Wordiezett So much average

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

gavin6942 The biopic of the famous French muckraking writer (Paul Muni) and his involvement in fighting the injustice of the Dreyfus Affair.Certain scenes have been interpreted in the context of the time as a reaction to the increasing repression of Nazi Germany. Critic David Denby in 2013 noted that, while the movie featured progressive rhetoric in Zola's last speech, overall it was "a perfect example of the half-boldness, half-cowardice, and outright confusion that marked Hollywood's response to Nazism and antisemitism in the nineteen-thirties." For instance, the film never mentioned "antisemitism" or "Jew".I find it very interesting that you can have a film about these topics without ever saying the words. Possible? Obviously. But it seems like you would almost have to go out of your way.One could question the relevance of this film today (2016). Not that the message is not important or anything like that, but who knows what the Dreyfus Affair was? A major historical event, yes, especially in France, but I doubt sincerely that 1 out of 100 Americans knows what it was about.

LeonLouisRicci This Movie remains elusive in two regards. Paul Muni, one of the most exalted and honorable Actors of the Thirties (hardly a name mentioned or even recognized among Cinema goers Today) and Emile Zola a Crusader for Human Rights and "The Truth" who was very popular and influential in late Nineteenth Century France (is virtually unknown, unread and forgotten).But not in 1937, just a few decades after His Death, His Legacy was much more in the Public Conscientious. So, Muni was given the Role (Won the Oscar the Year before as Louis Pasteur) and Zola was given the Royal Hollywood Studio treatment and managed to garner many Oscar Nominations and did Win for Best Picture of the Year.It is a straightforward, Low-Key presentation that is glossy and finely Produced with all the Studio Craftsman contributing to accessibility and appeal as Social Commentary Entertainment. Viewers Today may opine with such things as overrated, unremarkable, slow, stodgy, hammy, and lacking in what has become an ever increasing, over the Years, reliance of less nuance and more crackling and crisp Cinema.But the Message is the Medium here and without doubt it is delivered with intelligence. That is the remaining residue of this Film. A no frills introspection of one Freedom Fighter that used a Pen as His Weapon. It is just as Mighty coming from the Heart and in the hands of Zola and this Hollywood Ography.

TheExpatriate700 The Life of Emile Zola is a good if rather bland and simplistic film biography of the famous author, with a great performance by Paul Muni. It gives the basic facts about Zola's life, even as it omits many of the social issues he confronted and fictionalizes other aspects of his life.The strongest part of the film is Paul Muni's performance. He succeeds in embodying Zola both as a young man and an older, established author, bringing a genuine sense of passion to the role. There are also good performances by Joseph Schildkraut and Gale Sondergaard. The film starts out quite well, focusing on how Zola struggled against government censors and the writing of Nana. However, the film then skips a large portion of Zola's life, signified by a series of book titles going by the screen. I would have enjoyed more information about this section of Zola's life.The plot then flashes forward to the Dreyfus Affair, handling it with middling results. Although the film makes us feel for Dreyfus and his family, it fails to deal with anti-Semitism in a meaningful way. The film only twice hints at the role of Dreyfus's ethnicity / religion in the case, once when we see the word "Jew" written on his personnel file, the second time when an effigy of Dreyfus is shown as a Jewish stereotype. Given what was going on in Europe in 1937, it would have been topical for the film to examine those issues.Also, the film fictionalizes of a number of things, particularly towards the end. It gives the impression that Dreyfus was immediately exonerated after being freed, when that actually happened several years later. Furthermore, when Zola dies, the film depicts a nation uniformly in mourning, when actually many of Zola's enemies publicly rejoiced.In the end, The Life of Emile Zola is a good classic style biopic that may seem dated and simplistic to modern tastes.

richard-1787 This movie beat out such magnificence pictures as Captains Courageous, The Good Earth, and Lost Horizon to win the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1938. I think that was stretching it.What is truly great here is the story it tells, starting about a half-hour into the picture: Zola's involvement in the overturning of the condemnation of French army officer Alfred Dreyfus for treason. That condemnation was one of the great stains on French history, an example of anti-Semitism and rabid militarism. When the movie tells that story, all hearts are moved.But are they moved by the WAY this picture tells that story, or just by the story itself? It is the same question one might pose concerning The Diary of Anne Frank. The difference can be seen in a true masterpiece like Shindler's List, where the story, again, is deeply moving, but the TELLING of the story is equally masterful.I don't think Dieterle's telling of Zola's involvement of the Dreyfus story is particularly remarkable. Muni gives a very fine performance as Zola, certainly. But I don't think this script, which won an Academy Award for best writing, or Dieterle's direction of it, for which he got an Academy Award nomination, are particularly good, much less great.If you don't know the story, watch this, most certainly. It doesn't disgrace it. But if you know such great movies as Captains Courageous, Lost Horizon, and The Good Earth (it was a good year for Paul Muni), don't expect this to live up to those.It must have been a strange year for the Academy: they also gave Louise Rainer the Best Actress Award, when she was easily bested by all four of her competitors: Irene Dunne in The Awful Truth, Greta Garbo in Camille (yes, overdone, but great even so), Janet Gaynor in A Star is Born, and Barbara Stanwyck in Stella Dallas, a weeping but powerful picture. I also don't see how Joseph Schildkraut got the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his small portrayal of Dreyfus in this picture against Roland Young as Topper, or even H.B. Warner in Lost Horizon. Why the Prisoner of Zenda got almost shut out of the Oscars that year I don't understand either.