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.
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.