Old Gringo (1989) User Reviews

A good film about a young general who wants to change the world, and an old writer who wants to bid it farewell

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 7/10 · 13 April 2007]

The time of the film is 1913, when the American frontier was closing fast… Mexico, on the other hand, was still in a romantic era, the time of Pancho Villa and the Mexican Revolution… Luis Puenzo presented the violent scenes passionately and it is his passion that makes the picture interesting… His use of slow motion to prolong dying remembered me the great Sam Peckinpah in his great Western "The Wild Bunch."

The film begins with Harriet Winslow (Jane Fonda), a repressed American spinster caught in the middle of the Mexican Revolution, when Pancho Villa's revolutionary army was moving against important families in Mexico, declaring them enemies of the Revolution and confiscating all their property…

The state of Chihuahua was in that moment revolutionary country, and Winslow was seen heading to the Miranda hacienda controlled by Federales…

At first, Harriet (who accepted a job as a governess) saw herself caught in a shoot-out and asked for help to return to the border… but later on, she starts to see that something in her face has begun to open… Her clear blue eyes were sweeter than before… And since she never felt in love for being always afraid of the unknown, it was here where her life begins, in a land where death was not the end, but only the beginning…

Jimmy Smits had his moments when he told our heroine that the battles have made him general… The land that he fought for and the people he has killed, starting with the old landowner who raped his mother and made him a bastard… His mother was an Indian peasant while his father was a rich aristocrat… This wasn't just his history… It was the history of everybody in Mexico…

Peck does a fine job in his touching portrait of the intolerable gringo old enough to be an observer… He had dared to say farewell to a world, where he wrote every day of his life without exception… He wrote when his youth drifted by, and while love betrayed him… Ambrose Bierce grows fond of the young general, considering him too much like him, capable of fighting for words written on pieces of paper… In an especially poignant scene, his best moments come long before the end, when not knowing if this might perhaps be Harriet's ' first time' he requested that she participates with him in what will undoubtedly be his 'last time…'

"Old Gringo" depicts the Mexican music, life of the Mexican people, their special cult to the death, their drunken fiesta, their cheerful whores trading sex for books, the faces of the children, sometimes observers, sometimes participating in the whole twisted ethic of violence…

There is some nice cinematography in the film, and the Mexican countryside is well taken… Most of the film's action takes place in a fine hacienda

Suicide By Revolution

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 9 May 2007]

Mexico in the teen years of the last century was no place to be, not even for Mexicans as the country broke down completely after the overthrow of dictator Porfirio Diaz. A lot of people grabbed for power, including one Pancho Villa who got emboldened enough to cross the U.S. border and shoot up Columbus, New Mexico. That got Woodrow Wilson to sending the army to capture Villa without success.

But that's getting way ahead of this story. It concerns American writer Ambrose Bierce who went to revolutionary Mexico and disappeared into obscurity much in the manner of the French poet Francois Villon. The plot of this film offers a theory as to what could have happened to Bierce.

Dominating the film is Gregory Peck in the title role. He captures Bierce in all of his sardonic cynicism for which his writing lives on. This Bierce has all the reason to just want to leave his world behind, his wife had recently died, but not after being discovered to be involved with another man. Two of his three children, both of his sons died violent deaths. Bierce was a man who felt he had no reason to live on.

Peck gets involved with two other people in a romantic triangle, Jane Fonda as a spinster who gets hired to tutor some landowner children and Jimmy Smits who's using the revolution to settle some personal scores with that same landowner family. In fact Smits gets himself rather caught up in the whole ambiance of being to the manor born with what he feels are good reasons.

All though all three of the leads have been in much better product, Old Gringo still is a good piece of cinema and does capture some of the anarchy that was revolutionary Mexico.

A Revolutionary Misfire

[dedwardloftin · 5/10 · 12 July 2005]

