Emile Zolas Liv
Biographical
movies are tricky. Very few people lived a life that fit exactly into a
Hollywood format, so when you see a biographical movie you have to wonder how
real it is. Or when attempt are made to keep it real some of the flow or moment
is sacrificed in the name of truth. Fortunately the life of Emile Zola was
sufficiently interesting to make a nice movie out of it though I wonder if he
really was as saintly as depicted in the film.
According
to this version of the story Zola started out as a poor writer slumming it with
Cezanne. They were politically active and full of social indignation. His
breakthrough was a portrait of a prostitute that became an instant bestseller
and from then on he was on the track for stardom and wealth. Later in life he
is roused from a complacent life by the Dreyfus scandal. In an attempt to cover
up an internal leak in the military high command a lowly artillery officer is
blamed with high treason. Zola being a staunch enemy of the high command clique
is moved by Dreyfus’s wife to take action in writing and speeches, most notably
his J’accuse article and his defense speech when he himself is accused for
treason by the high command.
The saintly
aspect is the most difficult part to cope with. Paul Muni got a lot of acclaim
for his performance as Emile Zola, but for a modern viewer he becomes too
two-dimensional as the saint-turned complacent-remade-into-sainthood. I like
Paul Muni. He was really good and convincing in “I am a fugitive from a chain
gang”, but Emile Zola is a very different character. He is a firebrand speaker,
filled with social indignation, but also a cozy teddy of a grandfather type.
The fact that Paul Muni is able to do both types, but also be the intense
tightlipped fugitive in the chain gang movie testifies to his qualities as a character
actor. The two-dimensionality problem rests with the direction and script.
While this
is obviously Paul Muni’s movie the character of Alfred Dreyfus, played by
Joseph Schildkraut, is threatening to steal the stage. He is very convincing as
the patriotic officer, who insists on his professionalism and his innocence,
but whose spirit is gradually broken on the miserable island where he is imprisoned.
He did end up getting an Oscar for best supporting act and it is well deserved.
His wife on the other hand is terrible. The faithful, fighting wife crying out
her desperation to move Zola into action is simply not convincing. It looks
fake and overacted and it plays badly with Muni. After a while I was groaning
every time she appeared.
I cannot help
comparing Zola’s final speech during his trial with that of Mr. Smith in “Mr.
Smith goes to Washington”. Where Smiths speech is an appeal to common decency
to a jaded and corrupted audience and takes him nowhere, Zola’s speech is also
dismissed by a corrupt military audience, but his speech is a much more clever
oration. He is effectively exposing the hypocrisy of the military leadership
and his accusers and while he is also declared guilty by default he manages to
make his accusers the guilty part and effectively, in turn, brings down the
military establishment. No need for a deus-ex-machina here. Singlehandedly he
manages to turn the tide and talk his way out of his predicament.
The complot
against Dreyfus was very real and also a real game changer in France and
therefore in itself interesting to watch unfold in the movie. And the reality
of it makes it relevant also today. The ranking establishment covering up for
itself out of self-preservation is a recurrent phenomenon and choosing an
outsider as scapegoat, in this case a Jewish junior officer, to take the blame
is also something we are not done with. So, simply for these reasons the movie
is worth seeing.
Had Zola
been less pompous and more… human, this could easily have become one of my
favorite movies of the thirties. As it is it is definitely one of the better
ones and certainly entertaining. A history lesson from an age where history
portrayed was usually heavily tainted by creative editing. This may be too, but
it is less obvious.
Pretty much all biographical films, at least through the forties, whitewashed their subjects. It was only in more recent decades that more films started showing the bad with the good.
ReplyDeleteAnd sorry, but I'm going to continue to disagree with you on the speech in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Had there been no speech, there is no change of heart by the other Senator, and the truth never comes out.
He he, I knew that my Mr. Smith review would be controversial, sorry about that. But then, it is fun to stir the waters a bit.
DeleteIn any case, true or not, the Zola movie made a lot more of an impact on me, both in terms of the subject matter and in terms of resolving the "crisis". That was basically my point with the comparison.
As a tool for history, this is an effective film. Muni has a tendency to become hammy. I agree with you that Joseph Schildkraut upstages Muni in the acting department. And while the court room scenes are rather bombastic, they are probably the element that pushes the movie over the average threshold.
ReplyDeleteBombastic, yes, but also effective. This was an important story that needed to be told, especially in the thirties.
Delete