Growing up, I spent Sunday after Sunday sitting in a non distinct Catholic church. Like most Catholic churches, it was named after a saint. However, through most of my youth, I didn’t give much thought to the woman the church was named after; not who she was, nor why she was a saint. All I knew was that the images of her in stained glass and carved into wood always had her wearing armour and surrounded by flames.
While I haven’t been back to that church in some time, I still think about it every now and then. I think about it this time of year as the season of Lent arrives on the calendar, and I certainly think about it when I watch such a marvellous film on the church’s namesake: St.Joan of Arc.
The plot of Carl Theodor Dreyer’s THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC is legend by now. Based on historical events, it begins as Joan (Maria Falconetti) is brought to trial. Joan believes that she was handed a mission by God to drive the English out of France. Now charged with heresy, she stands before a high court that is hellbent on forcing her to discredit herself or abandon her beliefs. Joan, however, remains steadfast. She endures deception and torture, holding firm to her beliefs – and for those beliefs being sentenced to death. Her sentence is carried out when she is burned at the stake.
What struck me as most fascinating about JOAN OF ARC was how little I tired of watching Falconetti. Whole volumes have been filled about how expressive her face is, and rightfully so. The woman’s eyes convey so much intensity, that she could likely reduce even the most hardened viewer to a quivering mess with just a glance. Joan’s trial lasts about 60 minutes of this 82 minute film, and just about every other shot in those 60 minutes comes back to Falconetti. You might think it would get tedious to watch one person’s silent face for half an hour, and in many case you might be right. Where Falconetti is concerned though, you never want to look away. If the eyes are the windows to the soul, then Falconetti is the north wall of a glass house. So very much washes over her through the course of the trial; so much serenity, so much devotion, so much anguish.
So ensconced is she in her performance, that one might think that one was watching a documentary…if there was such a thing as documentaries in 15th Century France.
In some ways, I was happy that I watched this film from the comfort of my couch, as it allowed me some elbow room as I soaked in its visual intensity. Had I seen this film in a theatre (as I so often preach the importance of), I would have been even more shaken and pummelled. It would leave me with nowhere to look, nowhere to stretch. It would have sat me down on the hot seat right next to Joan and grilled me too.
That’s what all of those intense close-ups are intended to do – to rattle the audience. Suffice it to say I was suitably rattled.
Watching THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, I began to think about the way artists have portrayed legends, icons, and saints. Throughout history, such people have been the inspiration for some of the greatest art in the world – be it glorious symphonies, masterful paintings, or indeed powerful films. Sometimes, the trick comes down to embodying both their humanity and their divinity. However, if an artist leans too far one way or the other, they’re in trouble. They’ll be held to account for lionizing someone who doesn;t deserve it – or equally as bad, disrespecting someone who does.
So where’s the line? How does an artist achieve something like this instead of…say…Luc Besson’s THE MESSENGER?
Interestingly, I don’t think it comes down to whether one believes in the icon or not. While faith in a being can help one find the inspiration to create a glowing portrayal, it could also drive one to be dishonest. When one believes, one overlooks flaws and inconsistencies. Therefore, creating a piece of art inspired by an idol runs the risk of blind praise.
Likewise, I don’t think that the artist can be completely void of belief on some level. What makes the inspiration so special – so inspiring – has to come through in the art. While Dreyer claims that he made a film about Joan of Arc by dumb luck, I have to believe that he found some part about the 19-year-old Frenchwoman’s story compelling. Had he not, he wouldn’t have been so driven to tell it in such a fascinating and intense manner.
Watching JOAN OF ARC eighty-five years after its release, I was deeply shaken by how amazingly well it has held up and struck with thoughts of faith.
I was raised Catholic, and while I haven’t exactly “practised” in quite some time, it’s still a part of where I came from. (Sidebar: I always get visions of playing piano scales when I hear the term “practising” in regards to religion) I stuck with it into my early twenties because of the way faith was taught to me. It was never taught to me as something to be driven into others, or something that one wore as a badge of honour. What I took from everything I was taught was that it was something personal, something that could be drawn upon, and something that might occasionally be tested. happily, everyone’s tests are different, and none of mine involved a post and a box of matches.
I’m pretty sure that Carl Theodor Dreyer was not a Catholic, which might have worked in his favour in portraying the theme of faith in THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC. Through the ages, faith has been contorted and dishonoured time after time. Worse yet, it has often been dropped at the first sign of trouble. Looking back at such regard for faith, perhaps Dreyer understood that zeroing in on Joan’s faith would make the best statement on the subject.
It ultimately works much better than if he’d tried to reaffirm his own – what’s more, his musings on the faith allow his audience to learn something about their own.
I intend to post my entries on the final Tuesday of every month. If you are participating, drop me an email (ryanatthematineedotca) when your post is up and I’ll make sure to link to your entry.
