The Life of Emile Zola

There are two ways to review this movie, and both lead to the same conclusion for me. The first is to review the movie as is, independent of the historical context (and the glaring omission therein). Because when you see a movie title called The Life of Emile Zola, I'd imagine you expect the movie to be about ... well, the life of a guy named Emile Zola, right? I know not all movie titles set up the movie's contents so cleanly -- see movie titles like Phantasm, or Gentleman's Agreement -- but this one is pretty much right out there saying "this is the biography of Emile Zola". Who is Emile Zola, you ask? Well, he was an author and journalist in France in the late 19th century, known for writing provocative material that challenged institutions, governments, and societal norms. By all accounts, he led a rather fascinating life, before he became involved in what is known as the Dreyfus Affair, a national scandal about a soldier railroaded on espionage charges, and how military commanders ignored exonerating evidence because they didn't want to admit to their mistakes. Zola would become instrumental in challenging the military and getting Dreyfus freed. As a movie, though, Life speed-runs through his pre-Dreyfus Affair life. In 20-30 minutes, it covers a quarter century, starting from his days as a starving artist and stumbling into a bestseller that launches him into superstardom, even if the book is scandalous in its content. It literally shows a series of book covers in montage to indicate the passage of time and growth of his prominence. In one scene, he's struggling and poor, and the next, he's fat and rich. And then he's sucked into the Dreyfus Affair. And while he is probably most known for his role in that, Life spends a great deal of time once this part gets started not with Zola, but with Dreyfus, or Dreyfus' wife, or the military commanders. Sure, when Zola is on the screen, Paul Muni delights as the unrepentant rabble-rouser who isn't afraid to put his personal life in jeopardy to speak truth to power (a message that seems all the more timely these days), but when it isn't on him, which is frankly too often, the movie sags. And therein lies the movie's chief fault: for being TITLED "The Life of Emile Zola", it is only by half, at best. His pre-Dreyfus life is given incidental acknowledgement, and the movie spends so much time away from him during it, one has to wonder why the movie just isn't about the Dreyfus Affair instead. The movie's message and performances are great, but if you're going to sell me on the biography of a man, even down to the title of the movie, don't pull a switcheroo on me. If a movie was made about the life of John F Kennedy, I wouldn't expect it to spend 30 minutes on life before the White House, and the rest of the movie on November 22, 1963. Even if you can look past that structural flaw, though, there is another, deeper sin this movie commits, one that strikes at the very heart of its theme and message about being unafraid to fight back against a monolith so much bigger than you are because someone has to be the one to do it. If you are unfamiliar with the Dreyfus Affair, one of the reasons Dreyfus was such a convenient and expendable target for the military hierarchy is because he was Jewish, and anti-Semitic sentiment had become pervasive in both the military and civilian life. Nobody had any moral quandaries about throwing a Jewish person under the bus instead of a letting the real perpetrator, a fellow, "true" French countryman, go down for it. This was a huge component of the conspiracy against Dreyfus; it can be seen in the court documents and evidence to this day. The only scene which speaks to this in Life is the moment in which Dreyfus is identified as the perfect candidate, where, in his dossier, it says "RELIGION: JEW". In no other way is this referenced, even in passing. The disingenuous nature of this omission, to be afraid to call out the anti-Semitism that existed at the heart of the conspiracy, is a disservice to the movie, to the audience, and to the movie's credibility. How can a movie say that any man or woman can be the voice that shakes the foundations of power and changes the course of history, when it hides from the truth about its own subject? Especially since, at this time, Hitler had been in power for some time, and was not secretive in the slightest about his feelings towards Jewish people. This was not a time to shy away from the rotten heart of the Dreyfus affair, and yet here's Hollywood, turning tail and burying it, The omission, which seems pretty evident even if you don't read up given the prominence given to the "RELIGION: JEW" document in the movie, betrays this movie's intentions, and betrays everything Zola stood for. He was not afraid to go to court, to be held criminally responsible for libelous comments made against the military and the government, if it meant exposing corruption, but the movie can't even pretend to do the same. It's pathetic, and it is a black mark on this movie. Frankly, though, both of these criticisms against the movie exist agnostically from Life's biggest problem: being BORING. It's just so damned slow and tiresome and proud of itself. Life is the guy you meet at a party who won't shut up about something you absolutely do not care about, make no attempt to hide your apathy, and he won't stop going on anyway. Muni's acting is great, but it cannot save a movie that is just dull and full of itself in the process. Then you toss in its misguided focus, and its shameful refusal to fully engage with its subject matter? It renders Life a curiosity and little else, the kind of early Oscar winner that only completionists will seek out.