Juarez

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.

An amazing conflagration of actors populates the cast of 1939's "Juarez" -- Brian Aherne, Paul Muni, Bette Davis, Claude Rains, John Garfield, Gale Sondergaard, Donald Crisp, Gilbert Roland, and Louis Calhern. More amazing is the size of many of their roles - small! It shows that Warner Brothers put everything behind this epic film.

The story concerns the short reign of Maximilian von Hapsburg (Aherne) as Emperor of Mexico, seduced into taking the position by Napoleon III (Rains) who convinces him that the Mexican people want a monarchy. They don't. Opposing Maximilian is the man of the people, Benito Juarez (Muni), who has the support of the United States. Both Maximilian and Juarez want many of the same things, but Maximilian's hard work to unite the Mexican people and stop the fighting fails.

Though the title is "Juarez," the workhorse role belongs to the underrated Brian Aherne, an excellent actor from the theater who took second place to Errol Flynn at Warner Brothers. Though superstardom eluded him, he was a brilliant actor and a handsome man who turned in many great performances during a 43-year career. His Maximilian is gentle, likable, strong, and sympathetic. He gets third billing to Muni and Davis. Davis plays the Empress Carlota, Maximilian's wife. It's a secondary role but she has a huge, dramatic scene when Carlota returns to France to insist that Napoleon III keep his troops in Mexico. One of the best moments in the film is Carlota, going mad and believing the French court is trying to poison her, running out into the night, her white dress slowly disappearing. Davis wears magnificent gowns and has dark hair that seems to emphasize her huge eyes even more. She looks quite beautiful and gives a solid performance as a fragile woman devoted to her husband.

Paul Muni's Juarez is stiff, and he looks and acts as if he's embalmed. Muni was a great actor who delved deeply into his roles, and it's not clear what he was thinking when he gave this performance. Undoubtedly he had researched Benito Juarez to the ground and was giving an exact representation of him. But as Bette Davis once said, "True acting is larger than life." Muni needed something more for this role but doesn't supply it. John Garfield's Porfirio Diaz is odd casting. He makes a little attempt at an accent; underneath that dark makeup is still John Garfield. Supposedly his role was cut down. Back in 1939, audiences were just getting to know him, so his performance probably held up well back then. Nowadays one only thinks, "Why is John Garfield playing a Mexican?" "Juarez" is rich in detail - it occasionally is plodding and runs a bit long in an effort to supply the historic happenings. But it is well worth seeing for the performances, the story, and those Orry-Kelly gowns.

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.

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.

Well appointed but lumbering, miscast drama. Bette is fine, all spit and fire but John Garfield, who was embarrassed by his forced casting, is completely out of place as Porfirio Diaz with his New York accent still firmly in place. Paul Muni, a very fine actor in modern dress roles, does what he always does when heavily made up; he lets the makeup do the acting for him. The best performance is delivered by Brian Aherne but he is hampered by a bizarre beard which distracts the viewer whenever he's on screen. The lack of fluid direction makes this feel more like a history lesson than a dramatized story of an actual series of events. A good try but stodgy.