User reviews

In 1937, The Life of Emile Zola was nominated for the largest number of awards, ten. The movie won three including Best Picture. However, sadly and in some ways shamefully, this film has been ridiculed for being dated today, it's ways and means a little obsolete, and it's style rather unusual. That is downright unjust! The style which is portrayed in this remarkable seventy year old film is quite conventional. The dialogue is perhaps overwritten, but the powerful story is there, and the story line is enhanced by intelligent dialogue to say the least, as well as, first rate performances by an excellent cast, preferably Paul Muni (giving possibly his best performance) as Emile Zola and supported well by Joseph Schildkraut as Dreyfus. Not to mention, the film is technically excellent. Editing, costuming, lighting - without doubt, and all the production values stand up beautifully even several decades later.

Sure it's a fictionalized version of the life of the great French writer Emile Zola, however, great fiction can make a great film and that is the case with The Life of Emile Zola. One may forget that this film was released in 1937 when anti-Semitism was again sweeping the continent of Europe, and for that very reason, the word "Jew" is never mentioned and we are only given a short visual reference. To avoid lawsuits from their descendants, only Major Dort and Major Esterhazy names were specifically identified. Others are referred to as the Chief of Staff, the Minister of War, etc. Also, Dreyfus was not freed and restored to rank in 1902, the year of Zola's death, but in 1906 after being found guilty again in an 1899 retrial. These historical errors can be forgiven, because it's the films message which stands and given the current climate, the movie's message is all the more important.

The shifting focus of this film doesn't make it a frustrating experience for modern viewers. In fact, the film flows quite nicely: struggling writer, gets in trouble for his book, then the film follows Zola's success as he becomes a powerful force in society. Eventually we get to 1894, where many claim the film to zoom away from its subject, where the film begins to focus on Dreyfus. With that being said, if you sit down to watch The Life of Emile Zola, don't skip the first third of the movie, because it's every bit as moving and powerful as the dramatic court scene, most notably in the unforgettable self-defense scene in which Muni delivers an outstanding performance.

Unfortunately, had Muni not won the previous year for another biopic, The Story of Louis Pasteur, he would have received the Oscar for his portrayal of Zola. Muni was not only nominated for an Oscar for this role but also received awards from many critics groups. Today many dismiss the significant talent of Muni (one of films first devoted actors), however, one cannot deny he had a great deal with elevating the art of film acting.

... and I've seen a lot of them, in particular the precodes.

Warner Brothers did make heavy use of Paul Muni in the 1930s, particularly in their prestige pictures, capitalizing on his ability to completely physically transform into a role, and he uses that talent here, where he plays Emil Zola. The odd casting includes two actors well known as portraying villains - Joseph Schildkraut and Gale Sondergaard - as Captain Alfred Dreyfus, the wrongly accused and convicted member of the French army and his faithful wife, trying to find somebody who will help him, even after he is shipped out to Devil's Island. They are the only two completely likeable characters in the film, with the images of other treacherous characters they had portrayed somehow erased by their performances.

Even Zola is not likeable through the entirety of the film. He starts out likeable, shown in his youth, looking for, finding, and writing about topics on injustice, but then he grows complacent as he ages, to the point that when Mrs. Dreyfus comes to him for help when he is late in life at first he resists her plea. But her case is compelling and he quickly changes his mind.

The other thing I noticed in this film - It sure is good to be an American and have protections for free speech. Throughout his career Zola comes up against state censors who try to suppress his writings if they make France look bad. Then whenZola takes up Dreyfus' case he is prosecuted for "criminal libel" which is basically a law against making France look bad, with even the judge in the matter seeming to be in cahoots. No wonder the officers involved felt free to keep Dreyfus imprisoned even after they found out who the actual spy was.

I'd recommend this film as a worthwhile watch, but I'm not sure it was the best film of 1937. I'd probably give that honor to The Awful Truth.

I highly recommend "The Life of Emile Zola" for the brilliant performances of Paul Muni, Gale Sondergaard, and Joseph Schildkraut. (Although I still must admit I'm surprised by Schildkraut's Oscar victory...although he certainly does a good job as Alfred Dreyfus, the role doesn't really give him much opportunity to demonstrate his talents. Dreyfus is not shown in any depth; his role consists almost entirely of protesting his innocence and languishing in prison.)

