Viva Zapata! (1952)

THE FILM:
Viva Zapata! translates to "Long Live Zapata!". The film is in English, the title is in Spanish however. This film is not an unknown film, however it is a hard film to find. Viva Zapata! is the least renowned film with both Marlon Brando and Elia Kazan's collaboration.

There are two stories about Viva Zapata! that I find to be both more fascinating than the film itself. Here is the first. During the shooting of Viva Zapata!, Marlon Brando decided to get into some strange stunts. At one point while in Texas, Marlon Brando set off a firecracker in the hotel. Then later on he sat at the top of a tree at three in the morning and sang to Jean Peters. When a group of reporters bumped into Brando while on set he told them he ate grasshopper and gazelle eyes. Finally, The following include a minor spoiler to the end of the film. If you know anything about history, this will not be a spoiler. After shooting the scene when Zapata is shot down by a large fire of bullets, Brando pretended to be dead for a long time. This terrified the entire cast and crew.

The second tale that occurred on the set of Viva Zapata was after it was revealed that Marlon Brando would play Zapata. Anthony Quinn believed he should have received the role as he looked more Latin American. He brought this point to Marlon Brando. They decided they would have a contest to see who could urinate farther into Rio Grande. Should Quinn lose the bet, Brando would keep the role of Zapata. Should Quinn win the bet, the role of Zapata would go to Anthony Quinn. In the end, Brando's urine traveled a farther distance and Quinn had to settle for the role of Zapata's brother, which he later won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for. All in all, I think he could live with losing the bet.

Elia Kazan worked on the script for Viva Zapata! with John Steinbeck. Apparently as the two would sit around in his New York apartment, Steinbeck would sit opposite Kazan and would whittle. After this, they had a long-lasting friendship.

THE PLOT:
Zapata is the leader of a delegation to report their injustices to the corrupt president, Porfirio Diaz. Time after time, Zapata is dismissed without begin given any thought. With no hope Zapata and his brother begin a rebellion with the help of the North (them being from the South).

Porfirio Diaz is removed from his power by the rebellion and the head of the North, Madero is put in charge.  However, much to Zapata's terror, nothing is different. Madero is just as corrupt in allowing injustices to occur. Even Zapata's own brother is disobeying everything Zapata agrees in. As time passes his world begins to collapse into nothing. The following include a minor spoiler to the end of the film. If you know anything about history, this will not be a spoiler. In the end, the new general who has just been appointed by Madero takes Madero captive and murders him. He then orders an ambush on Zapata and has him killed.

THE CRITICISM:
Viva Zapata! is the kind of film the out-right lies to you and a few Google searches can prove that. This is a film that shows Zapata as a brave rebellion leader... when really, he was a cowardice tyrant to his people. I have no issues with changing appearances of the characters, but Viva Zapata! overdid it. For the film that claims to biographical, it sure does do a lot of lying.

Marlon Brando (as usually) delivers a bewildering performance as Zapata. He combines the rebel character he would play in On The Waterfront with Mexican leader. Make-up did a great job making Brando look as if he were indeed Mexican. However, Brando did not deliver the sole brilliant performance in the film. Anthony Quinn (who as I said earlier did win an Academy Award for this) makes such an unexpected story of sudden corruption seem plausible. There is a great deal of chemistry between Brando and Quinn. This deal of chemistry is essential for the story as the two of them are supposed to pass for brothers. In watching Viva Zapata! it seems as if Brando and Quinn spent a long amount of time together off the set (and not all of that was spent urinating into Rio Grande). However, acting was not the greatest part of Viva Zapata!. Perhaps, it would have been if it weren't for Jean Peters had not starred in it. Her acting skills failed to help her elicit human emotion. Thankfully she does not have a great deal of lines as a lengthy amount of her screen time is spent starring at Marlon Brando as he walks around dramatically.

Viva Zapata is essentially and action-drama. There are multiple sequences of battle scenes followed by long scenes of human drama. This was Kazan only attempt at anything even slightly considerable to being an action film. This is a very bizarre selection for Elia Kazan as this is more of an adventure film than the films he made where the main character in a likable rebel. I'll just say it was enjoyable to see Kazan attempt something different.

