Juárez

JUAREZ, despite playing fast and loose with certain historical facts, is nevertheless rousing and sumptuous epic film-making about the struggle for justice - on the one hand by the Mexican people and on the other by their hapless monarch.

The people are represented by Paul Muni impersonating Mexican president Benito Juarez; his expressionless face and slow, monotonous line readings are almost laughable; he comes across as a sort of Unconquerable Zombie of the People. He almost always appears in the same frame as a portrait of his hero and contemporary, Abraham Lincoln. As others have pointed out, his most powerful moment comes when he walks purposefully toward a line of armed soldiers in one of those moments of truth at the core of all successful revolutions: the refusal of the armed forces to defend the established regime.

The hounded monarch, Archduke Maximilian, is played by Brian Aherne in what may well be the best casting he was ever assigned on film. His performance is letter perfect as the idealistic puppet of Napoleon III who stuck to his outmoded principles despite overwhelming odds in much the same way as Nicholas II did in Russia decades later. In another parallel to the later Russian events, his domineering wife Carlotta (played by a beautifully photographed, no-holds-barred, black-bewigged Bette Davis) takes matters into her own hands to support his flimsy but ardent claim to the leadership of the country; Aherne, like Muni, is also frequently seen in proximity to a framed portrait - of his wife.

This is an expensive production with lavish costumes, stunning set pieces, gorgeous music, literate dialogue, a who's who of excellent supporting players, and breathtaking photography (the latter by veteran cameraman Tonio Gaudio, some of whose visions, especially Carlotta's prayer to the Virgin Mary and her final scene in a sunlit chamber, recall the most ethereal imagery of the silent era). All of these elements work together to get our blood surging in sympathy for the downtrodden Mexican peasantry as they rise up against cold hearted official corruption. And on a smaller level we feel equally moved by the personal plight of Maximilian.

With so much stuffing, not everything works perfectly. John Garfield, one of the best film actors of his time, is unconvincing as a Mexican general. There is a problem with pacing and informational overkill. Muni's sleepwalking performance contributes to a sense of sluggishness. Whenever he appears you brace yourself for a plodding and profound dose of Great Truth. At least these Truths are not banalities, so they are somewhat worth waiting for.

This is one of five biopics that William Dieterle made for producer Hal B. Wallis at Warner Bros in as many years and the third to star Paul Muni in the title role. Excellent production values suffice it to say. Tony Gaudio is behind the camera and there is a symphonic score by Korngold arranged and orchestrated by Hugo Freidhofer with an effective use of 'La Paloma'. Film historian David Thompson has dismissed these biopics as being Germanic and stagey. He is fully entitled to his opinion of course but I think his verdict to be harsh especially when one considers the first class actors, both leading and supporting, who appeared in these films. The characters that linger longest in the memory from this are those of Brian Aherne as Maximilian and Bette Davis as his wife Carlotta. Aherne has never been better quite frankly while Davis is absolutely stupendous in the role. Their scenes together are beautifully understated and the scene where she confronts the ignominious Louis Napoleon, played with relish by Claude Rains, is magnificent. Her descent into madness is subtly handled. Interesting also to see as future president Diaz that human dynamo John Garfield whose greatest roles were still to come. Paul Muni I must confess has never really been my cup of tea but that is only my opinion. The 'execution' of monarchs understandably has always caused more emotional outrage and controversy than that of dictators. In this film at any rate Juarez feels remorse but his refusal to grant Maximilian a pardon is certainly a blot on his historical reputation. Excellent film by a European director who adapted to and thrived under the Hollywood system. As an historical document it is certainly off-centre in many respects but as a piece of entertainment it certainly hits the mark.

Although there are some mistakes historically speaking,this is an absorbing screenplay,with superlative performances by Paul Muni,Bette Davis and Brian Aherne,who should have been at the top of the bill too,for he has more scenes than his two co-stars.

Muni is almost frightening with his impassive face and his slow delivery.If looks could kill,his certainly would...

Davis ,although she does not look like Charlotte physically ,gives a captivating portrayal of the empress.The scene when she prays Virgin Mary is impressive ,but not true: she was not sterile,but she and the emperor used to sleep apart!Their relationship was much more complex than the one depicted by Dieterlé: actually,the emperor was often away,it seemed that their strange love worked from a distance.Little by little,Maximilian lost all interest in power and Charlotte was ruling while he was gone (which often happened)or was staying in his Cuernavaca "paradise" .

Aherne is Maximilian in the flesh.It's interesting to notice that his brother Francis-Joseph had deprived him of all his rights and his titles in Austria.Historians generally agree that he would not have accepted the Mexican throne,if Charlotte had not been his wife. the problem is that the film doesn't show us the couple BEFORE they get to Mexico:one thing to bear in mind is that Max did not accept the throne overnight;and many people in Europa (notably Queen Victoria and Empress Elizabeth aka "Sissi" ) had warned them it was more a curse than a blessing.Charlotte (Carlotta) ,someone reportedly said ,wanted to reign over any people anywhere.Sissi called her Max's black angel. Maximilian is depicted as a chivalrous noble sovereign which he was in a way.But of course ,he had lots of (Mexican)lovers since he didn't sleep with his wife