Strong performances aside, though, I do have some problems with the film. It strikes me as very odd that a film that makes such a big deal about "the truth" is so hesitant at actually depicting it. One of the key issues of the Dreyfus affair, anti-semitism, is never even brought up. The only reference to Dreyfus' Judaism is a passing glimpse on his personnel papers. The filmmakers' reluctance to address such an important part of the story does a disservice to history.

Handsomely mounted in the Warner Brothers style of the 30's, and topped off with a stirring Max Steiner score, "The Life of Emile Zola" (***) remains a passionately engrossing experience. Refreshingly, the film admits upfront right after the opening titles that it's a fictionalization, something that isn't done nearly as often it should be in today's purportedly "true story" docudramas. (These days, this disclaimer is often buried in the fine print at the very end of the credits after nearly everyone has left the theater.) Even so, "Zola" remains remarkably true to the facts. It skips lightly over the author's early years in the first 20 minutes and then soars to gripping dramatic heights in the outrageous libel trial that Zola underwent after he published his celebrated "J'Accuse" which condemned the hypocrisy and corruption of the military establishment as it falsely accused high-ranking Captain Alfred Dreyfus of treason and then attempted a massive cover-up when it realized it had made a mistake. The movie has been criticized for underplaying the anti-semitic aspects of the Dreyfus prosecution, but it's implied quite neatly in the scene where the camera pans down Dreyfus's resume to his religion while one of his superiors marvels how "someone like that" could became an officer. The film does indulge in some pretty fancy compression towards the end. It implies that Dreyfus was reinstated in the Army right after returning from Devil's Island and on the same day as Zola's tragic accidental death. However, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the real facts are even more disturbing and incredible. In 1899 after his return, Dreyfus was retried and found guilty again by a court tribunal! However, he was pardoned by the President. He was finally cleared of all charges and reinstated in the service in 1906, four years after Zola's death in 1902. Interesting sidelight: Zola and his devoted wife had no children but he did carry on a 14-year affair with one of his housemaids that produced 2 children. I guess there's no way the Warner Brothers were going to complicate the image of their hero as a saintly crusader for truth and justice by including this spicy little domestic tidbit.

Of Paul Muni's three biographical films made at Warner Bros. and directed by William Dieterle (the others were THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR [1936] and JUAREZ [1939]), this was the only one which had never been shown on TV in my neck of the woods; ironically, it was the first to make it to DVD - but, then again, it is the most highly-regarded of them! Still, given the film's reputation (Best Picture Oscar Winner, Leonard Maltin rates it **** in his "Movies & Video Guide"), I somehow expected a masterpiece - but, personally, I feel that Dieterle's THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER (1941) and THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1939) are greater achievements. Even so, it's been sometime since I watched a vintage old-style Hollywood film; of late, I've mostly been concentrating on Euro-Cult and World Cinema stuff - but, really, there's no beating the professionalism and sheer entertainment value of a product from the cinema's Golden Age!

The film strikes a good balance between Zola's literary career and his struggles for social justice: the latter is mostly devoted to the Dreyfus affair, a veritable cause celebre at the time (cinematically treated two more times in DREYFUS [1931] and I ACCUSE [1958], neither of which I've watched though the latter had turned up some years back on late-night Italian TV!), culminating in one of the finest courtroom scenes ever filmed. Production values are top-notch, the Oscar-winning script appropriately literate (though the constant speechifying and the film's two-hour length - by contrast, LOUIS PASTEUR had been less than 90 minutes but, then, the epic and star-studded JUAREZ was longer still - make for a somewhat heavy-going experience) and Dieterle's handling virtually impeccable; the only unpersuasive aspect, perhaps, is the one-dimensional portrayal of the corrupt French military who callously sent Dreyfus to Devil's Island for treason, and left him there to rot for years - even after they had found absolute proof of his innocence, because that would have meant admitting to a mistake!

The cast is filled with wonderful characters actors whose familiarity - and reliability - allows utmost audience involvement every step of the way, despite Hollywood's typically idealized viewing of events. Best of all, naturally, are Muni as Zola (simply brilliant, especially during his show-stopping speech at the trial, and who even ages convincingly!) and Schildkraut (a touching Dreyfus who, in spite of his relatively brief appearance, managed to walk off with the Best Supporting Actor Oscar - though, personally, I would have voted for H.B. Warner in LOST HORIZON [1937]!).

