of the dramatic intensity he was famous for. Likely, he was hampered by the broad historical canvas that had to be crowded into a relatively brief space.
Which leads to Kazan's most famous protégé, the redoubtable Marlon Brando, who appears to have swallowed a lemon since his entire performance consists of a single sour expression. We realize the burdens of peasant liberation are great, but does it have to be quite so tedious. On the other hand, Quinn projects enough boisterous personality for them both, becoming as tiresome in its own way as Brando's one note. However, neither of the stars can compete with the outrageous over-acting of Florenz Ames as the snooty father.
Nevertheless, there are some good scenes, especially where Kazan choreographs the latent power of the peasantry. But on the whole, the movie is a disappointing follow-up to the previous year's Streetcar . Looks to me like the lesson may be that action features are not the best venue for stage directors and actors, no matter how good they are.
Unfortunately, the movie stumbles outside of the cautionary context. The narrative itself comes across as disjointed, at best, John Steinbeck or no. Major developments, such as game changing wars, are either left out or only briefly alluded to, while too much of the dialog is that clunky pseudo-poetic phrasing Hollywood identified with noble primitives. Then too, director Kazan achieves little of the dramatic intensity he was famous for. Likely, he was hampered by the broad historical canvas that had to be crowded into a relatively brief space.
Which leads to Kazan's most famous protégé, the redoubtable Marlon Brando, who appears to have swallowed a lemon since his entire performance consists of a single sour expression. We realize the burdens of peasant liberation are great, but does it have to be quite so tedious. On the other hand, Quinn projects enough boisterous personality for them both, becoming as tiresome in its own way as Brando's one note. However, neither of the stars can compete with the outrageous over-acting of Florenz Ames as the snooty father.
Nevertheless, there are some good scenes, especially where Kazan choreographs the latent power of the peasantry. But on the whole, the movie is a disappointing follow-up to the previous year's Streetcar . Looks to me like the lesson may be that action features are not the best venue for stage directors and actors, no matter how good they are.
helpful•63
- dougdoepke
- Feb 12, 2012
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Zapata
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $1,800,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 53 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content