Here’s the round-up for February…
Andrew Robinson watched M
Will watched Aguirre, the Wrath of God
Sean watched both The Godfather and The Blob
Allison watched They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?
SDG watched The French Connection
Steven Flores watched Mona Lisa
Dan Heaton watched The King of New York
We have a new participant! Amir watched Modern Romance
Courtney watched Le Samourai
Andy Hart watched Modern Times
The Snowflake has fallen! Bob Turnbull watched Saturday Night Fever and Grease
Andy Buckle watched Ordet
I quite vividly remember St Joan of Arc Parish, even though its been 15 years or more since I’ve been there (my family switched to St Pius X in the late 1990s, which is where I still go).
I’m curious to see THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC. I remember that it was the top film of TIFF’s Essential 100 list. It was also cited in THE STORY OF FILM as one of the most revolutionary films of the silent era.
Looks like I got trigger happy: If you’re anxious to see it, track it down during the Toronto Silent Film Festival in April when it’ll be shown with a live accompaniment.
Excellent post, Ryan. I also grew up Catholic and can totally identify with the issues you describe. I also haven’t gone regularly since my early 20s, yet it’s still with me for sure. The Passion of Joan of Arc is such a spellbinding film, and I agree that Falconetti’s face is such a big part of it. I’m glad that you were able to check it out.
“I also haven’t gone regularly since my early 20s, yet it’s still with me for sure”
As I read this, I smile because it’s a Friday during Lent and I’m trying not to eat meat. Old habits die hard, eh?
It’s a real pity Falconetti couldn’t make any more films after this. One can only wonder what other moving works she could have given us.
I’ll forget about not eating meat, but sometimes still feel guilty when I realize that I just had a giant burger on a Friday. It still sticks with you fore sure.
I agree that it would have been great to see Falconetti do more roles, but there is something poignant about this being her last role. It’s like nothing could ever top it.
Heathen.
This film is on my Blind Spot list as well for this year. I noticed that it is playing on the big screen at the Silent Film Festival in a few weeks. I think I will try and catch it there. I am very intrigued as to how I will react to this film. While I would like to consider myself a person of faith, the wife and I alternate between the Catholic (her) and Anglican (me) churches every other week, I find it often skews how I view spirituality on film. Certain films that people find spiritually moving I find bland and vice versa. Regardless, I am looking forward to finally experiencing this film.
P.s. the link to Andrew’s post is not working.
That’s really cool the way you and Dionne approach religion!
Your comment about spirituality in film made me say “hmmm”. In some ways, it encapsulates a lot of what I think is so difficult about religion. Faith is *such* a personal thing, that to try and get so many people rowing in the same direction almost feels counter-intuitive. For example, Dionne and I while both identifying as Catholics could vary on what messages to take to heart and what messages to take with a grain of salt. If two people can’t take away the same message of faith from a film, how have we ever really expected them to take away the same message of faith from scripture?
PS – Andrew’s link should be working now.
So far, this is my favorite Dryer film. I just love the visual composition of it and how it showcased that world of faith. I also recommend 2 other films that are related. Robert Bresson’s The Trial of Joan of Arc and Jean Luc-Godard’s Vivre Sa Vie where the latter features a scene of Anna Karina watching the film.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I wonder if Tom Hooper watched this in his preparation for LES MISERABLES.
I always thought Joan of Arc was really interesting as a proto-feminist (even though she really wasn’t – there just weren’t many famous women for me to pick from during a 5th grade biography project). I loved seeing this in film class. It’s such an iconographic performance for the silent era.
Wait, why doesn’t a 19-year-old girl leading an entire French army count as proto-feminism?
I was similarly blown away the first time I saw this one. It’s such an amazing film, and the use of close-ups is really what makes it so affecting. It was rare to have even a few close-ups back then, so to have a whole film full of them is truly groundbreaking.
Also, I totally agree about the 15th documentary aspect of the film, and funnily enough, I made a similar joke in my Aguirre review!
The wild thing is that seeing so many close-ups should feel like a gimmick after a little while, but it never does. Perhaps it’s bolstered by the way the sets are so clean and sparse, but I never tired of all those expressive faces and the back-and-forth they embody.
That movie is amazing. Completely changed the way I look at silent film.
Did you watch it with the “Voices of Light” score?
I did indeed, and that suited it beautifully! A fine point because there have been DVD’s I’ve rented in the past where a silent film has been given a bad score and its led to me needing to sift through iTunes looking for something apropos to play.
This is an amazing movie and it feels timeless. If someone would have told me this was shot in the seventies I would have also believed that. It looks incredible, with amazing performances.
Funny you should mention it – I was thinking that Tom Hooper must have re-watched this film before filming LES MIS.