ÉVALUATION IMDb
7,2/10
13 k
MA NOTE
L'histoire du révolutionnaire mexicain Emiliano Zapata, qui mène une rébellion contre la dictature corrompue et oppressive du président Porfirio Díaz au début du XXe siècle.L'histoire du révolutionnaire mexicain Emiliano Zapata, qui mène une rébellion contre la dictature corrompue et oppressive du président Porfirio Díaz au début du XXe siècle.L'histoire du révolutionnaire mexicain Emiliano Zapata, qui mène une rébellion contre la dictature corrompue et oppressive du président Porfirio Díaz au début du XXe siècle.
- A remporté 1 oscar
- 3 victoires et 9 nominations au total
Rico Alaniz
- Guard
- (uncredited)
Daniel Armijo
- Undetermined Secondary Role
- (uncredited)
Ross Bagdasarian
- Officer
- (uncredited)
Salvador Baguez
- Soldier
- (uncredited)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesAnthony 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.
- GaffesThe real Zapata never had a hands-on role in executions. While he would order the executions of close aides, he was never present as he could not bear to watch.
- Citations
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.
- Générique farfeluOpening 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.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Cinefile: Marlon Brando, Wild One (1994)
Commentaire en vedette
Mexico, 1909. The people in the state of Morelos rise up against the tyrannical regime of President Porfirio Diaz. They are lead by a simple, illiterate peasant-farmer, Emilio Zapata. All he wants is justice and fairness for his people but as things progress he is drawn deeper into a civil war where allies and enemies are often difficult to tell apart.
Written by John Steinbeck, directed by Elia Kazan, starring Marlon Brando and Anthony Quinn, and based on a true story, on paper this has all the makings of a classic. The end result, however, is far from satisfactory.
The intention was good: show the life of a man of integrity and honour and the lengths he is willing to go to for the rights of his people, throw in a theme of how power corrupts, plus another theme of how a name can sustain a revolution.
Can't fault the performances either. Brando, in his third movie, puts in a strong performance as Zapata. The movie provided him with his second Oscar nomination, after only three movies (his first was in A Streetcar Named Desire, his second movie). Anthony Quinn won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 1953 for his portrayal of Eufemio, Zapata's brother.
No, it is in the execution, especially direction and editing, that things fall a bit short of their potential. The story is clumsily told by Elia Kazan. Scenes don't link well, some scenes seem entirely unnecessary and it is difficult to follow the history behind the sequence of events. No explanation is given for the seeming lack of continuity, eg Zapata is President, all seems well, then next we know it is back to civil war with Zapata a revolutionary. No detail for the change provided.
This sudden change of direction, without the events that changed the direction, is incredibly jarring and disconcerting.
So, in the end, you have a historic story with many of the historic details left out. Not ideal.
Overall, okay, but not great. While Elia Kazan was a great director, I can't help but think this movie would have been a masterpiece if someone like John Huston, or maybe John Ford, had directed it.
Written by John Steinbeck, directed by Elia Kazan, starring Marlon Brando and Anthony Quinn, and based on a true story, on paper this has all the makings of a classic. The end result, however, is far from satisfactory.
The intention was good: show the life of a man of integrity and honour and the lengths he is willing to go to for the rights of his people, throw in a theme of how power corrupts, plus another theme of how a name can sustain a revolution.
Can't fault the performances either. Brando, in his third movie, puts in a strong performance as Zapata. The movie provided him with his second Oscar nomination, after only three movies (his first was in A Streetcar Named Desire, his second movie). Anthony Quinn won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 1953 for his portrayal of Eufemio, Zapata's brother.
No, it is in the execution, especially direction and editing, that things fall a bit short of their potential. The story is clumsily told by Elia Kazan. Scenes don't link well, some scenes seem entirely unnecessary and it is difficult to follow the history behind the sequence of events. No explanation is given for the seeming lack of continuity, eg Zapata is President, all seems well, then next we know it is back to civil war with Zapata a revolutionary. No detail for the change provided.
This sudden change of direction, without the events that changed the direction, is incredibly jarring and disconcerting.
So, in the end, you have a historic story with many of the historic details left out. Not ideal.
Overall, okay, but not great. While Elia Kazan was a great director, I can't help but think this movie would have been a masterpiece if someone like John Huston, or maybe John Ford, had directed it.
- grantss
- 24 juin 2017
- Lien permanent
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 1 800 000 $ US (estimation)
- Durée1 heure 53 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Viva Zapata! (1952) officially released in India in English?
Répondre