Dramatic Scene from The Underdogs

     One of the discussion questions for The Underdogs asked us what scene from the story that we would choose to film and how we would film it.  I chose to dramatize the scene of the cock-fight from the end of the novel, and I kinda had some fun with it, so I decided to expand here in my blog.  It doesn't seem like the most exciting scene, I know, but I think I managed to make it pretty interesting.  First, a little information on the way I interpreted the events. I thought that the cock-fight was a metaphor for the revolution.  The chickens represent both the revolutionary and the federal soldiers.  They are thrown into an arena to fight and they aren’t really sure why they do it, but they fight desperately until the other is dead.  The chickens are a great comparison because, like the soldiers, they are controlled by invisible hands, forces that are much bigger than them.  Here's how I would shoot the scene.  

First shot:  Venancio violently snatches a chicken out of a cage in a nearby hut.  Meco does the same with a different chicken.  Valderrama begins to play a solemn tune from the guitar.

Second shot: Flash back to a teenage boy being pulled away from his mother and forced to join the Federal Army.  A different teenager is kicked out of his home after having an altercation with the police- he wanders until he stumbles into a rebel army and joins their ranks.  The same tune form the first shot is playing all the while in the background.

Third shot:  The chickens are being prepared for battle with knives strapped on their legs.  The arena is set.  A crowd begins to gather.  The tune changes.  It is now more up-beat and excitable.

Fourth shot: The soldiers are training and preparing for war.  They're given guns and ragged uniforms.  They practice shooting at glass bottles. They take their positions on the battlefield, full of raw excitement, ready to kill the enemy.  

Fifth shot:  The chickens are riled up.  The men begin to talk loudly, eagerly anticipating the fight.  The music gets louder and faster.  Bets are made.  The men are yelling now.  The chickens are placed into the arena.  The music stops.  The men are quiet.  The chickens hesitate, their eyes darting around.   All of a sudden, they attack in a whirlwind of claws, feathers, and blood.  In a matter of seconds, a chicken is dead and the fight is over.  The crowd disperses.  The winning chicken is placed back in his cage.  All is quiet.  

Sixth shot:  The two soldiers, eager for their first fight, run into battle.  Having fired off their first round at the earliest sign of movement, they are forced into hand-to hand combat. They meet in the middle.  Everything around them is chaos.  Both soldiers are yelling.  One of them thrusts his bayonet into the other's chest.  At that moment, the soldier looks at the face of the man he's just stabbed.  He recognizes him.  As he holds the dying soldier in his hands, memories flood his brain.  All is quiet; time seems to stop.  He remembers two young boys, laughing together as they jump off clay banks into a peaceful blue river.  End of scene.

Reaction to Jacqueline's post #6

Nice post! I also talked about the role of women in Latin America. 
There are a couple of things that I wanted to point out. First, I think that the inclusion of women in the revolution was a very progressive idea and is definitely a milestone for women's rights. The only difference is, I wouldn't attribute this feat to Zapata, but to the peasant culture. Yes, Zapata was the leader and he allowed it, but he could not have allowed it if the culture didn't support it in the first place. It's my belief that peasant women had a lot more respect and individual liberties than elite women and women in other societies. I believe this to be true because peasant families simply couldn't afford to shelter their women like elite families could. 
Secondly, the film Viva Zapata! may not have shown women fighting in rank with men on the battlefield, but it did not completely exclude their importance to the revolution. There is the scene where women bravely approach the guarded city walls and sacrifice their lives lighting the dynamite to explode the walls. Before they had done this, one of the guards said to watch out for the women, because he "didn't trust the women any more than the men." There is another scene where you see women raiding the bodies of dead soldiers. Finally, when Zapata is being transported on the trail as a prisoner, men, women, and children all take part in surrounding his caravan. 
It is not in your face, and perhaps the intention is to keep the focus on barbarism vs. civilization, but I think the movie actually does a pretty good job representing the role women had in the revolution. 
It's surprising to me that the Federal army would have used any women soldiers. Perhaps they were used more as cooks and nurses, rather than for any actual fighting?
Anyways, thanks for the insight on a very interesting topic.

Women of Latin America

         In Viva Zapata!, a commander protecting the city from Zapata and the rebels warned his men that they could not trust the women, even the ones that were just going to the market.  He said they were just as likely as the men to aid Zapata in a revolt.  As it turns out, the women were the ones who sacrificed their lives to light the dynamite that blew up the city's walls.  This shows that, in poor communities, women were seen as strong individuals who not only understood what went on with the revolution but were a big part of it.
          It seems to me that poor and middle class women in Latin America had a degree of strength and a certain level of respect attributed to them that was not found in many other societies at the time.  Poor mulatto and indigenous women ran the home.  Familial lineages tended to go through the mother.  Women sold things in the markets.  I think the best example is the one from Viva Zapata!, because it shows that women were seen as valuable even in politics and war, an arena that would traditionally be reserved solely for the men.  Perhaps these women were used solely because the rebels were desperate and would take any advantage they could get.  But I think that for a majority of Latin Americans, women were given a lot of respect and were seen as more than just child-bearers.
          In the early 20th century, feminism in the US was merely non-existent.  What may have been called feminism was just information made available to women on how to become better cooks and mothers.  Like Roosevelt said in his speech, the main goal in life for women was to find a good husband and produce children.  The United States was to be brave and manly.  I think that Latin America, however, was more open to feminist ideas.  Obviously, women were not seen as equal to men, even in poor communities.  I'm just arguing that, compared with other countries, Latin America as a whole was more open to feminism.
        Dario's poem to Roosevelt highlights these differences.  It's subtle, but Dario displays a view of Latin America that is more accepting of feminism.  He says that Latin America "lives on love" and is the "daughter of the Sun".  I know, it's not much.  But, the fact that Dario is willing to call Latin America a daughter speaks a lot about the importance he attributes to women's roles in Latin American society.  I really don't know a ton about this subject and I'm only going off what I've read for this class.  So, I'd like to pose a question to anyone who reads this: in your opinion, who is more open to feminism in the early 20th century, Latin America or The United States?
     

