Produced in France in 1928 by Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer, THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC ranks as one of the best films ever made. Playing Joan, Renée Jeanne Falconetti's performance is frequently praised as one of the best performances ever committed to celluloid. This was Falconetti's second film role and her last. The film is known for its use of the close-up to capture the pain plastered on Joan's face. To capture a more naturalistic tone, Dreyer did not allow any actors to wear make-up and he even used a new type of film (panchromatic film) which better recorded skin tones. The film was considered lost after the negative was destroyed in a fire, but a complete print of the original was discovered in 1981 in the closet of an Oslo mental institution. The tense and often sadistic relationship between Dreyer and Falconetti can be seen repeated in the working relationship between Lars Von Trier and Bjork during the filming of DANCER IN THE DARK (it marked Bjork's first and final film role).
Also take a look at this new and comprhensive site dedicated to the work of Dreyer.
The Passion of Joan of Arc was quite the film experience. I have never seen such a realistic portrayel of human emotion in a silent film. The actress who played Joan was very moving. She starts the film showing a strong willed Joan, laughing at the clergy and proving them wrong with her wit, then she falls into insanity by the end of the film. My only complaint about her performance was that she cried far too often. I felt had she held back on certain parts of the film, when she did cry it would have had far more of an impact. What surprised me the most was the cinematography. All of the shots were set up so beautifully, each rich with symbolic detail. My favorite shot was when the birds flew over the church and landed right on the roof by Joan. It was as though they had come with the towns people to witness Joan be burned at the stake. Another gra shot was when they were preparing the stake by digging into the ground, while in the background you could clearly see the cross resting on top of the church. The church judges were very well portrayed as well. Even without the dialogue cards you could easily see what they were saying. Some moments they were speaking so fiercly that it seemed they were spitting at Joan. Overall the film was intense and able to keep me entertained throughout. It is true what they say about this film, it really is the most moving performance of the silent era.
ReplyDelete“The Passion of Joan of Arc” really was great. I went to sleep at six o’clock in the morning and had to wake up at nine so I was expecting to curl into a ball and fall asleep for the entirety of whatever we were screening, but I only had to fight off the urge once because the lead actress was so awesome. Joan acceptance of her fate and full devotion was completely believable and actually heart breaking. If I had to cite a film that displays the power of close up shots in terms of performance, emotional impact, and just story telling in general, this would be my go-to. They almost only used close ups. During the trial, they barely established a space for the action to take place, in the conventional way, because you were never shown what anyone was actually looking at or where any of the characters were exactly, in relation to any other character, but still, we just knew. Judges stood up and moved around and constantly looked down while Joan was always looking up, teary eyed, so we still knew that she was surrounded but after the initial dolly shot to show the judges, we never got another wide shot again. The story was still brilliantly clear, and the end of the movie had an incredible emotional impact and intensity. They built up so much suspense as Joan was being tied up and as the fire was first starting. The emotion of the crowd around her, matched the emotion of any compassionate viewer in the cosford perfectly, and when we saw guards preparing, and tossing weapons out of a window to arm more guards, we knew that chaos was about to break out.
ReplyDeleteI really, really enjoyed The Passion of Joan of Arc. It was fantastic. The performances were absolutely astounding. I know it sounds as if I am making this film out to be more than it is, but I really haven’t seen a film like this before. The production design was strange in that until the end the art direction was extremely sparse. This let them focus on the acting, which as I previously mentioned, was stunning.
ReplyDeleteFalconetti’s performance was extremely moving, and I don’t think that the critics are far off. It is probably up there in the lists of best performances. Her eyes were so expressive, which is probably why there are a lot of close-ups on her face, that it gave me chills. Speaking of chills, I got them a lot during this movie. Her performance quite frequently gave me chills, and then the climax was just absolutely superb. I enjoyed how unflinching the violence was. Movies today probably wouldn’t show her body engulfed in flames as soldiers with maces beat on the townspeople who showed up.
I enjoyed how the movie was mostly people not moving, but the camera movements were so dynamic that it kept my interest. When the camera swoops and pans and cuts to odd angles, you get a feel for the intensity of the room. Another thing about it that really worked is the fact that it is meant to be in black and white and silent. It couldn’t have sound because with just music it is so much more emotional than it could ever be. Instead of listening to words, you get to feel the emotions and attribute your own voices to the characters. It also couldn’t have been in color, because, once again, it is all about the characters and their emotions. Color would have taken away from that, and also the bleakness of the movie. The prison and courtroom seem so much more empty, and bare in black and white than they ever could in color.
