C?sar Ch?vez is perhaps the most famous Mexican-American civil rights activist in American history, but, sadly, many Americans know little about him. Ch?vez’s movement to organize farm laborers in California during the 1960s and 1970s is an often-overlooked facet of American history. The activist’s story, however, hits the big screen with new film “Cesar Chavez,” directed by Diego Luna. The Mexican actor-turned-director — known for his roles in “Y Tu Mam? Tambi?n” (2001) and “Milk” (2008) — has unfortunately fallen short in his directorial debut. This biopic, the first English-language film he has directed, ultimately disappoints. “Cesar Chavez” fails to muster the same charisma and passion the civil rights activist so clearly possessed.
The film follows Ch?vez (Michael Pe?a) as he moves his family from Los Angeles to agriculture-oriented Delano, Calif. where he organizes strikes (or “huelgas” in Spanish) and eventually forms the National Farm Workers Association. Shaky camera work interspersed with black and white historical footage gives the movie a documentary-like quality, and sweeping shots of grape vineyards provide a nice aesthetic. However, the film’s reliance on cliche combined with a rushed timeline, leave the viewer with a shallow portrait of Ch?vez.
The movie’s central conflict between farmworkers and landowners is rather superficial and makes the laborers’ struggles seem flat. Landowners are boiled down to villainous, racist white men, while farmworkers are innocent victims. It is clear these laborers want rights their bosses wish to deny them, but the viewer never fully understands the conflict in detail. The portrayal lacks complexity, and lapses into an oversimplification of the farmworkers’ rights movement. It is also difficult to pinpoint the root of Ch?vez’s passion for farmworker’s rights. The film rushes into the activist’s efforts in Delano, and this clumsy introduction is confusing. It is clear Luna wants to portray Ch?vez as a hero, but that portrayal is banal at best. At no point is there doubt about Ch?vez’s greatness; instead, he is depicted as faultless, a fact that makes the film dull at times. The movie offers glimpses into Ch?vez’s troubled home life, but even these moments feel contrived and obligatory.
“Cesar Chavez” predictably focuses on the toll that Ch?vez’s work takes on his family, including his supportive wife Helen (America Ferrera) and children. Ch?vez’s oldest son (Eli Vargas) struggles with his father’s absence and bullying at school, eventually moving away from his family. Though Luna attempted to make the film, at its core, a story about a father and son, this narrative seems more of an afterthought than a developed storyline.
The acting also falls victim to shallowness. While Pe?a presents a convincing Ch?vez, the character’s sole characteristic — courage — limits Pe?a’s performance to that of an idealized hero. The closest we get to a look at Ch?vez’s faults is when a protest turns violent and he cannot control union members. Similarly, Ferrera’s portrayal of Helen falters because the role is merely a stereotype of the dedicated, dutiful and supportive wife. John Malkovich’s landowner character is somewhat more believable and fleshed out, though the other landowners are merely greedy and racist. All in all, the film’s characters crave dimensionality, a flaw that condemns the film to mediocrity.
Despite its shortcomings, the film highlights the value of Ch?vez’s work. The focus on the struggles of farmworkers in the 1960s and 1970s draws attention to problems that continue to persist today. Although Luna’s “Cesar Chavez” is amateurish and sloppy, these problems can be somewhat overlooked because the film’s shortcomings do not overshadow its overarching message. While Luna fails to create a nuanced and complex film, “Cesar Chavez” is worth seeing simply to understand the significance of Ch?vez’s contributions to farmworkers’ rights.
