apparently this movie was nominated for 5 academy awards

When I’ve had fewer blog posts assigned for different classes I’ve been able to opt out of weeks where I’ve found the material uninteresting. Unfortunately I can’t do that now. Not that the subject matter is boring, it’s not. But I kept getting distracted during the movie. Pretty sure that about half of it is just Marlon Brando looking moodily off into the distance/out a window/etc.

Zapata wants to make positive changes like returning land but after his rebellion he find that the new leader, Madero doesn’t have similar plans. This isn’t a new narrative. I was reminded of the cyclical nature of rebellion which appears both true and factual, especially when watching this film, but also potentially counterproductive. Another “inherent” contradiction.  If we can only look at rebellion as cyclical (and self-defeating/self-perpetuating) it might only fuel our apathy. How can we acknowledge this narrative as being present for a reason, but not necessarily being cause to give up entirely?

We see this narrative somewhere like the Haitian revolution when Henri Christophe, upon obtaining power, continues to employ slaves. (And some would argue employ them in larger numbers.) Additionally, (if I’m remembering correctly) he wishes to find a European architect to collaborate with and in doing so he is very much perpetuating “Western” ideals as signifiers of sophistication and progress within his kingdom.

Brand equates our relationship with capitalism to an addiction, and I am inclined to agree with him on this point. To take that further, what this film and what other revolutionary movements suggest to me is that hierarchies, generally, become addictive, for those in the upper tiers. Not only that but I think things that we come to view as “successful” become particularly addictive. So while things like power, control and force may be, for some, addictive, physical force that say, allows them to overthrow their current tyrannical leader, becomes especially addictive.  It may be difficult for a movement or a political body that comes into fruition through violence to then use other strategies when their first one was so effective. Once a group of people begins the process of deciding when/where it is “acceptable” to use violence I think it becomes easier and easier to justify violence in the future, especially if you have a history of “getting results.”

We tend to think of revolutionaries in a positive light–as people who are progressive, organized, selfless and proactive–but that is often incorrect, especially when we talk about violent revolutionaries. Thinking you know better than anyone else what is best is a little poisonous.