The score that the Criterion Collection added to the film was amazing. It was very interesting, and extremely moving (probably contributed greatly to the amount of chills I got). I would listen to this music without the movie, it really was that good to me.
I absolutely thought this movie was over acted. I did not like the performance of Joan of Arc because I had to see the crying, helpless Joan of Arc every other shot. I counted in a span of 3 minutes, there were 30 different shots of her doing the same exact thing, looking like she is from another planet. Her eyes would open up and she would be looking some where else and it made me so mad to see this person do the same thing for half of the film. It was a shot of the warts guy to her to the warts guy to her to the warts guy to her crying. I found it to be annoying that she would be crying and daydreaming the entire time. I thought Joan of Arc was supposed to be a badass girl that killed people in battle and with words, not someone who cried every chance she got and didn't answer any questions, but was wondering the whole time what it would be like to be on the moon.
ReplyDeleteOverall I wish I could have gotten past the point of her close-ups, but I couldn't because I saw her face every other shot. The movie should have been good, but with the same shots it got boring and ridiculous to me.
Definitely my favorite film screened so far. It almost doesn’t need to be stated; Falconetti’s performance speaks for itself, within a message that rings true (most likely because, according to the opening inter-title, the dialogue was based on the account of the spoken words at the actual trial.) The landscapes of faces created through almost exclusively close-ups are really jarring, but I suppose it brings us to the focus of the film: the people. Joan is obviously at center stage here, but this film seems to seek out the soul within all its characters, going in as close as possible in hopes of catching a glimpse beyond the physical and into the spiritual. The close ups didn’t feel as claustrophobic as the film went on, and though I expected to feel cramped by the constantly tight frames, I hardly noticed it towards the end. I was intrigued by the line of the priest bearing a letter for Joan, asking her, “Do you know the signature of your king?” The line bears so much more significance than it may seem, speaking towards Joan’s implied fear that her oppressors are right, that she wasn’t following God’s leading at all, but here the priest is reminding her to check, do their words bear the signature of her King, God the Father? Seeking inwardly, as we later see, her convictions only grow from that point on, she is in the right, speaking truth and being led, while her oppressors are “sent by the Devil to make [her] suffer.” There may have been scenes that lingered a bit too long, namely the beginning in which we are bombarded with, I’d say, too many repeated images of the men composed in the trial, but this is a minor complaint in what is truly a masterful work.
ReplyDeleteThe Passion of Joan of Arc, a 1928 Denmark film directed by Carl Dreyer follows the story of Joan who has been put on trial for claiming to be a messenger of god. The tribunal charges Joan with heresy and threatens to excommunicate her if she does not recant that she is a messenger sent from god. The clergy attempts to force her to take back her statement by torturing but she doesn’t budge which results in her death, burning at the stake. The element that really drives the film is its cinematography. Almost every shot in the film was a close up. This idea allows the audience to get a better sense of emotion from the characters. There were very few wide or long shots yet when they were used it was only for a short time and they were mostly used to establish the scene. The close up were either at high or low angles. For shots of the clergy the camera was at a low angle to show their dominance and power over Joan. While Joan’s shots were at a high angle to represent her unimportance and inferiority to the clergy members. Other shots used were tracking shots, dolly ins and outs, and inserts. Dreyer used cross cutting in the torture scene and the final scene of the movie to convey Joan’s emotional state of sorrow and fear. I enjoyed the film because of its cinematography; it was completely different from any other silent film I had seen before. I would be interested in seeing other films by Carl Dreyer.
