The Fox!

The Legend of Zorro is currently playing at the Admiral, that awesome West Seattle bastion of second-run films. I liked it better than The Mask of Zorro!!! Then again, the old 1958 version (The Sign of Zorro) is a film I think I've seen the most in my life, second only to The Great Escape. But I digress... I LOVED this sequel!

However, there are a TON of historical discrepancies, the first being that the film wants to take place 1861 by having Abraham Lincoln and the Confederacy make appearances. The whole storyline revolves around California attaining statehood in time to join the Union before the Civil War. But since California became a state in 1850, that's when the story has to occur, even though Lincoln was still practicing law in Illinois and the Confederacy obviously hadn't formed yet. Also, the intro sentence claims that Californians were "poor and desperate" and wanted statehood (implying that joining the United States brought economic prosperity), but I always thought the Gold Rush of 1848 brought a hell of a lot of business to California (though maybe not the Los Angeles area so much), for better or worse, and sped up the process of statehood. It also brought ethnic conflict, and I doubt that Latinos were allowed to vote for statehood, as the movie happily portrays.

All of this was in the back of my mind as I watched the movie, but I'm learning to suspend belief. (In my younger, more intolerant years, I would've hated this movie because of its inability to insert itself properly into history. Ah, but wisdom comes with age... or maybe it's apathy, not wisdom! Like I said, I loved this movie.) Then again, post-Civil War American history interests me more, so I don't necessarily care that much to do the research.

The cheesy opening scenes have Zorro saving a ballot box full of brown people's votes from the bad guy who doesn't want statehood. I think this opener can only make sense to a post-Election2000 audience! But it's the kind of movie that kids would love because there's a kid who gets to participate in all the action; the heroine likewise gets to kick some ass; and there's a cheesy secret international organization out to rule the world. So many holes, historical and otherwise, but it was all good fun.

Speaking of films, I can't wait for King Kong!!! I had to watch the original twice for a class back in the day, and this latest version apparently is fairly faithful to the 1933 film. But of course it can't appeal to its audience in the same ways (there's no Depression wreaking havoc in cities, but there are different monsters for a modern audience). So I'm curious to see what's been changed for 21st-century viewers, and how those viewers might read a storyline that is placed in the 1930s.