I watched this movie a few times trying to figure out why it left me feeling slightly let down. I couldn't figure it out. All the right elements are there. The dramatic situation is terrific, the overall story line good, the actors top-flight. The technical work is good, but somehow the movie never finds it's story. This is a classic example of a movie that misses the point. Jane Fonda plays an old maid school "marm" who decides to go to Mexico to see the world. She winds up being kidnapped by one Pancho Villa's Generals. Along the way, Ambrose Bierce(played by Gregory Peck), joins them. Mr. Bierce who has a mysterious illness, and is bitterly tired of life, more than anything wants to die a glorious death on the battlefield instead of dying in bed. He can't succeed at this no matter how hard he tries. Along the way Ms. Winslow has dalliances with both men. Gen Arroyo (Smits) and Ambrose Bierce develop a Father/Son kind of thing. With a situation like this, how could it misfire? Here's how.The story is directed as if it were about Jane Fondas relationships with the two men, when in reality the movie is about the terrible internal strife of Gen. Arroyo, and his love/hate for his father, who comes to be personified by Mr. Bierce. What adds interest is the fact that his conflict encapsulates the overall meaning of the revolution, and in an even larger sense, of Mexico. In some ways the whole scope of the history of Mexico can be seen as a working out of the Father/Son relationship. The Father is represented by Spain, the conqueror, and the Son by the people of the land. Spain, as did most European colonial powers, regarded new people and cultures as basically subhuman. The only problem is that they couldn't kill enough of the original inhabitants. They keep wanting their country back. In some ways the political situation in Mexico today reflects this dynamic. Almost all the ruling class families in Latin America trace their ancestry to Spain. The indigenous people still don't govern themselves. Harriet Winslow (Fonda) is only there to provide viewpoint. She influences none of the action and carries none of the meaning. The ideas of this movie were presented later in the Pancho Villa movie with Antonio Banderas in a much better fashion. This is worth a view, though. It's still an enjoyable movie, just one that never found it's point.

A journey of a beginning and an end

[RachelLone · 16 March 2004]

In 1913, Harriet Winslow (Jane Fonda) is hired by a Mexican family as a governess, but she then is kidnapped by Gen Tomas Arroyo (Jimmy Smits) and along with other revolutionaries. She also meets Ambrose Bierce (Gregory Peck), who conceals his true identity and who is ready to die on this foreign land. The three of them form a love triangle, Harriet becomes Tomas's lover and her affection towards Bierce is rather like a daughter to a father. But when Tomas invades the house of Miranda, where his birth father, the master, rapes his mother and where his shoots Mr Miranda dead when he is seventeen, he becomes so haunted by his past and obsessed with the old papers. As he befriends Bierce, he also turns into a ruthless commander. In the end, things get tragic- Harriet is determined to fulfill Bierce' dying wish of not being publicised and Tomas has to face his ultimate punishment. Harriet now is the sole survivor who remembers her two beloved men. 'He said I would forget. But how could I not remember?'

I really like this film. Jimmy Smits is excellent as the tormented general and Gregory Peck was marvellous as the disillusioned writer and journalist. Jane Fonda is not too bad. The direction is okay, the story is very poignant and twisted. All in all, a nicely done drama.

Peck is mesmerizing, but it's just too long.

[audiemurph · 6/10 · 1 September 2014]

The main reason to watch this film is the absolutely mesmerizing performance of Gregory Peck. Aged 73 at the time of filming, his deep voice resonates and rumbles out of the screen magnificently, punctuated with heavy breathing, completely dominating the screen whenever he speaks. There is a scene in which he woos Jane Fonda as they sit on a log; it is hard to imagine any woman not falling for the aging Peck as his words pour forth to her like poetry. This is the voice I imagine God speaks with.

Peck's character is world-weary, and he engages everyone around him with detachment and some irony; except, watch for the scene towards the end in which he takes General Arroyo's black horse out for a ride in the country. The pure joy on Peck's face is delightful, genuine and pleasing to see.

And speaking of the horse: one of the most spectacular and shocking animal moments in screen history has to be the shot of General Arroyo shooting his horse in the head, near the end of the film. The timing of the sprawling horse is flawless, the effect electrifying.

Jimmy Smits is excellent as General Arroyo, and it is interesting how the general becomes more sympathetic as the movie moves along.

Sadly, though, the parts don't come together to make a great whole. Yes, "Old Gringo" is beautifully filmed, but it goes on for too long, and furthermore, it is tiring to have to work out, through the first half-hour, who is fighting for which side, and who are the Mirandas.

Worst of all is the presence of Jane Fonda. She's not bad, but look: if you want to look skinny, hang around fat people. If you don't want people to notice that your acting is wooden and uninspiring, don't appear in a movie with Gregory Peck. I think an actress like Kate Capshaw (who plays a similar character in the 1987 TV-movie version of "The Quick and the Dead") would have played Ms. Winslow much more appealingly.

A final question: is Peck already dead when he is "executed" at the movie's end? His eyes are first looking at Arroyo, then moments later facing forward at the executioners. Hard to say.

"Old Gringo" is worth watching to see Gregory Peck still eat up the screen in this, the winter of his career; but have the fast-forward ready.