Some Modern Propaganda

      This last week I've seen a lot of the Olympics, as I'm sure all of you have as well.  Even if you haven't turned on your TV, it's pretty hard to avoid all the coverage on Facebook, Twitter, newspapers, etc.  But a lot of the attention the Olympics has been getting is pretty distorted.  In fact, I think the media has been putting out some modern propaganda, like Roosevelt's speech in Chicago.
First off, let my say that I enjoy the Olympics mainly because I like all kinds of sports.  It is really something special to see the best athletes in the world competing against each other.  For me, the best part of the Olympics is being a part of a story, hearing about everything the athletes have gone through, all culminating into one massive moment.  It's hard not to care.  To me, that's what the Olympics are really about.
Unfortunately, the Olympics have gotten away from that.  They aren't just a competition for the world's best athletes anymore.  They are a battleground for nationality.  NBC and other media have turned the Olympics into a mock-war, and we're all buying into the propaganda.
First-off, let's look at all the complaining that's been going on about the host-ctiy, Sochi.  This is what everyone seems to be talking about anyways, so it will be a good place to start.  Twitter has been buzzing with talk of how unprepared the city of Sochi was for the Olympics after a few journalists tweeted the following pictures:  there was the brown hotel water, the uncovered man-hole, and the sign that says they are supposed to throw used toilet paper in the trash next to the toilet rather than flush it.
I understand that some of these things are kinda gross.  I get it.  Sochi is not Paris.  But out of all the things the Olympics has to offer, the people, the stories, and they choose to talk about the dirty water?  I realized that something else is going on.  The media is trying to get people interested.   They're digging up controversy, creating it even, to try and get more people to care.  Like Roosevelt talking about Latin America, the media is choosing to talk about all of the bad, and none of the good.
Want another example?  See what the major networks have to say about the Olympics.  Notice that they keep talking about the possibility of a terrorist attack?  Okay, so Russia is a hostile country, and they've had problems in the past, to say the least.  I get that.  But why do they keep bringing it up?   Because controversy means viewership.  It doesn't do anyone any good to keep mentioning the threat of terrorism.  In fact, it probably makes it worse.  But NBC doesn't care, as long as you keep buying into it.
They're making Russia look like a terrible place to get us interested in the Olympics.  They're hinting at the Cold War, stirring up arbitrary emotions.  They're making Russia's president Putin look like an evil dictator. They're feeding us propaganda the same way Teddy Roosevelt fed it to the people of Chicago.  The difference is that Roosevelt wanted Americans support imperialism, while the media just wants to raise viewership.  They're saying, "You don't want the bad guys to win, right?  Better go cheer on the US so those dirty, scary Russians don't take home all the gold."
People need to get their heads on straight.  The Olympics are about the athletes and the competition.  It's not about how nice the hotel was that a journalist stayed at.  It's not a war.  It's not about politics, either.
Ironically, the US President is the one who put things into perspective when he said this about all the negative attention surrounding Putin:
"We tend to have pretty blunt conversations," said Obama about meetings with Putin, later adding: "He does have a public style where he likes to sit back and look a little bored during the course of joint interviews. I think that’s where some of these perceptions come up. My sense is that’s part of his shtick back home politically as wanting to look like the tough guy. U.S. politicians have a different style. We tend to smile once in a while." (interview w/Bob Costas on NBC)
What is Obama really saying?  It's all about perceptions.  I'm sure if the Olympics were in Grand Rapids, some Russian journalists could find some pretty gross hotels, and some brown water, and all of the Mcdonalds we have, and make it look pretty bad over here, too.   They could show Obama's face when he makes those goofy smiles, and convince the Russians we have an idiot for our President.  The real losers here are the people who believe what they're told.  It's all about perceptions.
You can listen to what people on Twitter are saying, or think what NBC wants you to think, or you can just watch the Olympics for yourself.   I have.  Sochi looks pretty beautiful to me.  The athletes are fine, and the competition is fierce and very enjoyable.  

  

Reaction to Rebecca's Post

Rebecca- thanks for pointing that out about Cecilia. She is actually pretty complex. When I first read Cecilia Valdes, I didn't notice a lot of things about her character.
Specifically, I didn't understand that Villaverde was ultimately portraying her as sinful and deceitful. Obviously I could tell by her actions that she was mischievous and didn't like to listen to authority. However, I took this to be a more natural thing that children without parents might be inclined to to. I did not really think Cecilia had actual malice.It was not until the second part of our reading, when Villaverde talked of her "voluptuousness rather than strength of character" that I realized Cecilia was bad news. And of course, your analysis of Cecilia's eagerness to dismiss her own race, and willingness to place her own interests before her friend's and grandmother's may be the best evidence of that. But then again, Cecilia was thrust into some tough circumstances, without real parents, in a pretty messed-up society. I think it would be a pretty good debate whether or not some of the things she does are justified.