The Mark of Zorro (1920) is a movie based in the serialized novel The Curse of Capistrano wrote by John McCulley in 1919, that tells the adventures of “Zorro”, a masked hero who protects the poor, and oppressed in the name of justice, in the Spanish California of the 19th Century.
Although the character Zorro, belongs to popular culture and can be seen superficially as an innocent representation of heroism and courage, the development of the narrative, the plot tensions and the resolution, reveal latent conflicts in the perception of the Hispanic World in the early 20th Century, from the US as well as indicate the role of man as an agent of change in the historical socio-political contexts.
Of the possible lectures of the film I want to draw attention to the following relations:
1) Hispanic American politics – injustice – oppression
2) Manliness – heroism
3) Aristocracy – liberation – indigenous people
It’s important to understand the deploy of the narrative in the movie, to notice that the historical time of the film is set previous to the Mexican-American war, in this way the situation of oppression, injustice corruption represented in the film are linked to a supposedly intrinsic form of seeing the political life in the Hispanic American world (military hierarchies, lawless governments, corrupt governors, etc.) that are similar to the representation made in Occident of the despotism in Asian territories.
The way of seeing the socio-political life in Hispanic America in the film is linked historically to the Manifest Destiny doctrine, this fact leads us to a conclusion implicit in the film: “If the people could not rule themselves according to the law in this land, they needed some kind of saviour” Historically, this saviour, from the historical context in which the film was produced, is the United States, so the movie and the narrative, from this point, serves as a form of justification of the occupation of the Mexican territories in the previous war.
Now, let’s put our attention to the character of Zorro (Don Diego Vega), he is a man, not an indigenous or a poor man of California, but a wealthy and educated heir with a recognized social status in the community. This fact tells us two important things about the perception of freedom from the popular culture at the moment: the first one is that liberation is a male issue, the role of women represented in Lolita is to be a “damsel in distress” that ultimately will be conquered by the hero; from this perspective the political implications of woman are hidden in the narrative of the film.
Something similar happens with the poor and indigenous people, they don’t have a voice, let’s notice for example that Bernardo, the close servant of Diego Vega that knows his double identity is mute; without a voice their possibilities of changing their circumstances are cancelled in the film and their destiny rely in the benevolence of the aristocracy represented in Zorro. It’s not casual that the chevaliers that support Zorro at the end of the movie are all members of a privileged class: “blood” “honour” and “tradition” (and we can easily include “church”) are the terms that they use to follow the enterprise. This fact shows us another perspective over Hispanic America indicated at the moment, that social justice was conceived as an aristocratic issue. From this point, to the acceptation of a new government seen as “just” with the Mexican-American war, we are just a few steps away.
¿Do you think that The Mask of Zorro serves in implicit way to justify the role of the United States in their previous war with Mexico, and ahead, with the Manifest Destiny doctrine over Latin America in the future?
Good points about the way in which the film points towards an external saviour for the indigenous oppressed… though of course ironically here the saviour is depicted as connected to the Spanish ruling elite, and as such this is apparently an argument *against* decolonization, for what is demonized are the local officials that will with independence become part of the Mexican state apparatus.
You went very deep into the historical significance of the film. I realized that my own post missed a lot of this and in a way, I actually. argued against the historical significance.
Your points on social justice as being an aristocratic issue are convincing now that I think about it more. I did not find your point on Manifest Destiny to be as convincing since I viewed the social-political issues in the film as within the societies that had already existed and not a part of the clash between US explorers vs. natives or Latin Americans.
The gender relations and the secondary role Lolita plays brought up an obvious but important point. I should have mentioned that as well.
Thoughtful response– nice work!
I do like your blog post very much! I must say there are a lot of interesting correlations between the historical and socio-political points that the movie uses in its narrative. I also agree with the idea of Zorro being part of the mainstream popular culture since there are a bunch of films about this character and among them The Mask of Zorro, starting Antonio Banderas, being perhaps the most famous one. However, more than being an innocent representation or characterization within Zorro, I think The Mark of Zorro uses comedy relief to sympathize with its audience while demonstrating that Douglas Fairbanks is a very athletic and skillful actor perfect for the role of Zorro.
I also liked your analysis about the way the film depicts historical facts related to Hispanic/ Spanish America/California during the 19th century. Especially the interpretation that the West, and maybe more importantly Hollywood, makes of Asian nations such as China and Japan in movies which are mostly based on stereotypes.
Additionally, the relationship between the ‘Manifest Destiny doctrine’ and the need of a saviour is a very interesting point. I would add that such narratives are also seen in Christian themed movies and have heavy religious content which had a strong resonance and following with the audience whom followed The Mark of Zorro.
Overall great blog post and I do agree with the notion that movies such this one help justify ideas about American expansionism and political interventionism. Even in present times, there seems to be a current policy carried out by President Trump which puts ‘America First’. Hence, many countries are following Trumps international policies very closely since he is focused on sending a message of isolation and economic protectionism. It would be interesting to see what the rest of the West, mainly Germany, France, and Canada, will do to counter act Trump’s unilateral policies while promoting integration and mutual cooperation.