L'affaire Dreyfus (1899) User Reviews

This sure doesn't look like a film from Georges Méliès.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 23 January 2014]

I have seen just about every extant film by the great French filmmaker Georges Méliès and I must say that if I didn't know better, I'd swear it was not one of his films. The style, look and composition bear no similarities to his work....none. With Méliès, you expect trick cinematography--such as appearing and disappearing people or objects. However, this film is very different--very 'normal' and apparently set outdoors (whereas his other films were made in an odd set that looked indoors while using natural light by not having a roof overhead.

Of all the films about the Dreyfus Affair I have seen, this is the only one that was made during the height of the incident--while Dreyfus was incarcerated on Devil's Island for supposedly betraying his country. He's simply shown in a stockade-like enclosure doing not much of anything. Then a jailer comes in and gives him a letter--though we have no idea WHAT that is all about. In many ways, it is so mundane that you'd almost think it was by the famous Lumière Brothers.

All in all, a rather brave political statement, as like Zola and a few other celebrities, Méliès is trying to sway public opinion in Dreyfus' favor in order to win his release. While not the most interesting film, an important one historically.

An affaire that divided a nation

[luigicavaliere · 7/10 · 16 February 2019]

The scandal of Dreyfus in eleven acts: the arrest, the imprisonment on the island of the devil, the imprisonment between the bars, the suicide of Colonel Henry, landing of Dreyfus at Quiberon, the meeting of Dreyfuss with his wife, attack against the life of the lawyer Labori, the battle of journalists, the court martial in Rènnes.The judicial innocence of Dreyfus was also defended by the writer Èmile Zola. A national division after the Franco-Prussian war that is a prelude to tensions towards the First World War.

Hard to Follow

[Hitchcoc · 5/10 · 10 November 2017]

Since I know all about the Dreyfuss affair, I was able to piece together a plot line here, sort of. This film is eleven minutes long and is broken into one minute segments. The events are never explained. Anti-semitism was alive and well in France and because Dreyfuss was seen in a positive light, the audiences were rather naughty. The great director risked his standing in order to show a belief in the ill-treated Dreyfuss.

Méliès Takes a Stand

[Cineanalyst · 12 September 2009]

"The Dreyfus Affair" was an 11-part serial by Georges Méliès. As John Frazer ("Artificially Arranged Scenes") described it, they were sold for $9.75 by part to exhibitors, and, by the eleventh film, the series was essentially banned in France. From looking at Frazer's account, it appears that the second and eleventh films are not included in the Flicker Alley set, although, apparently, they aren't lost. Selling scenes individually was a common practice in the early days of cinema, when exhibitors, rather than producers, were in control of the assembling and final appearance of films. Most subjects, regardless of their connectedness, were sold as individual shot-scenes (by 20 meters of film or whatever established length). This is how the Lumiére Company sold their 13-tableaux 1897 passion play. It's how Mutoscope offered their 8-part "Rip Van Winkle" in 1896 (re-released as one whole in 1903). Méliès would actually lead the way in seizing editorial control for producers the same year with "Cinderella".

To understand this film, it helps to have some knowledge of the events surrounding the Dreyfus scandal. In 1899, this was a contemporary controversy, so Méliès reasonably assumed audience familiarity. Furthermore, in early cinema, lecturers would describe films at screenings. "The Dreyfus Affair" serial is not a self-contained narrative, which is rather common of early films and is why many of them may be confusing to modern viewers. Suffice to say here that, Dreyfus was a Jew and artillery officer in the French military and was fraudulently convicted of treason by anti-Semites. That this even happened and was controversial demonstrates the widespread bigotry and institutional corruption back then. With these films, Méliès took the side of Dreyfus.

Aside from the politics, this serial is interesting because it's such a significant departure for Méliès from his usual style of film-making and preferred subject matter of wacky magic, fairy tales and amusing fantasies. There's nothing else in his oeuvre like it. It's a dramatic and starkly realist reenactment of the affair's events. Even the decors, although naturally primitive by today's standards, are realist. Moreover, there is some very unusual (for Méliès) staging, including characters entering and exiting the frame beside the camera—in depth, foreground to background and vise versa, as opposed to the traditional and theatrical lateral, left/right long shot staging Méliès adopted for every other film. He uses this atypical staging in two of the available scenes.

Additionally, the film contains a letter motif. I wouldn't think it intentional or think much of it given this is an early film if it weren't so prevalent and a salient underscoring of the narrative. In almost every brief, some one-minute scene, there are either letters or legal papers involved. In some of them, someone is either writing or reading a letter. This underscores the fraudulent case that was made against Dreyfus, whose trial was based on the supposed similarity between his handwriting and the handwriting on discovered treasonous papers. This film demonstrates the versatility Méliès had as a filmmaker and suggests the cinematic possibilities he didn't develop further.