Despite some positives, overall a disappointment

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 6/10 · 2 January 2015]

I very much dislike it when entertainers retire long before it is necessary to do so, leaving their fans high and dry (such as Cary Grant). But some entertainers don't quite know when to call it quits (like Sinatra, Como, and Martin). I regret to say it, because I always admired him, but this was one film too many for Gregory Peck. At 73, Peck had gotten too old for a starring role such as this.

But that's not the only problem with this film. It's somewhat depressing and, at times, a bit confusing in terms of plot. At least that's how I interpret the film's incredible flop at the box office (it earned $3.5 million, but cost $27 million).

About the best thing that I can say about the film is that it is beautifully filmed. The fighting scenes are done very well. The sets are sumptuous.

Now there is a plot here -- actually 3 plots. A young woman (Jane Fonda) wants to experience life (although why she would place herself in the middle of the Mexican Revolution is unclear). An old man (Gregory Peck) -- a writer -- is ready to die. And a young Mexican (Jimmy Smits) wants to lead his countrymen to their rightful place in a free Mexico. And the story comes together as all 3 main characters find themselves together in the middle of the Revolution.

Jane Fonda, who gets top billing here, is fine in some scenes, but just a little too wide-eyed in other scenes. At least she gets to kiss Gregory Peck and have sex with Jimmy Smits. She has come of age, so to speak.

Jimmy Smits probably does the best acting in the film. He's very believable as a local leader of the Revolution.

The film lasts just under an hour, but seems much longer. You'll have to decide for yourself. For me, I won't want to watch it again.

It looks nice...but that's all...

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 8 March 2010]

The idea for this film isn't bad. Back in 1913, a sickly and aging writer (Ambrose Bierce) decided to go to one of the most exciting and dangerous places on the planet--Mexico during the revolution that followed the ouster of the dictator, Porfirio Diaz. While no one knows for sure why he chose to do this, the film's contention that he was suicidal and wanted to "go out with a bang" seems quite reasonable. However, exactly what happened to the man is a total mystery--and to this day no one knows exactly what happened to him. Contact with his simply stopped! This film seems to create a fictionalized idea of what COULD have happened to Bierce (played by Gregory Peck). However, the film did so by creating a fictionalized character of an American teacher (Jane Fonda) who gets tricked into walking into the midst of the fighting--and, naturally, slowly is won over to the side of the soldiers of Pancho Villa--though Villa himself does not appear in the film until the end. In the meantime, Fonda and Peck meet with and spend time with General Aroyo (I have no idea if he was a real person or fictionalized--I assume he was fictionalized since I found nothing on him on the internet). Aroyo is played by Jimmy Smits.

So what did I think of this film? Well, on one hand it was a lovely film. The music and cinematography worked together to make a film that was quite pleasing to the senses. The slow pacing and evocative spirit was quite nice. Plus, the three leads are all very good actors and you have to respect their talents. However, despite these factors, the film also had a lot of problems--too many to make it worth seeking out yourself. While it looked good, the film was, after a while, incredibly boring. The plot just seemed to stagnate after a while and seemed to go no where--like they never really worked out the plot completely. And, the most serious problem is that it's hard to like or relate to the characters. Just when you start to connect with them, they behave in ways that make you either hate them or wonder what the @%## motivates them. It's rare to see a movie that has characters that are more ill-defined--and excellent acting can't make up for that.

There is one final problem with the film, though most who watch it won't realize it. As a history teacher, I was well acquainted with the Mexican revolution. The various factions, frankly, were all pretty screwed up! While there were things to admire about Pancho Villa and his faction, he was also a blood-thirsty bandit as well as reformer--provided HE was the one doing all the reforms. As for the alternatives, they weren't any better. The ideas of land reform and democracy were wonderful--too bad no one leading any of the factions really did anything to actually improve the lot for the average Mexican! A lot of people died, but essentially the country wasn't much better off when all was said and done. So, in a war when there are no clear "good guys", who do you care about in this film?!

As for Miss Fonda and Mr. Peck, they both have been long-time leftists--and very pro-revolution. I strongly suspect that this is why they made this film. I am all in favor of revolution when it means getting rid of evil, but like the Beatles song "Revolution", such movements need to have more to them than just a desire to change things. I wish in hindsight they'd chosen a more productive and life-changing revolution to dramatize--such as the "Velvet Revolution" Czechsolovakia or the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Just my two cents worth.

