Beautiful. Irreplaceable.

This movie is deserving of all the Oscars. Sharp, literate screenplay, with stellar acting by Muni, tracing Zola's life from humble beginnings, to fame and riches, and standing up against French military injustice.

Great biography! Paul Muni is fantastic.

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.

Wonderful movie, both Muni and Schildkraut give outstanding performances.

The Life Of Emile Zola – Grand Classic This Award-winning classic 1937 drama could be seen to be a typical bio but it's much more than that. Paul Muni's astounding courtroom recitation of Zola's famous plea for justice in the infamous Dreyfus case is a must-see, Oscar-winning motion picture experience. It reminds us of the importance of utmost honesty and accountability for the actions of all government and military leaders throughout the world. The performances of the large and exemplary cast, do full justice to this powerful comment on social and moral corruption in late 19th century France. While the film's script may sidestep the key issue of racial injustice, there is no doubt left to the astute modern viewer as to what perversity is at play here. The direction of German William Dieterle keeps the momentum building to its historical conclusion and is of the first order. Tony Gaudio's terrific B/W cinematography captures all the scope and grandeur of these dramatic events while Max Steiner's full-scale music score underlines the emotional turbulence. Black banned Polish actor Morris Carnovsky has a fine role as a supporter of Zola and superbly delivers the stirring courtroom summery that closes this powerful production. Some of the history may not always stack up but when does it ever in bio-pics? What it does do well, is highlight the shocking injustices that exist when guilty people, in high places, collude to subvert truth! Don't miss this one. The Warner Archive DVD while not as good as some others, is quite good but does have some subsonic hum in the audio of certain scenes, it's hoped they may soon correct this at some stage. This was my second copy so unfortunately, it has been this way for some time, pity. But, great Motion Picture.

One of the best of the early Oscar winners because it focuses on an engaging matter in modern history. Sadly there are misrepresentations as to the Dreyfus scandal but at least the film delivered an important way to chronicle the case for posterity in popular culture. Worth a watch, I never found my mind drifting off elsewhere.

I thought it was boring and the acting just fair. Though I did like it when Paul Cezanne was on the screen.

Another biopic in the list is The Life of Emile Zola. The movie depicts Zola's (Paul Muni) later life, from publishing his books and short stories to the Dreyfus affair. The Dreyfus affair was a political scandal in which Captain Alfred Dreyfus (Joseph Schildkraut) was accused of communicating French military secrets to the German Embassy. Thus, Zola wrote a piece "J'Accuse" in response to the unjust and anti-semitic movement, got prosecuted for it, and fled to London to avoid imprisonment. Not only is the movie a dramatically accurate reenactment of the events, but it also can be interpreted as a piece of autobiography. German director William Dieterle started his early career in Berlin: acting, directing, and founding his own production company. He emigrated to America in 1930 because of the political and economic tensions in his home country. Therefore, upon hearing the Nazi Party taking over Germany, Dieterle made a project that had ricocheted in his head, one that uses the Dreyfus trial to reflect on the fascist movement in the then-current world. Furthermore, Emile Zola, the well-received writer and game-changer of literature is the character allusion of the director himself. The Life of Emile Zola embodies as a work of gripping drama, biography and autobiography. (4 ½ Fresh Greengrocer Lobsters out of 5)

Muni makes it well worth the view.

Relevant to modern times on multiple levels: in the film itself, the exploration of the Dreyfus Affair, the sham trials in which political maneuvering and corruption prevents those in power from being held accountable, the suppression of evidence, the attacks on the free press, the maintenance of the state as infallible in all actions, the pitting of nationalism against objective evidence and morality in the public consciousness; each of these are issues that plague modern politics to the present day. What is even more relevant and ironic is that this film that chronicles one of the most widely publicized miscarriages of justice of all time is itself the result of propagandizing, demonstrating a willingness to compromise on ethical grounds for the sake of political circumstances; the complete absence of the anti-Semitic element of the Affair, a major aspect of the historical event, was an excision that was clearly aimed at placating the rising Nazi state and its domestic sympathizers. On a practical note, the film is well-produced, particularly Muni's performance, though the content is rather inaccurate relative to its title. The Life of Emile Zola provides only brief coverage of the accomplished author's formative years prior to the Affair, leaving the audience with the impression that the Affair itself was Zola's sole crowning achievement. Additionally, it can't help falling into the same trap that every character study of the period did - that each protagonist needed at least one long-winded speech about some virtue or another to assert their virtue. (3.5/5)

Between 2 and 2.5 stars. It is always easier to narrate the stories from a writer than his life himself; and it is easier to do by written work than by a dramatization in movies. Anyhow, it falls in the same mistake as the previous "The story of Louis Pasteur", with the same actor: it oversimplifies historical events in order to get a narration which, anyhow, does not get your commitment.

