The Story of Louis Pasteur (1936) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
47 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Nice film for biology teachers
dougteach19 June 2004
This is a great film that is also very historically and scientifically correct. Almost everything in the movie REALLY happened to the real Louis Pasteur. I am a high school biology teacher and I show this film every year when we study viruses and bacteria. When I tell the students that it is a black and white film from 1935, I get moans and words of disapproval. But every year after they have viewed the film almost all students come away legitimately liking the film.

Paul Muni's performance is extraordinary and may be the best performance of his entire career. I highly recommend watching this film. It was nominated for BEST PICTURE, Paul Muni won BEST LEAD ACTOR, it won BEST WRITER, and won BEST EDITING that year.
39 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Nice Warner Brothers bio
blanche-216 February 2009
Paul Muni has the title role in "The Story of Louis Pasteur," a 1935 film also starring Josephine Hutchinson, Anita Louise, Donald Woods, and Fritz Lieber.

The biopic focuses on Pasteur's work in sterilization, rabies, and anthrax, and includes his inoculation of the small boy Joseph Meister (Dickie Moore) which is a famous - and risky - moment in Pasteur's life. Strangely, there is nothing about pasteurization, although with a great scientist who was responsible for so many innovations, you can't show everything. And certainly the rabies and anthrax stories are more dramatic.

Some of the film, I believe, is fictionalized - his nemesis, Dr. Charbonnet, was probably created to represent some of the criticism Pasteur faced in his lifetime. The love affair between his assistant, Dr. Martel (Donald Woods) and Pasteur's daughter Annette doesn't seem to be true either. Typical Hollywood.

Nevertheless, this is a reverent biography with a strong performance by Muni and good work by the rest of the cast. It seems crazy to think that before Pasteur, doctors did not sterilize instruments and wash their hands, but apparently, they didn't.

Good movie.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Paul Muni Gets Pasteurized
wes-connors26 September 2015
In 1860 Paris, doctors are collectively disgruntled by chemist Paul Muni (as Louis Pasteur). He advises surgeons, "Wash your hands. Boil your instruments. Microbes cause disease and death to your patients." In the opening scene, a doctor is shot due to his patient believing in Pasteur's advice. The controversy causes problems for Pasteur. Ten years later, the renowned man works on cures for anthrax (the black plague) and rabies (after a dog bites Dickie Moore)...

This is an exceptionally well-produced, straightforward biography of Louis Pasteur by director William Dieterle and the crew at Warner Bros. Paul Muni forwarded his film career considerably. He is nothing less than perfect, and Mr. Muni won a much-deserved "Best Actor" Oscar for his performance. So many early "Academy Awards" were chosen due to politics, popularity and promotion. It's nice to see the old Academy occasionally got one right...

The film is lacking, however, in not presenting Pasteur as a younger man (oddly, Muni is only made to look older). And, the fact that you drank "Pasteurized" milk isn't even covered.

******** The Story of Louis Pasteur (1935-11-23) William Dieterle ~ Paul Muni, Josephine Hutchinson, Fritz Leiber, Donald Woods
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
High-minded, idealistic, and very exciting!
michaela-517 January 2000
What a pleasure to see a film so unabashedly idealistic! The film's emotional ending (a well-deserved and long-overdue tribute to Pasteur's work by his collegues) centers on a closing speech by Pasteur (Paul Muni) in which he explains, simply and with passion, that making a contribution to the wellbeing of mankind is the most important work of all.

Pasteur's discovery of the role of bacteria in spreading disease seems self-evident now, but he faced years of ridicule and isolation before his findings were accepted and played their part in transforming our world.

