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.
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.