THE ROLE OF PANCHO VILLA IN THE

MEXICAN AND THE AMERICAN CINEMA

Deborah E. Mistron
The Ohio State University
-Pero Sl se decirIe, amigo Montanes-dijo uno de los de Natera-que si usted Ie
cae bien a mi general Villa, Ie regala una hacienda; pero si Ie choca ... , jno mas 10
manda fusliarL ..
. . . Y como Anastasio Montanes preguntara a su interlocutor si la gente de
Natera habra peleado ya junto con la de Villa, se vino a cuenta de que todo 10 que
con tanto entusiasmo estaban platieando solo de oidas 10 sablan, pues nadie de
ellos Ie habra visto jamas la eara a Villa.
["Look here, friend," one of Natera's men told AnastasiO, "if General Villa
takes a fancy to you, he'll give you a ranch on the spot But if he doesn't he'll
shoot you down like a dog!"
... Anastasio Montanes questioned the speaker more particularly. It was not
long before he realized that all this high praise was hearsay and that not a single
man in Natera's army had ever laid eyes on Villa.]
Mariano Azuela, Los de abajo [The Underdogs]
As the title suggests, this paper proposes to elaborate the components of Pancho
Villa's image in the cinema, and to examine and compare a number of representative
films from Mexico and the United States in which Villa appears as a major character. In
order to better understand Villa's cinematic portrayals, however, it is necessary to begin
with a brief summary of the major events in his life.
Born Doroteo Arango in the state of Durango in 1878, Francisco "Pancho" Villa
escaped peonage on an hacienda as a child and later became the hero of peons in the
state of Chihuahua by eluding the local rura/es [Porfirio Diaz' rural police force] and
stealing the cattle of the largest landowner in the state, the Terrazas family. Inspired by
local leader Abraham Gonzcilez, Villa joined the 1910 revolution and helped to ensure
the downfall of Porfirio Diaz, who had ruled Mexico since 1876, and Francisco I.
Madero's election to the presidency in 1911-12. Pascual Orozco, a northern revolution-
ary who was dissatisfied with his rewards for helping Madero, soon rebelled against the
new government Villa, however, remained loyal and aided General Victoriano Huerta
of the Federal army in his campaign against Orozco and his army in 1912. After
Madero's betrayal and murder by Huerta, Villa (leader of a revolutionary army in
northern Mexico called the Diuision de/Norte [Divi'liun of the North]) joined with Venus-
tiano Carranza (former governor of the state of Coahuila and leader of the Constitu-
tionalist Army) in order to overthrow Huerta. During this time, Villa also reorganized the
state government of Chihuahua and attempted to implement social and economic
reforms. After Huerta's resignation in 1914, Carranza and Villa vied for national power.
After losing two decisive battles at Celaya in 1915, Villa was forced to retreat north while
1
Carranza assumed control of the national government in Mexico City. Feeling betrayed
by the United States, which had recognized Carranza's government, Villa began to raid
border towns and attack Americans. With the death of sixteen people in a Villista raid on
Columbus, New Mexico, in 1916, the United States sent a punitive expedition under
General John Pershing into Mexico to capture Villa. With the aid of many Mexicans who
remained loyal to him, Villa eluded his pursuers and continued his guerrilla warfare in
northern Mexico. In 1917, he was persuaded to lay down his arms by the offer of an
hacienda in Durango. Villa then retired for several years, until he was assassinated in
Parra! in 1923. His murder has generally been attributed to the Mexican government,
which was afraid that Villa might come out of retirement in order to oppose the succes-
sion of Plutareo Calles to the presidency.
Although this outline summarizes Villa's historical role in the revolution, it barely
begins to elucidate the reasons for his frequent appearance in the popular culture of both
Mexico and the United States. In order to explain the perennial fascination of this histori-
cal figure, one must take into account the force of his dynamic personality in conjunction
with the historical events. As the above quote from Los de abajo indicates, as early as
1915, the Mexican novelist Mariano Azuela pinpointed certain contradictory qualities
which characterized the charismatic leader of the Division del NoTte. Villa's personal
charm, magnanimity, vitality, and military cunning earned him the fierce loyalty of his
men and an extraordinery amount of popular appeal, both in MexiCO and in the United
States. At the same time, Villa possessed a rather simplistic code of ethics, and tended to
be capridous, impulsive, and cruel. During the revolution, Villa became a hero because
of his concern for social justice for the lower classes, and because of his defiance of the
oligarchy, the bourgeois revolutionary caudillo [leader] Carranza, and the United States;
he also developed a reputation for unpredictability and brutality, due to his occasionally
arbitrary administration of justice, the massive execution of prisioners of war, the
plundering of conquered towns, and his raids on border towns. Although the soldier in
the above quote exaggerates Villa's impetuosity. his comment captures the essence of
Villa's contradictory, and ultimately elusive, character.
Pancho Villa is thus a compelling and controversal figure whose combination of
noble and base impulses has elicited extreme reactions on both sides of the border. As a
result, a fair appraisal of his historical role is difficult for the historian as well as the film-
maker. Historical assessments of Pancho Villa have differed widely, as have his various
portrayals in the cinema. Nevertheless, many historians have attempted, with varying
degrees of success, to provide a balanced and reasonably objective portrait of Villa, or at
least to separate fact from legend.
