J'accuse

It's an absolute masterclass in how to make an historical film.

This subject has something very real and urgent to say about the world we live in today. It's kind of a shame you'll probably never get to see it.

I really loved this movie about an interesting story, well told by Polanski. There is an accurate research and a very good cinematographic transposition of what happened in France with the Affair Dreyfus, that many people still don't know. It is important to talk about it, especially with this pathos and care of the details. Definitely a movie to see.

More than 120 years after the events, the Dreyfus case seems to never die. The story of the Jewish officer wrongfully convicted of espionage on the basis of false accusations is reminded every time the honesty, integrity or patriotism of the Jews who choose to live in the Diaspora are questioned. The anti-Semitic slogans propagated by the anti-Dreyfus press and chanted by the angry crowds then are reminded whenever the conspiracy theories bring the Jews to the center of current events. It is not forgotten that one of the side effects of the Dreyfus case was the emergence of the Zionist movement in Europe, which led half a century later to the founding of the State of Israel. Finally, France, the country of democracy and humanism, continues to keep the Dreyfus case as one of its defining moments, a historical warning about the dangers of prejudice and hatred towards strangers that can haunt the most enlightened society. Roman Polanski's 'J'Accuse' is a the latest film tin a series of cinematographic creations that have kept alive the memory and the interest for that moment which refuses to be buried in the oblivion of history.

The main hero of this version is not Dreyfus (played by Louis Garrel) who is little on screen and permanently in the background of the action, but is otherwise presented rather schematically and not in the most positive light. In the center of attention is Georges Picquart (played by Jean Dujardin), the officer who brought to public notice the anti-Semitic conspiracy and the judicial framing that led to Dreyfus's first conviction. His actions and his fight against public opinion, his superiors and a good part of the French political class saved the honor of France and of the army to which he and Dreyfus had dedicated their lives and careers. Far from being a schematic character, Picquart is represented as a complex man of his period, brave and idealistic on one hand, but not without prejudices and personal problems on the other. The titles of the film inform us that the related facts happened in reality, but we must still bear in mind that this is a version of the story based on a novel. Robert Harris's and Roman Polanski's version of the Dreyfus case.

Jean Dujardin's acting seemed exceptional to me. This actor continues to amaze me with each of his new films through the combination of talent and immersion in the roles he plays, with his charisma and personal charm. Of the rest of the distribution I especially notice Mathieu Amalric , another of my favorites. The editing is well filmed, the story runs flawlesly, in the style of classical cinema. It looks like Polanski wanted to make a sober film, in which the emotion derives from the actions of the characters. If we chose to put aside all the disputes regarding the person and the director's past, what we see on screen is a historical film about a crucial moment in the history of France and Europe, made and acted with respect and professionalism.

(translation from Italian) The Hungarian princes Esterházi are one of the noblest families in Austria and Hungary. A representative of this family moved to Paris at the time of the Belle Epoque, between 1890 and 1895, then the times of Marcel Proust, the times of the Impressionists, the moment when Paris is the capital of the world. Ferdinand Esterházi was a dissolute man, a play boy, a player full of debts, but also a Major of Artillery in the Armée, the French army, and together with a certain Alfred, a provincial from Alsatia, without any cover, diligent, hardworking and serious, both are suspected of espionage in favor of the foreign power at that time more incumbent that was Prussia, that is Germany. But who is chosen as a suspect among these two? Who is chosen as a culprit? The provincial because he is a Jew. Imagine discrimination and racism that dominated a capital of that world and that era if there are still echoes in today's world... In this way the famous Dreyfus affair starts, the great court case of the late 1800s which is the basis of Roman Polanski's film "An Officer and A Spy" based on the novel by Robert Harris. The original title of the film is J'accuse, referred to the famous article of the great writer Emile Zola. At the beginning of the film Dreyfus is accused, judged, sentenced, degraded and sent to the Devil's Island to serve a life sentence. Everything is based on a very fragile trial that the new chief of the army's intelligence section, then called statistical office, turns out to be really small, indeed even been completely prefabricated on the injury that Alfred Dreyfus, being a Jew, could be capable of anything and having to discover a spy inside the army, because there was evidence of a spy, who do you choose as a spy? You choose the pariah, you choose the one that matters least, you choose the one that in common prejudice could be a spy, a delinquent, an abject, that is, a Jew. And everyone is convinced that it's true. Major Georges Picquart is played by a splendid Jean Dujardin, whom we know because for The Artist he won an Oscar, a Golden Globe, a Bafta, a Golden Palm, for his extraordinary interpretation in a silent film today, therefore with an expressiveness, a capacity, an intelligence, an irony and an extraordinary comedy. This time he plays a completely opposite character. He descends into a torn, almost dark character that when discovers the truth, realizes he must fight against power. He is a servant of the state being a soldier and above all being the chief of an office as delicate as that of intelligence, but he is between a rock and a hard place, between power and truth. Any effort he makes to go towards the truth is completely frustrated by power, that does not want to criticize itself. Because the paradox of this story is that, being now the matter of Dreyfus in the final judgment and having been fed to public opinion as a form of moral washing and cleanliness, can no longer be questioned. So our Picquart is facing a pyramid, a monolith, an immense mountain of lies which cannot be and above all must not be affected to safeguard the true and just serious face of power, which is actually a mask of hypocrisy, and he absolutely cannot break this image in the name of truth. The truth becomes a detail, an extremely annoying goad, that like a blowfly, it must be killed and eliminated. And Georges Picquart also annoys: "But who makes him do it... But don't get in the way... But you must obey... But what is the truth for... " Polanski represents all this important matter in a really fierce manner.

The story is nothing revolutionary, no extra twist or suprise but the real gem here is the way the story is told and the movie was shot.

In contrast to the oversaturated Hollywood exhaustive action packed style this movie manages to tell the intriguing Dreyfus affair in France 1895 without unnecessary overdone action scenes/music whilst maintaining the core tension of the topic that doesn't let you off the hook.

When the movie was finished I couldn't believe that over 2h were over and I felt pleasantly refreshed and renewed, although I was constantly focused on what will happen next. That's the level of smoothness we are talking about here.

A connection to past Polanski or french movies is definitly visible and this way of storytelling can be thought of as a new take on it.

If you like historical dramas with a good portion of crime you should definitly take a look at this gem.