Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Jemima It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Kirpianuscus it is the main virtue. based by original documents of trial, the film is a cold portrait of Jeanne. minimalist, convincing, blank, without the ingredients of dramatization. a form of docudrama ? not exactly. a form of exposure of director faith ? almost. because the film is a confession, no doubt. but one escaping to expectations. sure, it reminds La Passion de Jeanne d 'Arc by Dreyer . but differences are significant not only for different styles or ages but for the common points. because the same source has the different way to a message who ignores, in the case of this Jeanne, at the first sigh, the technique solutions. so, an useful film.

Mary Sue Lyons I saw this film along with numerous other Bresson films being shown at the National Gallery of Art in DC. In this film the English characters speak English and the French characters speak French. I knew little about Joan of Arc and was expecting it not to be one of my favorites. I was blown away by the way it brought Joan and her tragic experiences to life. It and Diary of a Country Priest were my favorites. I had the advantage to talk to a gentleman who teaches a course on Great Trials of the World who gave me background including how well this uneducated girl was able to handle the questions at the trial, how Bresson was faithful to George Bernard Shaw's play based on transcripts from the trial, etc. The emotional power of Joan of Arc's trial in this film is truly amazing. It should be available on Netflix for all to see.

IMDBcinephile I think this film warrants a 6 or 7 in my mind. I have been introspective about this film for a wee while; in many ways, it's almost as if Joan was there - a sturdy, studiously determined and plagued 19 year old (in Dreyer's version it said she was 19, though this could be ascribed by Dreyer as to the response rather then the reality). I bought the artificial eye version in Fopp at a relatively good price. Robert Bresson whose work I'm unfamiliar with, bestowed upon the film a versimilitude, but was it overall as good as one hopes? You can see Bresson was heartfelt in his interpretation, but he couldn't sustain my interest for the ephemera of length. Of course, I can't seem to see Bresson's film as underrated, but I can see that it's heavily overlooked as a new look on the trial.This one took itself seriously to the point of a docudrama. Its documentary-esque nature make it seem alien and detached from me and I think it was the approach that startled me. However this was my gut reaction; the film has Florence Delay portraying Joan in one of the best portrayals you'll see off her. Although the acting can feel stilted and the dialogue exchanges can feel artificial, it's Bresson's Costume Designers and so forth that give this Joan a feeling of authenticity. In some ways it feels ungodly brutal. For example, when Joan passionately wields the cross, she's nearly unceremoniously tripped up by one of the onlookers. Her feet look as if they waded right through the filth.The references to St. Matthew and Catherine can feel really genuine and at the same time this is what the documentary needs is a stance. I finally seen that Bresson was a historian on the matter and this is why the film detracts from many other fictitious films. A study is seen of Joan from a peep hole where one of the vouchers observe her. In Dreyer's obviously we see the man with the crown and that come straight out and accentuate himself, this one keeps cool and in the background.There's also a brutal scene where it's as if by rape that Joan has no sacrament and with the confession in this film, there's no play on objects shaped like some kind of psychoanalytical force from Germany, but rather an actual plea for the truth.Bresson's film may be disingaging and a very unlikely film to be made, but I feel that this intepretation rings more true then any other exegesis of the book. That's a purity that could be seen as overlooked here. At the opening title sequences, we pretty much digest so much already, that the trial itself, on film, feels almost unnecessary. But the fact he done it should mean it's not meant to be avoided by any cineaste. You won't feel, you won't think, you won't bite your nails - you will be deadpan and firm. Bresson said "I want the critics to feel my films and not to think about them intellectually on first viewing". Well one can't help, but think during this film and one can't feel anything. What I can tell from the experience is that you will understand the pain and you will understand the essence of the trial

lulu18 She was fighting to keep the English out of France, which the English kept invading in hopes of seeking the French throne, which they were never to do. (Hope springs eternal, I guess). The English were the terrorists; they once invaded Scotland killing tens of thousands of men, women and children in a rage because the Scots refused to let Henry VIII's son, Edward VI, marry Mary, Queen of Scots. Joan was protecting France; if not a saint (whom the Church did not recognize as such for 500 years) then she was a fighter whose only sin was being a woman and encouraging the French to defeat the hated English who bled their (English) treasury dry in order to gain the French throne.This is a wonderful picture with the dialogue from the actual transcript. (Also see La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, made in 1928, which covers the same territory and uses the actual transcript which is brilliantly done and leaves me crying at the end.Some background is in order to understand Joan/Jeanne and what she was fighting for and the king was a wimp.