1
For several important reasons, very few cinematic
portraits have been able to provide a balanced vision of Villa. First of all, the cinema
makes few claims to historical objectivity. It incorporates both the facts and the legends
which form around certain historical figures, and Villa has been particularly vulnerable to
legendary distortions of his character since he first gained notoriety as a cattle rustler in
Chihuahua before the revolution. In addition, the cinema has long demonstrated a
strong penchant for melodrama, that is, the tendency to concoct stories with stereo-
typically virtuous heroes and vicious villains and a rigid and simplistic code of good and
evil. Villa's rather contradictory combination of attributes, however, makes him difficult
to fit into exemplary and sharply defined ethical categories. As a result, he has been par-
ticularly vulnerable to both positive and negative distortions of his character in order to
reinforce certain moral, ethical, and political values.
Paradoxically, the very legends which may impede historical assessment of certain
characters and events can serve several important historical functions. The process of
2
forming legends around a revolutionary leader within his own country can serve two
primary functions. During the military phase of a revolution, the stories which emphasize
a leader's skill, cunning, bravery and invincibility assure the loyalty of his soldiers. At the
same time, a very famous and popular leader comes to embody the ideals and goals of
the revolution, and thus seems to provide concrete assurance of eventual victory and
implementation of those ideals. Such legendary heroes help to ensure the success of a
revolution.
2
The second function of a revolutionary hero is to help the new regime created by a
successful revolution to consolidate its victory. If the leader has died, he becomes part of
the pantheon of heroes who embody the revolutionary ideology which the new regime
wishes to disseminate throughout SOCiety: "It is one of the first tasks of a successful revo-
lution to impose its own myths on the whole of society, fuse them with the traditional
body of national patriotism, and so broadcast the idea that this particular revolution has
been the last one ever necessary in the country."3 The broad circulation of heroic
legends about revolutionary martyrs thus helps to reinforce patriotism and stabilize the
institutions of the post-revolutionary society.
Uke the Mexican novel of the revolution, the Mexican cinema has participated in the
task of institutionalizing the revolution. Due in part to the encouragement of the govern-
ment, the late twenties and thirties saw the resurgence of novels of the revolution in
Mexico. This movement coincided with the advent of synchronized sound in the cinema
and the consolidation of the fledgling Mexican film industry in the thirties, at which time
Mexico began to produce many films about the recent revolution. Largely due to differ-
ent conditions of production, however, the Mexican cinema has traditionally been less
critical of the revolution and of post-revolutionary society than has the novel, and has
been much more disposed to echo official rhetoric and glorify the revolution. A novel is
usually the product of one creative mind, can be produced and published with a relative-
ly small outlay of capital, and requires only a relatively small public to recoup the initial
investment A film, on the other hand, is usually a collective financial and crative venture,
so that the vision of one individual tends to be diluted in the process of production. In
addition, a film requires a relatively large initial investment and a wide audience in order
to tum a profit With a few exceptions (most notably during the administrations of Lazaro
Cardenas in 1934-40 and Esteban Echeverria in 1970-76, when the government
actively supported the film industry), the Mexican cinema has depended on the financial
backing of wealthy entrepeneurs who gained prominence after the revolution and
demanded wide audience appeal and a rapid return on their initial investment As a
result, the cinema has tended to pander to the rather conservative taste and ideology of
those who support it, and has been less critical of the shortcomings of the revolution and
more apt to glorify it It is therefore hardly surprising that the first Mexican film with
Pancho Villa as the protagonist portrays him as an exalted, mythical hero in an extremely
patriotic and melodramatic prodUction. The film was Revolucion [Revolution], or La
sombra de Pancho Villa [The Shadow of Pancho Villa], made in 1932 by former revolu-
tionary Miguel Contreras Torres.
4
At about the same time, the advent of synchronized sound led to a renewed interest
in Latin America within the American film industry. Suddenly Hollywood, which had
been making a considerable amount of money by distributing its silent films in Latin
America, was faced with the problem of foreign audiences who did not understand
English and, due, to the high illiteracy rate, often could not read subtitles either. One solu-
tion to this problem was the production of Spanish-language American films. In 1930,
for example, over forty "Hispanic" films were made by Hollywood..
5
The protagonist of
3
-
one of those forty films was a fictionalized Pancho Villa, who had l r e d ~ become famil-
iar to film audiences through newsreels, short fiction films and documentaries of the
silent period. According to a quote in Garda Riera' 5 Historia documental del cine mEOO-
cano [Documentary History of the Mexican Cinema], El hombre malo [The Bad Man],
directed by William McGann, was" 'based on a popular work inspired by the adventures
of the Mexican bandit [sic] Pancho Villa."'6
The two films mentioned above, the first two sound films which included Pancho
Villa as a major character, emphasize the two extremes of the possible interpretations of
his character-the bandit vs. the heroic popular leader. Along with Villa's essentially
contradictory nature and the many legendary distortions of his life, certain national atti-
tudes have also contributed to the great diversity in his cinematic portrayal. In Mexico,
certain aspects of Villa's career have led to official embarrassment and ambivalence
towards Villa, but they have also had the opposite effect of adding to his popular appeal,
e.g., his split with Carranza, who later became president, his provocation of the United
States government by his border raids, and his assassination in 1923, which has been
attributed to the government He is the brave leader who never shrinks from danger nor
allows others to take advantage of him; indeed, he is often the aggressor against outside
forces which threaten him and the people and ideals he represents. When viewed in this
light, even acts of seemingly arbitrary violence can be rationalized as necessary for the
defense (or the justifiable retribution) of the downtrodden against such powerful oppres-
sors as the official army, the counter-revolutionaries, and the United States. These atti-
tudes, coupled with official eagerness to exploit the popularity of revolutionary heroes in
order to foster patriotism and to ensure political stability, have contributed to the
Mexican cinema's tendency to whitewash Villa by overlooking his shortcomings and
glorifying his exploits.