This film is a vaccine against the cynical, self-referential, "in it for me (and maybe my small circle of friends)" films of the recent decades. See it and feel good about being human.
31 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"Find the microbe...Kill the microbe."
moonspinner5511 October 2009
In 19th century France, a ridiculed chemist branching out into medicine is called a charlatan by Europe's most prestigious doctors, even after he finds a vaccine for anthrax in sheep; next, he tackles hydrophobia in dogs, then humans. Medical history, compressed and simplified for the sake of popular entertainment, but no less rewarding for it. Paul Muni gives an impressive, Oscar-winning performance as Louis Pasteur, so fiercely dedicated to his findings and the results they receive, he drives himself to a partial stroke. One might think Pasteur as a family man might be difficult to live with, yet his loved ones merely beam and glow with pride, as does the opposition (seen as ego-fed and pig-headed) once Pasteur's experiments pay off. It's an awfully brief biography at just 85 minutes, yet it certainly has charm and moments of solid drama. **1/2 from ****
15 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A fine example of what Hollywood has forgotten how to do
piapia4 April 1999
"The Stroy of Louis Pasteur" is an example of Hollywood's Golden Era at its best. The first of the Warner Bros "biopics", it can boast of a great performance by Paul Muni, with none of the mannerisms that became a trade mark in the last and sorry years of his career. It was an example of the "good citizenship" that Warner Broa boasted of: a highly educational film that at the same time was very entertaining. The screen play was masterful and won the Oscar it the deserved. Authors Sheridan Gibney and Pierre Collings were able to dramatize scientific struggles and investigations. This was also the beginning of the most fruitful period in William Dieterle's career, an from that moment on he shared with Michael Curtiz the top assignments at Warner. It is now known that The Story of Louis Pasteur was made with a very low budget. You don't notice it. It is a wonderful show, as was the following year "The Life of Emile Zola" and, with some reservations, "Juarez" in 1939. There are notable performances in the picture by Fritz Leiber and Akim Tamiroff among others.
35 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Live in the serene peace of libraries and laboratories."
utgard1417 July 2014
Enjoyable biopic about the famous chemist Louis Pasteur, played by Paul Muni. It doesn't focus on all of the man's life and achievements. But it tries to cover some of the highlights, including his fight against anthrax and rabies. Muni does a great job. He's backed up by solid actors like Donald Woods, Henry O'Neill, Fritz Leiber, and Halliwell Hobbes, as well as the lovely Anita Louise and Josephine Hutchinson. It's a well-written and directed film. There are liberties taken with the facts but this is a movie not a history book. As with the best of Hollywood's great old biopics, its focus is to tell the inspirational story of a historical figure in an entertaining way. It does just that. Fans of Paul Muni and fans of old school Hollywood biopics will love it.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Wisdom And Perseverance
bkoganbing25 June 2007
1936 was the career turning point year for Paul Muni. It was the year that he got the first of three biographical films at Warner Brothers that would forever give him his place in cinema history. The Story of Louis Pasteur (1827-1895) was also the film that got Muni his Academy Award for Best Actor that year.

It's hard to imagine the world of science and medicine without the contributions of Pasteur. He was a chemist and as such his scientific experiments when they encroached on the medical field was greeted with suspicion and hostility. His chief critic Dr. Charbonnet played by Fritz Lieber nearly sank Pasteur's work with a bold move that I cannot tell about, but will make you gasp when you see it on screen.

Josephine Hutchinson is Muni's ever faithful wife Marie and she does well by what is really a rather colorless part. It was the same for Muni in his biographical picture the following year of Emile Zola where Gloria Holden also had a part that called for little, but to look faithful. There is a nice subplot involving Donald Woods as an early convert to Pasteur's way of thinking wooing and winning daughter Anita Louise.

The film goes through Pasteur's main achievements of sterilization during medical procedures and cures for anthrax and hydrophobia. The story and screenplay which also won Oscars for 1936 is simple and straightforward enough for any lay person to follow.

There are several good performances of men of science who opposed and/or supported Pasteur's work, in some cases opposed then supported. Porter Hall, Akim Tamiroff, and Halliwell Hobbes who has a small part as Joseph Lister, the English scientist.

Pasteur fought hard for his ideas against the medical and scientific establishment of his day and lived long enough to receive due acclaim from his nation of France and the world. It's still an inspirational story about a man convinced of the rightness of his cause and having the wisdom and perseverance to see it through.
29 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Applying the Germ Theory.
rmax3048237 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
These biographies of scientists and other notables of the past, made in the 1930s, often by Warners, are almost always enjoyable as well as instructive. Oh, the life stories are generally polished and simplified but sometimes we really don't want or need a more complex portrait. "Lawrence of Arabia" was pretty challenging but activated all our critical faculties. That's work.

Louis Pasteur, Paul Muni here, believed in the germ theory of disease at a time when the French Academy didn't. According to this movie, they believed in spontaneous generation -- that organisms emerged whole from suitable environments. Speaking from a position of expert ignorance, I recall from a course in microbiology that the notion of spontaneous generation had already been dispelled by F. Redi and Lazzaro Spallanzani. Yet, here we have the Academy believing that mosquito larvae grew out of stagnant water by themselves. I think, though, that Pasteur more or less applied the germ theory by developing vaccines that conclusively wrapped up the issue.

The script adopts the usual pattern. Nobody believes in what Pasteur is doing -- discovering why wine went sour, trying to cure anthrax and rabies and puerperal (or childbirth) fever. I'd thought most of the credit for the last was due to Ignaz Semmelweis, who noticed that more women died in childbirth while in the hospital than at home. In his facility, doctors went directly from practicing on cadavers to aiding in childbirth -- without washing their hands. Semmelweis was an interesting guy who only get a brief mention, once, early in the film. He also invented a crude stethoscope so that the doctor didn't need to press his ear directly on a woman's, er, bosom. Like many other innovators, including Pasteur, Semmelweis was ridiculed and eventually wound up in a mental facility.

