All the films from all the editions, including those subsequently removed, presently totalling 1167. An easy way of seeing how…
The Passion of Joan of Arc
The Passion of Joan of Arc is the masterpiece from Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer that depicts the story of French martyr Joan from Orleans seven years after her canonization from the catholic church.
I watched this twice, back to back. Once with sound, once without. Both times I was gobsmacked by what was laid out before me on screen. Watching this film feels like having the weight of our history looking over your shoulder with you. It is teeming with historical framing and importance, regarding both its shape and content.
Completely ignoring historical context Dreyer’s film opts to relate Joan of Arc’s story by focussing on her trial and execution and the suffering that went along with it. No sweeping shots of her military victories, no familiar backdrop, it assumes that its audience knows who we’re dealing with here and chooses to focus on her last days and how she suffered through them.…
I am not a religious man. Growing up, my mother took me to church because she felt she should, an obligation rather than any actual deep connection to a deity or the scripture that was referenced each week. My father would spend each Sunday morning out in nature, taking walks or just sitting and reflecting on the beauty of the world around him, thus he would rarely if ever join us at church. As I hated going and found the one hour to be painfully boring, absorbing nothing from the teachings of Jesus Christ, I finally spoke up and asked my old man why it was fair that I had to go and he didn't.
He explained that he did…
I never believed the hype. A film made in the 20s, a silent film made in the 20s, being declared by some to be the best film ever made? Sounds like something only a film historian could say. Sounds like homework, like you have to know about film in the 20s to see how this one sets itself apart. Yawn. At least it is only 82 minutes.
I believe the hype now, and I ain't no film historian.
Dreyer didn't want to tell the story of Joan of Arc, he wanted to tell the story of The Passion of Joan of Arc. If Joan is God's daughter, she met the same fate as her brother. Both had trials. Both were…
After a recent watch of Mexican director Carlos Reygadas’ wonderful Silent Light, and subsequent urging from LB friends to seek out Dreyer’s Ordet, it became apparent that it was time to tackle Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc from our list of shame as a warm up.
As a reference point, we watched the Criterion DVD with the Voices of Light musical accompaniment track. As another point of reference, my historical knowledge of Joan of Arc was woefully lacking, as is my knowledge of silent film.
I’ll just begin by saying that it’s visually arresting. The ability to see this startling beauty is due to the discovery of a near pristine original print in 1981 and subsequent Criterion restoration,…
A film that has claimed to be one of the most emotionally gripping experiences in the history of cinema; does such a statement ring true through my own personal experience? Undeniably so. Carl Theodor Dreyer, a relatively new filmmaker in my exploration of the cinematic art form, has crafted one of the most powerful experiences ever to be displayed on screen, a recount of the trial of Joan of Arc, a woman who has claimed to have been led by a vision, appearing before her an angel, Saint Michael proclaiming to her the duties willed by god to be undertaken, aiding King Charles VII, and would…
In a review posted in 1997, Roger Ebert wrote "You cannot know the history of silent film unless you know the face of Renee Maria Falconetti." What makes this statement fascinating is that anyone even remotely familiar with that era of film would think first of the stars of the time like Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and perhaps Harold Lloyd, yet he invokes the name Falconetti as a necessary piece of cinematic knowledge. Was she a star at the time, a familiar face recognized from multiple silent classics? She was not. In fact, her lead role in The Passion of Joan of Arc was her one and only appearance on film during her life. It didn't require her to speak…
Considering the subject matter this isn't an easy watch. With a measured pace and outstanding visuals, The Passion of Joan of Arc is a work of art and I'm not sure I have the words to do it justice.
Even more of a masterpiece than I had expected. An incredible example of cinematography and performance enhancing each other.
A shock to the senses. First, it’s completely untheatrical. I don’t know of another movie this early that so thoroughly embraced the grammar of film (particularly the closeup.) Dreyer seems to have zero interest in geography and, after all why should he? This is a passion play, an originally theatrical form developed with the sole purpose of eliciting pity at the suffering of Jesus. What do we care about geography or architecture. The second big shock is how far ahead of its time the camerawork is. There are 360 shots, overhead swinging shots, macro shots and a whole battery of tricks. However, not every second of this (or anything) is completely original. That final riot- if Dreyer hadn’t seen the…
Joan was such a rebel. Not only did she challenge the church and the English but she also wore men's clothes. Dreyer's film features the famous close-ups but also some tracking shots that show all of the old, close-minded men surrounding Joan. It sucks that Renée Jeanne Falconetti was mistreated by Dreyer; her performance is legendary.
Motion pictures don't get much more haunting than this. 87 years later, The Passion of Joan of Arc still suffocates, and Maria Falconetti's performance remains a supernatural occurrence.
The script, ripped straight from the real record of the French heroine's trial, has enough intensity and profundity to be fascinating as pure text, yet, thanks to Carl Theodor Dreyer's firm grip on visual language, it comes alive on the screen: no small feat for a film that deals primarily in long conversations and sustained close-ups, one whose pacing is deliberately leisurely and whose dominant air is that of total hopelessness.
Rare for historical dramas, this one makes you feel all the crushing gravity of the episode it depicts; even though we're…
My low rating does not mean it's a bad movie necessarily. I just found it personally to be a bit of a slog, especially with no sound whatsoever. I kept pausing it and then left to do other things and then came back. I did this several times throughout the duration because I kept feeling bored. It's a lot of close shots of faces, and the lead actress has the same forlorn look on her face the whole time. Don't get me wrong, she's very good at emoting, but I just found it tedious after awhile. If you love this, more power to you.
Dude, there's totally a titty in this movie! Check it out!!
"Will I be with You tonight in Paradise?"
The Passion of Joan of Arc is one of the rare films that can evoke every human emotion without dialogue. Joan is always shot alone and in the center of the frame to demonstrate loneliness and importance. Dreyer's use of close-ups and camera angles induce fear and oppression naturally and vibrantly. These are just two uses of the mise-en-scene that controls this masterpiece.
Dreyer provides us with sufficient information of a scene without a single master shot with Joan and the judges. Every scene is just reaction shots. Its incredibly impressive and works astonishingly well in raising the tension.
Also, who can forget the performance of Falconetti? She delivers the best performance of any actress and maybe actor that I've seen? She captures the undying faith of Joan with tear-jerking perfection.