In the United States, Villa's swashbuckling adventures have gained him a great deal
of popularity, but the negative aspects of his career have caused a certain amount of
ambivalence and/or downright disapproval, e.g., his execution of a British owner of an
hacienda, his border raids, and the Pershing expedition. These attitudes are reflected in
the cinema. The American version of Pancho Villa, which generally tends to oscillate
between two visions of banditry, has several sources. During the revolution, the image of
the Mexican as a rapacious bandit was already firmly entrenched in American popular
mythology through popular journalism, literature, and films.
7
Americans could regard
Villa as a heroic bandit only as long as they could overlook his shortcomings and con-
sider him an idealistic defender of the downtrodden and a crusader against tyranny and
injustice similar to Robin Hood; the more violent aspects of his career, however, turned
American public opinion against him, and from this viewpoint he was remolded to fit the
stereotypical role of the unscrupulous Mexican bandit
In either of these two possible roles, as Robin Hood or unscrupulous bandit, the
American preoccupation with banditry (i.e., the use of violence) predominates. The only
justification for violence, however, is to defend democracy or to defend the down-
trodden against tyranny, as did Robin Hood against Prince John, Richard the Uon-
hearted's regent and would-be usurper. Villa's defense of Madero, the "apostle of
democracy," and his campaigns against such counter-revolutionary villains as Diaz the
dictator and Huerta the usurper could be easily cast in this mold, but as soon as his
violence appears to be motivated by personal gain, revenge, cruelty or caprice, justifica-
tion for his activities becomes more difficult Acts of violence which are regarded as
wanton, gratuitous, vindictive or selfish would seriously damage a Robin Hood. image,
especially in the United States, where one of the major concerns of its national
4
mythology, particularly that of the West, has been to establish a set of ethics governing
the use of violence, which American heroes must uphold and cannot transgress.
8
Villa's
checkered career, therefore, has made it difficult for Hollywood to fit him into either of
the two categories of bandits. As a result, the films tend to seesaw between the two,
without reaching a coherent assessment of his character.
Viva Villa! [Long Live Villa!], an American film biography of 1934 directed by Jack
Conway, provides a concrete example of the difficulties involved in achieving a coherent
vision of Villa. Like the book on which it is based, Viva Villa! is an unsuccessful attempt at
a more complex and balanced portrait of Villa. 9 Perhaps one of the major reasons for the
film's shortcomings lies in the inherent difficulty of transferring an extremely complicated
story which covers some 377 pages of Pinch on's book (and which would necessitate not
only the depiction of Villa's actions but an exegesis of the military phase of the revolution
as weI) to a film of less than two hours' duration. The film eliminates many important and
illuminating scenes, Simplifies others, and reduces the analysis of the historical and politi-
cal background to brief explanato:r:y intertitles which bridge the numerous gaps in the
narration. The result is an extremely simplified, schematic biography and a choppy,
episodic film that bears only a tangential relationship to historical fact
Perhaps the most objectionable aspect of the film, however, is the Wallace Beery
portrayal of Villa himself, especially the "comic overtones" in his role.
10
Viva Villa!
exaggerates and distorts Villa's shortcomings to such an extent that the film borders on
screwball comedy (Le., "a film whose humor is created mainly out of developing ludi-
crous situations involving zany or absurdly exaggerated characters, e.g., Howard
Hawks' Twentieth Century").11 Ben Hecht, who is famous for, among other works, his
screenplay for Twentieth Century, included several offensive running jokes in his screen-
play for jViva Villa!. Two examples are Villa's notorious womanizing and his illiteracy
(actually, Villa did eventually learn to read), which lead to a continual conflict with his
scribe, who insists on drawing pigeons on Villa's letters and paper money, despite Villa's
protests that he prefers bulls-an appropriate preference, given Villa's portrayal as a
clumsy Don Juan in this film. In addition, Villa is portrayed as overly-sentimenal, especi-
ally where "the littler feller," Madero, is concerned, and overly-preoccupied with his
image in the media.
The last scene of the film illustrates many of the above observations, and sheds light
on the nature of the basic contradiction which underlies the film. In the last scene, Villa is
shot down in front of a butcher shop (this choice of location emphasizes Villa's major
shortcoming, his use of violence). His speech, in which he asks an American corres-
pondent, Johnny, to provide him with his last words, is not only pathetically comic, but
also reveals his lack of education, his desire for praise and fame, and his preoccupation
with his place in history. Johnny's version of Villa's parting words to posterity emphasizes
Villa's questionable use of violence, while Villa's response reveals his lack of compre-
hension of the issues involved.
Johnny: Goodby, my Mexico. Forgive me for my crimes. Remember if I sinned
against you, it was because I loved you too much.
Villa: What I done wrong? (Closeup of medal around his neck)
By juxtaposing Johnny's words with those of Villa, this pathetic and patronizing
ending reinforces the contradiction between Villa's violence (Le., his "crimes",) and his
accomplishments'(Le., his medal, awarded for his "rescue" of Mexico from Huerta, and
the last intertitle, which speaks of a "new MexiCO, dedicated to justice and equality," and
5
which asserts that' 'the wild heart had not fought in vain"). By leaving Villa's dying ques-
tion of "What I done wrong?" unanswered, the film leaves open the question of whether
the ends have justified the means. Throughout the film, Villa is criticized for his use of
violence; even Villa himself worships the gentle, forgiving and peaceloving Madero.