But that's off track. Despite doubts and ridicule, Pasteur, his ideas and his methods, prevailed. Surprisingly, there is no mention of "pasteurization." Joseph Lister ("Listerine") appears briefly.

What a time it was -- the last half of the 19th century, with a scientific revolution going on. Not just Pasteur, Semmelweis, and Lister, but Koch, Fleming, and Edward Jenner (who found a vaccine for smallpox). Freud was born in 1856, three years before Darwin publish "The Origin of Species." Paul Muni is good as the impatient Louis Pasteur who receives his just honors at the end. He's often criticized for overacting, attributed to his origins in the Yiddish theater. I don't find him at all outrageous and often extremely effective. I was an usher in the Yiddish theater for a while. Now THAT'S overacting! The rest of the cast is professionally competent. There are better examples of the genre -- Edward G. Robinson in "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet", for instance. But this occupies a respectable place in the genre.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A story well worth telling
TheLittleSongbird10 August 2018
Louis Pasteur was an important and pioneering figure in his field and ever, and his discoveries were revolutionary. He also had a very interesting life well worth telling, and one that lends itself well to film. Even though a film would not be able to cover everything about his life, it was an eventful personal life and he revolutionised so much. It would fare even better as a mini-series.

'The Story of Louis Pasteur' was one of the first biopics that came to be (and also the first of those from Warner Brothers), and it is one of the better early ones. Although not quite one of my favourite biographical films of all time, 'The Story of Louis Pasteur' is a fine example of how to do it right. Meaning that of course there would be fictional elements, and it is these elements that ring the least true here, but the subject, their personal life and what made them so important are treated with respect and not rose-tinted, distorted or falsified.

Pasteur is still a very interesting man and we do see what made him a pioneering and revolutionary figure. 'The Story of Louis Pasteur' is at its weakest in the romantic element of the story, which didn't engage as much as the rest of the film and didn't fit as well either.

Also the performances of Anita Louise and Donald Woods who struck me as a little colourless. Wouldn't have said no to 'The Story of Louis Pasteur' being longer, it did feel too brief and one does wish that there was even more to the story than was told.

However, the story is thoroughly compelling and while not everything is there it does focus on what were particularly revolutionary and in a way that engages a lot and are very intriguing, found myself learning a fair bit. Found myself relating to Pasteur with his struggles against adversity and his eventual overcoming, having been there myself.

One does not notice that 'The Story of Louis Pasteur' is low budget, it is lovingly photographed and handsomely designed. The script is literate without being worthy and very thought-provoking with a surprising amount of complexity and respect for the subject and the ability to entertain and educate. The direction keeps the film moving along briskly with few dull spots. The film is particularly worth seeing for the terrific and deservedly Oscar-winning performance of Paul Muni. The rest of the supporting cast are strong, especially Ftitz Leiber and Akim Tamiroff. Josephine Hutchison does very well with what she has.

In summary, very good. 8/10 Bethany Cox
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Decent Bio Of An Important Man
ccthemovieman-117 August 2006
This was a pretty interesting historical account of the man who first discovered that microbes - germs - were the cause of many sicknesses. Dr. Louis Pasteur then went about the make changes so these germs were not so prevalent and causing so much sickness. We can thank him for "pasteurization."

Paul Muni does a fine job of playing the title role. He seemed to always play intense roles.

The story is very frustrating, however, as we watch "Pasteur" become the target of an ignorant medical profession at the time, constantly trying to discredit the famous man's work. We know, of course, through history that he was right so to listen to his naysayers go on and on and on is frustrating.

At least we know Pasteur and his discoveries were finally accepted and he was given the recognition he deserved. In the end, there is a final, very moving scene that gives him his due.
20 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Such is fame!
JohnHowardReid25 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Director: WILLIAM DIETERLE. Screenplay and original Story: Sheridan Gibney and Pierre Collings. Uncredited script contributor: Edward Chodorov. Photography: Tony Gaudio. Film editor: Ralph Dawson. Art director: Robert M. Haas. Costumes: Milo Anderson. Make-up: Perc Westmore. Music composed by Heinz Roemheld and Bernhard Kaun, directed by Leo F. Forbstein. Dialogue director: Gene Lewis. Assistant director: Frank Shaw. Associate producer: Henry Blanke. Historical research: Herman Lissauer. Producer: Hal B. Wallis. Executive producer: Jack L. Warner.

Copyright 31 January 1936 by Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. A Cosmopolitan (William Randolph Hearst) Production. New York opening at the Strand, 10 February 1936. U.S. release: 22 February 1936. U.K. release: 3 July 1936. Australian release: 20 May 1936. 85 minutes.

SYNOPSIS: Chemist has a bug about germs.

NOTES: Academy Award, Best Actor, Paul Muni (defeating Gary Cooper in Mr Deeds Goes To Town, Walter Huston in Dodsworth, William Powell in My Man Godfrey and Spencer Tracy in San Francisco).

Academy Award, Original Story, Sheridan Gibney and Pierre Collings (defeating Fury, The Great Ziegfeld, San Francisco and Three Smart Girls).

Academy Award, Screenplay, Sheridan Gibney and Pierre Collings (defeating After the Thin Man, Dodsworth, Mr Deeds Goes To Town and My Man Godfrey). Also nominated for Best Picture (The Great Ziegfeld). Number 6 in the annual poll of U.S. film critics conducted by The Film Daily. Number 2 (after Mr Deeds Goes To Town) on the National Board of Review's 1936 list of Best American Pictures.

Negative cost: a paltry $260,000. Shot in 5 weeks from mid-August to late September 1935. The subject is also treated in the French film Pasteur (1935) from writer/producer/director/star, Sacha Guitry.

COMMENT: Dieterle's direction is not as impressive as his subject matter, though it has its memorable moments (the darkened laboratory as Pasteur goes to fetch his rabies vaccine and enters the door with the light behind him).

Fortunately, the film itself with its exceptionally lavish production values and its grand array of character performances, is one that can be enjoyed again and again.

The pace is brisk and the screenplay crystallizes Pasteur's opposition quite excitingly. I also liked the way Pasteur is shown working with a team of assistants. The film breathes authenticity.

And I loved Lister's ironic comment as the crowd cheers some acrobats, "Such is fame!".
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Decent biography of Muni never mentions "pasteurized milk"...
Doylenf11 October 2009
PAUL MUNI gives an eloquent performance as Louis Pasteur in this abbreviated biography of his life which never has time to mention some of his other achievements, such as pasteurized milk. Instead, it concentrates on the difficulties he has of convincing any of the medical experts that microbes are the cause of disease. His experiments with finding a cure for anthrax and rabies are at the centerpiece of the story.

JOSEPHINE HUTCHINSON is his devoted and loyal wife who has to remind him to eat dinner when he's caught up in his experiments with animals to prove his theories. ANITA LOUIS and DONALD WOODS provide what little romantic interest there is in the tale, strictly cardboard characters little more than ciphers.

Muni ages convincingly without the use of heavy make-up and won a Best Actor Oscar for his detailed performance. HALLIWELL HOBBES as Dr. Lister, AKIM TAMIROFF as Dr. Zaranoff, PORTER HALL as Dr. Rossignol, and FRITZ LEIBER as his nemesis, Dr. Charbonnet, are excellent in supporting roles.

Nicely directed by William Dieterle.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
More fiction than fact
edalweber21 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.

The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.
15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Great Performances
Michael_Elliott28 February 2008
Story of Louis Pasteur, The (1935)

*** (out of 4)

Bio pic of chemist Louis Pasteur (Paul Muni) who found a cure for the black plague but was then blacklisted when he made the claim that childhood fever was caused when doctors didn't wash their hands before delivering babies. This is a pretty strong film from start to finish that features a terrific performance by Muni who rightfully deserved his Best Actor Oscar. I was really shocked at how well Muni was here because I was a little skeptical going in. God knows he's given countless great performances throughout his career but I was shocked at how well he play Pasteur who of course used his brains more than his muscles or mouth like many of Muni's other roles. There's not a single second where Muni comes off as himself but the entire film he gives the performance that we think we're actually watching Pasteur work. The supporting cast is also very good with Josephine Hutchinson, Anita Louise and Donald Woods all turning in good work.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Paul Muni Discovers Vaccines
evanston_dad7 November 2016
A tasteful and thoughtful fictionalization of Louis Pasteur's development of vaccines for anthrax and rabies that nevertheless peddles in the kind of hagiography one would expect from films of this time period, when things like subtlety were in short supply.

"The Story of Louis Pasteur" was a prestige pic from Warner Bros. off-shoot Cosmopolitan, designed to win the studio acclaim and Oscars. It did both, scoring a Best Actor win for Paul Muni, eminently watchable as Pasteur but who deserved to win both three years earlier for his intense performance in the intense "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" and a year later for his performance in another Warner Bros. biopic, "The Life of Emile Zola." Indeed, there is speculation that 1936 saw a lot of vote rigging in the Academy and that Muni's win was the result of some under the table deals among studio execs to ensure that certain actors and certain films would win key awards. But it's the kind of role and performance that could easily have won on its own merits, and indeed biopics have been one of the surest vehicles for actors seeking Oscar noms and wins ever since.

The film also won two writing awards, the first of only four films in Oscar history to do so, when rules allowed both the screenplay and the original story on which it was based to be eligible even if written by the same people, which in this case were (Pierre Collings and Sheridan Gibney). Its fourth and final nomination was for Best Picture, in a year that found the other nominees in that category to be "Anthony Adverse," "Dodsworth" (my personal favorite), "Libeled Lady," "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town," "Romeo and Juliet," "San Francisco," "A Tale of Two Cities," "Three Smart Girls," and that year's winner, "The Great Ziegfeld."

Grade: A-
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Science vs The Invisible Monsters
LeonLouisRicci17 July 2014
Warner Brothers Studio Condensed the Accomplishments of the Great Chemist into an 85 Min. Movie that would become an Example of the Biopic. It is Quite Remarkable how they Managed to put so Much into such a Restrictive Running Time.

It is a Testament to the Skill of the Screenplay and the Dynamic Acting of Paul Muni that Supercharged this Film into an Exciting and Informative Experience. Muni Captures Every Scene with Expressions that a Full Beard can do Little to Hide as He Searches for Clues and Cures to Find and Kill the Invisible Monsters.

The Production Design is Elegant but Simple and the Supporting Cast of Family Members, Doctors, and Politicians add a Backdrop of Intensity to Pasteur's Work. A Rich and Educational Movie that is Easily Understood for Youngsters and is Highly Dramatic for Adults.

The Result is a Nice Packaging of an Important Man, His Breakthrough Science, and the Ridicule that is Typical of Anything that goes Against the Status Quo. An Unnecessary and Shameful Obstacle that has been Overcome by Many Innovators Throughout History.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
good film
kyle_furr17 February 2004
Much better than The Life of Emilie Zola and Juarez. This movie stars Paul Muni in an Oscar winning performance as a scientist who is looking for a cure for anthrax and then rabies, all the other doctors laugh at him. Paul Muni does a good job and this is the same director of Life of Emilie Zola and Juarez.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The French Scientist
lugonian26 August 2018
THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR (Warner Brothers, 1936), directed by William Dieterle, starring Paul Muni, might have become a box-office failure considering its then theatrical popularity being swashbucklers, screwball comedies, love stories, screen adaptations to literary classics or the musicals. As much as a life story about a 19th century French scientist would only have limited appeal, being more of a history lesson retold on screen rather than history lesson taught in the classroom, the movie itself went into production anyway. Having little or no expectation except for Paul Muni, the sort of actor willing to assume the gamble to a point of not even caring if the movie proved popular or not, THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR not only became an unexpected success, paving the way for other biographical stories to follow, but won Paul Muni the Academy Award as Best Actor for his memorable performance.

Rather than starting the story of Louis Pasteur as a child, leading to his scientific profession and courtship with his future wife, the original story and screenplay by Sheridan Gibney and Pierre Collins gets down to basics starting in 1860 with the shooting of Doctor Francois (William Burress) by an irate husband (William B. Davidson) whose wife died under his carelessness by using dirty instruments for treatment. After the husband presents the reasons for his actions to the police with a newspaper clipping by Louis Pasteur stating how microbes cause diseases and death, the scientists of the French Academy label Pasteur as a "menace to science." Louis Pasteur (Paul Muni) is then introduced as a chemist with a young wife, Marie (Josephine Hutchinson), and father to three children, the eldest being a daughter named Annette (Anita Louise). Pasteur expresses his reasoning and anger through the ignorance of doctors who fail to boil their instruments and wash their hands to kill germs before attending to their patients. Disbelieved or ridiculed by the doctors, Pasteur's theories are believed by few, including Doctor Jean Martel (Donald Woods), a young physical and surgeon working under Doctor Charbonnet (Fritz Lieber). Martel leaves Charbonnet's employ to work under Pasteur and Doctor Emile Roux (Henry O'Neill), dedicating themselves pursuing the deadly microbes that cause antrax and hydrophobia and cures, followed by Pasteur's painstaking attempt to find the cure for rabies as found on Philip Meister (Dickie Moore), a little boy left under his care, and testings on the child that could lead to Pasteur's imprisonment if he should fail.

The supporting cast also includes: Porter Hall (Doctor Rosignol); Raymond Brown (Doctor Aradisse); Akim Tamiroff (Doctor Zaranoff); Iphigenie Castiglioni (Empress Eugenie); and Halliwell Hobbes (Doctor Lister from England), among others. The romantic interest between Donald Woods and Anita Louise is limited, while Josephine Hutchinson enacts her character typical fashion of the devoted and caring wife believing in her husband's scientific research. (Whatever became of the two younger Pasteur children seen early in the story before disappearing from view with no explanation?) The plot, in general, offers enough material to provide the story of Louis Pasteur, with extended scenes of investigation of the anthrax disease at the Pouilly Le Fort, dividing 24 vaccinated sheep with 24 non-vaccinated ones to see which ones survive; Pasteur's desperation in having Doctor Charbonnet follow his method of delivering his daughter's baby; but eliminates the use and term of "pasteurization" of milk for which he is most famous.

While there have been earlier biographical stories, many of them being more fiction than fact, THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR is no different, offering its blend of both, which really doesn't hurt the concept of the story by any means. At 85 minutes rather than an overblown two hour plus spectacle, Paul Muni, with glasses, beard but minus French accent, is the whole show here. He alone makes it worth viewing. His success would follow with other biographical successes and heavy makeup for THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA (1937) and JUAREZ (1939), but it's Muni's Pasteur that's most remembered while Muni, the Actor himself, is virtually forgotten today. Distributed on video cassette in the 1990s, and later DVD, THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR can be seen and historically studied for examination term paper in science class on Turner Classic Movies. (***1/2 microscopes)
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Tempted to give it an "8"...high praise
vincentlynch-moonoi1 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Many of us see 1939 as a watershed year in American cinema. Not just because of the quality of film elements, but also because of a maturity in scripts. In a sense, I always compare films in this general period to "Gone With The Wind". And compared to GWTW and several other films of 1939, this film -- made only 3 years earlier -- seems old-fashioned. That is not to say that it is not a good film. It is excellent. It's one of several great bio-pics of that era, and one that earned its star (Paul Muni) an Oscar; the screenplay also won an Oscar. Both well deserved.

I'm sure that there will be those who will point out inaccuracies in the film...liberties that the screenwriters took to make it a good story. But, the gist of the story is accurate and makes the key point -- how daring such early scientists were, basically starting with nothing but an idea, pursing it, and developing great discoveries. It is rather inspirational.

The cast here is superb. As I mentioned, Paul Muni received the Best Actor Oscar, and it was only right that he did. A number of the supporting actors did a terrific job as well: Josephine Hutchinson -- a much underrated actress as Marie Pasteur. Donald Woods as an associate doctor. Halliwell Hobbes as Dr. Lister. And one of my favorite character actors -- Henry O'Neill.

A wonderful bio-pic; highly recommended...and perhaps deserving of a place on your DVD shelf.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Let's go practice some medicine
nickenchuggets30 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
One of the first movies I remember reviewing on IMDB was Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet, in which the immensely talented Edward G Robinson brilliantly plays the role of Paul Ehrlich: the man who came up with the first effective treatment for syphilis. This movie is ironic in and of itself for two reasons. One, it has a similar plot, with the main actor portraying a man of science, and two, the star of this film is Paul Muni, widely considered Robinson's arch enemy. It might seem like Muni ripped off Robinson, but actually, this movie came out first. It will probably appear dull to people who are not aspiring to be doctors, but because it involves history, I still thought it was good. The story begins in 1860s France, and a chemist named Louis Pasteur (Muni) is trying to convince fellow scientists that all diseases on earth are caused by microscopic organisms, such as bacteria. People around this time period think it's ridiculous how something 10 thousand times smaller than an insect can make someone ill, but Pasteur is determined to prove his theory. Throughout his quest for acceptance, one person remains a constant thorn in his side. Dr. Charbonnet (Fritz Leiber) says how Pasteur's theory of germs is absurd and is essentially black magic. Later on, Pasteur moves to a town called Arbois, where the local sheep population is dying of anthrax, a very dangerous illness spread by small spores that live in the dirt. The anthrax germs are dormant outside of a sheep's body, and only reproduce inside it. After studying the spores, Pasteur invents a vaccine for anthrax and saves many sheep from certain death. Pasteur feels accomplished, but his real challenge is yet to come. Some time after, cases of rabies are reported in the area, which terrifies the populace, as rabies is arguably the closest thing to a zombie disease there is. Pasteur tries to make a rabies vaccine just like the one he did earlier, but it doesn't work because rabies is caused by a virus, not spores like anthrax (viruses weren't known to exist yet). Charbonnet pays a visit to Pasteur to mock his ridiculous germ theory and how he knew it was all nonsense. He's so certain there's no such thing as germs or viruses that he deliberately injects himself with rabies. To Pasteur's astonishment (and frustration) weeks go by and Charbonnet does not end up dying. Pasteur tries to find how it's possible Charbonnet could survive an illness with an almost 100% fatality rate, and then discovers the rabies sample he had was aged and became weaker. This allows him to successfully develop a vaccine for the disease, and he uses it to treat people all over europe. Pasteur is now respected by the men who used to say he was a liar. This is a pretty good movie. It's not an especially accurate representation of what Pasteur's life was like since a lot of it is made up, but it is true that he came up with the first rabies vaccine. This was a godsend, as virtually all contact with the disease prior to this resulted in death. Similar to Robinson in Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet, the appearance of Paul Muni in this picture is nothing short of magical. You can barely recognize that it's him, since he's made to resemble a bearded old man desperately trying to cure a dangerous disease. Robinson will forever be one of my favorite actors, but Muni shows that he had just as much talent when it came to portraying historical characters.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A noble movie, if not a great one
richard-178719 February 2016
This movie is of a type that Hollywood can no longer make in the same way. If you compare it to something recent like the new movie about Steve Jobs, of that title, you can see what I mean. In the latter movie, Jobs faces doubters and adversity, but there is never the idea that he does so to save humanity; he wants to prove himself right. In *The Story of Louis Pasteur," Pasteur (movingly portrayed by Paul Muni, who won an Academy Award for his portrayal) is driven by a desire to help his fellow man, and he speaks of it in noble tones.

Like *Edison, the Man* (1940) or *Madame Curie* (1943), *The Story of Louis Pasteur focuses on a scientist's dogged pursuit of a discovery despite endless repeated failures. (*Edison, the Man* does this particularly well.) The scientist also bears up under repeated public derision because of those failures, proving himself to be right in the end. As a model of self-denial and perseverance in the pursuit of a greater common good, this movie is particularly good. Compare it to *Steve Jobs* and you can see that.

But, despite the noble model it provides, it really isn't a particularly enthralling movie. (There, *Steve Jobs* is much better.) I find it very hard to understand why it won the 1937 Oscar for best screenplay, especially given that it was up against *Dodsworth*, *Mr. Deeds goes to Town*, and *My Man Godfrey*. Yes, Pasteur's final speech to the Academy of Science and Medicine is moving, but much of the script before that is rather flat. (It was not even nominated for Best Director, and that is telling.) The story this movie tells is a great one, but it doesn't really tell it very powerfully.

It's certainly worth seeing, but I can't imagine seeing it more than once, unlike some of its 1937 contenders for Best Picture, mostly notably *Dodsworth*, *Mr. Deeds goes to Town* (HOW many times have I seen that?), *San Francisco*, and especially *A Tale of Two Cities,* which is a real masterpiece.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The story of a legendary chemist!
Aditya_Gokhale1 August 2012
It was the latter half of the 19th century. The year was 1860, ten years before the French Third Republic came into being. Medical Science hadn't made the kind of advancements that it saw later, and disease and death were in abundance. It was a well-known fact that thirty percent of women died in childbirth due to Puerperal fever, better known as childbed fever, accounting for about twenty thousand annual deaths in the city alone!

Yet there was a grave ignorance of monumental proportions, even as one man, a chemist dared to think differently. He urged medical practitioners to boil their instruments; or in modern parlance, 'sterilize' them, before using on patients in addition to thoroughly washing their hands with a disinfectant before working on patients. He firmly believed that more than half the deaths were caused due to lack of hygiene and the transmission of 'germs' from objects such as the doctor's instruments! Not surprisingly, the man was laughed at, and written off to be a charlatan, a quack! After all, what would a chemist know, that the doctors couldn't see! But the man had seen it all. He had first discovered what causes wine to go sour. His relentless experimentation in his laboratory had helped him discover that microorganisms were the major cause of disease (while the doctors still firmly believed that these organisms were a result of disease rather than the cause!).

The man was Louis Pasteur. And the technique he gave to the world was pasteurization!

William Dieterle's 1936 biographical film "The Story of Louis Pasteur", at its modest 85 minutes length, is a tad short to even qualify for a proper biographical film. It begins on a rather startling note with the scene of a doctor being shot by a silhouetted gunman. One wonders if they've taken cinematic liberties to such an extent as to make the lead actor Paul Muni feel at home owing to his crime film beginnings! It is later learnt that Pasteur is indirectly responsible for the murder of the doctor, for reasons best left for the viewer to find out! It's a rather silly beginning, one the film could've easily done without. "The Story of Louis Pasteur" does take a few minutes to attain a grip on its narrative which eventually does make for very engaging drama.

It is astonishing how a simple film revolving around a man and his microscope has been made into something so riveting, that you can't take your eyes off, once it picks up steam. The primary focus is on Pasteur's taxing attempts to prove to the then Emperor Napolean III, his findings about the microscopic creatures and their connection to disease, and later, post the advent of the Third republic, his diligent attempts at developing the first successful vaccines for deadly diseases like Anthrax and Rabies. Of course, there is resistance to his claims and discoveries, more specifically from Pasteur's most vocal critic, Dr. Charbonnet (Fritz Leiber). As the audience, our hearts go all out to Pasteur and we find ourselves rooting for the industrious scientist. We watch with bated breath and find ourselves praying for him to succeed in his experiments, even when we are well aware of the eventual outcome. We feel the triumph felt by Pasteur when he weeps tears of joy upon tasting victory!