Very uncommon topic for Méliès

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 14 October 2013]

Usually his short films are magic shows, here and there some fairytale or sci-fi work, but this was a completely different approach. It's pretty long. it says 13 minutes here, although the version I saw was about eleven minutes long. In any case, it's among the longest films from this point and would be seen in our world as a three- or four-hour-film put into relation to running times of other films back then. Also it consists of several segments that almost stand for themselves and, I believe, have their own IMDb profile pages as well. While watching this film, you really need to make sure you see the intertitles, otherwise you're quickly lost and don't really understand what is going on here. The crime genre hasn't been popular in early film at all, so it's an okay distraction from the usual and here and there even interesting despite its flaws. The biggest may be the ending. There's really no value to the courtroom scene at all apart from the historical context. And strangely enough it seems to be also the longest sequence although much more understandable action is happening in the earlier ones. The film is packed with drama: We have a suicide, an assassination attempt and a brawl among other things. So even if Méliès does without the supernatural aspects here, it's still pretty spectacular. Unfortunately, I didn't find it as interesting as it could have been.

First censored political film

[iamsethh · 10/10 · 11 April 2000]

This is the first movie ever censored for political reasons. The title refers to a historical event in France decades earlier in which a Jewish military officer was discharged for bribery, and it was alleged that he was framed due to anti-semitism. The status the event held in France at this time in history was probably about similar to the way Vietnam is viewed in the US today. Anyway, Melies made clear in the film that the officer (Dreyfus) was framed. There were riots at the theaters, and the film was shut down. Also interesting is that this is the first (ever) multi-scene film. Before this, they set up the camera, ran it until the film ran out (about 50 seconds), and showed it exactly as it came out of the camera. "The Dreyfus Affair" was shot on I believe 11 reels (hence 11 different scenes) and shown in sequence.

One of the first film serials

[Tornado_Sam · 13 September 2018]

Like W. K. L. Dickson's "Rip van Winkle" snippets from 1896, "The Dreyfus Affair" cannot be considered an actual movie. Back in 1899, there were hardly no multi-scene films at all--each snippet took place on a single location while the action took place in front of it. Of course, and despite being innovative in various other ways, Georges Méliès was no different at all and like Dickson before him was forced into doing the same thing. This is not to say that a multi-scene film had not been done before--after all, the earliest known film with more than one scene was "Come Along Do!" by the British Robert Paul, and that one dated all the way back to 1898--but rather that Méliès hadn't caught on to this notion yet (which he would shortly after the completion of this serial, amusingly enough). It's true that this series is more advanced than the aforementioned "Rip van Winkle" in the sense that all of its nine--really eleven--scenes are shot on different sets and use different action--whereas with Dickson's serial, each clip ran only about twenty or more seconds and each segment would often start up in the same location and continue the same action as in its predecessor. The downside to every scene having a different location is that it makes the serial harder to follow; you certainly need some historical background to understand the basic story.

One of the other interesting things about "The Dreyfus Affair" is--besides being one of the earliest film serials--the fact it was actually censored for political reasons. Like politics today, the french folk were just as sensitive about such events. Indeed, while the case of this film is different--Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus being arrested for bribery--the events met with the exact same controversy: who's right and who's wrong? As certain sources state, many audiences believed the various shots which make up the serial were in fact live and that Méliès had actually managed to sneak his cameraman onto Devil's Island, the Lycee du Rennes, etc. to capture the events taking place on celluloid. Nowadays, we'd very easily be able to figure out the series' artificiality, but because of the realism of the series at the time (for instance, the iron-worker who's identity remains a mystery, and who was hired to play Dreyfus himself because of his uncanny resemblance) fights often broke out during the showings, resulting in theaters refusing to show the series and causing it to be censored--in particular, the ending scene in which Dreyfus leaves the Lycee for jail. (Apparently, this scene appears to be available nowhere online now, but along with "The Degradation of Dreyfus" it's not lost). Méliès even reflected the audiences' reactions in the ninth installment, "The Fight of Reporters" in which the journalists have a riot at the Lycee when gathering info about the case and are ushered out of the room. Part of these reactions have to, of course, be because of how Dreyfus is portrayed as innocent throughout. Méliès was a Dreyfusard, and he clearly lets it be known in the final result--also through the fact he plays Fernand Labori, defense lawyer for the unfortunate officer who's attempted assassination is portrayed in part eight of the serial.

Another thing about this serial that has a point of interest is severe lack of special effects. The only effects that can really be spotted in the entire eleven-part story were the lightening flashes during the disembarking at Quiberon scene, used to indicate the approaching storm. Considering it was only 1899, double exposure was still pretty new in Méliès's filmography and is used--instead of to create fantasy worlds--to here initiate the illusion of lightening. This is actually rare in and of itself and I can only recall one other work in his career using double exposures for this purpose: namely, "Robinson Crusoe" of 1902. Outside of this, a film edit is also used before the unknown assassin's second shot at Labori's back, but the reason of this edit remains a mystery, however visible it may seem. While it is true that special effects were a staple product in the director's career, Méliès here proves he can create an interesting film without them--and the reason why he did not, unfortunately, continue to do so was one of the biggest reasons for the decline of his career.

(Note: I will be discussing each individual segment on each IMDb page, except for installments two and eleven which I have not had the opportunity to view online or anywhere else).