Dieterlé does not pass over in silence the obnoxious role played by Napoleon the Third (and wife Eugénie de Montijo).Charlotte does show her contempt:"He is an impostor,his family is not an old one like ours ".The famous scene of the orangeade is included .Today,no serious historian would put forward that the drink was poisoned.But it might be possible that she was poisoned before leaving Mexico.Davis shines when she plays these scenes of madness.The scenes in Paris are not thoroughly accurate though:Eugenie (an incredibly beautiful Sondergaard) met first Carlotta alone in the Grand Hotel -they did not invite her to the Tuileries,which meant a lot about what they felt-Metternich was not the person who helped Carlotta :she first took refuge in the Vatican where the pope had trouble to get rid of her,then her sister-in-law Marie -Henriette ,queen of Belgium,came to her rescue when she was treated almost like a prisoner in Miramar.

All that concerns Maximilian's death is accurate ,his last words were "poor Charlotte!"

Poor Charlotte indeed.She was to outlive almost everyone,even Empress Eugenie! She died in 1927,after years and years of insanity with occasional moments of lucidity ,notably during WW1.

Dieterlé's movie is by no means uninteresting,but it would be exciting to film a remake in the light of the recent works about the Mexican adventure.

Well appointed but lumbering, miscast drama. Bette is fine, all spit and fire but John Garfield, who was embarrassed by his forced casting, is completely out of place as Porfirio Diaz with his New York accent still firmly in place. Paul Muni, a very fine actor in modern dress roles, does what he always does when heavily made up; he lets the makeup do the acting for him. The best performance is delivered by Brian Aherne but he is hampered by a bizarre beard which distracts the viewer whenever he's on screen. The lack of fluid direction makes this feel more like a history lesson than a dramatized story of an actual series of events. A good try but stodgy.

Mexican History has not done too well in American cinema. One film (that I am aware of) about Cortez (THE CAPTAIN FROM CASTILE), one Yul Brynner movie about the Aztecs, several films about Santa Anna and the Alamo (including a new one coming out this week), a few films about Pancho Villa (the two most notable ones being VIVA VILLA with Wallace Beery and a film with Telly Savalas as the bandit patriot), one film directed by Elia Kazan, starring Brando and Quinn (who was half Mexican) about Emilianno Zapata, and John Ford's indictment (via Graham Greene's novel) of the anti-Catholicism of the Mexican Revolution. It's not much, and other films set in Mexico tend to promote the image of corruption and incompetence or bloody mindedness. Witness films like THE OLD GRINGO (an account of the end of Ambrose Bierce in the Mexican Revolution), or THE TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRES.

JUAREZ was a possible exception, in that it was to chronicle the odd events of 1862 - 1867 when (in the shadow of the American Civil War, and the temporary inability of the U.S. Government to exercise the Monroe Doctrine)Emperor Napoleon III decided to set up a puppet Hapsburg Emperor, Archduke Maximillian to rule Mexico. The film is supposed to be centered on Benito Juarez, Mexico's greatest liberal and President (his closest 20th Century counterpart is Lazaro Cardenas, who tried to get real land reform into the country). The film shows how Napoleon's scheme unravelled due to Juarez's refusal to accept the French occupation (an early version of the Vietnam War drained French troop strength for five years), as well as the returning threat of American intervention after Lee's defeat in 1865. But worst of all was the choice of the puppet. Maximillian was one of history's dreamers - he believed in the responsibility of royalty to govern for their people, and he was (for a Hapsburg) a liberal. The result was that the scheme was doomed from the start.

The real heart of the film is the competition between Juarez and Maximillian for the hearts of Mexico - both presenting conflicting views of government (but, ironically enough, good government). Because he was a foreigner, tainted by the French army supporting him, Max lost, and he ended up shot by a firing squad (he refused an opportunity to flee). His beloved wife Carlotta (Bette Davis in the film) went insane - dying in 1927 in Belgium, some sixty years after he died). Played by Brian Ahearn, Maximillian is a sympathetic man who pursues a tragic view of duty to it's sad conclusion. Davis shows the intense love of the doomed wife of this doomed man.

The problem is Muni. His performance is stiff, but good - especially when he explains democracy to his leading "Hotspur" military supporter -a young Porfirio Diaz (John Garfield). Garfield, having gotten to know Ahearn is a good guy, tries to convince Muni to join forces (becoming the first minister to the Constitutionally minded Ahearn). Muni rejects it - why have a monarchy at all. But Muni is overlooking the finer shadings of his rival's personality - he isn't Napoleon III but Maximillian. This should have been the center of the film - but it ended on the cutting room floor. The film was too long, and so Muni is shown struggling alone, leading his guerrilla war against the invader, and fighting an unscrupulous attempt by his Vice President to overthrow him (a properly corrupt Joseph Calliea). The conflict between constitutional monarch and democratic leader is skirted. Garfield, by the way, is not so bad as Diaz - he actually was to play a stronger part had the film not been cut - he would have been confronting the aging Juarez at the end (as historically he did) as the dictator of the future who ruled Mexico for 30 years, and gave it more stability and economic growth than any other leader in it's history (while selling the country off to American and European investors). The film was supposed to end on a more sour note. If it had, it would have been a great film.