I Accuse! (1958) User Reviews (14)

La Vérité est en marche!

[brogmiller · 7/10 · 26 October 2021]

The issues raised by the terrible injustice inflicted upon Captain Alfred Dreyfus and Emile Zola's subsequent rallying cry 'J'accuse' in 'L'Aurore' of 1898 are timeless and have certainly struck a chord with film-makers, enabling many of them to draw parallels with their own times and experiences.

The final speech by Paul Muni as Zola in William Dieterle's excellent biopic is a veiled reference to the rise of Nazism although strangely, considering that Dreyfus was Jewish, no one utters the words 'Jew' or 'anti-Semitic'. Fast forward eighty odd years and we have a version by Roman Polanski for whom the Jewish element would have provided many painful memories. There are those who have seen in his film an allegory of the director's own perceived persecution by LA County! Yves Boisset's TV film reflects his cinematic crusade to depict institutionalised corruption whilst the Ken Russell/Richard Dreyfus version is just one too many. Mr. Dreyfus is advertising his liberal credentials here and claims to be a descendant of the unfortunate Captain. The fascination of the eleven minute series by Georges Melies stems from its being made whilst the Dreyfus affair was still raging. I have alas never seen Richard Oswald's version and would be interested to see how the Germans handled the subject.

This adaptation from 1958 is directed by and stars well-known liberal José Ferrer, is produced by Sam Zimbalist and has a screenplay by Gore Vidal. Hardly surprising therefore that there are distinct echoes here of the McCarthy witch hunts.

It is made in a very matter-of-fact manner and some of the leading characters are under-written but the emotive material and strong performances carry us through.

A contingent of dependable British thespians is on dispay here notably Leo Genn whose genteel persona suits perfectly the character of Major Picquart who campaigned tirelessly for Dreyfus' acquittal whilst the odious General Mercier of Donald Wolfit epitomises Oscar Wilde's observation that "patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." Equally obnoxious is Major du Paty played by the superlative Herbert Lom, sans peruke. The two performances that linger longest are those of Swedish born Viveca Lindfors who brings her customary intelligence and sensitivity to the role of Madame Dreyfus and the immaculate Austrian Anton Walbrook who effortlessly steals all of his scenes as the charming but despicable Major Esterhazy.

José Ferrer achieves the Herculean task of being both director and portraying Dreyfus. A previous reviewer, female naturally, has remarked upon Mr. Ferrer's lack of charisma and sex appeal. I was not aware that Dreyfus possessed either of those attributes or that Mr. Ferrer was ever called upon to play a role that required them. He is immensely sympathetic in the part and what he does possess is that golden voice.

The film proudly announces that Dreyfus' eventual acquittal and reinstatement represent a brave chapter in French history. This is of course absolute tosh for were it not for the bravery and determination of a few individuals, Dreyfus would have been left to rot on Devil's Island.

Good historical drama

[johno-21 · 7/10 · 24 April 2006]

This film is based on the true story of Captain Dreyfus of the French Army who, based on weak evidence, is wrongly accused of treason. The film takes place over a seven year period beginning in 1894 Captain Dreyfus comes from a wealthy industrial family but because of love of his country, joins the military rather than help run the family business. His family are Jewish and originally come from an area of Germany. It is discovered that a spy within the officers assigned to a leading General is selling military secrets to foreign agents. Dreyfus is a dour, by-the-book, military Beauregard who has no friends within the command and because of his Jewish and German heritage the military makes him a scapegoat to the crime. Jose Ferrer stars and directs an international cast. Based on the book by Nicholas Halasz, I Accuse is adapted by novelist Gore Vidal in the 2nd screenplay of his career. Photographing this film is veteran cinematographer Freddie Young, whose career lasted 57 years and included three Oscars for Doctor Zhivago, Ryan's Daughter and Lawrence of Arabia. Vivica Lindfors, who was my 4th cousin, plays Dreryfus' wife Lucie. Also among the cast are Anton Walbrook, Donald Wolfit and Herbert Lom. Ferrer is kind of dry and one dimensional and plays the entire film with one emotion. There is not a lot for Lindfors to do. Several of the cast turn in fine performances in this film that was made to mirror the recent McCarthy era witch hunts. There are no closeups and the entire film uses heavy shadows in every scene, indoor and out. This film was remade with Richard Dreyfus who is said to be a family descendant of Captain Dreyfus in the starring role. It's a good historical drama but as a film it falls a little short. I would give it a 7.5 out of 10.

Tidy Summary Of Scandal.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 25 July 2011]

Jose Ferrer has directed a relatively inexpensive, black-and-white version of the unjust conviction of Alfred Dreyfus, a captain in the French army at the turn of the century, just before the First World War. It moves quickly, is efficiently staged, and doesn't linger over the maudlin.

Ferrer is pretty good as the well-off, Jewish Dreyfus, a man of honor and head of a loving family. With the help of the Officer Corps and Major Esterhazy -- Anton Walbrook in a marvelous performance among many good performances -- Dreyfus is framed as a German spy and sent to Devil's Island for five years. During those five years, he is not allowed to read any letters, and his captors are forbidden to speak to him. He can't even watch TV.

Finally, through the urgent agency of people like his brother, Mathieu, and the populist novelist Emile Zola, he is brought back and retried. Secret evidence comes to light. Esterhazy publishes his confessions to pay off his gambling debts, Dreyfus is taken back into the army in which he's never lost faith, and promoted to boot. The loving family is restored. The cast consists of just about every notable British supporting actor in the industry at the time.

That "loving family" presents a minor problem, though. It's too loving. There isn't the slightest edge to them, or to any other character. This is no "Lawrence of Arabia," in which the elements are mixed up in anyone. There are "good" people and then there are "bad" people. There is no ambiguity. Not that we need an overdose of ambiguity but some of the parts are overplayed. Viveca Lindfors, with her strong features and exotic eyes, is always wistful, dreamy, and loyal. The presence of her character, and that of Dreyfus' children and brother, are necessary to the plot however, so that we realize Dreyfus is losing more than merely his honor. Beyond that, her probity never fades or is even questioned. And Herbert Lom as the venomously anti-Semitic accuser is over the top. He shouts his lines, sneers, interrupts the already prejudiced court. And at the end, with Dreyfus back where he's always wanted to be, there is happiness without bitterness. It's like Shylock being humiliated in court and forced to convert to Christianity, then shuffling off with a meek, "I am content." Says who?

It's a superior picture, even though I've been picking at it. I would imagine that, for many younger people, the Dreyfus affair will be news to them. Almost anything more than five years old might be. And it's worth retelling for its own provocative sake. Every social group, especially religious ones, have had their history of oppression, even the harmless, peaceable, industrious Mennonites. Christians were fed to lions, Muhammed had his hejira -- but why, oh why, does the West so often turn to the Jews when it needs a victim? It can't be because we are all such devout Christians ourselves. It becomes even more puzzling a question because in Dreyfus' time the European Jews were becoming so assimilated that they were an integral part of the society they lived in -- after millenia of persecution -- what with the House of Rothschild and all that. The lieutenant who awarded Adolf Hitler the Iron Cross was Jewish.

Can it be something as simple as what psychologists call displacement? An angry man is chewed out by his boss, comes home and kicks the dog? Or is it something darker. Maybe human nature needs an enemy, and if it doesn't have one, it invents an imaginary one. Or creates a real one.

Stiff and cold-blooded, just like Jose

[rhoda-9 · 6/10 · 2 July 2020]

Jose Ferrer was indubitably intelligent and impeccably liberal, as he was sure to let you know. He made a number of rather good movies, but he was not as brilliant as he thought, and his lack of the conventional movie virtues such as charm, sex appeal, or just friendly warmth was far more damaging than he knew. This movie presents the story clearly and fairly, and there are some good performances, but on the whole it's very cold and dry.

Gore Vidal's script is also intelligent and, rarely for Hollywood historical films, does not contain a single vulgarism or anachronism. But, again, a few of these would be a small price to pay for some zest and passion. A more surprising omission is wit, which one would have expected from Vidal.

And there is another omission. The Dreyfus case was an indication of the degree of anti-semitism among the French as a whole, not only the military. The hatred of Jews that the case provided an opportunity to express was so intense, widespread, and violent that many left the country. We are told at the beginning of the film that Dreyfus is a Jew, and a bit later there are a couple of mentions of the fact that most people do not like or trust them. But that's it. There is no sense at all of the vicious and hysterical feelings that were voiced by the ignorant public and whipped up by the media. The mobs have only a pathetic two or three placards, none of which mention Jews, and when they shout insults we do not hear the word. Ironically, this is a heavily censored movie about people who do not tell the truth.

As Dreyfus, Ferrer is very correct, proper, and unimaginative. After he is cruelly mistreated we see him suffer, but his pain is not has affecting as it should be--there is something actorish about it. The acting honors go to David Farrar as Dreyfus's brother and Leo Genn as his one supporter on the general staff--indeed, the latter looks so good in his full moustache and acts so suavely that we seem at times to be watching James Mason.

You really know the movie has failed when the person in whom we are most interested, and most anxious to see again, is Esterhazy, the real spy, who throws the innocent Dreyfus to the wolves. Anton Walbrook is so steeped in seedy charm, so much the would-be languorous fatalist with one eye nervously alert that we are keen to see someone with an active mind rather than another puppet in this story that is far more complex and unsavory than the film makes out.

Good movie!

[dobbs-12 · 10/10 · 28 February 1999]

This is a true story of the Alfred Dreyfus indictment and imprisonment of an innocent man who loved his country. Dreyfus was a Jew in the French army and that is probably the main reason he was persecuted and found guilty of treason. The man was innocent but sent to Devil's Island anyway. He finally was released and his honor restored. His living relative (actor Richard Dreyfus) made a film of this tragedy and it is without a doubt one of the best films I've watched lately. Be sure to watch them both because this is history.

Dominick Strauss Kahn? Good, But No 1937 Oscar Winner ***

[edwagreen · 30 July 2011]

Those who rave about this 1958 film have obviously not viewed the 1937 Oscar winner, "The Life of Emile Zola," with Paul Muni and best supporting Oscar winner Joseph Schildkraut. That was totally a magnificent film.

In this version, much attention is not paid to Zola. He appears briefly and is portrayed by Emlyn Williams. Ironically, Williams and co-star Felix Aylmer both appeared in 1952's classic "Ivanhoe."

As Dreyfus, Jose Ferrer, who also directed the film, is adequate. He has a very cold veneer, probably because he was always on guard for being a Jew in the French army's general staff. The anti-Semitism is well shown in the film as the reason for Dreyfus's arrest and subsequent conviction as a spy.

The film must be remembered to show what hate can do. Government cover-ups and hate are nothing new to the world.

MORE HISTORY LESSON THAN FILM...!

[masonfisk · 6/10 · 29 August 2021]

A film based on the infamous Dreyfus Affair wherein a French soldier is convicted & imprisoned for a crime he did not commit & eventually due to the protestations of the populace & the well known writer Emile Zola, he was eventually acquitted. Directed by & starring Jose Ferrer, this heart in its right place account of the trials & tribulations of this railroaded individual comes off as a rather important history lesson then an affecting drama. There was a version done on HBO in the 90's called Prisoner of Honor (directed by Ken Russell) which tackled the same subject matter & I remember the result was about the same. It may be a case of the trial being more of a cause celebre outside this country which may leave American viewers a bit on the periphery where we agree the stakes are obvious & noble but w/o a frame of reference ultimately we kind of shrug it off. Perhaps a French version (much like Cyrano de Bergerac w/Gerard Depardieu for me is the consummate version of the tale while the 50's version also w/Ferrer which he won the Oscar for is pretty good but not as good as its foreign language descendant) will do the trick.

The Honor Of France

[bkoganbing · 10/10 · 8 January 2012]

Around the time that Alfred Dreyfus was going through his trials and tribulations there was a young kid who dreamed of a military career to serve his country. Later on when Charles DeGaulle made that fateful decision to go into exile and raise an army to free his beloved France he remarked without a trace of arrogance that 'in me you see the honor of France'. DeGaulle was not a modest man, but I quote him because it happens to be literally true. That was his importance to France more than any military contribution the Free French made to the Allied cause.

In I Accuse another story of a man in whom the honor of France resided, but who took it up rather unwillingly. In fact Alfred Dreyfus was accused of treason, not because the evidence was against him, but because of a raging anti-Semitism that permeated the upper classes of France in those years between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I. Dreyfus was a Jew who fought prejudice to gain that coveted position on the general staff of the Army of France. But when evidence of some espionage emerged, that classified documents were being sent to her enemies, it was easy and convenient to blame the Jew. And when facts emerged to the contrary facts be damned. In fact Dreyfus for over a decade suffered the fate of the damned on Devil's Island.

I Accuse is an almost perfect retelling of the Dreyfus affair which stars Jose Ferrer as Dreyfus. Ferrer also directed a perfectly cast film of mostly British players. You truly believe you are watching history unfold as his accusers do their utmost to bury Ferrer's body and soul on Devil's Island. Equally though Dreyfus over the years slowly gathered his supporters like novelist Emile Zola and editor Georges Clemenceau played here by Emlyn Williams and Peter Illing.

Above all there is Jose Ferrer one of the greatest players of the last century. Ferrer really lets it all hang out with Dreyfus as we see him in every aspect of his character, military man, family man, and above all a symbol for justice and truth. Sadly this film is neglected because of Paul Muni's film The Life Of Emile Zola which concentrated mostly on Zola's involvement in the Dreyfus case and for which Joseph Schildkraut won a Best Supporting Actor for playing Dreyfus.

Running close to Ferrer is Anton Walbrook playing Count Esterhazy who actually did the espionage. You will not forget Walbrook as the smooth talking unrepentant scoundrel who actually is protected by the French Army high command because they have such a vested interest in anti-Semitism.

The honor of France took a real beating in the Dreyfus Case, but it did emerge. I Accuse is a great film that should receive far more acclaim than it has. In many ways it's superior to Jose Ferrer's Oscar winning performance in Cyrano De Bergerac.

History speaks

[lagacetarockera · 10/10 · 15 August 2008]

Jose Ferrer acted in more than 100 movies and TV episodes. One of his sons, Miguel Ferrer, and a nephew, George Clooney, followed successfully his steps in the movie business. All this was not an accident. Jose Ferrer's Oscar winning performance in Cyrano De Bergerac in 1950 was followed 8 years later in I Accuse! Although not winning another Oscar, his portrayal of a French Jewish artillery captain, Alfred Dreyfus, falsely accused of treason in 1894, sentenced and sent to Devil's Island, makes one feel what the relative of actor Richard Dreyfus felt while publicly being degraded, his sword broken and what he had to live in the tropical God forgotten Atlantic island, 7 miles off the coast of French Guiana, where he was sent at the beginning of 1895. Many people stood for him, like French writer Emile Zola and one can check it in Paul Muni's The Life of Emile Zola, but there is NO DVD RELEASE OF "I ACCUSE"! So I Accuse the studio MGM or whoever has the rights now days, of negligence in not releasing this movie on DVD. I can write down a thousand titles list of crap movies released by MGM, worthless garbage, in the past 20 or so years, but they had to miss this one. Shame on whoever is in charge of selecting which movies to be released on DVD and which not. Who died and made him God in that department? Wake up MGM and deal with this. I bet anything that I'm not the only one that wants that movie released on DVD.

José Ferrer directing himself as Dreyfus comprehensively with his ordeals without exaggerations

[clanciai · 9/10 · 14 March 2020]

The most interesting characteristic of this film is its almost militarily disciplined restraint. It is all about the glory and honour of the military, and most of the actors are military officers. José Ferrer has directed this film focusing on military mentality and managing very well in bringing forth both the good sides of it and the worst, the unreasonableness of disciplinary rigour. The film is crowded with outstanding actors, like David Farrar as the brother, Felix Aylmer as the old lawyer, Herbert Lom as the relentless calligraphic expert, Anton Walbrook as a very suave and clever Esterhazy, and above all, the beautiful Viveca Lindfors as the wife. I had been searching for this film for years when it suddenly appeared on my menu, and although my expectations were the very highest, I was positively surprised. The best actor of all here is José Ferrer himself as the culprit, and although Captain Dreyfus has been brought on film many times, this must be the best interpretation of the character. The scenes of his trials on Devil's Island are heartbreaking without going to extremes, also here the director sticks to his very objective discipline. It is a most admirable treasure of a film, priceless and precious, while Emile Zola is a little played down. Well, he had his own film in 1938 with Paul Muni, in which film Dreyfus almost stole the entire show, so even Emile Zola has to conform here to the strict discipline of the impressingly military discipline of this extremely important film.

Great story and acting.

[cfischer9 · 10/10 · 12 October 2020]

Great story for then and now about politics and false accusation. Acting was great. Movies from 30's 40's and some 50's are of great quality. Well written and filmed. You will enjoy. Reminds me of Les Misérables. But seems more real like in the story.

An enthralling 99 minutes!

[JohnHowardReid · 9/10 · 2 July 2017]

Copyright 1958 by Loew's Inc. An M-G-M picture. New York opening at some 50 neighborhood theaters (as the top half of a double bill, mostly with "The Safecracker"): 5 March 1958. U.S. release: March 1958. U.K. general release: 15 February 1959. London opening: March 1958. Australian release: 17 March 1958. 8,911 feet. 99 minutes. M- G-M cut the film to 90 minutes for Australia.

SYNOPSIS: Captain Alfred Dreyfus' (Jose Ferrer) zealous devotion to his French Army career, as well as the fact that he is a Jew, arouses the antagonism of some of his fellow officers. Consequently, when it is discovered that one of the staff officers has sold secret information to the German embassy, Dreyfus is indicted on the flimsiest evidence as a traitor, and, after a farcical trial, is convicted, stripped of his rank, and exiled to Devil's Island.

NOTES: Other film versions include "Dreyfus" (1930) starring Sir Cedric Hardwicke, "Dreyfus" (1930) starring Fritz Kortner, "The Life of Emile Zola" (1937) with Joseph Schildkraut.

COMMENT: The Dreyfus case again. But this time the emphasis is on Dreyfus himself, and Zola has but a small role. Vidal's script fills in a lot of the background omitted from previous versions and provides a fascinating study of the personal conflicts of bureaucracy. Acting throughout is superb. Ferrer directs himself adroitly in the main role. The film has pace and momentum and is altogether an enthralling 99 minutes.

As usual, M-G-M tried to sell the film to the wrong audience and were completely routed at the box office.

OTHER VIEWS: The action is throughout rather static, but the court scenes are pregnant with drama... Ferrer has directed methodically and with immense attention to detail in characterization. His performance is a wily, impeccable one, but it comes from the intellect rather than the heart... Walbrook gives a splendid performance. — Variety.

Guilty...of being Jewish as well as a scapegoat.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 25 August 2020]

The so-called 'Dreyfus Affair' is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in French history. In many ways, Captain Dreyfus' experiences were like the Kafka novel "The Trial" in that he was assumed to be guilty and yet really had no change to defend himself nor know exactly what was really happening to him during much of the case. The miscarriage of justice was so obvious that the imminent writer, Émile Zola, took up the case to have his sentence to Devil's Island to be overturned.

Here is the case, summed up rather briefly. In about 1896, an unknown military officer was apparently passing secrets from the French to the Germans. This was discovered though WHO was doing this was unknown. The only evidence they had to show it might have been Dreyfus was a similarity of his handwriting to a letter from the spy. But the match was not even close to being exact...and the French army went forward with prosecuting Dreyfus despite this lack of damning evidence. Why? Well, they felt a need to find SOMEONE guilty and he was a Jew...a convenient scapegoat!

After years and years of work, Dreyfus was finally released from Devil's Island, a hellish prison in South America. But it took additional years until the French army officially exonerated him of treason! The kicker is that shortly after Dreyfus was initially convicted, the real culprit was discovered...but the French high command didn't want to admit they made a mistake and they let this poor guy flounder in prison! A decade of the man's life was lost due to this rush to judgment AND an unwillingness to give Dreyfus any sort of due process.

Because this was such a famous case, it's not surprising that there have been several versions of this story in film and documentaries on television. I've seen "The Life of Émile Zola" and a couple other versions of the case. This 1958 film version stars José Ferrer and he directed the movie as well. And, with makeup and costume, he really looked a lot like the real Dreyfus!

So is it any good? Of course. Ferrer was a brilliant actor, one of the most underrated I can think of off the top of my head. Additionally, the film was jam-packed with excellent British actors, such as Herbert Lom, Harry Andrews, Leo Genn, Anton Walbrook, and Emlyn Williams....among others. And unlike the other films I've seen, this one focuses a lot on the actual court proceedings...thanks to being based on Gore Vidal's book about the case. Well worth seeing and a movie that would make a great double-feature with Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" (1957)....another film which focuses on a depraved and indifferent French high command only a couple decades after the Dreyfus Affair.

For history lovers, like myself, this film is a must-see. While it lacks the excitement and action of some movies, it is incredibly well made and followed the facts of the case quite well. An exceptional film.

By the way, when Dreyfus was found guilty, they stripped his uniform off him and snapped his sword over their knee...breaking it in half. I turned to my daughter and said "That isn't possible if the sword is a normal sword...there must be a trick to make the sword snap!". Well, I did some searching and found an article which talked about this same exact movie scene. Want to know how they did it in the movie and in real life? They apparently notched the sword ahead of time...making snapping it possible and relatively easy!

I Accuse you...if you don't watch this entertaining drama

[Richie-67-485852 · 27 July 2011]

A most excellent portrayal of men, politics and truth and how truth is given a back set to the affairs of men. This story is as old as mankind itself. To see someone unjustly and falsely accused of a crime and not be able to do anything about it summons the deepest feelings one can have for life itself and of course the life giver. This story comes to you at a price...the price of a mans life. You see its true he suffered and then continued to suffer in a place made for suffering exclusively i.e. Devils Island prison. The french were notorious for punishment and being a french traitor made you especially un-welcomed on the island. Man is not perfect as we learned in Victors Hugo accounting called Les Miserable. That is why here in America, we would rather see 12 guilty people go free before we convict or condemn an innocent person. This movie drives home that point. Don't fight the emotional scenes when they come. There are a few and they can clean you out if you let them..