The first quarter of the film is a brief biography of most of the adult life of Zola. That's because the final portion centers on the last years of Zola's life and his attempt to gain Dreyfus his release from prison. Dreyfus had been sent to Devil's Island--convicted of sending French military secrets to foreign powers. Amazingly, when the true perpetrator was learned, the highest officers in the military decided NOT to punish the man responsible and keep Dreyfus in prison so they wouldn't lose face for convicting the wrong man!!
I really enjoyed "The Life of Emile Zola" though could see that a very important part of the story is missing. I am NOT talking about the film taking a few artistic liberties--I certainly expected that. Instead, I am talking about a deliberate effort by the studio to misrepresent a major part of the story to make it more palatable to the general public. You see, about 3/4 of the movie concerns Zola and the Dreyfus Affair--yet it really makes no real effort to talk about the heart of why Dreyfus was convicted for a crime he clearly did not commit--because he was a convenient scapegoat because he was Jewish. The film BRIEFLY mentions he was Jewish but completely downplays this angle--mostly because I assume they were afraid antisemites in the US and abroad might find this unacceptable. Sadly, it makes this exceptional film just a bit less exceptional.
What I liked about the film was the overall quality of the picture. It was well written, acted and just screams quality. Plus, compared to many other biopics of the era, this one is a little more accurate--as the facts of the story are essentially true (though rearranged and interpreted for dramatic effect). Still, I find it hard to believe it won the Oscar for Best Picture--though I must concede that Paul Muni was exceptional. If I could have picked, I would have given the nod to either "Lost Horizon" or "A Star is Born".
I really enjoyed "The Life of Emile Zola" though could see that a very important part of the story is missing. I am NOT talking about the film taking a few artistic liberties--I certainly expected that. Instead, I am talking about a deliberate effort by the studio to misrepresent a major part of the story to make it more palatable to the general public. You see, about 3/4 of the movie concerns Zola and the Dreyfus Affair--yet it really makes no real effort to talk about the heart of why Dreyfus was convicted for a crime he clearly did not commit--because he was a convenient scapegoat because he was Jewish. The film BRIEFLY mentions he was Jewish but completely downplays this angle--mostly because I assume they were afraid antisemites in the US and abroad might find this unacceptable. Sadly, it makes this exceptional film just a bit less exceptional.
What I liked about the film was the overall quality of the picture. It was well written, acted and just screams quality. Plus, compared to many other biopics of the era, this one is a little more accurate--as the facts of the story are essentially true (though rearranged and interpreted for dramatic effect). Still, I find it hard to believe it won the Oscar for Best Picture--though I must concede that Paul Muni was exceptional. If I could have picked, I would have given the nod to either "Lost Horizon" or "A Star is Born".