An Officer and a Spy

You know the story. Roman Polanski explores its mechanism. And, scene by scene, the case Dreyfus becomes a contemporary story. It is a film with so many virtues than "see it!" remains the only reasonable advice. One motif - Jean Dujardin who gives an admirable proof of his art. And, of course ,Louis Garrel as Alfred Dreifus. A film about justice. Like each Polanski work, precise, slow and being more than a historical story but reflection of darkness behind and, for many reasons, around us.

In his latest movie, strictly focused on historical background, Polanski renders a portrait of a mendacious, thoroughly corrupt society using the example of the tragic case of Dreyfus, a victim of the French military system at the end of the 19th century. A system based on strong anti-semitism, seeking and finding it's victims, mercilessly outcasting them in order to survive itself. Self-Righteousness, hypocrisy and moral depravity create an inescapable, nightmarish hopelessness for those outsiders, in this case Dreyfus. Polanski doesn't leave a single second unclear that such a case could still be repeated today, at any time. He shows himself in top form, actors, set design and camera work outstanding!

Although sometimes it is a little slow ,it is not boring at all. The costumes ,the scenery ,the photography is excellent The acting of the protagonist ,who is not Dreyfus , is suberb It is the best film about the Dreyfus affair Highly recommended

Last night I took my wife to see J'Accuse - "An Officer and a Spy" and I feel compelled to review it. I won't hold you in suspense: this is an amazing film and you should see it. J'Accuse takes its time and, at least initially, speaks with a soft voice but it never feels slow, much thanks to the exceptional cinematography. The craftsmanship here is outstanding: every scene is a painting, every actor excels. Louis Garrel is brilliant and has an uncanny resemblance of the real Dreyfus. Jean Dujardin does the performance of his career, I predict this to be as defining a moment for him as Cyrano was for Gérard Depardieu. Costumes, props and visuals are second to none. But these things only makes this a well-crafted costume film and J'Accuse is much more than that - it is important. I admit not knowing anything about the Dreyfus Affair before I had to write an essay about it in my French class last fall, but "L'Affair" (as it was known at the time) is a defining moment in French history, treated with the same reverence as the revolution and for good reason. The fate of Alfred Dreyfus is a story about prejudice, antisemitism, cowardice and blind nationalism but also a tale of courage, honor and a commitment to truth. As both, it is intensely relevant to our time. J'Accuse never preaches and takes its time before it impacts but when it does, it leaves you speechless. J'Accuse shows the French republic at its absolute ugliest and at its most beautiful. This is not just a great film that happens to be French. J'Accuse HAD to be in French for the same reason that Der Untergang HAD to be in German. Having an idea what the Dreyfus Affair was about (and who people like Émile Zola were) will enhance the experience of this film but you should see it regardless. I'll rank J'Accuse in the top three movies I've seen during half a century of movie-going. See it, preferably in the theater, and if you come out thinking this is boring... then I can't help you. Art, much like fine wine and love, is not for everyone. If J'Accuse is Roman Polanski's last film (and it might well be as he is 87) then it is one hell of a swan song. This film is a masterpiece. A note regarding the 1/10 reviews you see here on IMDB: these "reviews" are not of the film, they are written by people with a political agenda. I think what the metoo-activists hate most about this film (those who have even seen it) is that they recognize themselves, not in its heroes or its victims, but in the shrieking mobs outside the courthouse, filled with righteous rage, baying for blood. The irony in that this places progressives (who see themselves as the most enlightened) in a position where they are attacking a film about anti-semitism and bigotry should not be lost on anyone.

So many contradictory elements about this film and the people who have made it leave you wondering more about its creation than the poorly performed and irrelevant tale it embellishes.