By watching the first five or so minutes of Viva Zapata one can easily learn the film is an allegory for the corruption of power. However, as more and more time passes in the film they make this allegory less and less subtle. By the end of the film it can barely be called an allegory. I have said this in previous reviews: if there is one single thing I look for in a film - that is subtly. Viva Zapata! seems at times as if the word 'subtle' is a foreign concept. Partially, as Viva Zapata! is a melodrama at times. However, being a melodrama is no excuse for so overt with no chance for us to stop and think.

The film itself as a great deal of ups and downs. By the end of the film it balances out to an alright score.

Viva Zapata,
1952,
Directed by Elia Kazan
Starring: Marlon Brando, Anthony Quinn and Jean Peters
7/10 (B-)

Ranked:
1. Baby Doll
2. Panic in the Streets
3. Splendor in the Grass
4. The Last Tycoon
5. Boomerang!
6. Viva Zapata!
7. Pinky
8. Wild River
9. The Arrangement

Wild River (1960)

THE FILM:
Wild River is the kind of film I would never have watched if it weren't for Cinema Stripped Down. Not because it has a negative reputation, but because it's reputation is practically absent. The film was released in 1960, making it one of Elia Kazan's later films. Wild River stars Montgomery Clift and I want say it was a terrible performance but I would be offending a man who went through a terrible accident. In the late 1950s Clift was a victim of a very dangerous car crash that he never healed from - emotionally or physically. He went on to make films for another ten or so years. However he never delivered another good performance after his accident (no that he was too good an actor to begin with, see: I, Confess). Also starring in Wild River is Lee Remick who claimed Wild River was her personal favourite of her own films. She wasn't the only one who was awfully fond of Wild River, Kazan considered it to be his greatest of his own films as well. In fact, at one point in the 1970s, Elia Kazan attempted to buy the film's rights so it could be re-released to the public. However, the studio would only sell the rights to Wild River at too high a price for Kazan to purchase.

Bruce Dern made his film debut in a minimal part is Wild River. However, it was still a long time before he became a big name. Speaking of big names, June Carter Cash (Johnny Cash's wife) auditioned for the lead role. However, as you know the part was given to Lee Remick. Lee Remick selected the two actors to play her two children. The fact was selected since it looked like her at the age of seven. The other, the boy, was selected since he loved hugging and kissing Lee Remick. One final thought on big names, Marlon Brandon was Kazan's first choice for the role of Chuck. Marlon Brandon would have been beneficial for the film as he would have delivered a superior performance and being a larger name, a larger quantity of people would have seen Wild River.

Today, Wild River is Elia Kazan's second highest rated film on Rotten Tomatoes with 100% of critic's appreciation. As well, it receives a 7.6 on IMDb.

THE PLOT:
Wild River takes place around the Tennessee Valley in the early 1930s. For too long islands have been flooded by the overflowing river. TVA is a program that plans to build a dam so that the water will no longer cause havoc. However, in order for this dam to be built everyone living on a small island will need to vacate.

An agent named Chuck is sent to help evacuate the island. When he arrives he notices that they're giving him the cold shoulder. It seems nobody wants to leave. The island is run by an old woman named Ella. She has lived on the island her entire life. Her family was buried there and she will not leave. Chuck then meets Carol, Ella's granddaughter who is burdened with two children and no father. For a short time, Chuck becomes father to those two children as he falls in love with Carol.

And still Ella will not budge. It is not long before everyone has been convinced to leave by Chuck. In fact, everyone is ready to turn their backs to Ella and leave. However, Ella will not allow this.

THE  CRITICISM:
Wild River seems like that environmental film from before everyone was running around screaming about the environment. Of course, that does not last. Wild River has absolutely nothing not say about the world's environmental state, it is about the humanity's state. What I mean by that is rather than commenting on the environment on comments on anti-progress. It is never a question of whether destroying the island to build a dam is the right thing. It discuss if giving into the demands of those who wish to relocate their life and build the dam is the right thing. It was an interesting perspective, but the film would have been superior to it's current state should it have tackled more important issues.