Madero's love of peace, however, also means that he is weak and ineffectual, for in the
film, it is Villa who wins the war against Huerta and passes the new refonn legislation.
Ultimately, therefore, the film shows that Villa's violence is necessary to create the "new
Mexico" which is dedicated to the ideals of "justice and equality," but the film also is
compelled to condemn the means which led to this end ..
To borrow certain prototypes from the American Western, Villa is both gunfighter
and laWgiver, or, to give a concrete analogy, a blend of the John Wayne and Jimmy
Stewart characters of John Ford's 1962 classic Western, The Man Who Shot Liberty
Valance. This uneasy amalgam of two conflicting prototypes reveals the American
ambivalence towards Pancho Villa and allows Viva Villa! to Simultaneously laud and
condemn him. The John Ford film deals directly with the problem of the necessity for
violence in order to found and uphold a democratic civilization against the forces of
savagery and lawlessness; Viva Villa! also appears to reinforce this frontier lesson, but it
avoids any direct confrontation with this issue by its-refusal to allow Villa to reach the
same level of moral awareness as the Wayne and Stewart characters. After a Ufetime of
experience and accomplishments, the Villa of the final scene is still a child; he has never
attained the moral maturity of nearly every decent denizen of the West in American
cinema. Even as he is dying, he is still asking (significantly, he asks an American), "What I
done wrong?" -the basic question which haunts the film and remains unanswered.
12
In contrast to iViva Villa!, the 1935 film by Fernando de Fuentes, jVcimonos con
Pancho Villa! [Let's Go with Pancho Villa!] does not attempt a biography of Villa; in-
stead, it attempts to provide an assessment of Villa as a revolutionary leader and his effect
on the men who followed him. Based on the first half of Rafael F. Munoz's rather episo-
dic and sensational 1931 novel of the same name,13 and filmed with a subsidy from the
Cardenas administration,14 the film focuses on the fate of "Los Leones de San Pablo"
["The Lions of San Pablo"], on six men who join Villa's anny and are killed one by one,
until the last survivor, discouraged and disillusioned, decides to desert the anny.
The opening sequences establish the film' 5 major thematic conerns. When the lions
first join the revolution, they are full of a vague but enthUSiastic idealism which is soon
reinforced by their observations of Villa. As the six men approach his train for the first
time, Villa (Domingo Soler) is distributing food to a hungry crowd; their first gUmpse of
their idol reinforces his public image as the defender of the downtrodden. The film then
shows the more glamorous and exciting aspects of battie, the camaraderie among the
men, and most Significantly, the code of machismo upon which their behavior is based.
In one scene, for example, one of the Dons, Meliton, is humiliated when he cannot
match Villa's skill with a gun. This scene establishes Villa as the model for certain mascu-
line skills and traits which the other men strive to emulate. This scene also suggests cer-
tain underlying motivations for joining the revolutionary struggle, such as the desire to
demonstrate their skill and valor by defying death with fear, and to prove one's mascu-
linity by following Pancho Villa, their hero and role model. Significantly, the film is called
jVamonos con Pancho Villa! and not Vcimonos a fa Revolud6n [Let's Follow the
Revolution!].
The pervasive theme of death, which, according to the lions, should be met hero-
ically and stoically, and is therefore closely tied to the code of machismo, becomes the
central preoccupation of the film. Each of the next five sequences closes with the death of
6
one of the comrades.
The five deaths which follow are characterized by increasing senselessness, coupled
with increasing disillusionment on the part of Tiburcio, the one survivor. The first two
deaths occur in battle, while performing feats of valor. The two men's dying tributes to
Villa demonstrate that their feats were motivated more by the desire to prove their
bravery and their loyalty to the chief than by revolutionary fervor. The third death is a
turning point, as the Villistas inadvertently kill one of their own men during a daring
rescue mission. After this incident, the three surviving Lions are promoted to Villa's elite
cavalry, the "Dorados" ["The Golden Ones"]. Their rise in military prestige stands in
ironic contrast to the manner of the last two deaths, which occur in camp rather than on
the battlefield.
In the cantina, the Lions are invited to participate in a form of Russian roulette - "EI
drculo de la muerte" ["The Circle of Death"]-in which thirteen men, seated around a
table, toss a revolver into the air and allow it to discharge inside the circle. According to
superstition, the pistol will shoot whoever most fears death. Although the Lions do not
believe in such superstitions, they feel compelled to accept the challenge in order to
prove themselves to the other Dorados. Meliton, badly wounded and presumably
proven a coward, disproves this notion by declaring, "Ffjense como muere un Leon de
San Pablo" ["Watch how a Lion of San Pablo dies"], and shooting himself in the head.
Tiburcio angrily realizes the futility of this gesture.
Tiburcio's final disillusionment occurs when he is ordered to kill the youngest of the
Lions, Miguel Angel, who is ill with smallpox, and incinerate his body in order to prevent
an epidemic. Afraid of contamination, Villa will not approach Tiburcio. Villa's fear of
smallpox triggers Tiburcio's final disgust, disillusionment, and his decision to desert. He
salutes the funeral pyre and walks away into the darkness.