(translation from Italian) The Hungarian princes Esterházi are one of the noblest families in Austria and Hungary. A representative of this family moved to Paris at the time of the Belle Epoque, between 1890 and 1895, then the times of Marcel Proust, the times of the Impressionists, the moment when Paris is the capital of the world. Ferdinand Esterházi was a dissolute man, a play boy, a player full of debts, but also a Major of Artillery in the Armée, the French army, and together with a certain Alfred, a provincial from Alsatia, without any cover, diligent, hardworking and serious, both are suspected of espionage in favor of the foreign power at that time more incumbent that was Prussia, that is Germany. But who is chosen as a suspect among these two? Who is chosen as a culprit? The provincial because he is a Jew. Imagine discrimination and racism that dominated a capital of that world and that era if there are still echoes in today's world... In this way the famous Dreyfus affair starts, the great court case of the late 1800s which is the basis of Roman Polanski's film "An Officer and A Spy" based on the novel by Robert Harris. The original title of the film is J'accuse, referred to the famous article of the great writer Emile Zola. At the beginning of the film Dreyfus is accused, judged, sentenced, degraded and sent to the Devil's Island to serve a life sentence. Everything is based on a very fragile trial that the new chief of the army's intelligence section, then called statistical office, turns out to be really small, indeed even been completely prefabricated on the injury that Alfred Dreyfus, being a Jew, could be capable of anything and having to discover a spy inside the army, because there was evidence of a spy, who do you choose as a spy? You choose the pariah, you choose the one that matters least, you choose the one that in common prejudice could be a spy, a delinquent, an abject, that is, a Jew. And everyone is convinced that it's true. Major Georges Picquart is played by a splendid Jean Dujardin, whom we know because for The Artist he won an Oscar, a Golden Globe, a Bafta, a Golden Palm, for his extraordinary interpretation in a silent film today, therefore with an expressiveness, a capacity, an intelligence, an irony and an extraordinary comedy. This time he plays a completely opposite character. He descends into a torn, almost dark character that when discovers the truth, realizes he must fight against power. He is a servant of the state being a soldier and above all being the chief of an office as delicate as that of intelligence, but he is between a rock and a hard place, between power and truth. Any effort he makes to go towards the truth is completely frustrated by power, that does not want to criticize itself. Because the paradox of this story is that, being now the matter of Dreyfus in the final judgment and having been fed to public opinion as a form of moral washing and cleanliness, can no longer be questioned. So our Picquart is facing a pyramid, a monolith, an immense mountain of lies which cannot be and above all must not be affected to safeguard the true and just serious face of power, which is actually a mask of hypocrisy, and he absolutely cannot break this image in the name of truth. The truth becomes a detail, an extremely annoying goad, that like a blowfly, it must be killed and eliminated. And Georges Picquart also annoys: "But who makes him do it... But don't get in the way... But you must obey... But what is the truth for... " Polanski represents all this important matter in a really fierce manner.

The story is nothing revolutionary, no extra twist or suprise but the real gem here is the way the story is told and the movie was shot. In contrast to the oversaturated Hollywood exhaustive action packed style this movie manages to tell the intriguing Dreyfus affair in France 1895 without unnecessary overdone action scenes/music whilst maintaining the core tension of the topic that doesn't let you off the hook. When the movie was finished I couldn't believe that over 2h were over and I felt pleasantly refreshed and renewed, although I was constantly focused on what will happen next. That's the level of smoothness we are talking about here. A connection to past Polanski or french movies is definitly visible and this way of storytelling can be thought of as a new take on it. If you like historical dramas with a good portion of crime you should definitly take a look at this gem.

The Dreyfuss affair brilliantly told. For those interested in history this movie holds your attention throughout. The suspense builds appropriately through the portrayls and even if you know the story your interest does not wane at any point Jean Dujardin is amazing, Grégory Gadebois brilliant and Louis Garrel bears an uncanny resemblance to the real Dreyfuss. This movie should have oscar nominations and wins. A movie as it should be with real acting, direction and cinematography.

Not a single f-word, no sexual scene and a brilliant movie. Hollywood doesn't know to do that anymore.

I really loved this movie about an interesting story, well told by Polanski. There is an accurate research and a very good cinematographic transposition of what happened in France with the Affair Dreyfus, that many people still don't know. It is important to talk about it, especially with this pathos and care of the details. Definitely a movie to see.