As I quickly mentioned earlier, Montgomery Clift is terrible in this. I'll come right out and say it. He never shows emotion and ever line he reads sounds unnatural. Both truth be told, how can you blame a man who is slowly decaying for delivering a bad performance? Still, if you compare Wild River to I, Confess one could make a statement such as "Montgomery Clift's accident improved his acting skills." This is not the worst performance given by Montgomery Clift. It's one of them. This is also not the worst performance given by someone in a Kazan film. It is one of them. Montgomery Clift wasn't alone in bad acting. Lee Remick was close behind him. I felt like I was watching a sop opera every time the camera zoomed into to her large eyes. The character was not well written, nor was it well played. Finally, to top things off, Jo Van Fleet was fabulous as the elderly woman who runs the island and refuses to see it be taken away from her. At times her acting allows us to look at her as a senile woman who is in the way of progress. But by the end of the film we see everything through her eyes and want everyone to leave her alone.

As I have been working on this site I have began to notice that Elia Kazan's films are much more melodramatic than I expected. So far, if I had to choose one of Kazan's films to best represent melodrama, Wild River is at the top. From the ridiculous and cliche love story between Chuck and Carol to the over dramatic and predictable ending, I felt as if I spent a long time watching Wild River with my head in my hand.  By the end of the film you are wondering how many more times Carol will burst into tears and embraces Chuck as she whines about how bad her life is. How many more times will you have to sit through Chuck's emotionless yelling as he tries to convince people to leave the island? Melodrama can be done well, and it can be done poorly. It has been done poorly in Wild River.

If there's one thing I hate in classic films it is when Technicolor is used... but only because the film has a big budget. Not because it would enhance the film or anything. For example, Rear Window would have worked just as well should it have been in black and white. Don't get me wrong though, I love Rear Window. However, how can you compare it's use of Technicolor to how colour was used in Lawrence of Arabia. I will tell you this, Wild River uses Technicolor beautifully to illustrate the island's beauty and lush. Kazan's first Technicolor picture, East of Eden (which I have been working on my review for a while now) uses Technicolor uselessly as well. It is a story of characters and emotion. In the 50s and early to mid 60s, Technicolor made their films look too unnatural. To this day, I swear, Cary Grant's face looked orange in North by Northwest. However Kazan proved to be master of using colour in film with Wild River as he was able to present both dull and beautiful shades of colour.

As you have probably guessed, I did not like Wild River very much. But I can certainly understand how it would appeal to others. I will suggest it, as it was the kind of film that did not work for me personally.

Wild River,
1960,
Directed by Elia Kazan
Starring: Montgomery Clift, Lee Remick and Jo Van Fleet
6/10 (C-)

Ranked:
1. Baby Doll
2. Panic in the Streets
3. Splendor in the Grass
4. The Last Tycoon
5. Boomerang!
6. Pinky
7. Wild River
8. The Arrangement

The Last Tycoon (1976)

THE FILM:
In 1976 Elia Kazan was prepared to release his final film, The Last Tycoon. His previous two films, The Arrangement and The Visitors were not well received. Unfortunately, neither was The Last Tycoon. The film was based on a novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald of the same title. This was a difficult adaptation as Fitzgerald had died before the novel could be completed. Luckily for any fans the entire plot was mapped out.

Peter Bogdanovich turned down a chance to direct. After that, Mike Nicholas was hired to direct and he intended to hire Dustin Hoffman in the lead role as Monroe Stahr. After Nicholas was removed from directing The Last Tycoon, producer Sam Spiegel was left with no option but to track down an old friend who was practically retired. That old friend was Elia Kazan who never expected to be making anymore films.

The Last Tycoon currently holds a 47% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 6.3 on IMDb (putting it as Kazan's lowest ranking film. In Kazan's autobiography he wrote that part of the film's considered lack of quality was due to Sam Spiegel. It is said that Spiegel had a father respectful "father and son" relationship with the film's screenwriter, Harold Pinter. Perhaps it was respect and common decency among filmmakers that tore The Last Tycoon apart. Actually, I shouldn't say that because I felt it was an alright film.

