clanciai This is probably both William Dieterle's and Paul Muni's best film. It is monumental in its towering pathos of justice, which actually reduces Zola to a mere second character, while the central character is the awesome Dreyfus affair with its character assassination by intentional gross injustice. It was the greatest judicial scandal in the 19th century and perhaps in history, and it is very well presented in the film, especially by minor details, as the scenes from Devil's Island, when Dreyfus fettered to his bed (for security) tries to read Zola's book under his bed and finds it infested with insects, and when his release is illustrated by his incredulousness, walking out of his cell again and again, and returning in to walk out once again.The first quarter of the film is the weakest and least historically correct, "Nana" was far from Zola's first literary success and actually only a minor novel compared to "Gervaise" and "Germinal" for instance, which are not even mentioned. The last three quarters of the film are all about the Dreyfus affair, crowned with Zola's glowing articles and speeches in court, splendidly delivered by Paul Muni, well aware of what opportunity he had here to excel himself in acting and making more than the best of it.All other actors are excellent as well and startlingly convincing every one of them, from Esterhazy and the generals to the ladies and wives, while Cézanne alone is a little shadowy.It's a tremendous film, I saw it as a child 55 years ago and have never forgotten it, and at last I found an opportunity to see it again, and it was exactly equally impressing and moving. William Dieterle made many excellent films, he was German and worked with Murnau, Max Reinhardt, Marlene Dietrich (co-director with Reinhardt in the glorious "Midsummer Night's Dream") and finalized his career in Hollywood with unsurpassed gems like "Love Letters" and "Portrait of Jennie" with Jennifer Jones. They are very different from his great biopics of the 30s, of which this Dreyfus film is the towering masterpiece.

The_Film_Cricket The Life of Emile Zola tells a compelling story, but it has a title that is not exactly accurate. This is not a story of the life of Emile François Zola, the 19th century writer who railed against the injustices in his native France in books like "Nana" and "Germinal." Actually it is the specific story of the trial and injustice done to Alfred Dreyfuss, the blameless officer of the French army who spent 4 years confined to Devil's Island on trumped up charges of treason. Zola's part in his trial is small at best.In all honesty, this is probably best. Zola (played here in an Oscar nominated performance by Paul Muni) was a figure whose writing was filled with fire and energy, but displaying the writing process on screen is a bit difficult, not to mention dull. Zola speaks of his philosophies and then we see the line-up of his books (which is meaningless if you haven't read them), we see eager patrons buying up copies while others rail against Zola for spreading slander against France.Most of this takes place in the film's opening as we meet the young Zola, a poor Frenchman shivering in the cold while his blood boils over the injustices from a cruel and indifferent government more interested in its image then in its citizens. He shares a drafty attic with his lifelong friend, the post-impressionist painter Paul Cézanne (Vladimir Sokoloff). Their friendship is hardly explored and is probably more interesting than any other aspect of his life.Zola's story takes a backseat once Dreyfus is arrested on a charge of treason. A letter is intercepted and suspicions run that an unidentified officer in the French Army is a spy. The top brass run down the list of possible suspects and only draw Dreyfus' name because he is easy to accuse (the film very quickly and quietly points out the fact that he was chosen as a scapegoat because he was Jewish). Dreyfus is arrested, run through a kangaroo court, stripped of rank and given a life sentence on Devil's Island off the coast of French Guyana in South America.Zola's role in the trial is meager at beast. We see the trial being conducted, in the which judge continually silences the defense and keeps them from presenting key evidence that would prove Dreyfus to be innocent. Emile Zola's role in the trial it to sit by in the courtroom until it is his turn to give the closing statement.The story of The Dreyfus affair is far more interesting than anything we learn about Emile Zola. Paul Muni occupies the title role and he does a fine job, but his interpretation of Zola is mainly just a man of good faith and common sense who spoke softly and ran for his pen when a mood struck him. His performance is nearly identical to that one he played a year earlier in The Story of Louis Pasteur. We don't really get to know the inner-man so much as just the red letter details of his life. We do get the information that he was initially uninterested in speaking on Dreyfus' behalf but there is hardly any real reason. As for Dreyfus, we never get to know him either. We see him unjustly arrested, tried, convicted and jailed. A few times we see him in his cell, but there is never a sense of who the man was outside of his circumstances.Still the movie is compelling in its portrait of how the French government was able to hide facts, silence witnesses and overlook evidence. This may or may not be factual but it makes for an interesting story. It is possible that the story was written with the current world situation in mind. At the outbreak of World War II, with the Nazis bulldozing all over Europe, the story of injustice and government corruption couldn't have been timelier