ReplyDeleteTHE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC what can I say about this film, well for one it is super well done, the only thing I did not like was the fact that it didn’t have a nice song to go with the film or if I did I did not find it, so what I did was that I made a sound track to THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC and I felt it really worked with the film. For my first song I out HEADSTRONG by Trap then I put Katy Perry CALIFORNIA GURLS the Sia’s NUMB then my last song was Los Bandolleros’s BANDOLLEROS. I felt it worked really well with the whole film. I love the fact that Joan looked like a doll and the carmara was all close-ups of her doll like face. Joan’s eyes are so big, and everything on her face is small, every time she started to cry the only thing I would look at are her big light eyes. The camera work is super well done one of the best camera works that I have seen, THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC had a lot of close-up most of it was just of faces of people, but there were some of things and there were even close-ups of foreheads that I did not understand. I loved the make-up in the film, everyone look natural and easy going no one looked to over neither done nor under done, it was really easy for me to understand the time the movie takes place and the feels the actors are showing. I really like when the window got darker and darker, I felt the God was trying to talk to her I don’t know if that is what the film maker wanted to come across but that is what it looked like to me. I felt that the ring on her finger was a big deal and that it (being a ring) bought a lot to the film and I feel that nothing other than that ring would do the job. The P.O.V. in the film was really well done I understood everything that the P.O.V. was trying to tell me and everything it felt. I really loved the way that they took out blood of Joan I want to know if that’s the way they did it, or was that just for the film, the way they did it looked really real, I hope it was not real but it looked really good the way it came out. Over all this film was fun to watch.
ReplyDeleteI thought The Passion of Joan of Arc was incredibly moving. It's the most realistic silent film I've seen so far. That being said, while I understood that the close-ups of the actress were refreshing at the time, in that it emphasised the raw emotion of the character, I did begin to get a little annoyed by the constant and repetitive shots of her face.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think it was a beautifully made film. The fact that there was no sound at all, not even music, sort of transcended the meaning. Because it is based on a true story, it made it all the powerful. There wasn't a lot of unnecessary exposition, which helped the emotive performance of the star.
I must say though, at times her face looked like it was in serious pain, as though she really were experiencing the prosecution herself; it got a little difficult to watch at those times.
Although the film The Passion Of Joan of Arc was not my cup of tea, I am willing to give credit where credit it due. Renee Falconetti’s performance as Joan was gripping and intense. She is an extremely talented actress, but I can’t imagine the toll this role took on her physically and mentally. The border between the actress and the character was blurred to the point where she was Joan. The pain, innocence, suffering and pleading hope in her expressions were heartbreaking. Beyond her acting, the extreme close-ups made it almost too much to bear. It was highly effective, but uncomfortable for my sensitive eyes. I wasn’t a fan of the graphic violence in the least.
ReplyDeleteThe angles further illustrated a visual way of conveying character and feeling—low angles were used to show “authority figures” looking down on her and mostly high angles were used for Joan, making her seem small and innocent. Her performance reminded me of Natalie Portman’s in V For Vendetta. A young woman, although frightened, somehow finding the courage to rise up and accept a fate they didn’t anticipate….not to mention the similar shaved head sequence. Other notable features were symbolism, such as the shadows from the windows forming crosses and birds flying free in juxtaposition to Joan tied to the stake. Although there were inter-titles, these shots spoke for themselves. Considering she was the only female in the cast until the very end, I felt extremely uncomfortable for her. The quick cuts between the angry men, the close ups of their fast talking (presumably yelling) mouths and her sweet, sad face were extremely intense. When the townspeople were shown at the end, it was mostly woman who were shown crying for Joan. This was a significant contrast having been in a mostly (unsympathetic) male dominated story for two thirds of the film. The collision of shots at the end was utter chaos and could be compared to Battleship Potampkin’s Odessa Steps sequence in some senses. I was surprised at the sophistication of the moving camera. Whether it was as simple as doing a pan or perhaps employing a dolly, it definitely brought another element of style to the movie. The fact that the film was silent, in black and white and used tight framed extreme close-ups brought all the focus right back to Joan’s eyes, the acting and the emotions being expressed. I can understand why so many people talk about it, even if it wasn’t my taste.
-Brianne McKay
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“The Passion of Joan of Arc” is probably one of my least favorite of the screenings so far. For me it felt like the film dragged and just when on and on with the same kinds of shots. The entire film is basically made up of close-ups and extreme close-ups; we’re lucky to have a couple of medium shots and a few pans (which again were close-ups of faces) sporadically within this long (or at least it seemed to me) film. What bothered me the most is that the film is extremely slow and repetitive – shot after shot of just Falconetti (Joan of Arc) agonizing or crying and weird, very ugly-looking men staring at her. I noticed the editing was very fast-paced compared to how slow the actual film felt, constantly switching between shots not letting them linger for too long. I think the shots of Falconetti’s face were probably the ones that were the longest and most emotive and compelling.
