It's possible and safe to say that Paul Muni was probably the best thing that had happened to movies when it was still in its infancy because of his preference for playing flesh and blood characters instead of matinée idols. Even in average movies such as BORDERTOWN, where he reportedly moved in with his Mexican chauffeur in order to replicate a flawless Mexican accent, his performance can't be said to rely on being handsome. He might not have needed using make up to look Mexican, but the times back were such that to act a certain part one had to look it, according to social conventions.
By the time JUAREZ came into fruition, Muni was already deeply involved with Muni and no one else. It's possible that his very talent made him something of a monster -- he'd developed, according to biographical accounts, an increasing list of character quirks -- and his joining the team producing this movie significantly altered the end result. JUAREZ from there on, instead of being a historical drama focusing on the Hapsbourgs -- Maximilian and Charlotte, later known as Empress Carlotta -- now had a third element to expand on: the life of Benito Juarez.
It's actually not a bad thing. As an epic, the story shifts from the Hapsbourgs to Juarez with little chops here and there in its editing and even that is a product of its time. The main issue I have with the movie is that Paul Muni's characterization is about as interesting as a honey drip or a metronome. A slow, almost slurred speech, long gazes, even slower movements: again, this is the interpretation of one man trying to divorce himself as much as possible from overacting, but by doing so, went so far left he swung all the way back into the right. Again, the misconceptions of not understanding a culture or its people compounding itself with an over-sized ego and the demands to draw attention to oneself while looking the part does not make for a great performance.
JUAREZ also suffers from the addition of John Garfield into the mix. A major blunder, and more proof that the misunderstanding of ethnicities does not only extend itself to Blacks or Asians but Hispanics as well as shown here. Garfield, as Hispanic as a Martian is human, speaks his lines like Speedy Gonzalez would and sucks the life out of Porfirio Diaz, a major player in Mexican history, here reduced to something laughable. Unless you truly know Latino culture you cannot say you've made a "great movie" with dead-on performances and believable locations. There are scenes which make Mexicans look little more than idiots who couldn't know better and robs the movie from the accuracy of its story. Hollywood needed to do its homework and did not then, but then again... this is not a surprise.
If anything, Brian Aherne and Bette Davis come off better in their story lines, but again, seen from a Mexican point of view, their actual involvement there only extends itself from 1864 - 1867, the period JUAREZ chooses to frame its story. Aherne for the most seems to be caught in a position he had little control over, but is shown as a man with good intentions. Davis, in her few scenes, makes the most striking transition, from dressed in white to grey to black as her character goes progressively insane, and the moment this happens -- when Carlotta begs for Louis Napoleon's intervention in the matter involving Mexico and later goes insane there is striking. When she recovers from a fainting spell she begins having visions and runs into the black, screaming. Excellent.
I would recommend viewing the Mexican miniseries "El Vuelo del Aguila" which roughly translates as "The Flight of the Eagle". Much more detailed in its exposition, it shows a more accurate and epic depiction of Mexican history, seen from Porfirio Diaz's perspective, from 1830 to 1915. JUAREZ will never hold a candle to this miniseries.
By the time JUAREZ came into fruition, Muni was already deeply involved with Muni and no one else. It's possible that his very talent made him something of a monster -- he'd developed, according to biographical accounts, an increasing list of character quirks -- and his joining the team producing this movie significantly altered the end result. JUAREZ from there on, instead of being a historical drama focusing on the Hapsbourgs -- Maximilian and Charlotte, later known as Empress Carlotta -- now had a third element to expand on: the life of Benito Juarez.
It's actually not a bad thing. As an epic, the story shifts from the Hapsbourgs to Juarez with little chops here and there in its editing and even that is a product of its time. The main issue I have with the movie is that Paul Muni's characterization is about as interesting as a honey drip or a metronome. A slow, almost slurred speech, long gazes, even slower movements: again, this is the interpretation of one man trying to divorce himself as much as possible from overacting, but by doing so, went so far left he swung all the way back into the right. Again, the misconceptions of not understanding a culture or its people compounding itself with an over-sized ego and the demands to draw attention to oneself while looking the part does not make for a great performance.
JUAREZ also suffers from the addition of John Garfield into the mix. A major blunder, and more proof that the misunderstanding of ethnicities does not only extend itself to Blacks or Asians but Hispanics as well as shown here. Garfield, as Hispanic as a Martian is human, speaks his lines like Speedy Gonzalez would and sucks the life out of Porfirio Diaz, a major player in Mexican history, here reduced to something laughable. Unless you truly know Latino culture you cannot say you've made a "great movie" with dead-on performances and believable locations. There are scenes which make Mexicans look little more than idiots who couldn't know better and robs the movie from the accuracy of its story. Hollywood needed to do its homework and did not then, but then again... this is not a surprise.
If anything, Brian Aherne and Bette Davis come off better in their story lines, but again, seen from a Mexican point of view, their actual involvement there only extends itself from 1864 - 1867, the period JUAREZ chooses to frame its story. Aherne for the most seems to be caught in a position he had little control over, but is shown as a man with good intentions. Davis, in her few scenes, makes the most striking transition, from dressed in white to grey to black as her character goes progressively insane, and the moment this happens -- when Carlotta begs for Louis Napoleon's intervention in the matter involving Mexico and later goes insane there is striking. When she recovers from a fainting spell she begins having visions and runs into the black, screaming. Excellent.
I would recommend viewing the Mexican miniseries "El Vuelo del Aguila" which roughly translates as "The Flight of the Eagle". Much more detailed in its exposition, it shows a more accurate and epic depiction of Mexican history, seen from Porfirio Diaz's perspective, from 1830 to 1915. JUAREZ will never hold a candle to this miniseries.