Not bad, but too cluttered

[smitty008 · 6/10 · 10 September 2019]

Old Gringo is perhaps not as bad as has been made out by other reviewers, but it is not without its problems. The basic plot (generic war movie) is sufficient, but casting three headliners and trying to make sure they all get their stories and screen time in hollows out all three characters. All three characters were actually worthy of being portrayed as the lead, but it seems that none of the trio actually was. The movie would actually have been better with slightly lesser actors in two of the roles and more emphasis on just one of them.

I'm sure being a "Fonda Film" there was some thinly veiled commentary about something or another, but I either didn't catch it or didn't care enough to pay attention. I'd say it's an OK watch if you can find it for free, but maybe not worth paying for.

Us old gringos have a lot to learn about life according to the non-gringos.

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 5 August 2017]

We don't understand the philosophy of "too much", whether it be too much love, too much passion, too much anger, too much hate. That's what old gringo Gregory Peck (as an aging writer) and middle aged gringa Jane Fonda learn in this study of life going on during a revolution in Mexico during the early part of the 20th century. Thanks to revolution leader Jimmy Smits, they learn quite a bit, although I wonder if Fonda needed to learn to stop gaping at Peck in awe and remind herself to get back in character.

Fonda is a bored wealthy American who runs out on society and ends up in Mexico where she is a first hand witness to the violence at hand. Even the hotel staff are involved, replacing her belongings with weapons and using her room as a base of operations. Smits, initially ridiculing both Fonda and Peck, slowly begins to understand and trust them, and through him, they begin to learn what the Mexicans are fighting for, and through them, he learns that there's more than just national pride in living your life.

Beautifully filmed, this was touted as a triumph for Peck even before it came out, with Oscar buzz for possibly his last film. (It wasn't.) But pre- release buzz is often disappointing, and while Peck was praised, the film wasn't. Fonda isn't as much bad in this as she is unmemorable, certainly no "Julia" or "Coming Home" in her impressive career. Smits gives a very layered performance that goes beyond the lothario and the fighter. This should have been his pass to a successful film career as it was a wind down in Peck's. The other Hispanic actors in Smit's circle also are very diverse, from the young paper boy trained from birth to fight to the prostitute who gives Peck a freebee to the other young women who laugh at gringa Fonda's foreign ways but secretly envy her. This isn't the disaster it's been made out to be, just a missed opportunity with the lack of passion that the on screen characters live whether fighting, partying or loving.

Interesting tale

[fmwongmd · 7/10 · 17 July 2020]

A cpmplcated story with complicated subjects all coming to some kind of end. Jimmy Smits performs well.

Start the revolution without me!

[brefane · 1/10 · 6 September 2010]

Mix a sexually repressed teacher(Fonda),a fiery revolutionary(Smits), and a dying author(Peck) with hundreds of Mexican extras, mariachi's, romance, pretty photography and you've got Old Stinko: a boring, lackluster cliché ridden waste of time for all involved. Essentially, it's The Rainmaker(56) set against the background of the Mexican Revolution. This misbegotten project lacks a purpose for being and never really involves the audience. Smits is cliché but less ridiculous than the other 2 characters who suck the life out of the movie and get in the way of the background which while pretty and pleasing to the eye is too pretty and overblown for the sketchy story being told. Peck plays Ambrose Bierce like Atticus Finch, and the scenes between he and Fonda recall Atticus and Scout in To Kill a Mockingbird. As the wide eyed pupil/teacher Fonda is unconvincing and embarrassing, and Peck is a hollow bore. The people involved in this project should have asked themselves Why will audiences care? They didn't, and the film was a box office and critical disappointment. Just ignore it, and it will go away.

Brilliant in all respects

[diane-34 · 10/10 · 30 August 2000]

The director, Luis Puenzo, crafted an extraordinary vision of the drama that confronts players when they decide to make revolution. Puenzo took us behind the scenes of a sweeping political struggle and made the viewer examine the personal details and the personal confrontations of the actors as they tred the stage of events that were much bigger than themselves.

I know, I know-all of this has been done before; it's formula scrip work but the brilliance of the cast and the direction make Old Gringo into a movie that you will return to over and over again like a favourite old wine or a dish that you never tire of eating.

The principal cast of Fonda, Smits and Peck enliven an already sumptuous tapestry woven by Puenzo. The film is visually rich and the eye is as entranced by the beauty of the scenes as much as the mind is satisfied with the meat of the story.

People owe it to themselves to see such a rich film.

