I’ve already covered the novel to which the ever-so-classic Zorro character owes his creation, but it really wasn’t until that same novel got into the hands of one Douglas Fairbanks Sr. that the masked hero truly took off. I know that this is generally a book blog, but bear with me… it’s a great movie.
Before 1920’s The Mark of Zorro, Fairbanks was always typecast into preppy and naive (if generally acrobatic and eventually heroic) modern day characters in goofy little comedies. I’ve never seen any of these films, but I’ve heard that they’re generally pretty middling. Thankfully, he did get his hands on a copy of Johnston McCulley’s The Curse of Capistrano, and, due to his already considerable star power, he got a movie greenlit. The film was something of a lark–a historical action piece based on a recent, popular serialized pulp novel. It’s likely, even, that he wouldn’t have gotten to do it at all if not for the fact that the hero’s effete Diego de la Vega alter-ego could incorporate little bits of comedic business into his act here and there. (Which he does to great effect, by the way. The idea of Zorro’s secret identity doing silly parlor tricks originated in this movie.)
The Mark of Zorro being, far as I know, the first real swashbuckler film, they weren’t entirely sure of the genre’s cinematic conventions yet. Zorro, while inimitably heroic in the film, is generally hunched over, and even a little chubby (belying Fairbanks’ incredible physicality) and the sword choreography is rather weak. The sword fights themselves are still extremely entertaining, but this can really be attributed to the energy of the lead more than anything else.
Of course, what really makes a Fairbanks movie, when you get right down to it, is the acrobatics. Douglas Fairbanks was, essentially, the Jackie Chan of the silent era. He did his own stunts, leapt and vaulted and flipped all over the place, and was constantly looking for an even bigger feat with which to elate audiences. Since Mark of Zorro was his first straight-up action film he didn’t go quite as nuts as he would in later outings, but the man was still no slouch. For example, here’s a good chunk of the third act that someone put up on Youtube:
And that was only Fairbanks’ first try at such a film. I assure you that it pales in comparison to what came later. That being the case, the fact is that while The Mark of Zorro is one of Fairbanks’ most important films, it isn’t quite his best. Don’t get me wrong though, any of the movies in this set (along with the somehow left out The Iron Mask) are more than worth seeing.
Now, while The Mark of Zorro certainly follows the plotline to McCulley’s original much closer than any other film version I’ve ever seen, it does have two major differences that, I think, enhance the story–and the legend–a good deal.
The first of these is pretty much a necessity for a film: the fact that Zorro and Diego are the same person isn’t a secret from the audience in the slightest. This allows for a fun dual identity dynamic where we can laugh at the act that Zorro puts on as de la Vega, and it also makes the motivations of both sides of the character make a whole hell of alot more sense.
The other big change to the storytelling itself involves something of a spoiler for the climax. Knowing it won’t ruin your appreciation of the film, but it’s a nice moment when it’s unexpected, so it’s up to you.
Spoilers Begin
The movie entirely ditches the book’s climax of our heroes being holed up somewhere by the villains and replaces it with a single one-on-one sword fight. What really makes it spectacular, however, is that the challenge for the duel is offered by Diego, not Zorro. And so we get a beautiful little moment in which the ineffectual and languid spoiled brat comes shockingly alive and, still dressed in plainclothes, soundly thrashes the main heavy.
Aaaaand Spoilers End
The Mark of Zorro didn’t only add monumentally to the popularity and legend of the Zorro character, but it’s also pretty much the beginning of swashbuckler films–and, by extension, probably the start of the conventional action film. It is an immensely enjoyable movie whose wonders haven’t diminished for me at all as I’ve gotten older (and best believe when I first saw this I was young enough that my parents had to read the subtitles for me). Granted, it is mostly carried by the lithe yet goofy charm of Douglas Fairbanks… but that charm was always more than enough to carry along any film. Action and intrigue don’t hurt either.
Next week: the son of Zorro. (And no, not the irritating kid from that vile piece of sh*t.)
You know, I was quite enjoying your website until you referred to “The Legend of Zorro” as a “vile piece of shit” (not to mention gratuitous bashing of the fine young actor Adrian Alonso).
I really don’t quite understand why all you people who ought to be supportive of this film have jumped on the bashing it bandwagon. The first movie more than established the fact that there was going to be a little zorro in the world, and the kid played the part very well. I’m not sure if its that you don’t like kids, or if its just that you think zorro ought to be a single peter pan guy forever, but I was very impressed at the grown up married-with-children relationship and the resultant wonderful comedic moments that were the result. I would have thought that someone capable of appreciating the Fairbanks Zorro humour would have been able to get it.
I guess its just easier to be negative.
Wow. I’ve abandoned the blog, but I just had to chime in a little bit here.
First point: The fun thing about the internet is that liking or disliking something is more than enough to cause others to make all sorts of inferences about your person. “You don’t like this movie, ergo you don’t like kids.” That’s some leap of logic.
Second point: I’m fine with adult relationships, and heroes growing up and yadda yadda yadda, but when that kid is irritating as hell, and the parents’ relationship is entirely unrealistic and unlike anything that real people are ever like… well, that’s a problem, isn’t it?
Third point: Most of my problems with the movie had nothing to do with the child, but the movie being bad in many, many other ways (plot, characters, grasp of history, action sequences, etc.) that I could go into, but it would force me to write a long review and, as stated, I’ve given up on the bog to spend my time on other things.
That was already four paragraphs more than I should have bothered with. So eh, I’m done with it.