Yes, reading through my argument again, I can see that the sentence is not sufficiently contextualised. The “becoming Zapata” comment is supposed to be metaphorical and intertextual (suggesting purely that Petroni apes the tropes, dialogue and framings of Elia Kazan’s / Marlon Brando’s fictional cinematic character “Zapata”), not historical or literal (actually having Milian become or represent the historical revolutionary Emiliano Zapata). By omitting adequate discussion of this cinematic reference point, it is unclear that this is what I mean.

My book will elaborate upon this argument and, I hope, make it in a more cogent manner.

Actually I quite agree with your argument from a thematic point of view. It’s just that in terms of historical characterizations, it seems weird to say that Cuchillo has transformed into Zapata when quite clearly he has become Tepepa (who did of course fight for Zapata).

The sentence you quote seeks to convey the extent to which Petroni and Milian begin by repeating the ready-made “Cuchillo” archetype from “La resa dei conti” and “Corri, uomo, corri” (a picaresque Commedia dell’arte Harlequin, wretched peasant and wandering trickster), and twist this characterisation into the ruthless and assertive “Zapata” figure we see for the majority of the film. Apologies if this argument is not expressed as clearly as it could be. I shall look again at how I construct it.

Just read your “Marxist’s Gotta Do…” article. It was really interesting! Good job!

I do, however, have one small query. Seeing as Tepepa, along with Zapata, is a real historical figure from the Mexican revolution, while Cuchillo is not, it seems a little strange to say the following: “When next we see Tepepa, indeed, he has transformed from Cuchillo to Zapata.”