"J'accuse" (the title of an article by Émile Zola, good choice to name the film after that) or "An Officer and a Spy" (very misleading title, but I shall explain why in a second) is a new French film that premiered in 2019 and made it to German theaters now in 2020. At easily over 2 hours, it is a really long movie, but this is nothing too unusual because the director here is a certain Roman Polanski and he has many films in his body of work that cross the 120-minute mark. He is in his mid-80s now, but that won't keep him from coming up with quality films. This one here is the best example. Polanski was also in charge of the script as a co-writer next to Robert Harris, who also wrote the original novel this film is based on. It is never a bad thing if you get the original writer for an adapted screenplay. Polanski has mostly worked on French films in the last decade and here he adds another. And luckily, not too many great actors are worried about their reputation, but they agree to star in a Polanski film. The one and only lead here is Oscar winner Jean Dujardin and he was really good from beginning to end. He carried the film convincingly and it shows why Dujardin had been a star in France long before The Artist and now that his international presence has faded unfortunately again it seems, he still will be a big star in France for hopefully another 25 years. I like him and his inclusion in the cast made me especially curious about this one here. The poster is a bit misleading because it depicts Garrel (who was also in this awards season's big player "Little Women" by the way) next to Dujardin in a way where you could guess they are almost equals. But none of that applies. At least not by the numbers. Garrel may be really famous in France too, but he has very little screen time here honestly. And the two only have one real scene together, which is a bit of an epilogue at the very end that seems to take place many years after the key story. We also see in this scene that the main character has managed a career again, just like he did with the military and his prison days are forgotten. The movie is set in the final years of the 19th century by the way. Garrel looks so different though from what I remember him in other films. What a transformation and I read he really looked very similar to the character he portrays, so good job by the makeup people. I guess this transformation is also one reason why he managed to score a nomination at the Césars (the French Academy Awards you could say) because honestly, even if his character was talked about all the time in this film, I personally felt that the actual screen time and material he had were not sufficient for such an honor. The nomination for Grégory Gadebois I certainly like more. He was really good every time he was on and of course the fencing scene was truly spectacular. But so was his presence in the courtroom. In general, I would say that if we pick individual scenes, then these two I just mentioned are really very high up there in terms of the best this film has to offer. Gadebois I must admit I did not even know before this film I think, but he certainly won me over. Actors I knew that you also find in here, even if only for minor characters, were Poupaud, Perez and of course Amalric, who is always easy to identify. The only female character that appears on a regular basis is Emmanuelle Seigner and that is not a surprise either because she is Polanski's wife. Maybe to some, she will feel a bit too old to be romantically involved with Dujardin's character, but it wasn't that serious and her real life love story proves anyway that age is just a number, nothing more. She had a few good moments too, also the walk in the park near the end and his marriage proposal and what she makes of it.
I also would like to comment on the story and plot in general. This is about a man who was accused of and convicted for being a spy and this was really really a huge scandal back then in France when it comes out that he could be innocent. There is a mention that the government would be dissolved in this case. This shows you the gravity. However, it is also an event that really almost nobody outside of France knows about today anymore. But in France itself, it is still omnipresent and every child learns about it at school to this day. I myself only knew about it because I remember that filmmaking pioneer Georges Méliès from France made a collection of very short films about this scandal and that was almost at the very same time when it happened, which shows you how controversial this entire affair was in France back then, also that the short film was pretty unusual for Méliès in terms of the running time and also the subject because the legendary Méliès focused on magic tricks most of the time before that, but to his work there, there was a great deal of political gravity. I also remember the Île du Diable from this very early release. So without Méliès, I probably would not have heard about the background either. Then again, it is really easy to watch and appreciate this film as well without any background information. Honestly, had this been a totally fictitious film, it also would have been a convincing watch. But the actual historic references make it even more worth seeing. And with that I do not just mean the duel sequence that showed us how this was still a completely different era with men solving their conflicts in such a manner. And no surprise Dujardin's character wins the duel. He is a pretty tough guy for sure, also with how he defends himself against Esterhazy when he is attacked from behind. It was Esterhazy right? He was only in it for one scene. He decides to fire the likable old guy at the entrance early on because he constantly falls asleep, although the latter is probably a bit of an institution in this job. He's definitely not out there to make new friends. With the lack of family and a real significant other, his work is by far what matters most to him and he does what needs is necessary to get stuff done. He is also not scared of running after the guy who shoots the lawyer. So there is also a great deal of bloodshed going on with the people involved in said trial, be it the one soaked in blood inside the prison cell or the lawyer I just mentioned and his last words before the attack are pretty memorable too and quite ironic even given what happens to him next. So you see that it was a national affair for sure with how much drama and emotion lay in there that people got murdered in order to change the course of the trial. Hard to imagine it wasn't a hit with the powerful pulling the strings in the background and the guy committing the actual act was just a puppet. Aside from everything showy that is happening, it also must be said that obviously antisemitism was very very common at the end of the 19th century in France, more than I thought it would be. Even the protagonist says early on pretty explicitly that he does not like Jews, but also at the same time that he won't let this antipathy cloud his fair judgment. Of course, the rest of the film proves that with how hard he fights to get Dreyfus free. Still it is always about his principles. He said to a relative on one occasion I think something along the lines that he only does it because of his conscience and also earlier to his superior that he won't take this secret into the grave. The final scene between the two also shows that from Dreyfus' side, it is all about professionalism. He could have made a great friend there, but he never had the intention to.