lampic Very interesting old biographical movie that starts very badly,following every Hollywood cliché (young,idealistic and hungry Zola meets a prostitute called Nana,writes a novel about her and suddenly became rich and famous) than turns into high suspense court drama. At first, I was watching it in disbelief, during Zola's hungry years, wondering about deliberate historical mistakes and what would Hollywood make out of my life,for example (Zola was already very successful long before "Nana") than I realized script intentionally glosses over his early years and simplifies everything in order to get to the point & heart of the story, famous Dreyfuss Affair. Everything that was false and fake in the beginning, suddenly gave place to completely truthful and realistic description of political scandal that was shaking France for twelve years at the end of 19th century - director Henry Blanke went into such details that more I read about real Dreyfuss Affair, more I understand this is exactly how it happened. Dreyfuss arrest, his public arrest, the way officer broke Dreyfuss's sword on his knee before proclaiming him a traitor, the fact that Dreyfuss and his wife were not allowed to talk in private during her visits to jail, his conditions on Devil's Island (legs chained on a bed,living in a stone house,completely isolated from the world), Zola's involvement and the whole public circus around the court, this is exactly how it happened. I am actually almost sure that Zola was murdered later (it wasn't accidental, his chimney was blocked and forever made me paranoid about open fire).The movie eventually became so interesting that I almost forgot to notice how much Paul Muni (Zola) changes during the story - he starts as young and skinny dreamer and later turns into happy,grandfatherly type visually very similar to historical Zola - his acting is perhaps hammy occasionally but excellent,its a true "Oscar" worthy role. Joseph Schildkraut (Dreyffus) is so similar to real Dreyfuss that its almost spooky. Because the story has so many judges, lawyers, politicians and army officers, two women's roles are completely pushed in the background, so wives of Zola (Gloria Holden from "Dracula's daughter") and Dreyffus (Gale Sondergaard from "The Letter") are unfortunately purely decorative and have nothing much to say, specially Holden who basically only smiles trough the whole movie. Excellent court drama that did not need fictional introduction to early Zola - they could simply call the movie "Dreyfuss Affair" and start from there.

mikegordan Okay, before I begin my review, here's a quick little correction I have to make regarding my Great Ziegfeld review...twice: This film is not a Musical. I apologize for the mix-up; they have 2 things in common: A similar-sounding title (I always got them mixed up), and a specific genre they supposedly share (again, I always got them mixed up). And that genre is the Biopic, or Character Study as it were.And speaking of which, it was actually better than I thought going into this thing, but I don't know if I'd call it good. I'd certainly watch it over Cavalcade or The Great Ziegfeld, but how many times? What is it about? Well, the title is quite self-explanatory in that light, only trimmed down for our benefit (unlike Ziegfeld), but the question one should ask in this case is, who is Emile Zola? Well, Emile Zola was a French Author and his prolific writing career, including his friendship with French painter Paul Cezanne, and his involvement in the Dreyfuss Affair in which (an espionage-related scandal during the Militarized state of 19th Century France) he plays a part in until his untimely death. There's more to the story, obviously, but if you're curious, you could do one of 2 things: Research on the matter yourself, or see the movie.Now is it worth seeing? Well, I'll get to that later. The movie is written okay, it is directed okay, heck, even the acting is pretty darn good for its time. I can at least see why it won Best Picture in 1937, and it is a rather important film in the Biopic genre as it led to the Academy's recognition of the genre in a serious light. The cinematography and art direction is pretty good too (for the time), but it at least does well in the most important elements of the Character Study: The acting and the writing. However, the film, while important, is quickly dwarfed 4 years later by a film regarded as the Best ever made (which I'll cover later).With all that said and done, I would probably only recommend this film to hardcore film buffs, fans of character studies as a whole, and those who might be interested in, in more ways than one, the actual life of Emile Zola. This film does have an audience to this day; in fact, back in 2000, it was one of 25 films selected by the National Film Registry for immortalization in the Library of Congress. So it's not like the film is awful or unwatchable. Personally, it's not my thing, but people like it okay, so why ruin it for others. Take it for what it's worth; I'll give it a 6 out of 10.