Why did the Mexican Goverment not Like It?
-
oldblackandwhite — 15 years ago(October 08, 2010 10:23 PM)
I was preparing to start a post with the same question when I saw yours. I can't see why the Mexican government would have had any kick on this point. The Mexicans in the movie were portrayed as brave and noble. Is there any other source for this other than Eli Wallach? He in fact had nothing to do with this movie and may not have known what he was talking about.
On the other hand the two other nationalities involved, Americans and French, were both portrayed in a bad light. All the Americanos except for Gary Cooper's character were portrayed as cruel, scummy, scheming and mercenary. The French are portrayed as cruel, scheming, and cynical. The French would probably consider such as complimentary, and we Americanswell, we just know it is only a movie.
He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good St. Matthew 5:45 -
S_Leone — 15 years ago(October 09, 2010 02:21 PM)
Somehow i don't think the french would like that
In my eyes the french were shown in a positive light. But they were fooled a coupl of times by the Gringos. Maybe they were seen as dupes or pawns? Or is it possible the Mexican Goverment didn't lioke the politics of the film? -
oldblackandwhite — 15 years ago(October 09, 2010 06:38 PM)
I can't see how the French were portrayed positively. Remember the count (Ceasar Romero) and Maximilian were planning to kill all the American mercenaries once they had used them for their purposes. The French countess (Denise Darcell) was as bad as Burt Lancaster's character, except for being cleaner. Above all, the French were shown as being cruel oppressers of the Mexican people, which is quite simply a historically accurate portrayal.
What politics did the movie have? Showing the Mexicans bravely and noblely fighting for their independnce against the cruel, oppressive French, who didn't have any claim on Mexico in the first place, even if their government had been benevolent. That's about it, and I don't see any reason the Mexican government or anyone else (except maybe diehard French Imperialists) would have any complaint about it.
Until I see evidence from a good source that the Mexicans actually complained about their portrayal in Vera Cruz (such as quoting a period government document), I will regard it as a groundless myth.
He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good St. Matthew 5:45 -
S_Leone — 15 years ago(October 10, 2010 11:45 AM)
sorry i made a mistake in my last post i should have said
"In my eyes the french were shown in a positive light. But they were fooled a coupl of times by the Gringos. Maybe they were seen as dupes or pawns?"
There didnt seem to much politics in the film but i thought that maybe it referenced some event or historical figure in Mexican history that only a mexican viewer would notice. But thats only a guess -
oldblackandwhite — 15 years ago(October 10, 2010 07:33 PM)
From what I can tell by reading the IMDb trivia sections that quotes(indirectly) Eli Wallach as to the the Mexican government being offended, he is the one that started this idea based on what he heard while he was in Mexico working on The Magnificent Seven. I can only speculate that he got it 2ond or 3rd hand and got the movie they were talking about mixed up. A lot more likely Hollywood movie to have offended the South of the Border government was "Viva Zapata!" with Marlin Brando made about 3 years before Vera Cruz. It was about the 20th century Mexican civil wars, and showed real historical figures and situations, not always in a positive light.
Maximilian, of course, was a real historical figure. I don't know if the Mexican revolutionary general played by Morris Akrum was or not, but he was shown very positively in any case. Vera Cruz actually gave the Mexican revolutionaries a pretty good white wash. It didn't show how there were two competing sides, both fighting against the French as well as against each other, playing the French off against each other, the generals often switching sides and sometimes joining with the French when it suited them, all three sides killing any poor peasant suspected of supporting one of the others. Our own Civil War was going on during part of all this, and the two different Mexican groups often tried to get either the Union or the Confederate armies who were fighting on the other side of the Rio Grande involved in their own war either for money or military advantage. A Texas Confederate Colonel (Rip Ford) reported in his autobiography that during this time, a French general offered to sell him one million percussion caps (obviously to be stolen from his own army's stores).
He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good St. Matthew 5:45 -
whatsupomar — 15 years ago(October 27, 2010 07:40 AM)
You are absolutely correct in doubting this whole Mexican government issue until solid facts are presented. My opinion is that it never happened. I knew personally both Cesar Romero and Sarita Montiel and we spent a lot of times discussing Vera Cruz. The subject of an opposition by Mexican authorities never came up. I also had the opportunity to meet Burt Lancaster before and after the 1986 Golden Eagle Awards in which he presented the life achievement trophy to Sarita Montiel, and he candidly spoke about Vera Cruz and the excellent work done by Robert Aldrich due to the difficult logistics of filming in those locations and with so many extras. Mr. Lancaster made no mention to any trouble with the Mexican government. On the contrary, it seems the government welcomed the production and supported it because 1) it employed a lot of locals 2) it attracted tourism by showing the magnificent Chapultepec Castle, the Tehuacan Pyramids, etc.
-
oldblackandwhite — 15 years ago(October 27, 2010 08:36 PM)
Thanks, Mr. M___(whatsupomar). Nice to hear someone who actually knows something about the movie at least second hand! I always liked Cesar Romero. Just watched him last week in one his early numbers, Josef Von Sternberg's "The Devil is a Woman". Wow! what a movie!
Re: Operation Amsterdam post: Sarita Montiel could have walked off with me, too! She stole the show from the French hottie in Vera Cruz.
He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good St. Matthew 5:45 -
whatsupomar — 15 years ago(October 28, 2010 06:15 AM)
I have fond memories of Mr. Cesar Romero. He was a real gentleman, a charming man with a lot of class, a personality and a very talented actor. Of course he was so good-looking that he is condemned forever to being underrated as an actor. But if you take a close look at his work you might be amazed at the variety of roles he played from Valentino-type lovers to song and dance musicals, ethnic characters and tough guys, he did it all and did it well.
In reference to Sarita Montiel you might be glad to know that she is still going strong at 82. She is a living legend in most of Europe and Latin America due to the musicals she made in the late 50s, 60s and 70s. She has sold millions of records worldwide and her autobiography was a best seller in 2000. She performs quite frequently on stages and TV, has streets named after her, a park with her bare-chested sculpture and her own museum of memorabilia open to the public.
Now that you brought up The Devil Is A Woman and we are in a blog discussing an alleged government opposition to a film, itll be fitting to mention the Dietrich-von Sternberg classic. When Devil was released in 1935 it shocked the Government of Spain for its unfair treatment of Spanish characters namely Marlenes Concha Perez who is nothing but an outrageous harlot in the film. With the cooperation of our own State Department, the Spanish government succeeded in pulling the film out of distribution requesting from Paramount that all copies be burned. After years in which it was thought the film was lost forever, Marlene pulled out of her trick hat a mint copy which was shown at a von Sternberg film festival in 1959. Thanks to that we are able to enjoy today that marvelous production, one of the most visually astounding movies ever made. -
oldblackandwhite — 15 years ago(October 28, 2010 08:38 PM)
I agree. All of Sternberg's strange and wonderful movies are visually striking, but The Devil is a Woman has to be his masterpiece. As far as the story went, it was all played for laughs anyway. The Spanish government (the pre-Franco Republic at the time) should have had more of a sense of humor about it.
He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good St. Matthew 5:45 -
whatsupomar — 14 years ago(January 13, 2012 05:23 AM)
You should see "Vera Cruz" because it is an excellent film not because of political content. However, if you must know, it does portray Maximilian's regime as abusive and corrupt while the "juaristas" are the freedom fighters. By the way, if you are truly Mexican you should know that in Mexico Benito Juarez is the acknowledged hero not Maximilian.
-
LuisLEONFC — 14 years ago(January 14, 2012 07:45 PM)
He was aided by the Catholic church to get out of the misery. Made him a civilized person. Taught him to eat in the table, with spoons and forks. To dress in a proper manner. Jurez's payback was with ingratitude and treason to that church which had taken him out of the misery. Years later he became rich by selling church's properties. To this day,150 years later, his descendants still live happily because of the product of all that stealing. He came to power not much because of his capacities, but because of his appereance. Facing a crisis, they chose him because of his underdog image. His contemporaries define him as "a closed person" "of mediocre intelligence" and "not a very good speaker/orator". "He barely spoke or laugh". When he became the governor of Oaxaca he was a good parishioner, he urged his workers to pay tithe, confess , and commune to ask for divine help. This demonstrates his dual personality, his acommodative trailing character, always subordinate to the dominant forces of each moment. Contrary to what many think, Jurez didn't make the reform. He came to power after the Reform War, when everything had already been made by others. In reality, these laws were given to the then also Francmason Valentn Gmez Faras by the United States in 1835. Also, Jurez did not defeat the French either. They left because the United States(which supported Jurez)had already ended their civil war and could now confront the French army. This is the truth, Jurez's liberals never could defeat the French. The battle of fifth of may was just an inconsequential skirmish, the French remained invincible.
"Jurez the democrat" is another lie. In the presidential elections of 1871, Benito Jurez, Sebastin Lerdo De Tejada, and Porfirio Daz presented themselves as candidates, resulting in Jurez as being the apparent winner, although with evident electoral frauds. So he never was the constitutional president, nor was he chosen by the people. In response, Porfirio Daz raise up in arms with the Noria Plan to remove Jurez from power but he failed.
Jurez posed himself as president for 15 years without any respect of the existing laws. Because of this, Jurez was a dictator. Also, he killed many people. He got rid of his political enemies outside any constitutional order and murdered with impunity.
In 5 years, from 1867 to 1872, he shed more blood than the general Porfirio Daz in 30 years. To his enemies, his phrase "respect the rights of others is peace" was never true.
Jurez, the "example of his indigenous race".
Jurez never showed to be proud of his indigenous origin. On the contrary, apparently he seemed ashamed of it. He himself married a Creole woman. And he married all of his offspring with people of caucasian origin. In an effort to get farther and farther away from his indigenous origin.
He never did anything for the indigenous people.
Jurez, "the great patriot".
The above defines him as a not very trustworthy man, ungrateful, accommodative, racist, a thief, a murderer, with an inferiority complexBut this is nothing compared to his worst aspect..
A traitor to the fatherland.
Jurez was a Francmason, member of those American lodges, whose ultimate end was to take United States' hegemony over the world.
Ever since Jurez was the governor of Oaxaca he showed his submission or admiration for the americans. In 1847, while all of the country was fighting against them deffending the Mexican sovereignty, Jurez didn't do anything, he didn't say a word against the americans, he didn't send any soldiers to support the national defense against the worst invasion Mxico has ever suffered which ultimately cost it to lose half its territory.
All of the Mexican Francmasons, or Hispanoamericans, where puppets either consciously or unconsciously of the United States. From Hidalgo, Bolvar, or even the liberals or Jurez himself.
All of the Masons served the american objective. First, to destroy the enormous Spanish empire by independizing its colonies. Second, to increase the United States territory at the expense of Mxico, stealing as much territory as possible.
Jurez got tired of selling the territory to the United States with the pretext that they would recognize him as president.
He signed treaties with the United States so they could have access from the Mazatlan (steps?, only translation I could come up with) to Matamoros, Nogales to Guaymas, and all the Tehuantepec isthmus(from Tabasco to Chiapas) giving those roads to the sovereignty of the americans with permission to kill, arrest and possess lands, in the disastrous MAC LANE-OCAMPO TREATY.
If you still don't believe me, I'll show you a part of that shameful treaty, and you can verify it in any library or the internet.
Mac Lane-Ocampo treaty, an authentic jewel of the treason to the fatherland in all the history of any place.
"Treaty of transit and commerce between Mxico and the United States underwritten by Robert Mac Lane, minister of the United States in Mxico, and Melchor Ocampos, mi -
whatsupomar — 14 years ago(January 14, 2012 09:09 PM)
I have lived in Mexico and I live now in Los Angeles but I never heard any Mexican with your point of view. Benito Juarez is considered in Mexico one of the greatest heros of its independence as it is written in all Mexican history books. That said, you have the right to your own opinion. However, this blog has nothing to do with the subject of Juarez or if he was good or bad. Please take your outlandish opinions to some historical blog.
-
LuisLEONFC — 14 years ago(January 14, 2012 09:55 PM)
You obviously didn't read the whole thing. Please inform yourself. More and more people with my point of view are coming out.100 years too late but the truth is coming out nonetheless.
Also, I was just explaining to you why Jurez is not a hero.
By the way, you are confusing yourself. Jurez has nothing to do with Mxico's independence(which is full of lies too, but I'm not getting into that right now. If you want to learn about it there are many books that do tell the true but I recommend you "Hidalgo e Iturbide, La Gloria y el olvido"), he was 15 when Mxico gained its independence.
Don't want to sound rude but, stop trying to tell me about my own culture. -
LuisLEONFC — 14 years ago(January 15, 2012 11:42 AM)
Meanwhile I remind you that I was just telling you why Jurez is not a hero. I should remind you also that you were the one who started talking about Jurez.
Also, it's not an excellent film if its based on lies.
Now leave. You don't know anything about Mxico or its culture.