Given its age and setting (late 1800s France) I wasn't sure what to expect. It was fantastic. A biographical pic as timely today as when it was made. It's themes of governmental abuse of power, antisemitism and political divide sadly are being mirrored now, over a century later. Actor Paul Muni, as writer and journalist Emile Zola, gave an amazing performance. The courage of a single man willing to speak out for truth will hopefully always win. "J'accuse!"

A well acted film with some good elements. The acting from Paul Muni as the lead is extremely good. The court scenes were very dramatic and interesting. Far more interesting that the first half of the film. How he became published was not fully explained and i understand his work was honest and raw which the French people would have liked. The court case gave the heart of the film with the innocent man and very few people willing to fight for him and against the army. At times i was a little bored in the first half and watching him become successful little interested me. Watch for the second half involving the trial and the many dramatic speeches through a well written speech. It is a decent snapshot of Emile Zola but i would have loved to have seen more.

An early biographical film that tried to tell a hard-hitting story, but do it in such a way that it didn't offend anyone, especially the Nazi party of all things, The Life Of Emile Zola is largely carried on its witty, sincere screenplay and likeable cast. Paul Muni gives it his all as the famous, revered writer who takes a huge risk to expose corruption and prejudice in the highest levels of French Military, and Joseph Schildkraut, while having relatively little screen time, makes the most of his opportunities, and the scene in which he is finally liberated, and wanders confusedly around his prison cell and jail, unaware of how to cope with his newfound freedom, is the most emotional moment in the film. The movie itself suffers from occasionally languid pacing, and the court scenes can feel like they last a lifetime. I can't see myself watching it again anytime soon, but it's a film I would definitely recommend, especially to someone with an interest in history and/or politics. It taught me about the attitudes of the time, and how one man managed to incite a movement that stood for truth and justice, regardless of the personal cost.

Oh god, the biopic has got to be one of the worst genres of film as it has produced such recent atrocities as Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) and Mary, Queen of Scots (2018). This is one of the earliest successes of the genre as it illuminated the life of a relatively unknown French writer and defender of Jewish soldier Alfred Dreyfus who was wrongly convicted for crimes he didn't commit. We get usual themes here about the importance of justice and the freedom of the press but the anti-Semitism isn't fully interacted with and that makes for an odd film. I didn't want it to be like Gentleman's Agreement (1947) and represent this idea so obviously that it starts to feel offensive but I expected some speech from the main character or some form of commentary that would fold that element into Zola's motivations. This is a bit of a slog to be honest but it's fairly brief and if you want to jump into prestige 1930s cinema this isn't a bad start. Emile Zola, Paul Muni, becomes a famous writer as his controversial novellas are published. He is compelled to take up the cause of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, Joseph Schildkraut, when Dreyfus' wife Lucie, Gale Sondergaard, visits him and encourages him to publish a letter calling for him to be released from prison in a newspaper. Dreyfus has been imprisoned by his superior officers as anti-Semitism invades Europe because it is suspected that there was an undercover agent in the military and they are willing to put him away because he is Jewish. We see an unjust trial occur and Zola faces repercussions for his actions but ultimately Dreyfus gets off and tragically Zola doesn't get to see this. This isn't a film that has aged well because it seems too afraid of it's subject material and several films, Schindler's List (1993) for example, deal with white saviors to Jewish people better. Dreyfus is written as a noble character and the relationship between himself and his wife was very well written but it has that touch of respect that veers into Pocahontas (1995) territory as his personality is stripped away. The victims need to be humanized instead of just being there for the savior to defend. What Schindler's List does so well is that it picks a few individuals and gives them real, identifiable character traits that allow us to understand their suffering on a more visceral level. Had the three screenwriters who wrote this film added dialogue that fleshes out Dreyfus' character and show that he is a real human being, flaws and all, I would have been impressed by this movie. The lead performance was over the top as I expect of the time but Sondergaard is actually able to build something out of her relatively little screen time. She appears compassionate but desperate in her struggle to have an influential figure support her suffering husband. Her expressions are more subtle than those of Rosalind Russell or other actresses of the era and she seems to have an understanding of her character's internal struggle and how to convey that to the audience that fits modern sensibilities. Joseph Schildkraut is doing the best he can as Dreyfus but he is lumped with dialogue that is very hard to do something more than a Sidney Poitier impression in. Evaluating films of the 1930s is difficult but the acting in particular hasn't aged well and it really stops me from engaging sometimes. Sondergaard being the exception surprised me but once in a blue moon you see great acting come out of an otherwise average film. Personally I believe that A Star Is Born (1937) was the Best Picture of the year because Janet Gaynor and Fredric March have such wonderful chemistry and the film's plot beats still hold up. This film's win doesn't mystify me because it both deals with social issues without fully interacting with them and is based on a true story which would continue to be Academy catnip in the decades to come. I wouldn't say this is a bad film, especially when considered in context, but unless you are a major Sondergaard fan this is not a must watch.