I was actually a bit shocked how many people really hated Jews back then and were also ready to take violent action. So there is at least indirectly again a reference to Polanski's own past included here. We all know about his very young years because it was everywhere in the media when The Pianist came out. Let's mention that and not the aspects that make him such a controversial filmmaker and of course kept him from making more Hollywood films. What a loss though. Polanski also acts briefly in this film, just a cameo, and honestly I did not even spot it, but still. He has not acted in a film before that for over a decade I believe. I wonder how big the waves can be that this movie is going to make. The number of nominations at the Césars is really impressive and same is true about the wins at Venice. Polanski definitely still has it. I don't think this was a truly great film or anywhere near my favorites from the filmmaker, but there was not a single moment of hesitation for me when it was about deciding if I should give this film a positive or negative recommendation. Of course, it is the former. Definitely a thumbs-up and the story had me frequently enough on the edge of my seat to say that this film never dragged particularly and that is always a big success for a film this long. I am sure I could still write at least another two paragraphs here about the more/most memorable moments these over 130 minutes have to offer, but as my memory is not so strong right now and also the character limit is probably getting closer, let me leave it at that. You should watch the film for yourself anyway and make up your mind. Don't skip it because of the director's controversy. It deserves very much to be seen and talked about.
I also would like to comment on the story and plot in general. This is about a man who was accused of and convicted for being a spy and this was really really a huge scandal back then in France when it comes out that he could be innocent. There is a mention that the government would be dissolved in this case. This shows you the gravity. However, it is also an event that really almost nobody outside of France knows about today anymore. But in France itself, it is still omnipresent and every child learns about it at school to this day. I myself only knew about it because I remember that filmmaking pioneer Georges Méliès from France made a collection of very short films about this scandal and that was almost at the very same time when it happened, which shows you how controversial this entire affair was in France back then, also that the short film was pretty unusual for Méliès in terms of the running time and also the subject because the legendary Méliès focused on magic tricks most of the time before that, but to his work there, there was a great deal of political gravity. I also remember the Île du Diable from this very early release. So without Méliès, I probably would not have heard about the background either. Then again, it is really easy to watch and appreciate this film as well without any background information. Honestly, had this been a totally fictitious film, it also would have been a convincing watch. But the actual historic references make it even more worth seeing. And with that I do not just mean the duel sequence that showed us how this was still a completely different era with men solving their conflicts in such a manner. And no surprise Dujardin's character wins the duel. He is a pretty tough guy for sure, also with how he defends himself against Esterhazy when he is attacked from behind. It was Esterhazy right? He was only in it for one scene. He decides to fire the likable old guy at the entrance early on because he constantly falls asleep, although the latter is probably a bit of an institution in this job. He's definitely not out there to make new friends. With the lack of family and a real significant other, his work is by far what matters most to him and he does what needs is necessary to get stuff done. He is also not scared of running after the guy who shoots the lawyer. So there is also a great deal of bloodshed going on with the people involved in said trial, be it the one soaked in blood inside the prison cell or the lawyer I just mentioned and his last words before the attack are pretty memorable too and quite ironic even given what happens to him next. So you see that it was a national affair for sure with how much drama and emotion lay in there that people got murdered in order to change the course of the trial. Hard to imagine it wasn't a hit with the powerful pulling the strings in the background and the guy committing the actual act was just a puppet. Aside from everything showy that is happening, it also must be said that obviously antisemitism was very very common at the end of the 19th century in France, more than I thought it would be. Even the protagonist says early on pretty explicitly that he does not like Jews, but also at the same time that he won't let this antipathy cloud his fair judgment. Of course, the rest of the film proves that with how hard he fights to get Dreyfus free. Still it is always about his principles. He said to a relative on one occasion I think something along the lines that he only does it because of his conscience and also earlier to his superior that he won't take this secret into the grave. The final scene between the two also shows that from Dreyfus' side, it is all about professionalism. He could have made a great friend there, but he never had the intention to.
I was actually a bit shocked how many people really hated Jews back then and were also ready to take violent action. So there is at least indirectly again a reference to Polanski's own past included here. We all know about his very young years because it was everywhere in the media when The Pianist came out. Let's mention that and not the aspects that make him such a controversial filmmaker and of course kept him from making more Hollywood films. What a loss though. Polanski also acts briefly in this film, just a cameo, and honestly I did not even spot it, but still. He has not acted in a film before that for over a decade I believe. I wonder how big the waves can be that this movie is going to make. The number of nominations at the Césars is really impressive and same is true about the wins at Venice. Polanski definitely still has it. I don't think this was a truly great film or anywhere near my favorites from the filmmaker, but there was not a single moment of hesitation for me when it was about deciding if I should give this film a positive or negative recommendation. Of course, it is the former. Definitely a thumbs-up and the story had me frequently enough on the edge of my seat to say that this film never dragged particularly and that is always a big success for a film this long. I am sure I could still write at least another two paragraphs here about the more/most memorable moments these over 130 minutes have to offer, but as my memory is not so strong right now and also the character limit is probably getting closer, let me leave it at that. You should watch the film for yourself anyway and make up your mind. Don't skip it because of the director's controversy. It deserves very much to be seen and talked about.