A lost opportunity

[deickos · 6/10 · 14 July 2023]

Although the story had a great potential, although the production was supporting and although the trio in the leading roles performed honorably, this film was ultimately betrayed by the director and notably the editor. It frequently looks incoherent, the scenes do not tie with each other and the result is so superficial (and superfluous at times) it looks like tv and soap opera. I remember the other historical drama N&S from the '80s - although it was done for tv it was ambitious and had quality. Not this one though - the few good moments (especially between Gregory Peck and Fonda) are abandoned and almost suffocated by the mediocrity of the entire. Maybe the director should have worked with Mexicans.

Don't let the details kill a good story

[jpcastro1 · 5/10 · 25 March 2007]

Gregory Peck's over the top performance and Jimmy Smits in over his head do not however destroy a good story. Jane Fonda truly loved this story but even she looks lost in the pages told. But just imagine the last days of Bitter as recounted here. Just picture the upheaval and pain so universally shared by any people in the throes of hell and in the midst, yeah corny, but in the midst of that pain, the universal tale of hope and love. Sacrifice for something bigger than yourself. A story teller must always moralize. Worth the watch. All romantics welcomed. (PS Note to director: There are light skin Mexicans (not me but others) - no need for the garish make-up - ugh.)

Some GREAT performances- Peck is Inspiring

[dfeigin · 26 August 2011]

There is more soul in this film than in 50 'modern' films.

While there is a lot of bad acting, and many other flaws in this movie, there are some GREAT scenes, great dialog, great characters, and great performances. Gregory Peck has some very memorable, outstanding monologues, there are many interesting and complex relationships, and there are no simple resolutions to conflicts.

Again- there are many areas of the film that do not work: doesn't matter, ignore them. There is tremendous depth here, and a lot of value to draw from the good parts of this movie. Peck and Smits are great, and even Fonda has some excellent moments.

They don't make 'em like this any more, and they don't make actors like Peck.

Not for Bierceophiles, but not too bad (slight spoiler)

[knsevy · 5/10 · 2 September 2002]

Don't rent this movie expecting a realistic characterization of Ambrose Bierce. That's a sure recipe for disappointment. Rent it for an interesting look into the lives of a few small and large players in a sweeping political movement.

The acting's not Oscar-calibre, but it's more than acceptable for a western that plays a little bit like a documentary. Arroyo is particularly well-played.

SLIGHT SPOILER

The firing-squad scene is particularly compelling and poignant, mixing gruesomeness with absurdity to create a very surreal portrait.

Check it out. There are worse ways to kill ninety minutes.

Peck, as usual, is great...

[revbish-3 · 4/10 · 4 January 2021]

Gregory Peck is great here, as he is one of the finest actors ever. Smits does a fine job here, too. But I could really do without Fonda. Anyone would have been better than she is here. I suffered through her parts just to watch the others.

Peck's Great Ambrose Bierce Buried

[spivinsink · 2/10 · 4 January 2019]

A truly wonderful performance by Gregory Peck as Ambrose Bierce is blurred & upstaged by the director.

Interesting Movie, Great Book

[ennyman · 8/10 · 2 October 2006]

I had already read the book when I discovered this film. I think Peck is great in nearly everything he does, and this film is no exception. Both the novel and the film have detractors. For me personally, having lived in Mexico a year, I may have had more background understanding that helped me see what Fuentes was doing with this story.

Bierce was a curmudgeon and an aging one at that when he slipped south of the border to flirt with his final destiny. The themes of the book are dimly reflected in the film, but having the book inside you makes you understand the significance of the story, what "the revolution" was really all about, and the tragedy that is Mexico. It was a collision course: Bierce and the Revolution. But Bierce is more akin to the Mexican tragic spirit than our American happy-go-lucky silliness and superficial fake depth.

For a $1.50 you can find the Fuentes book used at Amazon.com. It might be worthwhile to read the book, then watch the movie again to see why those who appreciate the film actually get something out of it.

somewhere in here

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 22 December 2020]

American schoolteacher Harriet Winslow (Jane Fonda) finds herself caught up in the Mexican revolution when the Federals set a trap for the revolutionaries. The revolutionaries set their own trap by smuggling weapons in her luggage. Meanwhile, author Ambrose "Old Gringo/bitter" Bierce (Gregory Peck) is looking to join Pancho Villa and befriends one of his military leaders, Gen. Arroyo (Jimmy Smits).