Unfortunately, the audio level on Warner's otherwise exemplary DVD is rather low; the supplements include three vintage shorts (described in more detail below), as well as the full 1-hour broadcast of a radio adaptation of the script (obviously compressed but also including some minor additions) - presented by Leslie Howard (who, at the end, even interviews William Dieterle!) and featuring Muni himself, accompanied by Josephine Hutchinson (stepping in for Gloria Holden, who had played Zola's wife in the film).

I only watched this because it won an Academy Award for best picture (1937). I didn't expect it to be very good, so my intention was to watch it over two nights, but I watched it in one sitting, because it was quite immersive.

The movie could be described as being comprised of two parts - the first, a snapshot of who Emile Zola was, and the second, his involvement in the Dreyfus Affair (which I knew nothing about until I watched this movie).

I thought this movie was immersive and historically interesting. I enjoyed it.

Paul Muni, one of the five best actors EVER, is magnificent in recreating the life of one of France's most controversial literary figures. Zola reveals every facet of the great man's complex personality and personal successes and learning experiences in a manner that delivers rare insights and consummate entertainment to the audience at the same time. The supporting cast and the direction match Muni's magnificence to the best of their abilities every step of the way. I recommend this as one of the great forgotten films of all time.

Émile is like the Julian Assange of 19th Century France, though certainly less dramatic. He comes under intense criticism as his books gain popularity and the censors are under pressure from the government and the French Army to stop them. The Dreyfus Affair was still well-known at the time of the film's release, but as a person watching for the first time 75 years later I got a little lost. I failed to see the connection between the two seemingly unrelated sub-plots and the ensuing period where there was little to no appearance of the film's namesake. This was eventually cleared up for me but the reliance on assumed knowledge was not very forward-thinking. One quibble is that the women did not seem to age, I had a similar complaint watching Cimarron; throughout the decades covered by the film Zola got older and cuddlier, Dreyfus aged even more...yet their wives hardly aged a day. I wish I knew their secret. Snaps for Joseph Schildkraut whose portrayal of Captain Alfred Dreyfus scored him an Oscar® for Best Supporting Actor. It was a good film and certainly highlighted the level of corruption in France at that time, as well as rooting for the underdog. I must procure one of Zola's books and check him out.

In 1862 Paris, struggling writer Paul Muni (as Emile Zola) is happy working with a book publisher. Because he writes about corrupt officials, Mr. Muni is called a "muckraker" and loses his job. However, fame and fortune are around the corner. Muni meets sad prostitute Erin O'Brien-Moore (as Nana) and writes her story. The book "Nana" is the first of many best-sellers. Years later, Muni sacrifices everything to defend Joseph Schildkraut (as Alfred Dreyfus), a Jewish man made a scapegoat by French authorities...

Led by Muni's carefully constructed lead performance, "The Life of Emile Zola" was a huge success with audiences and critics. Muni won a "Best Actor" award from the "New York Film Critics" and Mr. Schildkraut received an "Academy Award" as "Best Supporting Actor". Those organizations named "Zola" best film of the year; adding its #1 placement on the annual "New York Times" and "Film Daily" lists, it was clearly the consensus winner for 1937. Disney's "Snow White" was the only real challenger...

The Dreyfus affair is almost the whole film, making the title seem inappropriate. Also, the film seems shy about naming Schildkraut's character as Jewish. If you blink, you'll miss the piece of paper listing "Religion - Jew". Considering the looming World War, filmmakers likely wished the point was made more clearly. Despite its flaws, the production is excellent, with great roles from the cast and crew at Warner Bros. Sometimes overlooked among the more well-known names are outstanding art director Anton Grot and supporting actor Vladimir Sokoloff as Muni's drafty attic apartment roommate (acclaimed painter Paul Cezanne).

******* The Life of Emile Zola (8/11/37) William Dieterle ~ Paul Muni, Joseph Schildkraut, Vladimir Sokoloff, Gale Sondergaard

Kudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the "Golden Age." Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.

Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how "corrupt" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.

However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial.