ReplyDeletePositive comments about the film:
Maria Falconetti’s performance. The expressions on Falconetti's face throughout the film are very memorable.
The soundtrack. Though I’m not sure if it’s the original, I feel that the soundtrack really helped elevate the drama and intensity of the film.
Although it wasn’t my favorite film to watch, it was interesting to see such a well made silent film such as this one. Obviously there are lots of mixed feelings about it. It is not the type of film that anyone will enjoy, but it is well-worth viewing.
The most prominent aspect of The Passion of Joan of Arc is definitely the camera work. The camera was hardly ever still and it would dolly across lines of characters or close in to emphasize and emotion. Close-up shots of Joan really expressed the sadness she was experience, while low angles of the judges portrayed their higher standing and control over Joan’s fate. The camera was mostly still when it was focused on Joan. And it was constantly moving through the numerous judges. This choice describes Joan internal feelings. She’s being juggled around, judged for what she believes in and chooses. There is even a point where the judges are together in a circle and the camera spins around quickly in the middle. Quick montages, such as in the torture room scene, are similar to those in the Soviet Montage era, where rapid shots of certain images are utilized in order to convey an emotion. The most memorable sequence for me was the one that involved the man spinning the wheel with the sharp spikes. The sped up motion and short shot lengths added a sort of psychotic feeling; Joan is overwhelmed by what is going on and she eventually faints.
ReplyDeleteI truly have an appreciation for this film. It was more entertaining to sit through because, unlike the many of the other films we’ve seen in class, the camera has been just as involved in expressing emotion as the actors’ performances. Although Joan mostly stared wide-eyed and afraid throughout the entire film, it was impressive to see how the actress was able to sustain that emotion and state of sadness. The Passion of Joan of Arc seems ahead of its time due to its innovative camera movements that have formed the basis for today’s filmmaking. No longer do actors have to be overly expressive to show a character’s emotion. The camera allows the opportunity to convey emotion in a way that other art forms, such as theatre, are not able to.
The Passion of Joan of Arc was okay. I enjoyed a lot of Carl Theodor Dreyer’s decisions with the different techniques used in the film. I mainly didn’t enjoy Renee Jeanne Falconetti’s portrayal of Joan. I thought the different camera angles fit the mood of the story line and the conflict going on at the time. When Joan was being interrogated and belittled, the camera was looking down on her. As the judges were questioning Joan, the cameras looked up on them. The quick cuts enticed the suspense of Joan’s interrogation. The story line was pretty interesting. At times, it seemed as if the story dragged though. The judges repeatedly asked Joan questions over and over. Joan was consistently showed crying as they questioned her. The camera just kept jumping back and forth from the questions and the judges’ reactions to Joan’s responses and Joan’s facial expressions. It dragged entirely too much. Falconetti portrayed Joan over the top. All the characters were unnatural and very dramatic. But with Joan being the main character, she was just theatrical. This movie strongly played off of her facial expressions more than any of her dialogue but it was too much. Dreyer did a good job with angles to highlight the emotions of the characters. The vast diversity of mediums, close-ups and extreme close-ups did wonders for this film. The intertexts were a bit of distraction away from the film. I know it was necessary since the film was in French but it still broke my attention to what was going on at times. The ending was abrupt; it came out of nowhere. The entire film moved really slowly and it seemed as if she was going to be saved. Then all of a sudden, Joan is burnt and the entire town is going crazy. Either the entire film could’ve been sped up or Dreyer could’ve worked out the ending in a different way. It just was not consistent and unexpected. The film overall was just okay.
ReplyDeleteI was absolutely blown away. The Passion of Joan of Arc was not only amazing in cinematography and acting, but the story itself really touched me… (I cried). Everything about this film was a huge success in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis film must’ve been revolutionary in its time with its advanced film techniques and artistic cinematography. Renee Jeanne Falconetti is a new favorite on my list, and I’m not surprised she didn’t make any other films after this one. It looked like she poured out everything for this one role. I can’t believe she had enough tears to cry throughout the entire production.
The fact that they based the dialogue and story off of the actual trial record itself makes it all the more powerful. This film resonated with me afterwards, and I kept reflecting on it the rest of the day.
The acting of all the priests was also strikingly well done. I love the fact that the film they used captures skin tone better, because even the smallest wrinkles of the face would shift the emotion presented in the shot.