Jane Fonda seems to be the protagonist in this one and it's not a good thing. I don't care for her character both in writing and in acting. I also don't care for Jimmy Smits' erratic character. Their romance is awkward and it goes into bad melodrama. It's trying to say something about the Mexican identity but it's completely lost in this mess. Gregory Peck could be a better protagonist but even his character has some weird moments. There is a good movie somewhere in here. It seems to be based on an award winning novel which only adds to the disappointment. Like the character himself, the movie gets stuck and does not recover.

Another One of Those Corn-Filled Vehicles of the 1980s That No One Rode.

[tfrizzell · 3 November 2003]

Opulent mess that died at the box office and with critics alike in 1989. In early-20th Century Mexico an American school teacher (Jane Fonda) is kidnapped by a desperado (Jimmy Smits) and his rebellious gang. The titled character (Gregory Peck) is slowly dying of an illness and tries to get himself killed by Smits on numerous occasions as he also tries to get Fonda to safety. Strangely a bond develops between Smits and Peck just as Fonda becomes Smits' lover and then surprisingly Fonda learns who Peck really is and falls in love with him as well (and also tries to fulfill his dying wish). "Old Gringo" is a lot of smoke and sand that tries to become the "Dr. Zhivago" of its time, but falls completely. The big-name performers cannot make it through a story that drags along and never gets to a suitable pay-off. The direction is disastrous too and we are left with a huh? movie that really means nothing at all. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

I was awed by it every time I watched it

[jdmcox · 10/10 · 3 August 2022]

A great story from a famous Mexican writer, Carlos Fuentes. The movie was great for a person like me. The story was like a parable of human frailties, desires, loves of different kinds, and revenge, all while being a part of the Mexican Revolution. Gregory Peck is one of my heroes and Jane Fonda is another, both for different reasons, but they're both bigger than life to me, as the story also was bigger than life to me. And film-making at its finest, as far as I'm concerned.

The Old Maid, the Old Gringo and the Young Revolutionary

[weezeralfalfa · 8/10 · 16 June 2008]

At one level, this film focuses on a much delayed coming of age adventure for Jane Fonda's character, Harriet Winslow, who suddenly decides she has had enough of her mother-dominated spinster school marm life. Yes, we would expect her to be maybe 10-20 years younger than her 50 years, and some have suggested she was thus miscast. However, her relatively advanced age makes her crush on Peck's 70 year old character, Ambrose Bierce, more believable. Peck's characterization of Bierce is somewhat at odds with what I have read of this man. We get the impression that, like Harriet, he has decided to forsake his bookish life, as a sick old man, for a final hands-on adventure, as an aid to the rebels in the Mexican revolution. However, the real Bierce fought in the Civil War and later crossed the continent on another assignment. He was not a one-dimensional bookish writer, by experience.

Fonda simultaneously develops a crush on both Bierce and General Arroyo(Jimmy Smits). They are both seen as romantic rebels, though of very different sorts and for different personal reasons. Harriet reminds Bierce of his daughter, whom he hasn't seen for many years, while Bierce reminds Harriet of her father, who abandoned his domineering wife for a new love, and who fought in the Spanish American war to help free Cuba. But after partially destroying the Miranda mansion where he was conceived, Arroyo delays taking his troops to join Villa's, as ordered. Arroyo's bedding of Harriet on the very bed where he was conceived symbolically reverses the power relationship in which his European father raped his native American mother. He finds the original Spanish land grant papers giving the land of this hacienda to the peasants. Since Spain no longer governed Mexico, these papers were not necessarily valid, as Pierce points out, but Arroyo refuses to heed. Arroyo's shooting of his favorite horse and of Bierce reinforces his determination to stay at the hacienda of his birth instead of joining Villa.

There are several references accusing Arroyo of having become the new Miranda, and thus betraying the revolution. I don't understand why Arroyo had one of his soldiers shot for doing what he himself was doing. He must have known he would receive the same sentence if he did not soon join Villa's forces. Perhaps this symbolized the near universal tendency of revolutionary leaders to gradually become tyrants as bad or worse than those they topple. So it had been with Porfirio Diaz, the once revolutionary general the revolutionists now fought against. So it would be with various successors to Diaz during these turbulent times.

This is an entertaining film, for the most part. There are enough action scenes to complement the philosophizing and other tamer scenes. You will have to pay close attention or see it several times to dig out all the symbolism. I can see why this film was important to Jane Fonda. It is, in a sense, autobiographical, symbolizing her mid-life transformation from an apolitical sex kitten into an anti-establishment political spokeswoman for the powerless of the world.