,- some Winter Studies in a Village “ON THE SCREEN (woodcut by Yen Han). Restrained vivas for Steinbeck’s Viva Zapata . SO WELL .made in many respects is Viva Zapata that I .am tempted to take the hint .from the, film’s. publicity boys and shout ‘‘viva”’ for the people _responsible. . Viva Marlon Brando certainly. ‘as the honest Mexican peasant who leads a revolution almost, im. spite of himself, Brando + gives -pelling power which confirms the impression he gave in A Streetcar Named Desire of being ‘one of the very few real screen personalities to emerge from -. America since the war, Viva Elia Kazan, the director, _.by all means, who has distilled real. poetry from. the revolt of simple men against tyranny and government-backed robbery. _As far as the script allows, he has brought out their courage in the face of betrayal and their refusal to accept defeat. But Viva Steinbeck? A re- strained and much-qualified viva perhaps,. for writing a story about a revolt. which starts soundly and contains a great deal of truth and shrewdness and respect for human dignity + and holds one’s interest closely ‘for much of its length. But Steinbeck’s highly fiction- al story. ‘based on a real-life “figure in recent Mexican history, is marred by a confusion of “thought and an ‘rritating taste *- for unnecessary whimsy which “jead finally to a romantic * anarchism. 4 ke * x ON. “DES MEXICO of 1909, S ‘peasants of a remote province “gompldin to the president that their grazing land has been “stolen and enclosed by the rich - Jandowners. The president puts them off - with vague assurances, He noted the name of the peasant Zapata, more outspoken than. the rest. - When the ne try to a performance of com-. regain their land by legal means they are driven off by force. Zapata, against his will, becomes leader of a spontaneous revolt against the president and the landowners he protects. “Their revolt succeeds, but the army takes over and attacks Zapata’s peasant force, ; Again Zapata wins. This time he is persuaded to accept the presidency, but he is all but illiterate and the real power is wielded for him*by a lean, fan- . atical revolutionary. When Zapata finds himself noting the name of an out- spoken petitioner from his own village, as a president once noted his name, he feels that power has corrupted him, and he returns to his people. The lean fanatic takes power and Zapata is finally tricked and killed by troops. Steinbeck’s conclusion is that strong leaders, even honest ones, are evil unless they stay in their own villages. “A strong man makes a weak people,’ one character ‘says. “Strong people don’t need - a strong man.” It is in trying to make this point that Steinbeck destroys much of his story. The false. eee figure of the fanatic, stands out all the more plainly as contrived and phony because so many of the peasants and so much of. the background ring true. This is not one of the slick, illiterate tracts we have come to expect as Hollywood’s con- tribution to the discussion of politics and revolution. But neither is it. another Grapes of Wrath. It is well worth seeing for its many good points and for the talent that has gone to its mak- ing, But in the end, confused and repetitive, it fails. GET YOUR COPY NOW PART TWO | We Saw Socialism _ by Charlotte and Dyson Carter 75 cents (plus postage and tax) Avrom’s Folio $2.00 (plus postage and tax) PEOPLE'S CO-OPERATIVE BOOKSTORE 8337 WEST PENDER STREET, VANCOUVER, B.C. government GUIDE TO GOOD READING | Part Two of We Saw Socialism ONE OF THE special qualities of Dyson Carter’s writing — the quality that has won him the widest following of any progressive Canadian writer — is his. ability to combine the lively presentation of the slick magazines with the conviction and conciseness of the pamph- leteer. Carter uses the style of the slicks to present the facts that the slicks distort. and he mses it with an understanding © of his subject and an honesty of purpose that no slick writer can expect to achieve and still get his work published today. - The result is almost invari- ably a most readable book, and’ We Saw Socialism is no excep- tion, Part One of this personal report by Charlotte and Dyson’ Carter of their visit to the Soviet Union was published last sall and sold out within a few weeks. Now Part Two has been issued to complete the most readable reportage about the Soviet Union to appear in recent years. “When you visit a foreign country, you notice first of all the ‘ordinary’ things that are different there. For some days after we arrived in the Soviet Union our attention was drawn