El enemigo del hombre o La vida trágica de Luis Pasteur

"The Stroy of Louis Pasteur" is an example of Hollywood's Golden Era at its best. The first of the Warner Bros "biopics", it can boast of a great performance by Paul Muni, with none of the mannerisms that became a trade mark in the last and sorry years of his career. It was an example of the "good citizenship" that Warner Broa boasted of: a highly educational film that at the same time was very entertaining. The screen play was masterful and won the Oscar it the deserved. Authors Sheridan Gibney and Pierre Collings were able to dramatize scientific struggles and investigations. This was also the beginning of the most fruitful period in William Dieterle's career, an from that moment on he shared with Michael Curtiz the top assignments at Warner. It is now known that The Story of Louis Pasteur was made with a very low budget. You don't notice it. It is a wonderful show, as was the following year "The Life of Emile Zola" and, with some reservations, "Juarez" in 1939. There are notable performances in the picture by Fritz Leiber and Akim Tamiroff among others.

In 19th century France, a ridiculed chemist branching out into medicine is called a charlatan by Europe's most prestigious doctors, even after he finds a vaccine for anthrax in sheep; next, he tackles hydrophobia in dogs, then humans. Medical history, compressed and simplified for the sake of popular entertainment, but no less rewarding for it. Paul Muni gives an impressive, Oscar-winning performance as Louis Pasteur, so fiercely dedicated to his findings and the results they receive, he drives himself to a partial stroke. One might think Pasteur as a family man might be difficult to live with, yet his loved ones merely beam and glow with pride, as does the opposition (seen as ego-fed and pig-headed) once Pasteur's experiments pay off. It's an awfully brief biography at just 85 minutes, yet it certainly has charm and moments of solid drama. **1/2 from ****

This is a great film that is also very historically and scientifically correct. Almost everything in the movie REALLY happened to the real Louis Pasteur. I am a high school biology teacher and I show this film every year when we study viruses and bacteria. When I tell the students that it is a black and white film from 1935, I get moans and words of disapproval. But every year after they have viewed the film almost all students come away legitimately liking the film.

Paul Muni's performance is extraordinary and may be the best performance of his entire career. I highly recommend watching this film. It was nominated for BEST PICTURE, Paul Muni won BEST LEAD ACTOR, it won BEST WRITER, and won BEST EDITING that year.

In 1860 Paris, doctors are collectively disgruntled by chemist Paul Muni (as Louis Pasteur). He advises surgeons, "Wash your hands. Boil your instruments. Microbes cause disease and death to your patients." In the opening scene, a doctor is shot due to his patient believing in Pasteur's advice. The controversy causes problems for Pasteur. Ten years later, the renowned man works on cures for anthrax (the black plague) and rabies (after a dog bites Dickie Moore)...

This is an exceptionally well-produced, straightforward biography of Louis Pasteur by director William Dieterle and the crew at Warner Bros. Paul Muni forwarded his film career considerably. He is nothing less than perfect, and Mr. Muni won a much-deserved "Best Actor" Oscar for his performance. So many early "Academy Awards" were chosen due to politics, popularity and promotion. It's nice to see the old Academy occasionally got one right...

The film is lacking, however, in not presenting Pasteur as a younger man (oddly, Muni is only made to look older). And, the fact that you drank "Pasteurized" milk isn't even covered.

******** The Story of Louis Pasteur (1935-11-23) William Dieterle ~ Paul Muni, Josephine Hutchinson, Fritz Leiber, Donald Woods

... Both star Paul Muni in a historical biopic, the location is France, he's on the side of right but the French establishment - in this case the medical establishment - opposes him, he withdraws to a remote location at one point to escape persecution and even prosecution, and there are some tense situations where he could be facing a long prison term for putting his work into action.

This is not to say that the biopic is not worthwhile, and as far as the scientific facts go, it is pretty true to the facts. Because this is a 90 minute film, Pasteur's work is "boiled down" - pardon the expression - into two parts. First is his work in the germ theory of diseases. The second part of the film focuses on his work in the area of vaccines, first anthrax and then rabies.

In the first part on Pasteur's work on germ theory - that germs infect a living host and thus produce disease NOT that the germs somehow "rise up" from within the host - the film focuses on the prevention of childbirth fever. Although Pasteur was better known for his work in the prevention of silkworm disease, the studio probably rightly divined that the prevention of the death of new mothers has more human interest than the preservation of silkworms and would make a more compelling film. The same was probably true in the second part with its focus on the treatment of rabies victims.

There are some fictitious parts of course, for the purpose of dramatic license, such as Pasteur's daughter's marriage to a young scientific ally of his and the dramatic search for a doctor who will agree to deliver that daughter's baby according to Pasteur's principles so that his daughter does not contract the dreaded childbirth fever herself.

If you like the better made biopics of the 30s and appreciate Paul Muni's talents in such films, I'd recommend it.