I enjoyed watching the movie Viva Zapata as it did well in describing the historical, social, political and economic situation that characterized Mexico at that time before and during the revolution. It introduced key figures in Mexican history such as President Porfirio Diaz, President Francisco Madero, President Victoriano Huerta, and revolutionaries such as Emiliano Zapata from the southern state of Morelos, and Pancho Villa from the northern state of Chihuahua. However, the main focus was on the revolution and how it began. As this movie shows, the revolution started with the discontentment of the Mexican people over President Diaz authoritarian regime, and then moved to the question of land redistribution. Many Mexicans lost land to the hands of the Mexican government who at that time was using it for business profit. People were starving and poor. Land was not just a symbol of wealth and source of income, it was also engraved in Mexican identity. Throughout history the land was always of the people. Therefore, changing this had a profound impact in the lives of Mexican peasants. Not only was land important for the Mexican people, but regaining it therefore meant restoring justice, peace, and democracy. The revolution started because people thought that the government was not listening to the people’s voices, in other words, because there was no true democracy. The Mexican revolution therefore was a call for social change, for more openness, and for peace. What it also did was it unified people under one single cause, regaining land. Revolution also became an identity, a social marker. This revolution represented what these men and women were fighting for. At the end of the movie before Zapata dies, he talks with his men and his wife who ask him what would become of this movement he created should he die. His response, a “revolution does not need a strong man to lead, but strong people can survive without a leader”. This brings up the point that even if the leader dies, the revolution, or better yet, the spirit or cause, is still alive. Just as a side note therefore, this is why today there is controversy over when or whether or not the Mexican revolution ended. It is all based on subjectivity. But one can argue that even up to this day, the spirit is still strong. Many Mexicans face similar problems that existed back then in regards to property of land being trumped by government and business interests. There were not that many fighting scenes in the movie, however, the scene when Zapata was arrested and dragged by a rope attached to his neck following behind a horse, with Mexican peasant farmers starting to clap their rocks together and follow him, was to me very symbolic of the Mexican revolution. It represented unity, strength, and opposition. What I also liked was how the movie showed Zapata as someone not interested in fame, reputation, or money, rather all he wanted was change and to be able to represent the people he was fighting for. This is actually exactly what Russell Brand said in his interview. He’s not in for status, he just wants to get his idea out.  One other thing I would like to address is that in Latin American history there were times when one could consider some presidents as actually good and open to the people. However, whenever this happened, they were often attacked by their own military men who wanted to establish a more authoritarian way of rule. This is what happened to Francisco Madero. Besides revolution, this movie also addressed the importance of religion in Mexican lives, and class disparities. Overall, I quite enjoyed this movie. Though, having all the actors with their American or English accents kind of gave this historical account less reality and distanced me (more culturally speaking) from Mexican life, which is what this movie is really supposed to be all about. It seemed more like an Anglophone perspective rather than a Mexican, Spanish-speaking perspective.