Director William Dieterle didn't hold anything back through the rough story of actual morally good vs immorally, corrupted evil that stuns to be believed when being brilliantly - and satisfying at least - brought to life by the excellent, yet reflective writing, mainly from Paul Muni's soulful performance. (B+) (Full review TBD)

Best picture winner that highlights themes that certainly would have resonated in the 30s in the USA like freedom, justice and due process.

Due to the disclaimer at the beginning of the film, I had no idea that this was based on the life of a real man. There are many points which he brings up that need attention, such as government censorship, propaganda, the plight of the poor and how they are in a system which pushes them into staying poor. Censorship by government only leads to the removal of truth, however, it would be wise to also remember that when a nation is struggling, calling it's leaders into question can cause chaos, as is seen by the mobs that wanted to lynch Zola later in the movie. The mob is not meant to rule, and justice is not supposed to be based on the word of someone in high circles having omnipotent opinions. Truth is truth and humans are fallible. The propaganda spread by the officers of the army in this film are a good example of how those in power can shape public opinion in their favor even if they are lying and wrong, and yet propaganda has its uses, as it is credited with lending a hand of success to us during at least World War II. The government has its place, and there are many things in which the government has no place. The state answers to the people, not the other way around. As is seen in the beginning of the film, if there are no opportunities for the poor, they resort to crime and crime keeps them alive so they continue it. If there is no way for the poor woman or man to succeed, poverty will beget more poverty, and yet our system of welfare as set forth by LBJ condemns the impoverished to stay in their place or they will receive no more benefits. Is it not strange that we don't reward people for seeking employment, keeping it, and eliminating the need for government help in their lives? Well, if you are in government housing it's so expensive that you can barely pay for any other bills other than housing, and once you are able to produce enough income, they kick you out so someone else can be there, but then you have to pay the upfront costs of getting a new place of residence and meet the credit requirements and this is not possible so you end up homeless, you lose your job because it becomes too difficult to handle your personal life and the cycle repeats itself. Only through a lottery break, like Zola had, can they even hope to break free, and that is a false hope of the most evil propaganda. Don't work hard and chance will bring you success. We literally preach laziness as social justice, and it's been 80 years now since this film came out. As to the last part of this film, the Dreyfus affair, justice needs to be served at the cost of whomever it displaces, and it is a blight on the history of France that this farce ever occurred. For Zola himself, he was right in that you must stand for justice at all times and be strong in that stand. The film itself is not a shooting masterpiece, but the score is pleasant and the poetry and dialogue present within it make up for any shortcomings the film otherwise had.

The story of Emile Zola, French writer and social commentator. We track his life from his days as a struggling artist, sharing an apartment with Paul Cezanne, to his first bestselling book, and resulting elevation from poverty, to his forays into social and political commentary through his books, to his involvement in the Dreyfuss Affair. Quite interesting and edifying. I must admit that I had not heard of Emile Zola or the Dreyfuss Affair before this movie. Having seen the influence of the man on society and literature I am now embarrassed to say that. Clearly incredibly talented and principled and willing to put his own neck and reputation on the line in order to fight injustice. The movie captures these qualities very well. I was expecting a rather dry, blow-by-blow delivery and, while the plot does develop in linear form, it is never dull and is always engaging. Won the 1938 Best Picture Oscar.