But Pasteur didn't succeed instantly. There were numerous failed attempts and broken test tubes and dead ends from whence he found new directions. The entire medical fraternity turned against him but he stood his ground and ended up having the last laugh anyway! But the path to victory wasn't easy for him, and "The Story of Louis Pasteur" succeeds in conveying to us, this particular facet of Pasteur's dedication to science. It is heartening to watch Pasteur and his loyal team of scientists toil away in the laboratory attached to his house, as his devoted wife Marie (Josephine Hutchinson) cooks supper for the entire team and also stands by her husband through thick and thin. It is awe-inspiring to see him stumble upon clues almost by accident that lead him to make some of the most startling discoveries known to mankind now. It is also slightly scary to see him succumb to a suggestion of using an untested vaccine on a little boy who is supposedly at death's door anyway!

The film may appear somewhat dated with regard to the set design and slightly poor production values. But that is hardly a hindrance, thanks to the gripping script and taut editing. There are some subplots in the film, that weren't entirely necessary, though; that of a romance between Pasteur's daughter Annette (Anita Louise) and the young Dr. Martel (Donald Woods) who wins Pasteur's favor earlier in the film. It seems to be there merely to dramatize the proceedings. Ditto for the climactic twist of fate in the final few minutes when Annette is on the brink of delivering a baby. The events in those last few minutes seem contrived to the extent of being melodramatic, although, by then you are so in love with the protagonist that you don't care for the minor hiccups. Because mostly, apart from the solid performance of Fritz Leiber, it is the magnificent Paul Muni that holds our attention.

The under-appreciated Paul Muni, in his Oscar winning performance of the steadfast scientist, manages to render this film much more watchable than it actually is. It is his earnest act that ultimately salvages even the weakest scene. His final speech, just minutes before "The End" flashes on the screen, as he struggles with a walking stick, thanks to being in a recovery phase from a paralytic stroke, is nothing short of inspiring! Paul Muni should be reason enough for anyone to look up "The Story of Louis Pasteur". They don't make 'em like him anymore! Score: 8/10
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Germ Of An Idea
Lejink23 April 2020
I came to watch this old film because I'd just lately watched another William Dieterle / Paul Muni bio-pic collaboration "The Life Of Emile Zola", only to realise, as I watched it during the current coronavirus lockdown, just how topical it actually was.

I don't know how close to the real Pasteur's life and times the movie actually is, but even so, the basis of the great man's revolutionary research on microbe warfare and insistence on the sterilisation of medical equipment and scrupulous personal hygiene before carrying out medical treatment have obviously passed down to us today and he is still recognised as one of the great medical pioneers of all time.

Paul Muni won the Oscar for this change of pace part for him which set him off, often with Dieterle in the director's chair, on a run of similarly historical biographies including the afore-mentioned life of Zola. Muni portrays Pasteur as a rebel against the then medical establishment, striving to modernise procedures against the outdated thinking of the day, a lone voice in the wilderness. Sure some of the episodes depicted seem apocryphal and highly fictionalised, but they all contribute to the perception of Pasteur as a crusader against outmoded practices for the benefit of his fellow man and I'm okay with that. Even amongst these tallish tales, there were some neat touches like Pasteur's triumph in the search for an anthrax cure when the sheep he's tested spring seemingly to life to prove the efficacy of his cure when in fact they were only sleeping and the final acclaim he receives from the French Academy, presented with an award by the great anaesthetist from Britain, Joseph Lister.

I could have done without the addition of a romance between one of Pasteur's assistants and his daughter but even this led to a neat turnabout in the narrative as his most sceptical opponent ends up delivering his grandchild, but only after caving at last to Pasteur's long-standing demands that he carefully boil his equipment and wash his hands (twice).

Muni is very good in the title role, lending the necessary gravitas to the part, imparting a likeable roguishness to the character and Dieterle directs in an unflashy manner again as befits the serious subject matter.

A worthy film on a most worthy subject.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
All the thrills of a junior high textbook
marcslope5 February 2008
Meticulous but standard-issue biopic of the great 19th century French microbiologist, with a story arc that's a little too predictable. We know the medical Establishment will refuse to admit it's wrong about germs causing disease; we know Pasteur will have to fight long and hard to win respect; we know he'll have a quiet, supportive, loving wife; we know the daughter and his colleague will form whatever love story there is. It's nicely photographed, and Best Actor Muni lands somewhere between his Thirties extremes of hamminess ("Juarez") and restraint ("I Am a Fugitive"). He's affecting in the final scene, but that's due more to the fail-safe story engineering than any histrionic genius. He was a dedicated and versatile actor, and this is another worthy portrait in his gallery, but it's just not exciting or surprising.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed