Get A Free Homepage! |
The movie, The Mask of Zorro, is a mixture of the legend of Joaquín Murieta and the Hollywood creation, Zorro. Though the two concepts have nothing to do with each other, both revolve around approximately the same era in Mexico-United States history. As in The Squatter and the Don, the Mask of Zorro characterizes the two different classes in its own way. However, the Mask of Zorro does the complete opposite characterization as The Squatter and the Don does. The Californios, or rich upper-class aristocracy, which were portrayed as honest businessmen being victimized in The Squatter and the Don, were seen as greedy, power-hungry vultures (the typical stereotype of that era) in The Mask of Zorro.
More specifically, some characters represented concepts and nations in the movie. Don Rafael Montero represented Spain, which sought to conquer and claim Mexico (or rather, the California territory, part of Mexico’s land). The character did steal the representation of California in the movie, Elena, who is wilder than her “fake” father would like her to be (just the way the New World is wilder than the Old World). Zorro, whether he was the first or second (Anthony Hopkins or Antonio Banderas), represented the mix of Mexico’s people and Spain’s aristocracy which lived there. The character had “pull” in both directions. The first Zorro’s wife and the way he lived were aristocratic, but he felt the need to fight for the Mexican people. The second Zorro had to act like one of the aristocracy in order to fight for the people, and he was in love with one of the aristocracy, though she actually represented the California that he loved. Even the United States had a player in this game. Captain Love was the obvious candidate and portrayed all of America’s ideas of Manifest Destiny and right to conquer which most Americans did feel during that era.
Though I’ve observed before that Joaquín Murieta and Zorro have no real historical connection, I’ll now discuss Murieta’s involvement in the movie, The Mask of Zorro. Most simply, since Don Rafael represents the aristocracy and Zorro represents a mix of the Mexican people and the aristocracy, then Joaquín Murieta is left to fully represent the Mexicans (or Californians in this case). His short-lived role is that of one who steals from the bad guys (those taking from the peasants—the aristocracy and the Spanish army), and helps out the good guys (the peasants). He’s seen to be pleasant with the peasant and his son during the escapade with the fake arrest and protective of his brother when the US army (Captain Love) seeks to destroy them. An all-around good guy—like Robin Hood of course! But before I get to that, I’d like to briefly show how the movie depicted the time period. This was the “Pastoral Age of California”(xvii, Jackson). There were large land grants and therefore large ranchos that had plenty of labor on hand. It was during the time when this was breaking up and changing that the movie takes place, around the Gold Rush. So the movie had to try to pass along this feeling of change and perhaps how the characters felt about the changes, which it didn’t quite do in my opinion, but since I know more about the period now, I can understand what all the groups were going through.
I’d like to continue discussing Murieta, and comment upon the famous ballad named after him. The words in this ballad are not fluffy or too verbose, but strong, the way Murieta’s legend is strong: “And any American/I make tremble at my feet...The Indian poor and simple/I defended with fierceness…Now my destiny is no other…Pistols and daggers/are playthings for me.” Even the verses are solid, all six lines and about the same length. What really makes this ballad exemplary for the way Murieta’s legend was to be represented, is that it’s sung in first person. This makes the song sound more proud, direct, and poignant, the same way Murieta is depicted as having been.
And now to the book, Joaquín Murieta by John Ridge. The introduction, written by Joseph Henry Jackson, gives a very good preview to the novel and prepares the reader for the violence depicted in Murieta’s short career. He hits it right on the mark when he says, “this Life of Joaquín Murieta is a blood-and-thunder affair, abounding in slaughter…”(xii). He does explain this excess of violence (or at least excess description of it) as Ridge’s need to vent the anger he feels towards those who had wronged him in real life, and because “his own youth was wrapped up with violence and blood”(xii). Jackson goes on to explain how Ridge’s father, grandfather, and other relatives were murdered (some in front of him) because they had decided not resist the forced “migration”(xiii) of the Indians onto reservations.
In addition to explaining where Ridge got his information from and how the many books about Murieta afterwards sprang to life (many of which had bald misconceptions and incorrect data), Jackson also explains why Murieta became an outlaw in the first place, something which connects to the folk hero model. First of all, three things happen to Murieta to begin his quest for revenge against Americans. “…American miners…ravished his lovely young mistress before his eyes…drove him from a second claim he had begun to work…[and] at Murphy’s Diggings…tied him to a tree and publicly lashed him”(xxix) supposedly because he’d stolen a horse. Though Ridge makes it four injustices, his legend is usually connected to three. This idea of three is connected to most folk hero stories, such as the three beans in Jack and the Bean Stalk, or three wishes granted by the genie in Alibaba and the Forty Thieves. And do you think it a coincidence that Joaquín Valenzuela had three fingers on one hand, thus earning him the name Three-Fingered Jack?
Nowadays, it’s sad to say, but I believe that there are few heroes left. The people have a morbid desire to strip and defile their heroes, such as the British press’s fascination with Princess Diana. The tabloid’s here in the US daily make up most of their stories about those whom some would look up to as heroes. Perhaps those still untouched consist of Michael Jordan and Lance Armstrong, but you can be sure that they might “fall,” too. Just as we do now almost worldwide, “California badly needed a folk hero and had none”(xii). Perhaps a contemporary characterization of a Robin Hood might do us all some good. But just as “Ridge provided one to fit the specifications”(xii), ours would have to meet different standards. Those standards I cannot conjecture without bias, but for me at least, the hero of today has to be just as generous as Robin Hood was to the poor, but instead of stealing from the rich, he’d actually go about his good work without hurting anyone at all. Back in California’s Pastoral Age, I’m sure some of the rich were “bad guys,” but most of the wealthy today have earned it. Rather than push down the rich and use their misery to elevate the poor, today’s “guerrilla fighter” would devote all to bring the poor up to the rich. How he’d go about this, who knows, but he’d be my hero.