Such occasions are not unlike great arias in operas: the stage lights softly dim and follow spot brightens as all cast characters (and audience) lean forward to focus on the delivery.

Such a moment occurs in "The Life of Emile Zola" as Paul Muni as Zola steps to the platform to deliver his courtroom defense speech. Against all the odds of a jeering mob and negative press, he proceeds to offer a seven minute oration.

The scene is a set-up for Muni, and the camera, editing, and staging are all designed for the actor to deliver his thespian goods. He doesn't disappoint.

Two other cinematic courtroom speeches are comparable: Alec Guiness as Benjamin Disraeli in "The Mudlark" (1950) enjoyed the rare opportunity of having his six minute, uninterrupted speech done in a single, slow tracking shot; and Gary Cooper as Howard Roark in "The Fountainhead" (1949) held a courtroom breathless for over five minutes, defending his act of poetic, if not Randian-judicial, justice.

In Muni's case, his defense scene turned out to be a highpoint of an intriguing acting career. From Yiddish theater to worldwide stardom--with fewer that two dozen films to his credit--Muni constantly enthralled some while leaving others doubtful.

What's undeniable about Muni is that he achieved stardom on his own power. He was able to convince a goodly number of people, both peers and public alike, that he was indeed not just a good but great actor.

While some held a sneaking suspicion that he was a wee bit of a poseur, having never formally studied his craft, it really doesn't matter. Muni didn't win his lucrative acting contracts--or his Academy Award honors--for nothing.

Personally, I enjoy his general work, being more partial to roles more close to his own than those of his elders. In latter cases I felt he often tended to go a bit over-the-top with "stereotypical mannerisms."

As Zola, though, his earnestness and determination proves convincing, and the film itself is peopled with a powerhouse cadre of Warner Bros. character players.

To the film's credit, a pre-enactment inscription admits to the intermingling of fiction with fact for dramatic purposes. This also relieves the production of accusations of historical inaccuracy.

All in all, "The Life of Emile Zola" is a most engrossing biopic of a courageous literary giant who placed the pursuit of justice above the receiving of worldly accolades.

Several previous reviewers have pointed out a strange hole at the middle of this picture: the fact that Alfred Dreyfus' Jewishness is never an issue when the French army high command decides he must have been the member of the general staff who sent the top-secret list of weapons to the Germans. (In the real world, that was evidently the deciding factor.) Since the subsequent Dreyfus Affair is regularly cited as one of the high (or rather low) points of anti-Semitism in late nineteenth-century Europe, the producers of this movie would have known that many in the original audiences in 1937 would have been aware of the historical reality, especially since Hitler's persecution of the Jews was by then a significant and recurrent issue in the news from Europe. Why, one might ask, was that element of the story left out?

One could argue that part of it may be because Warner Brothers did not want to offend Hitler and therefore lose access to the German market. (The United States remained officially neutral until we declared war on Germany after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in late 1941.) That doesn't seem to make sense, though, since, as this movie proceeds, it becomes clearer and clearly that it means to condemn blind worship of the military and militarism.

Two years later, the director, a refuge from Germany named William Dieterle who worked to help bring other refuges from Germany to the U.S., directed *The Hunchback of Notre Dame* in such a way as to make Frolo's persecution of the gypsies evoke Hitler's persecution of the Jews. Gringoire's defense of Esmeralda is very clearly a condemnation of the Holocaust.

Why, then, is the anti-Semitism of the Dreyfus Affair removed, at least on the surface, in this picture, while the picture is given to Dieterle to direct? And why does Dieterle emphasize and condemn militarism but not mention persecution of minorities? Europe was gearing up for war by 1937, of course. Germany had reoccupied the Rhineland the year before, in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles, leading France and England - as well as other European nations - to start to build up their armed forces. What in contemporary European politics was Dieterle condemning here?

------------------------------------------

And then, a few other comments:

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. 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.