Joan really did speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and it hurt so much to watch her passion, connection, and desire for God get manipulated and tortured by religion. Especially her honest thirst to take communion with her Father God, and see the priests care more about paperwork and religious law enough to trick and manipulate her child-like spirit and faith. The fact that this truly happened in history captured my thoughts throughout the day. The courage and faith she held was explosively powerful.
-Allison Basham
I had mixed feelings about this film. I thought the use of close ups was very intriguing, since it was hard to see half as many in other silent films of its era but I found that the close ups lacked variety. It was always a close up of Jean's face (usually crying) or the priests being angry at Jean's demeanor. I did, however, find the use of such close ups innovative. It gave the characters depth and made the story mainly about internal struggles that were made external by the close ups, paying little mind to the physical surroundings. I did, however, find that the lack of continuity made some sections of the film hard to follow. I didn't see a true point to it rather than just to break the common conception of what a film should look like--which CAN be nice, but it didn't seem to serve a purpose most of this time in this film.
ReplyDeleteWhat majorly stood out to me were the range of lights and darks that this film had. Today, we learned that it was because they used a different type of film. I think this worked absolutely perfectly for the emotion Dreyer wanted to captivate. It really made the characters stand out, specifically Jean. There were copious amounts of harsh lights and I'm almost positive I saw the four shadows of all the actors at the beginning of the film. Today, I don't think that would fly. But in this case, I believe that it enhanced the division between the actors and their background. Overall, I thought The Passion of Joan of Arc was revolutionary for its time and I believe it is an extremely important film to watch in order to see the influences prior directors and time periods had on filmmaking and filmmakers alike.
-Nathalie Fernandez
I found the Passion of Joan of Arc to be very engaging from the moment it started. The film began with some tracking shots of the people present in the court. Dreyer not only used tracking shots but also pans, dolly in and zoom. The actress’ facial expression was one of constant suffering. We always see her in a close-up shot and usually from the same angle. The camera filmed many of the other subjects from close and low angle. You could even see the freckles some of them had, and the hair an old man had inside his nostril. Ten minutes into the film I was turned off and couldn’t enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteThere were no wide shots and it felt like some of the shots of Joan were the same, the same expression, the same crying. It became dull after a while. Because he only used close ups you don’t get to see the geography of the set and other things. Having said that, there were some amazing shots. The one that caught my eye was the shot of her looking up the with cross in the background hanging from the wall. Or the shade of the window reflected on the floor that looked like a cross. There was a lot of religious imagery. She is asked if she thinks she is the daughter of God, comparing her to Jesus. They make fun of her, ridicule her, and eventually burn her at the stake. Overall, I think Dreyer created an excellent film with historic accuracy that told a story showing the ‘Passion of Joan,’ but I didn’t enjoy it.
Sarah Garcia
ReplyDeleteThis film drove me crazy, because it was just the same shot in different angles repeated through out the entire film. At first the close ups were captivating, and really brought me in emotionally, but after a while it just made me angry. After talking about the film in class I could see that the director and cinematographer were simply trying to evoke the emotion of Joan onto the audience, which worked. Her feeling of suffocation and feeling as if she could go nowhere were the same emotions I was felling watching her struggle. I understood why she was feeling this way because she was choosing between death and eternal damnation, which is obviously not an easy, chose to make.
The close ups were interesting in the sense that the angles portrayed the struggle between power. For example if the camera is pointed down on someone then that means that they will appear small in the frame and that means that they have little to no power in the story. This is true of Joan because she has no power amongst the men in this situation because them being judges puts them at the rule of the land, and she has no power to over rule them even with God on her side, because in the mortal world God has no voice to speak out for her he has to speak through other mortals. Which brings us to the reverse where the camera is looking up at the subject, which in this case is the judges, and they have the upper hand. In these shots they appear large in the frame, which gives the audience a visual clue that they will have the upper hand. Often times when you appear larger you seem to be more in charge, which is true of the judges in this case. They have so much power over Joan, which is visualized for the audience through the angle of the shot.
Another thing that annoyed me through out the film was that there was no change in expression for Joan. Her eyes were wide and her mouth was open the entire film. The first ten or fifteen minutes of the film were dramatic and terrifying but after a while I found myself annoyed at the fact that her character was not changing and her emotions were not arching. I did feel horrible for her, because it is hard not to, but at the same time I found myself smirking at her melodramatic horror. I know that the way she died was horrible, and that fact that she did not deserve to die was horrible, but it was hard to keep a straight face through some of it.
All in all I believe if there had been a variation of shots as far as throwing in some wides and mediums into the mix would have helped the film tremendously. I also feel that if she had been a better actress or even if she had changed her face at all the character would have seemed more realistic, which would have made the film more believable.
The score to this film had me immediately sucked in. From the moment the music came on and Joan entered on screen, I was captivated. I loved the film. It was epic, grandiose, and touched on an ethereal quality that I have never really experienced before in film. It was every facet of the film that provided this quality. The music, while not initially a part of the original, nevertheless has a definite and powerful impact on the film. I loved the statement at the beginning that articulated that neither was originally intended as an accompaniment but that both serve to enhance each other. It’s a cool concept to consider – that art in general is no static and cane often be warped or change o create drastically different effects. The next aspect of the film that served as a powerful feature was the sets and placement of characters. The courtroom, jail cell, and torture room, among others, felt sterile and grandiose. The editing techniques also had a massive impact as the director used an overwhelming amount of close-ups. The close-ups gave an edge to film that is not scene anymore. There was something suffocating and claustrophobic about the entire film. Joan’s facial expressions and the depiction of all characters was overpowering and never gave the audience a chance to size up the film or it’s characters. I think that this feature coupled with the completely clean sets and backgrounds was able to place the audience in the most spiritual/religious environment possible. God and the experience Joan was having, as well as any other person has, when contemplating the thought of religion and the reasons for our existence is exactly that – overwhelming, inspiring, and suffocating. It is simply something that we as humans cannot explain or contain for that matter. Giving the audience establishing shots or traditional deliveries of dialogue would have minimized the power and effect of the film and Joan’s experience. Of course, the close-ups could be read several different ways – that was simply the effect it had on me. The close-ups could have also been an indictor of the suffocation and lack of understanding that surrounded Joan – or the closed minds of the monks judging her as they were unable to fully digest or appreciate what Joan was saying. It could also very easily be a combination of all these things. As aforementioned art can have several effects and the combination of all these aspects could result in several different interpretations. I know this was my favorite film, and just a new favorite in general, because of how easy it was for me to write this.
ReplyDeleteI found the relentless use of closeups to be off-putting. In this movie, the closeup lost the power it usually has associated with it. The shot selection was used to heighten the emotional experience and make us feel for her during the claustrophobic dialogue between her and her captors. That said, the overuse of these shots made me feel that the decision to film in all close ups was largely arbitrary and unmotivated. A large part of why this film is well-known is because it was the first film to utilize this technique. I suspect that if the film was shot more conventionally it would not have gained the notoriety it did, but I would have enjoyed it more. Falconetti's remarkable performance edges into the caricature purely because of the never-ending closeups.
ReplyDeleteI love the repetition of cinematic devices in movies and feel that generally they must be used repeatedly to have an effect, but in this movie the tracking shots were used in profusion. Each reaction shot if not another close up was usually some type of tracking shot. In these shots, a bit of variety would have made the viewing experience more dynamic.
The editing was quick and almost never met the conventional standard to cut-on-action. Also, the eyelines rarely met and were all over the place.
Bashing aside it was an amazing movie with a great performance. I don't mean to downplay its accolades, it's just easier to speak on what I didn't like.
Maybe just thinking about this film again gets my heart pounding and beating again. I personally had an extremely hard time watching scenes of this film, not that its disturbing; I just really felt bad for Joan on her extreme suffering not only to the popes in the church but towards the sexism treated by them.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really a silent film guy, especially throughout all the films we've seen, none of them affected me emotionally, however, when I first watched this film I really didn't expect the director choosing no sound whatsoever. I just hated my life at that point, but when the film got going I really got attached to many of the parts.
Looking at the film in a broad aspect, it was all shot in a really small place/set because we only saw about 3 major sets that they filmed on, and mostly had the camera just focused on Joan's expressive face. I really liked many of the scenes because I love close-ups, which show and express the actors emotional feelings, in that case this film really appealed to my likings. The things that really caught my attention other than the close-ups, were the use of distinct, tense, and dramatic angles like when the camera was placed on a dolly and was shot getting closer to the judge.I was just amazed by the amount of camera techniques considered in this classic old film, that many films at that time haven't even considered. One last scene was when Joan gazed into the shadowed cross on the ground reflected from the window. The father passes through the light which covers the cross, and just represents the evil behind this character.
I just really enjoyed this film from the different scenes and shots taken to produce the utmost perfection in emotional grabbing experience.
The Passion of Joan of Arc was an extremely stark contrast to the Keaton and Chaplin films we watched only two weeks before. Instead, this film has a raw and realistic touch, which makes complete sense as it recreates a real life tragedy. Having grown up with the Joan of Arc story being told to me through a Jack Russel Terrier dressed in cute medieval-wear, this movie completely transformed my views of, well, pretty much everything that dealt this historical female.
ReplyDeleteThe actress was incredible and delivered one of the strongest performances I have ever seen. Her sadness seems to stem from within and feels very real. This “realness” can be attributed to the talent of the actress and the techniques of the director.
Beginning with the actress, her eyes were the most captivating aspect of the film. It was extremely clever for her to have short and boyish hair. In doing so, the audience focus on her eyes and her emotions, rather than how she looks. Yes, she is still gorgeous, but the short hair enables us to concentrate on her and IN her and how she feels. By staring at her eyes, we stare into the windows of her soul and can see them teeming with fear, confusion, and utter chaos. These eyes seem innocent, yet wise, and calm, yet alarmed. I don’t think I’ve seen any other person express one emotion in so many different ways.
We were able to see this because Carl Theodor Dreyer chose to do something that those who preceded him didn’t: use TONS of close ups. I thought getting used to the Miami hug and kiss culture was a step into my personal bubble. I’ve never seen so many close ups in my lifetime! While this technique helped the audience focus on the characters inner turmoil through her external exressions, I cannot help but say the effect of the close up began to wear off after the millionth shot. Regardless, I think the film had many beautiful shots and many smart technical aspects, including the fact that the film was completely silent so that the audience to experience the character’s raw feelings.
Dreyer’s “The Passion of Joan of Arc” is ahead of it’s time with the close up shots however being close up on a character all the time is not necessarily a good thing for the movie. I give the guy credit for building an elaborate set and taking a long time to make the movie and make sure he had the shots he wanted however there is not real establishing shots or mid shots to tie the film together. There is also a sense of repetition when neither the camera angle nor the distance from the subject ever change. The only shots that I do give Dreyer congrats for is the tracking shot of all the judges. For the most part the scene was very fluid and didn’t make it seem you were watching the event through a camera i.e. it was believable.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the acting goes the cast was very well selected and everyone fit their part accordingly. Joan’s ability to cry as well as the “passion” that she put into her acting was fantastic, but once again it’s really hard to keep focus when you see the same shot over and over. The burning scene was very emotional, her expressions were alittle awkward but overall I think she played it well.
The Passion of Joan of Arc was not my favorite film. I felt that it was too long and it would take so many shots and scenes to get to a point. I was about to walk out because the excessive amount of close-up shots being used and it felt so depressing. Everyone was so cruel to her. They make fun of her and they all want her to suffer. All of that was so disturbing to me. There were a lot of close up shots showing Joan suffer and she is crying in most of the shots so it felt like everything was just the same. I do not like blood so I hated the part when she was being cut. It may be only me that felt disturbed, but I don’t think I would watch this film again. Carl Theodor Dreyer did get his point across. He showed how much Joan suffered and cruel everyone was to her because they all thought she was making up lies. The one thing I did like was Renee Jeanne Falconetti. She did an amazing job acting out her role. It may seem easier to do a film with no dialogue but, you do have to show a lot of expressions to show what you are trying to say. Renee was crying most of the film and she showed a great amount of misery, pain, agony, and the like.
ReplyDeleteUsing a enormous amount of close-ups was actually good for the film because if Dreyer would have used wide shots, the film would have given a different feeling. You get to see everyone’s face expression clearly and there is absolutely no confusion. I wish Falconetti would’ve kept on with her career because I thought her acting was really really good. She made the audience feel the same way she wanted us to feel. I sure did feel depressed seeing her suffer so much and look like she was in pain throughout the whole film. The end just topped the feeling. Seeing her body being burned after being accused for something she thought; not even an act that hurt anyone else.