to such things as their buildings, cars, clothes, and so on. But soon we began to observe the people’ them- selves. They are different. “Just how are Soviet people different, to us?” their readers’ interest and they hold that the 396 pages of Part Two with a many-faceted presentation of life in the Soviet Union, * * 3 THE CARTERS have an fim mense concern for people — the Canadian people as the Soviet people, That is why they are able to anticipate the questions that you and I might ask and sometimes find it hard to get answered in terms we can readily grasp. The Carters answer those questions. What about mental illness, for instance? Does it ‘affect as large a proportion of the Soviet population as our own (The Carters quote the Canadian Mental Health Association’s 1950 report that 10 Canadians in every 1000 face mental breakdown and 20 more are border. cases.) That, it trans- pires, by a reading of the open- ing chapter, “Healing Sick Minds,’ is one of the ways in which Soviet people are differ- ent to ws. Or ‘what about the still debated question (in Canada) as between marriage, and career. In our own country the tendency is to regard them as alternatives. In the Soviet Union a woman can have both— if she chooses. As the Carters state: : : “Millions of Soviet women choose to remain at home after marriage, as house- wives. Millions more choose to continue their work, and when they do, socialism pro- ZENITH CAFE 5 E. Hastings Street. VANCOUVER, B.C. | UNION HOUSE interest -throughout . motherhood » vides them with the practical help thats enables them to have marriage and a career.” And to the objection that a mother, by continuing her work and placing her child in even a splendily equipped, expertly staffed Soviet nursery during the day, is depriving herself. of “eal motherhood,’ the Carters reply: “Real motherhood doesn’t mean slaving over. a wash- tub. Or being tied down all day, every day, to a baby who’d be much happier spend- ing some time with other youngsters in a nursery. “In short: we found, that Soviet working women, mil- lions, of them, get for . their babies and. themselves the same kind of service that’s: reserved over here for the wives of rich men.” : * * * , THE HOUSES the Soviet people live in, the food they eat and how it is grown.and pro-. cessed—whatever questions you may have been asking, they are answered here, ‘completes most readable book In the chapter, ‘‘Long Live the People!’’ the Carters range- through health precautions — “Everybody is health conscious in the land of socialism” — food fads and patent medicines, food ~ adulteration and worthless foods — as opposed to sound nutrition, to -the health services and working conditions that add up - to one fact succinctly stated by — the Carters: “Soviet people are living longer, healthier lives.” Other chapters deal \ with Soviet culture, science. educa- tion, . jurisprudence and _ the Soviet stand on war and peace, told through the story of the © Constructions of Communism — (‘How to Change the World’) and Stalingrad (‘‘Stalingrad Speaks’’). . There’s no doubt that Part Two of We! Saw Socialism will sell out even more rapidly than Part One. This reviewer’s advice to intending readers is to get their copy while there is still one available here at the People’s” Cooperative (Bookstore, 337 West Pender, The price is 75 cents and it’s more than worth — it— HAL GRIFFIN, British literary critic looks at YOU COULD probably tell me offhand that Canada’s popula- tion is about one-third of Britain’s. And that in London there are a dozen gg) to Toronto’s one. You might add that Sdacaniing are inclined to be modest about their culttiral achievements. In general this small population in a huge country looks to Europe and the majority, especially to London, for inepieatoy in the arts. Yet I have received a copy of the first number of a pro- gressive literary magazine from Toronto —and it has reminded me that we in Britain do not possess one, writes Michael MacAlpin in the London Daily Worker. The magazine, a quarterly, is called New Frontiers, (The sec- ond issue is now on the press — and will be available in Van- couver within the next few days.) Its object is to develop ‘a Canadian people’s culture in a world at peace.’’ An editorial statement says that it: “Aims to give Canadian peo-. ple a true and passionate picture of their own character and destiny. . .” : It will encourage: * , our artists and writers to turn to the real lives and hopes, past and present, of the’ Canadian people. - Young writers ‘and artists, deter- mined not to sell their souls, Avail