La vida de Emilio Zola

... and I've seen a lot of them, in particular the precodes.

Warner Brothers did make heavy use of Paul Muni in the 1930s, particularly in their prestige pictures, capitalizing on his ability to completely physically transform into a role, and he uses that talent here, where he plays Emil Zola. The odd casting includes two actors well known as portraying villains - Joseph Schildkraut and Gale Sondergaard - as Captain Alfred Dreyfus, the wrongly accused and convicted member of the French army and his faithful wife, trying to find somebody who will help him, even after he is shipped out to Devil's Island. They are the only two completely likeable characters in the film, with the images of other treacherous characters they had portrayed somehow erased by their performances.

Even Zola is not likeable through the entirety of the film. He starts out likeable, shown in his youth, looking for, finding, and writing about topics on injustice, but then he grows complacent as he ages, to the point that when Mrs. Dreyfus comes to him for help when he is late in life at first he resists her plea. But her case is compelling and he quickly changes his mind.

The other thing I noticed in this film - It sure is good to be an American and have protections for free speech. Throughout his career Zola comes up against state censors who try to suppress his writings if they make France look bad. Then whenZola takes up Dreyfus' case he is prosecuted for "criminal libel" which is basically a law against making France look bad, with even the judge in the matter seeming to be in cahoots. No wonder the officers involved felt free to keep Dreyfus imprisoned even after they found out who the actual spy was.

I'd recommend this film as a worthwhile watch, but I'm not sure it was the best film of 1937. I'd probably give that honor to The Awful Truth.

Such occasions are not unlike great arias in operas: the stage lights softly dim and follow spot brightens as all cast characters (and audience) lean forward to focus on the delivery.

Such a moment occurs in "The Life of Emile Zola" as Paul Muni as Zola steps to the platform to deliver his courtroom defense speech. Against all the odds of a jeering mob and negative press, he proceeds to offer a seven minute oration.

The scene is a set-up for Muni, and the camera, editing, and staging are all designed for the actor to deliver his thespian goods. He doesn't disappoint.

Two other cinematic courtroom speeches are comparable: Alec Guiness as Benjamin Disraeli in "The Mudlark" (1950) enjoyed the rare opportunity of having his six minute, uninterrupted speech done in a single, slow tracking shot; and Gary Cooper as Howard Roark in "The Fountainhead" (1949) held a courtroom breathless for over five minutes, defending his act of poetic, if not Randian-judicial, justice.

In Muni's case, his defense scene turned out to be a highpoint of an intriguing acting career. From Yiddish theater to worldwide stardom--with fewer that two dozen films to his credit--Muni constantly enthralled some while leaving others doubtful.

What's undeniable about Muni is that he achieved stardom on his own power. He was able to convince a goodly number of people, both peers and public alike, that he was indeed not just a good but great actor.

While some held a sneaking suspicion that he was a wee bit of a poseur, having never formally studied his craft, it really doesn't matter. Muni didn't win his lucrative acting contracts--or his Academy Award honors--for nothing.

Personally, I enjoy his general work, being more partial to roles more close to his own than those of his elders. In latter cases I felt he often tended to go a bit over-the-top with "stereotypical mannerisms."

As Zola, though, his earnestness and determination proves convincing, and the film itself is peopled with a powerhouse cadre of Warner Bros. character players.

To the film's credit, a pre-enactment inscription admits to the intermingling of fiction with fact for dramatic purposes. This also relieves the production of accusations of historical inaccuracy.

All in all, "The Life of Emile Zola" is a most engrossing biopic of a courageous literary giant who placed the pursuit of justice above the receiving of worldly accolades.

Émile is like the Julian Assange of 19th Century France, though certainly less dramatic. He comes under intense criticism as his books gain popularity and the censors are under pressure from the government and the French Army to stop them. The Dreyfus Affair was still well-known at the time of the film's release, but as a person watching for the first time 75 years later I got a little lost. I failed to see the connection between the two seemingly unrelated sub-plots and the ensuing period where there was little to no appearance of the film's namesake. This was eventually cleared up for me but the reliance on assumed knowledge was not very forward-thinking. One quibble is that the women did not seem to age, I had a similar complaint watching Cimarron; throughout the decades covered by the film Zola got older and cuddlier, Dreyfus aged even more...yet their wives hardly aged a day. I wish I knew their secret. Snaps for Joseph Schildkraut whose portrayal of Captain Alfred Dreyfus scored him an Oscar® for Best Supporting Actor. It was a good film and certainly highlighted the level of corruption in France at that time, as well as rooting for the underdog. I must procure one of Zola's books and check him out.

I only watched this because it won an Academy Award for best picture (1937). I didn't expect it to be very good, so my intention was to watch it over two nights, but I watched it in one sitting, because it was quite immersive.

The movie could be described as being comprised of two parts - the first, a snapshot of who Emile Zola was, and the second, his involvement in the Dreyfus Affair (which I knew nothing about until I watched this movie).

I thought this movie was immersive and historically interesting. I enjoyed it.

I highly recommend "The Life of Emile Zola" for the brilliant performances of Paul Muni, Gale Sondergaard, and Joseph Schildkraut. (Although I still must admit I'm surprised by Schildkraut's Oscar victory...although he certainly does a good job as Alfred Dreyfus, the role doesn't really give him much opportunity to demonstrate his talents. Dreyfus is not shown in any depth; his role consists almost entirely of protesting his innocence and languishing in prison.)

Strong performances aside, though, I do have some problems with the film. It strikes me as very odd that a film that makes such a big deal about "the truth" is so hesitant at actually depicting it. One of the key issues of the Dreyfus affair, anti-semitism, is never even brought up. The only reference to Dreyfus' Judaism is a passing glimpse on his personnel papers. The filmmakers' reluctance to address such an important part of the story does a disservice to history.