O Julgamento do Capitão Dreyfus

A most excellent portrayal of men, politics and truth and how truth is given a back set to the affairs of men. This story is as old as mankind itself. To see someone unjustly and falsely accused of a crime and not be able to do anything about it summons the deepest feelings one can have for life itself and of course the life giver. This story comes to you at a price...the price of a mans life. You see its true he suffered and then continued to suffer in a place made for suffering exclusively i.e. Devils Island prison. The french were notorious for punishment and being a french traitor made you especially un-welcomed on the island. Man is not perfect as we learned in Victors Hugo accounting called Les Miserable. That is why here in America, we would rather see 12 guilty people go free before we convict or condemn an innocent person. This movie drives home that point. Don't fight the emotional scenes when they come. There are a few and they can clean you out if you let them..

Great story for then and now about politics and false accusation. Acting was great. Movies from 30's 40's and some 50's are of great quality. Well written and filmed. You will enjoy. Reminds me of Les Misérables. But seems more real like in the story.

A film based on the infamous Dreyfus Affair wherein a French soldier is convicted & imprisoned for a crime he did not commit & eventually due to the protestations of the populace & the well known writer Emile Zola, he was eventually acquitted. Directed by & starring Jose Ferrer, this heart in its right place account of the trials & tribulations of this railroaded individual comes off as a rather important history lesson then an affecting drama. There was a version done on HBO in the 90's called Prisoner of Honor (directed by Ken Russell) which tackled the same subject matter & I remember the result was about the same. It may be a case of the trial being more of a cause celebre outside this country which may leave American viewers a bit on the periphery where we agree the stakes are obvious & noble but w/o a frame of reference ultimately we kind of shrug it off. Perhaps a French version (much like Cyrano de Bergerac w/Gerard Depardieu for me is the consummate version of the tale while the 50's version also w/Ferrer which he won the Oscar for is pretty good but not as good as its foreign language descendant) will do the trick.

The issues raised by the terrible injustice inflicted upon Captain Alfred Dreyfus and Emile Zola's subsequent rallying cry 'J'accuse' in 'L'Aurore' of 1898 are timeless and have certainly struck a chord with film-makers, enabling many of them to draw parallels with their own times and experiences.

The final speech by Paul Muni as Zola in William Dieterle's excellent biopic is a veiled reference to the rise of Nazism although strangely, considering that Dreyfus was Jewish, no one utters the words 'Jew' or 'anti-Semitic'. Fast forward eighty odd years and we have a version by Roman Polanski for whom the Jewish element would have provided many painful memories. There are those who have seen in his film an allegory of the director's own perceived persecution by LA County! Yves Boisset's TV film reflects his cinematic crusade to depict institutionalised corruption whilst the Ken Russell/Richard Dreyfus version is just one too many. Mr. Dreyfus is advertising his liberal credentials here and claims to be a descendant of the unfortunate Captain. The fascination of the eleven minute series by Georges Melies stems from its being made whilst the Dreyfus affair was still raging. I have alas never seen Richard Oswald's version and would be interested to see how the Germans handled the subject.

This adaptation from 1958 is directed by and stars well-known liberal José Ferrer, is produced by Sam Zimbalist and has a screenplay by Gore Vidal. Hardly surprising therefore that there are distinct echoes here of the McCarthy witch hunts.

It is made in a very matter-of-fact manner and some of the leading characters are under-written but the emotive material and strong performances carry us through.

A contingent of dependable British thespians is on dispay here notably Leo Genn whose genteel persona suits perfectly the character of Major Picquart who campaigned tirelessly for Dreyfus' acquittal whilst the odious General Mercier of Donald Wolfit epitomises Oscar Wilde's observation that "patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." Equally obnoxious is Major du Paty played by the superlative Herbert Lom, sans peruke. The two performances that linger longest are those of Swedish born Viveca Lindfors who brings her customary intelligence and sensitivity to the role of Madame Dreyfus and the immaculate Austrian Anton Walbrook who effortlessly steals all of his scenes as the charming but despicable Major Esterhazy.

José Ferrer achieves the Herculean task of being both director and portraying Dreyfus. A previous reviewer, female naturally, has remarked upon Mr. Ferrer's lack of charisma and sex appeal. I was not aware that Dreyfus possessed either of those attributes or that Mr. Ferrer was ever called upon to play a role that required them. He is immensely sympathetic in the part and what he does possess is that golden voice.

The film proudly announces that Dreyfus' eventual acquittal and reinstatement represent a brave chapter in French history. This is of course absolute tosh for were it not for the bravery and determination of a few individuals, Dreyfus would have been left to rot on Devil's Island.

Jose Ferrer was indubitably intelligent and impeccably liberal, as he was sure to let you know. He made a number of rather good movies, but he was not as brilliant as he thought, and his lack of the conventional movie virtues such as charm, sex appeal, or just friendly warmth was far more damaging than he knew. This movie presents the story clearly and fairly, and there are some good performances, but on the whole it's very cold and dry.

Gore Vidal's script is also intelligent and, rarely for Hollywood historical films, does not contain a single vulgarism or anachronism. But, again, a few of these would be a small price to pay for some zest and passion. A more surprising omission is wit, which one would have expected from Vidal.

And there is another omission. The Dreyfus case was an indication of the degree of anti-semitism among the French as a whole, not only the military. The hatred of Jews that the case provided an opportunity to express was so intense, widespread, and violent that many left the country. We are told at the beginning of the film that Dreyfus is a Jew, and a bit later there are a couple of mentions of the fact that most people do not like or trust them. But that's it. There is no sense at all of the vicious and hysterical feelings that were voiced by the ignorant public and whipped up by the media. The mobs have only a pathetic two or three placards, none of which mention Jews, and when they shout insults we do not hear the word. Ironically, this is a heavily censored movie about people who do not tell the truth.

As Dreyfus, Ferrer is very correct, proper, and unimaginative. After he is cruelly mistreated we see him suffer, but his pain is not has affecting as it should be--there is something actorish about it. The acting honors go to David Farrar as Dreyfus's brother and Leo Genn as his one supporter on the general staff--indeed, the latter looks so good in his full moustache and acts so suavely that we seem at times to be watching James Mason.

You really know the movie has failed when the person in whom we are most interested, and most anxious to see again, is Esterhazy, the real spy, who throws the innocent Dreyfus to the wolves. Anton Walbrook is so steeped in seedy charm, so much the would-be languorous fatalist with one eye nervously alert that we are keen to see someone with an active mind rather than another puppet in this story that is far more complex and unsavory than the film makes out.