Monroe Stahr was based off a close friend of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Irving Thalberg. He was a film producer who had his hay-day in the 20s. He is best known for Laugh, Clown, Laugh. It seems that Kazan and De Niro tried to keep The Last Tycoon as close as possible to what F. Scott Fitzgerald wanted. In fact, the final note that Fitzgerald ever wrote on the topic of "The Last Tycoon" (the novel that is) was the following "ACTION IS CHARACTER". Kazan and De Niro tried as hard as possible to follow this code, and personally I feel they succeeded.

The Last Tycoon is driven by a legendary cast. In the lead role we have Robert De Niro. In supporting roles we have the legendary Robert Mitchum and Ingrid Boulting. The rest of The Last Tycoon's cast were mainly extended cameos. Tony Curtis and Jeanne Moreau play the aging actors in a film Monroe is producing. Donald Pleasence is in one short scene as a alcoholic screenwriter who gets fired. Ray Milland, Dana Andrews and Anjelica Huston also star in this greatly acted drama.

THE PLOT:
The Last Tycoon takes place in the golden age of cinema. Monroe Stahr is a young and handsome film producer. His life seems to revolve solely around his work. He lives in the constant battle between actors, directors and screenwriters. One day while attending a high-class party he notices a woman who he is suddenly struck by as looking like someone from his past.

And so begins a short-lived romance between Monroe and this woman, Kathleen Moore. After learning that she is really engaged to be married to another man, Monroe enters a state of depression. As he begins to drink his life slowly falls apart. There is no more order in his life. Monroe finally snaps in a well-acted climactic scene where he beats up a screenwriter.

THE CRITICISM:
The Last Tycoon suffers from a clearly emotionless love story. the film is driven by this love story, that never feels sincere. However, I wouldn't call this a flaw of the film as it was writen that way in the original novel. That stort of unrealistic romance is common in Fitzgerald's novels (see "This Side of Paradise). What doesn't work about the romance in The Last Tycoon is perhaps the suddenness or perhaps it is the lack of character development in the character of Kathleen Moore (played mediocorely by Ingrid Boulting). We see her only in scenes with De Niro where she acts as if she just watched a bunch of Tallulah Bankhead  films and thought that is how you act. There is no realism in Ingrid Boulting's potrayl, only class.

I would very much like to congragulate Elia Kazan on bringing back acspects on classic films. For example, there are several scenes where we watch as Monroe carefully watches the black and white film that stars Tony Curtis and Jeanne Moreau. It was an entertaining tribute that I do not beleive was in that book, at least not in the same way as it it shown in the film.

Action is character. A perfect role that was perfectly followed in this film... in the case of De Niro's character. He is the only actor that does not seem like he is being acted. I am not desputing the talent of the cast, I am desputing the talent of screenwriter Harold Pinter. In writing The  Last Tycoon he failed to add any emotion aside from Monroe. Perhaps Kathleen was also an attempt to add realism, if so, Pinter failed even more. The Last Tycoon never digs as deep as everyone on the set was trying hard for it to. Perhaps The Last Tycoon would be a smarter film if it were an hour or so longer. The films as it is is too simple. It feels like it should be some sort of epic on the topic of film production. As well, adding more time to the film would allow for Kazan to add character development and maybe even more great cameos.

There is a fair degree of bad writing in the film. However, that is made up for by great cameos. There are many moments when you look at the screen and say "Ha! That's Jack Nicholson!" or "...oh my! Is that Tony Curtis?". Elia Kazan knew what he was doing when he hired actors. Every actor who was cast best defines that role they were hired for (even though Harold Pinter barely lets us understand each character).

I would like to say that The Last Tycoon is not this massive cinematic dissapointment it's reputatino has taken. Perhaps it was not exactly The Godfather-esque film everyone seemed to be hoping for. However, Elia Kazan clearly put a lot into maknig his last film a meomerable one. Still I can't help but think he sold out... slighly. From hiring all major actors to big extravangte sets it seems as if Kazan may have been after the same thing as all the other producers in The Last Tycoon. Money.

The Last Tycoon,
1976,
Directed by: Elia Kazan,
Starring: Robert De Niro, Robert Mitchum and  Ingrid Boulting
7.5/10 (B+)

Ranked:
1. Baby Doll
2. Panic in the Streets
3. Splendor in the Grass
4. The Last Tycoon
5. Boomerang!
6. Pinky
7. The Arrangement