Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

chaos-rampant This is the one Bresson allegedly made in response to Dreyer, though not sure if that was the real impetus or something said along the way to mark intentions. I can see how the project would appeal greatly to him; like his three previous ones, it's about an idealistic youth faced with a world that stifles the spirit. He must have felt it so apt that he could use actual transcripts of the trial kept by the notaries at Rouen.He films the trial as a process of facts, no flourish allowed anywhere, sparse and all the other things you'll read in comments, and all this as asceticism that purifies the eye, or so it goes. Dreyer's Joan was assailed by passions so overwhelming they escaped the body to rend the cinematic air. Huge contrast with Bresson's who is stoic and dispassionate, the air is static, everything is kept in body.One specific impetus behind the project I believe may hav been how to have the portrait of this woman, induce as much deliberate poverty of expression, and still give us a soul? He does it I think. He gives us a Joan who is indomitable, but also afraid, proud without losing her sweetness, glimmers of unsure innocence through the armor of god. He's gifted with a woman as marvelous as Dreyer had.It was an ongoing project for Bresson that stretched back several films, he surpasses them here in complete austerity. He was probably a happy camper looking back.But more than any individual film, it's his philosophy of purity that I feel is worth examining, and I'm in the middle of a few posts where I grapple with it. He was writing along the way a book that delineates this philosophy. It was seeing quotes from this book for years that prompted me to follow up on the films, it was something I've always had in the back of my mind tied to personal observations about emptiness and purity. I won't have conclusions before Balthazar, which is next in line, and probably the one after, but there is something to say here.We say that Bresson is pure, but if you look up close, there's a method. It's one of timing and blocking exact pieces, this extends from the camera to the actors, who become pieces to be moved. What he's doing is that he's taking the language of film and breaking it down to the most basic grammar. I see this as both an intellectually barren project to pick, why all your work will just be simplifying, and it sets you down a slippery slope where the only thing purer is is simple.Bresson makes a lot out of the importance of stillness, but at the center I perceive another notion; he writes that he wants nothing false, nothing that the eye doesn't see. It's a grammarian's insistence on what is true, or seems so at this point, a dogmatist's claim on reality. How about all that we don't see but can feel move through us? He deliberately mutes this in the actors.And in the film we have what? A young girl who is full of inner things she feels, god or madness it's the same courage for her, faced with a cadre of clerics who set out to disprove it all as impure, the devil's work. What's happening during the trial is that these dogmatists are trying to corner Joan into saying that she saw what the eye doesn't see, the abstract in the world of senses, which is what Bresson is working against.(From a Christian view, it would be heretic to say that the divine was bound thus and so, and you were privy of that form)Were the saints clothed? Did St. Catherine have her hair down?Grammarians of spirituality. Now the task is open. More interesting than the actual films for me is this battle in Bresson, between the grammarian of spirituality with his fixed notions on the divine and Joan who wants to preserve the truth of what she felt. Is the world full of presence? Balthazar is up next.

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.

lefaikone Judging by the movie (and Bresson as a person) Jean d'Arc has obviously been a really inspirational person to Bresson. That's basically the constitutive problem with this picture. All of the humaine virtues that are most significant to him, are combined in this historical character: The willpower, the faith, the moral persistence...The movie's an ode to a role model of his - a moral statement. There's nothing wrong with being political or making a statement, just as long as it's all part of the dramaturgical entirety, and not the dramaturgical entirety. Sadly, in this case, that's just what's happened.The other main problem with the movie, is it's structure. All of the court dialogues - which concist about 90% of the whole picture - are reenactments of the inquisition, based on the actual found documents from the trials. There's very little dramatization, as the whole picture could be seen more as a documentary of these historical events, than a self-reliant piece of storytelling.The storyline, nor the characters, do not develop due the course of the movie. There's very little aspects presented of the main character, and it leaves very little room for interpretation. Basically, what you see is what you get.

Marcin Kukuczka Joan of Arc, also known to some as the Maid of Orleans, is one of the historical figures that really attracted and still attracts lots of film makers. It is probably because of her exceptional genius and specific controversy: on the one hand, the political heroine of France leading her country to battles and victories; on the other hand, a saint so much ahead of her times that the Holy Mother Church found her to be a witch, a heretic. The question arises: how is it that a "witch - daughter of darkness, object of disgust" becomes a "saint - daughter of light, object of praise" As a result, there have been various movie interpretations of her phenomenon, from the emotional and dramatic masterpiece interpretation THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (1928) to some linear biopics and TV series. This one, a movie-documentary made by Robert Bresson is the most unique version.The whole film, which lasts for slightly more than 1 hour, is a very detailed insight into, as the title suggests, the process of Joan of Arc, the prosecution with the judgment already passed on heretic-saint. There are not many emotions in the movie, it is rather a script chain of questions and answers going from the testimony of her mother at the beginning to the final words of Joan just before her horrible death. There is even hardly any musical score. The cast include mostly non professionals. In that case, someone may say that the movie is not impressive to watch... However, spreading such opinion would harm the film very severely. Why? Knowing at least a bit the story of Joan, this film provides a viewer with insightful atmosphere and a very unusual way of character development. After about 10 minutes of watching, you feel absorbed in the whole action, you feel as if a witness of a trial - historic prosecution. The tension of questions and answers supplies you with the development of the events in Joan's life. Since here, we do not get any biopic linearly developed whatsoever, we get Joan's words and reaction and on the bases of that, we get to know her. The content is built upon accusation-defense. For instance, the director mentioned one of the strongest accusations against Joan which was the doubt about her chastity. Although women prove the fact of her virginity, some wretched people send the English soldiers to deprive her of that virtue... Another clearly presented problem is the alleged argument that Joan has entirely rejected the ecclesiastical authorities. Therefore, we get a very clear picture of the events, of intentions, of corruption that famous bishop Cauchon and other Inquisitors committed themselves to.Since the movie is very wordy, its style reflects much a documentary and the cast contain lots of non professionals, there is not much talk of the performances. If anyone here is memorable, this is Florence Delay in the lead. Of course, you cannot compare her to Maria Falconetti's Joan from the 1928 version (this was truly a masterwork), but in terms of lower expectations, Ms Delay does a fine job. Her best moments include the scenes we can see her through a peephole praying (we see her the way her prosecutors watched her) and, obviously, the scene of her death. For me, there was a short but wonderful moment when she says to the bishop: "Beware the Last Jugdment!" Nevertheless, as I have already said before, everything, even the camera, is managed in such a way that any viewer observes the main character being one among the audience. Robert Bresson and Florence Delay invite us to develop that view, our own view of the events. To empathy, we are led only at the final minutes of the film when we get, for instance, the memorable closeup of Joan's bare feet walking towards the stake.All in all, the time spent on watching this film is not a waste at all. It is a very good film but it requires one thing: the right attitude to interpret the intentions of the director and all people who took part in its production. If you expect some emotional tearjerker or a good action film, or even an epic, this one will surely fail to be your cup of tea. It is a historical trial, a true judgment on the saint brought to screen. 8/10Just a thought...how is it possible that a group of "pious men" sentenced a saint to death? The answer seems to be simple: all of them knew the Gospel but none lived according to it. The final images of the film, fortunately, make us realize the victory of goodness that should be the greatest dream of every human.