In the final scene, Tiburcio realizes that Villa is not the model macho that the Lions
had imagined him to be. They see him aiding the needy, and bravely encouraging and
inspiring his men in battle, but they also witness his acts of cruelty and caprice. At one
point, for example, Villa orders the execution of several Federal musicians who are
useless to him because the Villistas already have a band. He also appears callous and
unfeeling in the face of Miguel Angel's death. Villa's leadership and valor, which inspire
the soldiers' loyalty and their desire to emulate him, exact a certain price, for they go
hand in hand with the negative aspects of this kind <;>f masculine power-unpredictabil-
ity, indifference, isolation. Tiburcio's desertion, however, springs not so much from his
disillusionment with this code as from Villa's deviation from it; Villa has revealed his fear
of smallpox and thus, in Tiburcio's eyes, his fallibility, vulnerability, and ultimate
unworthiness. And since Villa and the revolution are virtually synonymous to Tiburcio,
disillusionment with one results in disillusionment with the other.
Implicit in this downbeat ending is a criticism of the revolution which is common in
the novels of the Mexican revolution. In such works as Los de abajo and jVamonos con
Pancho Villa!, the revolution is viewed as a struggle in which men with few ideals beyond
the masculine code of honor and bravery fought out of loyalty to a leader rather than
ideological conviction. Without such convictions, the revolution becomes a drculo de la
mueTte-a violent game which is played in order to prove masculine valor, and which
results in senseless carnage. Uke many American films, jVamonos con Pancho Villa!
criticizes the violence and bloodshed which is, nevertheless, frequently necessary for
revolutionary victory. Unlike in the American films, however, Villa's character is not
Simplified in order to make him a convenient vehicle for mediating the frontier conflict
between savagery and civilization. Instead, Villa is shown in all his historical ambiguity-
7
!II.
NX!
s'll
as an inspiring yet flawed leader who came to embody both the positive and negative
aspects of the revolution.
After jVamonos con Pancho Villa!, the figure of Villa did not receive another serious
portrayal on the screen until the 1970 adaptation of another famous work on the revolu-
tion, John Reed's Insurgent Mexico. In the meantime, during the forties, fifties, and
sixties, the image of Villa was guided by the requirements of legend, folklore, patriotism,
and the genre conventions of the melodrama, the musical, and the adventure film. One
representative example of the Mexican films of the forties which included Villa as a
character is the 1948 Si Adelita se juera con otro [If Adelita were to go off with Anotherl,
directed by Chano Urueta. Ironically, one of the major reasons for the failure of de
Fuentes' film jVamonos con Pancho Villa!, discussed above, to serve as a model for the
cinematic treabnent of Villa was the spectacular success of his next film, a 1936 musical/
ranch comedy entitled Alia el Rancho Grande [Ouer There at the Big Ranch], which
firmly pointed the Mexican cinema in a different direction. 1 S Adelita reflects the film
industry's inclination towards more lighthearted films with a conservative bent and! or a
reactionary longing for the stability, law and order of the Di'az regime. 16
Jorge Negrete plays Pancho Portillo, a singing and guitar-strumming revolutionary
with a dancing horse. When his jealous rival for Adelita's affections, the son of a local
political boss, has Portillo arrested as an arms smuggler, the Federal officer in charge
releases Portillo, explaining that he, too, is a revolutionary; he only remains with the
army out of a sense of duty, honor, and loyalty. Portillo's response-"jPalabra que es
usted un macho!" ["I swear, you're a real man!"]-offers the officer exceedingly high
praise, and ignores the fact that this same officer has presumably killed many of Portillo's
comrades in the name of duty. Once again, the manly qualities of personal loyalty and
honor outweigh political considerations. In jVamonos con Pancho Villa!, the soldiers,
out of ignorance, possess few ideological preoccupations; in Adelita, however, two con-
flicting ideologies are presented, then given an artificial and misleading reconciliation.
When several Federal officers, including the one mentioned above, are captured
and sentenced to be executed, Portillo persuades Villa (Pedro Armendariz) to release
them, not merely because one of them saved his life, but because they deserve the
pardon on moral and practical grounds. According to Portillo' 5 reasoning, Huerta is the
sole enemy of the revolution; Huerta' 5 military supporters, far from being ambitious pro-
fessionals, were true machos who had placed their military duty above other considera-
tions, while remaining revolutionaries in their hearts. If they were not revolutionaries
from the start, then the rebels' show of justice and mercy would easily convert them. The
film ignores the risk of subsequent betrayal by these officers, and also ignores the fact
that the simultaneous belief in these two sets of political convictions excludes the possi-
bility of absolute loyalty; to kill rebels is a betrayal of the revolutionary cause, while the
release of Portillo is a dereliction of duty to the Federal army. Consequently, by the time
of his capture, the officer has already betrayed both sides. The film, however, resolves
this conflict of loyalties by asserting that both the original demonstration of loyalty to the
Federales and his aid to the revolutionary cause are commendable actions.
This artificial, reactionary resolution is an example of historical revisionism which
corresponds to the more conservative policies of the presidential administrations of the
forties. The regimes of Manuel Avila Camacho (1940-46) and Miguel Aleman (1946-
52) emphasized national unity and rapid economic development at the expense of the
social reforms which the Cardenas regime of 1934-40 had encouraged. By transferring
all guilt to Herta, long since dead, and making him the counter-revolutionary scapegoat,
the film fosters national unity and attempts to eliminate any lingering antagonism by
8
~ ~ . ~
implying that almost everyone was actually a revolutionary at heart. In addition, the
film's emphasis on the Federal officer' 5 fidelity encourages loyalty to the anny and other
national instituions, and discourages rebellion by draining the revolution of one of its
vital convictions-that despite personal risks and traditional loyalties, one should revolt
against a regime that is illegitimate and/or unjust.