William Dieterle directed this classic biography and was nominated for an Oscar for his work. This movie had ten Oscar nominations, and won best picture in 1938. Paul Muni (The Last Angry Man) was nominated for an Oscar for his performance as Émile Zola, one of the foremost writers in France. Zola and his best friend and confident painter Paul Cezanne, played by Russian born actor Vladimir Sokoloff (Taras Bulba, For Whom The Bell Tolls), who attend the Moscow Academy of Dramatic Art. The story takes place in Paris in 1862. Paul Cezanne and Émile Zola were friends when both were starting their careers. Through ups and downs Zola became financially successful long before Cezanne. He was married and had a successful career as an author. Paul Cezanne then decided to live in the country far away from the city, and told Zola not to be part of the establishment but to fight for truth and justice again. Émile Zola is living comfortable and even getting fat, and is about to became a member of the French Academy for the utmost writers, and to get honored by the Nobel society. He is approached by Lucie Dreyfus, played by Gale Sondergaard (Anna and the King of Siam), whose husband was unjustly court martialed and sent to Devil's Island (Papillion's prison home) because he was accused of betraying his country by disclosing military secrets. Mr. Dreyfuss' case is one of those passionate cases where anti-Semitism is also an issue. It is unbelievable that this specially inhumane trial took place in France, nation for Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality. That what Zola was fighting for.

The music by Max Steiner is beautiful. He was also nominated for an Oscar for best music score. Anatole France is also part of the story. My favorite scenes: the folding umbrellas, Zola getting his first pay check as a best seller author, the conversations between Zola and Paul Cezanne. The determination of Ms. Dreyfuss and she goes to talk to Zola, her last hope. My favorite quotes: "There are times when the most courageous thing is to be cowardly". This is a great biography. It is a Schindler's list type of story! It has great passion, deep commitments, love, great music, and we get to know a bit more about French literature. Thanks to my dad, who was passionate for literature and majored in languages, I was brought up with a library of books where one could find the internationally acclaimed classics. Émile Zola's works were among dad's favorite. That was what made me purchase the tape. I highly recommend it. You can learn a lot from this movie!

I'm a great admirer of Zola's writing as well as of the significant part he played in the notorious Dreyfus Affair which rocked French society at the end of the 19th Century. This bio-pic, one of many Hollywood made around this time praising great men and women (Madame Curie, Louis Pasteur, Stanley And Livingstone) is something of a misnomer in that it concentrates most of its running time on the Dreyfus case, bypassing completely the author's formative years and glossing over to some degree his emergent years when he struggled to find success as an author as well as misrepresenting the dispute he had with his artist friend Paul Cezanne which led to the end of their friendship.

It's as if the film can't wait to get to the heart of the matter by telescoping the events of his pre-Dreyfus life in a rather rushed, sketchy way until he finally answers the pleas of the wrongly discredited French Army captain's wife and makes a significant contribution to the clamour against the man's wrongful imprisonment, in particular with his famous "I Accuse" letter which was published on the front page of a national newspaper and eventually led to he himself being put on trial.

Others have said, with justification, that the film makes no reference to the background of anti-Semitism which fuelled the public debate and polarised opinion in France at the time. You do see the army register with Zola's details stating his Jewish religion but it's a blink-and-you-miss-it-moment and one can't help but lament this missed opportunity at the time by a major Hollywood studio to step up and use the film to highlight the then virulent anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany.

Having read up on the Dreyfus Affair, it seems that certainly as regards Zola's participation in the matter, most of what is depicted here at the Dreyfus and Zola trials is accurate in occurrence (even if Dreyfus in real life, to finally leave prison, had to initially accept a pardon which didn't exonerate him) if not perhaps fitting the actual timeline of events. Unsurprisingly too, the contributions of others to the cause (most particularly the indefatigable efforts of Mme Dreyfus and her brother) are downplayed or ignored in deference to the name in the title although one can be pretty sure the real Zola wouldn't have wanted it that way. However it wouldn't be a Hollywood bio-pic if it didn't put its own interpretation of events in rewriting history.

Better then to put down the fact-checker and just appreciate the film for its strong entertainment value and at least bringing to a new generation's attention a historical miscarriage of justice (the real Dreyfus died just two years before this film was released) and in particular savour Paul Muni's live-wire Oscar-nominated acting performance in the title role, including his marked physical resemblance to his subject.

