Edgar Allan Pooh . . . during a JUAREZ story carefully crafted to speak as much to America's (then Far) Future as it does to Mexico's Past. Warner is intent here upon contrasting the end of America's Civil War, in which such top Advocates of Treason as Robert E. Lee were awarded lifetimes of Pigging Out in the Public Trough as University Presidents, with the concurrent climax of Mexico's Civil War, which saw Leader JUAREZ gunning down ALL the Traitors, snooty "Royals" and Commoner alike. By 1939, Warner Brass could see that while Mexico had never again slipped under the Thumb of the Blue Blood Plutocrats such as the plugged-full-of-bullets Maximilian Von Habsburg, in stark contrast the USA was frequently suffering under the self-perpetuating Racist Red State KKK Election-Rigging Rabble. Furthermore, Warner feared that Lee and his ilk's Demon Seed could fall prey to putting a Fat Cat One Per Center by birth such as Donald Von Trumpsburg into a position to End America As We Know It by selling us out to a hostile Imperialist Foreign Power such as Red Commie Russia. Obviously, this Warner JUAREZ warning fell upon too many deaf ears. Now that we've lost the opportunity to nip Von Trumpsburg in the bud with minimal bloodshed, JUAREZ can still inspire We True Blue Normal Patriotic Loyal Average Union Label Americans to--in the words of Julia Ward Howe's "Battle Hymn of the Republic"--"trample down the vessels in which the Genes of Wrath are stored."

Robert J. Maxwell The story of Archduke Maximilian, the Austrian nobleman who was induced by Napoleon III to assume the role of monarch of Mexico in 1863, displacing Benito Juárez, Mexico's liberal president, played by Paul Muni. His enthronement was endorsed by the wealthy land-holding aristocrats of Mexico -- eighty-five families. The US was too busy fighting its own Civil War to bother with violations of the Monroe Doctrine. Juárez and his armies put up a stiff fight, and eventually Napoleon withdrew his French forces from Mexico. Maximilian and two of his loyal Mexican were captured and executed. Maximilian's wife, "the mad Carlota", was hospitalized in Europe and finally sent to a sanitarium.The film sticks pretty closely to historical fact, as far as a non-historian can tell. It's gripping. The hero is not Juárez at all but Maximilian. And, as presented here, it's an unalloyed epic tragedy. Shakespeare could have done wonders with it. Brian Aherne is Maximilian -- "Max", as his wife, Bette Davis calls him -- is a dignified man full of good intentions, whose policies (with one notable exception) followed those of Benito Juárez. Both were determined to promote equality and justice in Mexico. Again and again, Max defies the eight-five tycoons in favor of the ordinary people, most of whom can't read or write.The way Aherne plays Max, he's so gentle and dignified that he's almost effeminate, an impression supported by his hair style, which appears to be braided and coiled atop his head, and by this spectacularly unwholesome looking set of muttonchop whiskers. He believes that the Mexican people have invited him to become their emperor by means of a referendum, not realizing until too late that the referendum was rigged. He's a man of principle tempered by good sense. The ongoing war is nettlesome to him and he sends a messenger to Juárez with an offer to become Prime Minister of Mexico. All that separates them, as Juárez observes, is the word "democracy." Muni plays the character as a pompous humanitarian, full of folksy liberal pieties. Hs movements are slow and deliberate. He overacts underacting. Unlike Max, he's never in doubt about anything, which makes him rather dull. And, in a mistaken attempt to have him resemble the historical Max, make up has turned Muni into a clayish lump. And Muni delivers lines that seem made of lead. "In a monarchy, the government changes the people. In a democracy, the people change the government." Clunk.Actually, Juárez does seem like a law-abiding populist but he's about as yielding as reenforced concrete. He spurns Max's offer of Prime Minister, preferring war to compromise. Max, on the other hand gives a reasonably good argument in favor of kingship. A king, belonging to no party, owes no one anything and therefore can be impartial, while a president is beholden to the particular forces that elected him.I called the argument "reasonably good" because Mexico in the 1860s, with most of its population illiterate farmers, may not have been entirely ready for a republic. What followed Juárez was a series of dictators, factional disputes and revolutions, including a raid across the border into the USA by Pancho Villa in 1917. Interesting parallel: When Max's French troops try to fight Juárez's army, that army dissolves into the general population in its own neighborhood. If you can't find them, you can't fight them. Ditto after Villa's raid into Columbus, New Mexico. The US Army sent a large expeditionary force into Mexico to find and punish Pancho Villa and his army. But there was nothing to fight. The soldiers had turned into farmers.This was released in 1939 and lest we miss the point of dictatorship vs. democracy, the appearance of Archduke Maximilian is accompanied by the strains of "Deutschland Über Alles." Some other notes: Back in the USA, the South wanted to invade Mexico and turn it into a slave-holding nation, while slavery had been outlawed two generations earlier. And some of Lincoln's advisers wanted him to declare war on Mexico to deflect attention from the Confederate victories during the early years of the Civil War. (Mexico as low-hanging fruit.) In the end, the populist movement prevailed in Mexico; the vast haciendas were broken up and the land redistributed to farming families, each of which got enough land to support itself. The irony was that the birth rate became so high that the family farm could no longer feed so many people, so many of the farmers migrated to the cities in search of work, found little, and established the squatter settlements in shacks of corrugated tin and cardboard that now surround Mexico City. That's kind of off topic, an obiter dictum. Let's just say that in this movie, Juárez comes out on top but it's a tragic victory.

Dan-13 I came into this movie mainly to see Bette Davis chew the scenery in her mad scene as the Empress Carlotta, but the film totally belongs to Brian Aherne, who was rightly nominated for an Oscar as Emperor Maximilian. Aherne gives a nuanced and sympathetic portrait of a man thrust into a political situation that he never should have been involved with in the first place. It's a masterful performance, particularly in his final scenes when he's imprisoned. He's absolutely heartbreaking.While physically Davis may not have been ideal as Carlotta, her descent into madness doesn't disappoint and she also excellent in her more tender moments with Aherne.Claude Rains and Gale Sondergaard also contribute wonderfully nasty portrayals of Louis Napoleon and Empress Eugenie.On the minus side, there's Paul Muni, whose stoic expression doesn't change a whit over the course of more than two hours. John Garfield, normally a dynamic actor, is woefully miscast as a Mexican rebel.The movie is well-made, but the title is a misnomer. Maximilian's story is far more interesting than that of Juarez.

richmx2 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.