Thanks to Portillo, not only does Villa learn the value of mercy, but he also becomes
a surrogate father. At the end of the film, Villa is appointed godfather to the son of his
namesake (Le., Portillo), who will also be called Pancho. This shared fatherhood is
reinforced by an earlier intrigue, in which Portillo's rival makes it appear that Adelita and
Villa have arranged a romantic tryst, which causes a rift between her and Portillo. Thus
there is a suggestion of sexual complicity in Villa's godfatherhood, i.e., he is a co-father,
as implied by the Spanish word, compadre. After Portillo names him godfather, Villa
remarks joyfully that the newborn is "un soldado mas para la Division del Norte" ["one
more soldier for the Division of the North"]; the film makes Villa the progenitor of an
eternal Revolution which has been defused and institutionalized.
The film's title, which is excerpted from a line of the revolutionary ballad "La
Adelita," clarifies Villa's role. He is the "other" whom AdeUta might have chosen instead
of Portillo. (The use of identical first names, coupled with the fact that the two Panchos
call each other tocayo-a word used to address someone witht the same given name-
reinforces their roles as doubles for each other.) The use of Villa as Portillo' 5 double, or
"other," aids in the film's revisionism, for Portillo is a whitewashed version of Villa.
Portillo possesses the ideal attributes of the revolutionary hero-he is honorable, loyal,
merciful, faithful, idealistic, and most importantly, he has the proper conciliatory attitude.
The mise-en-scene, which favors Portillo, reinforces the film's preference. In one scene,
for example, he stands with his back to Villa, facing the camera and the audience as he
supposedly serenades his chief. Thus Adelita's preference for Portillo/Negrete is also that
of the film itself, for Pancho Portillo is the film's modified version of Pancho Villa as the
ideal revolutionary hero.
Miguel Contreras Torres' 1949 Pancho Villa vuelve [Pancho Villa Returns], is a
representative melodrama of the forties. It employs similar plot devices, but ends trag-
ically as a young lover must desert Villa in order to rescue his financee. Villa (Pedro
Armendariz) is then obliged to execute him for desertion, but not before he magnani-
mously allows the couple to be married. In this film, Villa is portrayed as the justidero, the
compassionate man who is sometimes forced to mete out harsh punishments because of
his honorable adherence to the letter of the law. Garda Riera's commentary aptly
conveys the rigidity of this portrayal when he remarks that Villa "no tenfa mas remedio
que fusilarlo para seguir siendo el mismo una figura hist6rica con vocacion de estatua
ecuestre. " ["He had no other option than to shoot him so that he himself could continue
as a historical figure with the role of an ecuestrian statue.")17
Ismael Rocliguez' 1957 filmAsi era Pancho Villa [Pancho Villa Was Like This], which
is comprised of discrete anecdotes taken from Pancho Villa's life and legend, is filmed in
garish color, and features a noticeably older and heavier Pedro Armendariz in the title
role, ten years after having played the same role in Pancho Villa vuelve. The final product
is even worse, if possible, than this description. Instead of unifying the many facets of
Villa's personalisty, most of which had already been stereotyped in earlier films, Asi era
Pancho Villa isolates one aspect in each episode and adds a final twist, which tends to
fragment and trivialize the film's subject Most of the episodes emphasize Villa as a Don
Juan, a Robin Hood, or a King Solomon. In Boda macabra [Macabre Wedding], for
example, a sergeant assaults a woman and kills her enraged husband. Brandishing a
9
book entitled Juicios de Salmon [Judgments of S%mon], Villa punishes the offender
and provides for the widow by an ingenious plot he marries the two, then executes the
sergeant 50 that the twice-widowed woman can qualify for his military pension. The
episodes with a jocular tone, such as this one, usually end with a wittcism, accompanied
by a lilting, ironic musical phrase. The more serious episodes generally have Villa weep
copiously or make some naive, sentimental and inconsequential remark
In spite of the film's more affectionate and tolerant attitude toward Villa's antics, its
portrayal of Villa as a sentimenal buffoon witha childish streak of cruelty rivals that of the
American portrait in jViva Villa! of twenty-five years before. This similarity shows that
neither country has a monopoly on the triviallzation of this important figure; in fact, the
film industries of both countries have perpetuated this process. As Garda Riera remarks,
in the case of the Rodriguez film, the formula was so simple and effective that the director
used it to make two more films: Pancho Villa y Ja Valentina [Pancho Villa and Valentina]
and Cuando jViva Villa! es la muerte [When "Long Live Villa!" Means Death], both
released in 1958.
18
Similarily, the American cinema made two more attempts to portray
Villa on the screen. Judging from the review in the New York Times, the 1958 Villa!,
directed by James B. Clark, is a muddled and boring adventure film; the second, Buzz
Kulik's 1968 Villa Rides! is a contemporary variant of jViva Vi/lal.
19
Villa Rides! focuses on an amoral and cynical American pilot (Robert Mitchum as Mr.
Arnold) who reluctantly cooperates with Villa (YulBrynner) during his campaign against
Orozco's men, who had rebelled against Madero. The film, which contains an inordinate
number of violent scenes such as battles and executions, provides some justification for
Arnold's suspicion that the rebels, especially Villa, are merely "shooting up a lot of
peons who couldn't care less which dog's on top anyway." Villa's character offers little
reassurance on that score; despite protests from his admirers that Villa is fighting for
democratic principles, as in Viva Villa!, Villa's acts of violence appear to contradict his
goal of justice and democracy for the downtrodden.
Villa Rides!, however, does alter Villa's character in two Significant ways. First, he is
no longer a buffoon (perhaps because such a role is out ofYul Brynner's range). In addi-
tion, the film wins sympathy for Villa by shifting much of the blame for the Villistas'
atrocities to his bloodthirsty assistant, Rodolfo Fierro (played by Charles Bronson). In
fact, Villa's character is so sketchy that his stance on the issue of violence is difficult to
discern.
The ultimate judgment of the worthiness of Villa and the revolution depends on the
outcome of the competition between Villa and Arnold for moral superiority. After several
arguments between Villa and Arnold and more twists and turns of the plot, including the
murder of Madero, Arnold decides to rejoin the Villistas in order to defeat Madero's
usurper, Huerta. The motivation behind Arnold's final affirmation of Villa's principles
and of the revolution, however, remains ambiguous. Presumably, Villa has convinced
Arnold to act for altruistic rather than selfish motives for once in his life. In the new
campaign which will begin after the film ends, Villa and Arnold will be ridding Mexico of a
dictator and defending democracy; thus Villa emerges as the major factor in Arnold's
transfonnation and the moral center of the film.
The final vindication of Villa appears to be, at first glance, an echo of the Western
frontier lesson that the use of violence in the defense of democracy is justifiable; Villa
Rides!, however, divorces Villa's vindication from the violence which permeates the film,
and thus sidesteps the issue. Ultimately, the film's refusal to come to grips with the
conflict between violence and democratic ideals transforms the depiction of violence
into a device for prOviding exciting action and adventure rather than for exploring this
10
ethical issue. As a result, the sudden transformation of the amoral Arnold into the altru-
istic Arnold is unconvincing, as is the vindication of the violent Villa by the democratic
Villa in the film. Thirty years after the making of Viva Villa!, the American cinema was still
inable to reconcile the two faces of Pancho Villa, the historical figure who could be, as the
opening intertitle affirms, both "patriot" and "tyrant"
In contrast, Paul Leduc's 1970 Reed: Mexico insurgente [Reed: Insurgent Mexico],
which is based on American journalist John Reed's account of his experiences in the
Mexican revolution, manages to combine the two faces of Villa into a unified vision in
just one scene. During Reed's interview with Villa (Heraclio Zepeda), they discuss Villa's
execution of William Benton, a British hadenda owner, and the pamphlet about the
international rules of war adopted by the Hague conference, which was sent to Villa by
an American, General Hugh L. Scott. The discussion in this one scene directly confronts
the issue of the ethical use of violence which both Viva Villa! and Villa Rides! raise but
ultimately sidestep.
When Reed asks Villa about his reasons for the execution of Benton, Villa's reply-
that the Englishman was one of three types of "sons of bitches" -demonstrates his
propensity to form strong opinions based on his emotional response to a situation rather
than on intellectual rumination. His comments on the "Rules of War," however, reveal
Villa's attempts to reason, however rudimentary they may seem. His response to his
study of the pamphlet is to formulate questions based on his own practical experience.
He finds it odd, for example, to make rules about warfare, since it is not a game; if one
were to have a fight in a cantina, one would not stop to review the rules beforehand.
Given his vision of warfare as a large-scale brawl in which both sides fight with no hands
barred, Villa finds it difficult to comprehend the difference between "civilized" war as
advocated by the pamphlet an any other kind of war.
This interview pinpoints the central issue of the controversy surrounding Villa-the
question of the choice of the proper means to an end which haunts the history books and
the two American films about Villa. This film refuses to either whitewash or condemn
him; instead, Reed: Mexico insurgente recreates the historical Villa in all his robust earthi-
ness, candor, humor, and most importantly, his ethical ambiguity. Because he realizes
the importance of international public opinion, Villa demonstrates some concern for the
ethics of his method of warfare. At the same time, however, he reveals his lack of educa-
tion, his reliance on a simplistic code of good and evil which does not always allow for the
subleties of his own complex historical situation, and his insistence on maintaining
independence and flexibility in handling this situation, despite international criticism. In
this one short scene, Leduc and Zepeda create a Villa with more verisimilitude than
many films which are .entirely devoted to his portrayal, and address the most important
ethical issues which surround him.
Given Villa's contradictory and elusive character, and the controversy which
surrounds his role in the revolution, it is hardly surprising that there should be so many
variations in Villa's portrayal on the screen. The very ambiguity of this historical figure
gives the Mexican and American film industries more latitude in their interpretations of
Villa, and thus more freedom to mold his character according to national preoccupations
or genre conventions. In the United States, for example, Villa has been used to mediate
the typical preoccupation of the Western with the justifiability of the use of violence.
Because of the historical evidence of Villa's occasionally arbitrary or vengeful use of
violence, particularly certain acts directed against Americans, the American films tend to
emphasize Villa's violent nature, and then sidestep the issue or contradict much of the
action when they conclude that Villa was, indeed, a defender of justice and democracy
11
and is therefore a hero. In Mexico, the film industry has capitalized on Villa's popularity
by using his image to glorify the revolution. At the same time, however, these films also
reveal certain ambivalent attitudes towards Villa and the revolution which he personifies.
jVamonos con Pancho Villa!, for example, reflects a certain amount of disillusionment
with the revolution, while Adelita's offer of an alternate, whitewashed Villa reveals a
certain amount of discomfort with the negative aspects of Villa's career and a desire to
foster national unity. After jVamonos con Pancho Villa!, only Reed: Mexico insurgente,
made outside the established film industry with indpendent financing, has managed to
offer a portrait of Villa in all his ambiguity without contradicting itself or refusing to
confront the issue of violence. After the three decades of melodramas which followed
jVamonos con Pancho Villa! in Mexico, it is appropriate that Reed: Mexico insurgente
finally allowed Villa to "speclk for himself' on film. When he does speak, Villa is revealed
as neither a rapacious bandit, nor a buffoon, nor a heroic "ecuestrian statue," as some
films would have it, but as a more ambiguous historical figure. He is shown to be a flawed
yet effective leader who may have made many mistakes in his attempts to improve the lot
of the lower classes, but he also rallied many people to the revolutionary cause and thus
changed the course of Mexican history.
NOTES
1. The foUowing passage is a representative example of a faily balanced appraisal of Villa's
character by two American historians:
" ... the Mexican guerrilla chief was an enigmatic person and evey today remains one of the
most controversial figures in Mexican history. Born in poverty and reared in ignorance,
Pancho Villa rose to power in the flames of a brutal revolution and civil war. He wanted to do
what was best for his people, but was often led astray by bad advisors or by the irrationality of
his own emotions. Above all, he lacked the sophistication and intellectual ability to master
effectively the complexities of diplomacy and economics. He realized, however, that land
reform and education were an absolute necessity to raise Mexico's poor from their depressed
condition. As [John] Reed reports, Villa had a lifelong passion for education. He had learned
to read while in jail in Mexico City, and read prodigiously, if slowly. At one point in the Revolu-
tion (in an absolutely characteristic gesture that reveals him, simultaneously at his best and
worst), he promised to execute parents who did not send their children to school, because the
Revolution was being fought '50 that every Mexican child may go to schooL'"
Albert L. Michaels and James W. Wilkie. ed., introduction to John Reed, Insurgent Mexico,
2nd ed. (1914: rpt New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969), p. 28.
2. See John Rutherford, Mexican Society during the Revolution: A Literary Approach (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1971), pp. 130-182.
3. Rutherford, p. 131.
4. Emilio Garda Riera, Historia documental del one mexicano, 9 vals. (Mexico: Ediciones Era,
1969-78),1:32.
5. Garda Riera, 1:20.
6. Garda Riera, 1:21. The "sic" was added by Garda Riera, who is quoting from a film journal
entitled Cinelandia.
7. See Arthur G. Pettit, Images of the Mexican American in Fiction and Film (College Station:
Texas A & M University Press, 1980).
8. For a detailed discussion of Western mythology, see John Cawelti, The Six-Gun Mystique
(Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press, n.d.).
9. Edgcurnb Pinchon, jViva Villa! (New York: Harcourt, 1933).
10. Allen L. Woll, "Latin Images in American Films, 1929-39," Journal of Mexican American
12
History 4 (1974): 28-40. The following is Woll's account of the Mexican reception of jViva
Villa!:
" ... Although the government approved a final script which toned down the Don Juan nature
of the revolutionary hero, both the press and the public were offended by the comic overtones
in Wallace Beery's portrayal of Villa. Additionally, the film's cast showed little respect for Mexi-
cans who assisted in the making of the film .... The film received a chilly reception when it
finally premiered in Mexico City as vandals threw firecrackers into the crowded theatre and
wounded three women. From this date even the slightest mention of Villa in North American
films was looked on with disdaine. "
11. Harry M. Geduld and Ronald Gottesman, An l1Iustrated Glossary of Film Terms (New York:
Harcourt, 1973), p. 81.
12. Carlos Monsivais offers the following perceptive observation about Villa's role in the cinema:
"La atraccion hollywoodense por Villa jamas menguante desde la interpretacion de Wallace
Beery en i Viva Villa! de Jack Conway, se explicara quizcis en !erminos de la hipnosis auto-
complaciente que el 'primitivo' Ie provoca al 'civili2ado'; en !erminos de la fascinacion que,
desde las metropolis despiertan Tarzan 0 King Kong: todo heroe folclorizable, todo 'salvaje
puro' (domesticable a traves de su muerte 0 de su veneracion hacia los valoes occidentales) es
extraordinario." ("Hollywood's attraction to jViva Villa!, which has not waned since Wallace
Beery's interpretation in Jack Conway's i Viva Villa!, is perhaps explicable in terms of the self-
obliging hypnosis which the 'primitive person' evokes in the 'civilized person'; in terms of the
fascination which Tarzan or King Kong awakens in the metropolis: every hero who can be folk-
lorized, every 'pure savage' (who can be domesticated through his death or his veneration for
occidental values) is extraordinary. "1
"El cine nacional," in Historia general de Mexico, 4 vols. ed. Berta Ulloa, et al. (Mexico:
Centro de Estudios Historicos, EI Colegio de Mexico, 1976), 4:438.
13. Rafael F. Munoz, "jVamonos con Pancho Villa!," in La nouela de la Revo/ucion Mexicana, 2
vols., ed. Antonio Castro Leal (Mexico: Aguilar, 1960),2:657-753.
14. For a discussion of the effects of the Cardenas administration on the film industry, and the pro-
duction of i V3amonos con Pancho Vii/a!, see Carl J. Mora, Mexican Cinema: Reflections of a
Society 1896-1980 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), pp. 42-45.
15. Garda Riera, 1: 112.
16. Jorge Anaya Blanco has grouped togethe a body of Mexican films of the latter type under the
chapter heading, "La anoranza porfiriana" ["The Longing for the Draz Regime"], in La
aventura del cine mexicano [Mexico: Ediciones Era, 1968), pp. 40-47.
17. Garda Riera, 4:68.
18. Garda Riera, 1:348.
19. Bosley Crowther, review of Villa!, the New York Times Film Reviews 4 (New York: Amo Press,
1970), p. 3100.
383747
13
SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY