Juarez

Mexican History has not done too well in American cinema. One film (that I am aware of) about Cortez (THE CAPTAIN FROM CASTILE), one Yul Brynner movie about the Aztecs, several films about Santa Anna and the Alamo (including a new one coming out this week), a few films about Pancho Villa (the two most notable ones being VIVA VILLA with Wallace Beery and a film with Telly Savalas as the bandit patriot), one film directed by Elia Kazan, starring Brando and Quinn (who was half Mexican) about Emilianno Zapata, and John Ford's indictment (via Graham Greene's novel) of the anti-Catholicism of the Mexican Revolution. It's not much, and other films set in Mexico tend to promote the image of corruption and incompetence or bloody mindedness. Witness films like THE OLD GRINGO (an account of the end of Ambrose Bierce in the Mexican Revolution), or THE TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRES.

JUAREZ was a possible exception, in that it was to chronicle the odd events of 1862 - 1867 when (in the shadow of the American Civil War, and the temporary inability of the U.S. Government to exercise the Monroe Doctrine)Emperor Napoleon III decided to set up a puppet Hapsburg Emperor, Archduke Maximillian to rule Mexico. The film is supposed to be centered on Benito Juarez, Mexico's greatest liberal and President (his closest 20th Century counterpart is Lazaro Cardenas, who tried to get real land reform into the country). The film shows how Napoleon's scheme unravelled due to Juarez's refusal to accept the French occupation (an early version of the Vietnam War drained French troop strength for five years), as well as the returning threat of American intervention after Lee's defeat in 1865. But worst of all was the choice of the puppet. Maximillian was one of history's dreamers - he believed in the responsibility of royalty to govern for their people, and he was (for a Hapsburg) a liberal. The result was that the scheme was doomed from the start.

The real heart of the film is the competition between Juarez and Maximillian for the hearts of Mexico - both presenting conflicting views of government (but, ironically enough, good government). Because he was a foreigner, tainted by the French army supporting him, Max lost, and he ended up shot by a firing squad (he refused an opportunity to flee). His beloved wife Carlotta (Bette Davis in the film) went insane - dying in 1927 in Belgium, some sixty years after he died). Played by Brian Ahearn, Maximillian is a sympathetic man who pursues a tragic view of duty to it's sad conclusion. Davis shows the intense love of the doomed wife of this doomed man.

The problem is Muni. His performance is stiff, but good - especially when he explains democracy to his leading "Hotspur" military supporter -a young Porfirio Diaz (John Garfield). Garfield, having gotten to know Ahearn is a good guy, tries to convince Muni to join forces (becoming the first minister to the Constitutionally minded Ahearn). Muni rejects it - why have a monarchy at all. But Muni is overlooking the finer shadings of his rival's personality - he isn't Napoleon III but Maximillian. This should have been the center of the film - but it ended on the cutting room floor. The film was too long, and so Muni is shown struggling alone, leading his guerrilla war against the invader, and fighting an unscrupulous attempt by his Vice President to overthrow him (a properly corrupt Joseph Calliea). The conflict between constitutional monarch and democratic leader is skirted. Garfield, by the way, is not so bad as Diaz - he actually was to play a stronger part had the film not been cut - he would have been confronting the aging Juarez at the end (as historically he did) as the dictator of the future who ruled Mexico for 30 years, and gave it more stability and economic growth than any other leader in it's history (while selling the country off to American and European investors). The film was supposed to end on a more sour note. If it had, it would have been a great film.

Juarez is a film that might possibly have been better served if the concept of a mini-series had been available back in 1939. Certainly his story in its entirety with Maximilian and Carlotta as just one part of it would be a mini-series.

Benito Juarez who rose from being an illiterate Zapotec Indian from Oaxaca province in Mexico has developed into the Mexican statesman with the biggest popular appeal in American culture. Note how in the film, he is juxtaposed with Abraham Lincoln. Both men started from very humble background and rose to lead their respective nations at the same time, in times of great crises for their countries.

Paul Muni makes an impassive and stoic Juarez. It certainly is atypical of the rest of his historical characters be it Louis Pasteur, Pierre Radisson, or Emile Zola where he is quite eloquent. It's so different than what you normally see from Muni.

Juarez's story shares the screen with that of his counterpart the Emperor Maximilian. The real Maximilian was not as naive as Brian Aherne would have us believe. He knew very well his power was there while the French army was there. Yet in his own way with limited options he tried to govern as best he could. Aherne was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but lost to Thomas Mitchell for Stagecoach.

Hollywood usually can't resist a mad act and Bette Davis might have been nominated herself had she not been already nominated for the much better Dark Victory. It really did happen that way, the high strung Carlotta just snapped when she returned to France to get help for her beleaguered husband. She lived in her private mad world for over 60 years, dying in the mid twenties of the next century.

Claude Rains registers well as emperor Louis Napoleon and with this film played both Bonaparte emperors of France. He had played the first Napoleon in Hearts Divided. Marshal Achille Bazaine played well by Donald Crisp was withdrawn with his troops because France was very concerned, rightly so, about a growing threat from a uniting Germany and couldn't waste time with imperialist ventures. I do love the fact that the French seem so concerned about the Monroe Doctrine which was nothing more than an expression of U.S. policy, always has and always will be. It had no force of law behind it, but with the Civil War over and the Union Army at the point of Appomattox being the largest army in the world at that time, that had more to do with Napoleon deciding that the western hemisphere wasn't worth it.

