I wasn’t quite sure what to expect going into Viva Zapata!, knowing it was both written by John Steinbeck – a figurehead of American socialism – and produced in the heyday of McCarthyism. Despite having now seen film, I still find it hard to ascribe it any kind of clear-cut ideological line. If anything, Viva Zapata! seems both desperate to say something relevant while trying not to come across as political in any way.
There is no question as to the film’s overwhelmingly sympathetic depiction of Emiliano Zapata. Portrayed as dashing and charismatic, his moral integrity is shown as unwavering throughout the Mexican Revolution. The Revolution itself is clearly a righteous cause according to the film, which depicts President Porfirio Diaz’s regime as corrupt and repressive, incapable of dealing out justice and actively destroying the livelihoods of the farmers in Morelos. However, the film is no less critical of the following regimes, and even under the presidency of Zapata himself, the government is inevitably unable to restore stolen lands to the impoverished Morelenses. None of the power structures established after an armed uprising are satisfactory, as they all seem to reproduce the same patterns of oppression as Diaz’s regime. This could almost be seen as a rejection of the concept of “rule from above”, which is seen as both inefficient and corruptible.
However, the own characters shown to be embracing such radical positions are Francisco Madero and Fernando Aguirre, neither of whom end up rejecting representative democracy when in power. Madero is initially presented as critical of the concept of representative democracy, as Aguirre quotes him as writing that “Elections are a farce, the people have no voice in government, control is in the hands of one man and those he has appointed”. While Zapata trusts him at first, as soon as Madero enters office he finds himself overwhelmed by the responsibilities of power, and refuses to change the institutions that were in place under Diaz. Worse, he fails to notice the coup general de la Huerta and his officers are plotting against him, despite their intentions being barely concealed. Madero thus comes across as naïve, blinded by his own idealism and almost comically bad at spotting his own enemies, and he ultimately fails to restore peace.
At first, Fernando Aguirre also seems ideologically driven, but his true intentions are only revealed towards the end of the film. He is presented as a radical intellectual working alongside Madero, although he quickly sides with Zapata when he sees the new president’s hold on power loosen. He also shows disdain towards the customs and general lack of organisation of Zapata’s followers, and seems unable to unable to understand the common people. As it turns out, all his actions were meticulously calculated to get him into a secure position of power, and he shows no second thoughts when ordering Zapata’s assassination. I can’t help but see him in particular as a critique of radical left-wing intellectualism, which Kazan and Steinbeck contrast with the agrarian simplicity of Zapata’s way of life.