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.
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.
Tell Your Friends