An interesting side note to that retrenchment policy, Louis Napoleon also withdrew French troops from Rome and the Papal States for the same reason at the same time because of threats to the home land. It removed the last block to a uniting Italy as well.

If I have a favorite among the supporting cast it is Joseph Calleia who plays Juarez's slippery Vice President who tries a palace coup d'etat and falls very short.

The one jarring note in the cast is John Garfield who sounds more like he's from the Lower East Side of New York than Mexican as Juarez supporter and future dictator of Mexico, Porfirio Diaz.

Juarez as a film is overly ambitious, it tries to tell too much in the running time allotted. A film about Juarez and a film strictly from the Maximilian/Carlotta point of view would have been far better.

What drew me into seeing Juarez in the first place were the cast and that Korngold wrote the music. And while it is far from perfect, there are definitely a lot of good things. It does look exquisite, not just in the lavishly rendered costumes and sets but also in the sweeping cinematography. Korngold's score is splendid also, full of the rich and rousing melodies he is famous for, if not quite on the same level as the scores he did for Prince and the Pauper, Captain Blood, The Sea Hawk and especially The Adventures of Robin Hood. The Mexican history is interesting and I did find it informative, and most of the acting is fine. In particular Bette Davis who is very compelling in her role, Brian Aherne's dignified Maximillian and Claude Rains who plays urbane better than anyone(except perhaps Cary Grant). Donald Crisp, Montagu Love and Joseph Calleia are excellent also. However there are debits, while the script is mostly literate it also suffers from being too talky and trying to tell us too much. The film is perhaps overlong, and is rather tedious in the pace at times. And two actors unfortunately didn't work for me. Paul Muni, wonderful in Scarface, The Good Earth and The Life of Emile Zola, not helped by very heavy make-up is far too stoic and stiff in the lead. And while he tries hard to give the honest intensity the small role of Porfirio Diaz, John Garfield just ended up being out of place. On the whole, a great cast, a splendid score and lavish production values are definite things to like, but Juarez is spoilt sadly by bad pacing, too much talk and two actors who don't convince as much as they should. 6/10 Bethany Cox

This is one of five biopics that William Dieterle made for producer Hal B. Wallis at Warner Bros in as many years and the third to star Paul Muni in the title role. Excellent production values suffice it to say. Tony Gaudio is behind the camera and there is a symphonic score by Korngold arranged and orchestrated by Hugo Freidhofer with an effective use of 'La Paloma'. Film historian David Thompson has dismissed these biopics as being Germanic and stagey. He is fully entitled to his opinion of course but I think his verdict to be harsh especially when one considers the first class actors, both leading and supporting, who appeared in these films. The characters that linger longest in the memory from this are those of Brian Aherne as Maximilian and Bette Davis as his wife Carlotta. Aherne has never been better quite frankly while Davis is absolutely stupendous in the role. Their scenes together are beautifully understated and the scene where she confronts the ignominious Louis Napoleon, played with relish by Claude Rains, is magnificent. Her descent into madness is subtly handled. Interesting also to see as future president Diaz that human dynamo John Garfield whose greatest roles were still to come. Paul Muni I must confess has never really been my cup of tea but that is only my opinion. The 'execution' of monarchs understandably has always caused more emotional outrage and controversy than that of dictators. In this film at any rate Juarez feels remorse but his refusal to grant Maximilian a pardon is certainly a blot on his historical reputation. Excellent film by a European director who adapted to and thrived under the Hollywood system. As an historical document it is certainly off-centre in many respects but as a piece of entertainment it certainly hits the mark.

From "Pancho Villa Starring Himself" to "The Mexican" and the execrable "Man on Fire" (produced by an Englishman, from an Italian script loosely based on an incident in Columbia... reset in Mexico), Hollywood has never made a film about Mexico that doesn't fall back on clichés and cartoonish "gringo-centric" stereotypes. Despite some problems, Juarez is an honorable exception.

The problem with the screenplay is that Bettina Harding bought the romantic, Euro-centric notion of Max and Carlotta as figures in a "tragic romance". They were patsies for Napoleon III's global ambitions (something the film does very well), but everyone in Mexico knows the two were complete fools who destroyed the economy, and hardly the loving couple depicted in the movie. Max was a syphilitic, pretentious twit. He neglected Carlotta (the "Casa Obvio", his summer house in Cuernavaca that he built, "forgetting" to include rooms for Carlotta is a popular tourist attraction now, and a botanical museum), had a son by his mistress, "la Bonita India" and -- infected his wife.

The other reviewer is unintentionally misleading when he writes that Carlotta lived in seclusion for 60 years. She was bed-ridden most of the time, suffering tertiary syphilis, requiring round-the-clock medical care. She did indeed, like in the film, go bonkers -- but in the Vatican, not in a French palace. The Papacy was a major player in the geo-politics surrounding the Mexican adventure, but the film (perhaps wisely) simplifies the politics.

But, what the hey -- it's Hollywood! It has the perfect cast for this kind of epic: who better to play stoic, long-suffering historical figures than Paul Muni? Who does devious Europeans better than Claude Raines and Donald Crisp? I really enjoy seeing Porfirio Diaz (who later seized the Mexican presidency in a coup, and maintained control for close to 35 years -- and is now a mixed figure in Mexican history, sort of like Lenin with the Russians, or Ataturk among the Turks) played by John Garfield. And who better to go completely bonkers and chew up the scenery than Bette Davis? By all means, watch the movie, but then read your Mexican history.