I really like this film. Paul Muni plays the consummate hero in this as he does everything within his power to overturn the conviction of Alfred Dreyfus, whose only crime was being Jewish. The man who actually committed the crime was out enjoying himself with his freedom intact. Despite every effort of the French military getting in the way of his efforts, he never gives in, even though his status as the most popular author in France is at stake. What started out as an effort to simply approach the law becomes his life's work. This case became one of the most high profile in European history. The reason the movie pulled punches, however, was because Dreyfus was a Jew but most didn't want to recognize the oppression. Of course, Hitler was plying his trade.

Half biopic, half fictionalization of the famed Dreyfus affair, "The Life of Emile Zola" nabbed Warner Bros. its first Best Picture Academy Award in 1937.

It's a handsome, intelligent production, even if it is a bit sanctimonious and heavy handed in its hagiography of Zola. I expected that from a film of this time period, though, so it didn't get in the way of my enjoyment. I had the same reaction to Paul Muni in the title role that I always have to his performances -- in his opening scenes I didn't know if I would be able to handle two hours of his eye-rolling, scenery-chewing overacting, but before very long, he had won me over and impressed me with his range. Joseph Schildkraut won the Best Supporting Actor award in what was only the second year for that category for his portrayal of Dreyfus. Gale Sondergaard plays Dreyfus's suffering wife the year after she won the very first Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance in "Anthony Adverse."

"The Life of Emile Zola" is an early example of how important the art of makeup is outside of monster movies in physically transforming actors into the characters they're playing.

In addition to its wins for Best Picture and Best Supporting Actor, the film was awarded the Oscar for Best Screenplay. It received ten nominations total, which was a new nomination record at the time. The categories in which it was nominated but did not win were: Best Director (William Dieterle), Best Actor (Muni), Best Original Story, Best Assistant Director (Russ Saunders), Best Art Direction, Best Scoring, and Best Sound Recording.

Grade: A-

This is a great movie. Although a work of fiction it is based on actual historical personages and events and has an authenticity which makes it even more compelling a drama. The movie deals forthrightly with the issues relating to the Dreyfus Affair, and shows how the military leaders of the French Army were willing to wrongly accuse and convict the wrong person purely for political reasons. Really disgraceful episode in French history. It also shows how Emile Zola bought into the Army's over story about Dreyfus and of his own initial resistance to take up the Dreyfus case. However, Zola emerges as a hero who comes to the defense of a man wrongly accused and terribly mistreated. Paul Muni gives an outstanding performance as Zola. In fact, his appearance id almost identical to that of the actual Emile Zola, which made his performance even more credible. The other members of the cast give powerful performances too, most noteworthy that of Joseph Schildkraut who plays Captain Dreyfus and his wife, played by Gale Sondergaard. If you want to learn about the Dreyfus Affair and at the same time be entertained this is the movie for you.

The first third of this biography, devoted to Zola's rise from poverty to fame, is rather dull. It picks up steam with the introduction of the Dreyfus affair, wherein a Jewish Army captain is falsely accused of treason, although the anti-semitism angle is ignored by the film. Muni is terribly hammy in the title role, playing Zola as a pompous blow-hard. As he showed in "The Good Earth" the same year, the actor was never able to adapt his theatrical acting to the screen. Schildkraut is OK as Dreyfus, a performance that won him an Oscar, but Sondergaard overacts as his wife. This overcooked drama beat out the likes of "Stage Door" and "The Awful Truth" to win the Best Picture Oscar.

This is an extraordinary picture, with wonderful performances. It should be seen by anyone who likes a good drama, but especially by someone who is unfamiliar with the Dreyfus Affair, as it was called. My only complaint is that the title is somewhat misleading. We don't learn a great deal about Zola's life, except that he shared an apartment in Paris with Paul Cezanne, wrote his first major novel about a prostitute he befriended when she was running from the police, was a champion of the poor and downtrodden, and became wealthy from his many books. Eighty-five minutes of the two hour long movie is devoted to the Dreyfus case and Zola's involvement with it, so the title should have reflected that.

Paul Muni deserved to win an Oscar for his performance, which he didn't, although he was nominated. The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, as well.

The weakest part of The Life of Emile Zola is, unfortunately, the title character. Paul Muni's portrayal of the famous author is melodramatic and, frankly, annoying. It's only when the film gets to story of Alfred Dreyfus that it finally gains some traction. Based strictly on filmmaking innovation and cultural impact, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs should have won in 1937 instead of this movie.