The story of Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, who led a rebellion against the corrupt, oppressive dictatorship of President Porfirio Díaz in the early 20th century.The story of Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, who led a rebellion against the corrupt, oppressive dictatorship of President Porfirio Díaz in the early 20th century.The story of Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, who led a rebellion against the corrupt, oppressive dictatorship of President Porfirio Díaz in the early 20th century.
- Won 1 Oscar
- 3 wins & 9 nominations total
Rico Alaniz
- Guard
- (uncredited)
Daniel Armijo
- Undetermined Secondary Role
- (uncredited)
Ross Bagdasarian
- Officer
- (uncredited)
Salvador Baguez
- Soldier
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaAnthony 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.
- GoofsThe page of the 'Mexican' newspaper which Señor Espejo is reading (headline: 'El General Pancho Villa') is formed by clippings from an Argentine newspaper (from around 1935).
- Quotes
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.
- Crazy creditsOpening 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.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Marlon Brando: Wild One (1994)
Featured review
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.
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Zapata
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $1,800,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 53 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content