Joan of Arc

In the history of films, there's a lot of debate about which film was the first full-length movie. During the 1890s and into the 1900s, films were generally one to three minutes in length. Sometime in the early 20th century, the first full-length movie was made...but which one was the first? And, most importantly, what constitutes full-length? I've seen some say that Georges Méliès' "The Trip to the Moon" was the first while others say "The Great Train Robbery". Well, the answer's not that easy. Both these films were less than 20 minutes in length (which is still pretty short) and Georges Méliès' "Joan of Arc" was eat least as long as his "The Trip to the Moon" which he made two years LATER. As for me, I have no idea...but I do know that soon after these three films, Italian filmmakers were making films of over an hour in length.

This story of the life of Joan of Arc is missing a few portions but as is, it clocks in at about 10-11 minutes. I say 'about' because film length is hard to determine for silents as the cranking speed of the cameraman determined how long the film lasted...there was no standard like today's 24 frames per second. But what remains is very nice--with lots of sets, lots of great costumes and many sequences which are hand-colored. It really is an amazing film for 1900...far ahead of its time....and telling a complex story, unlike 99% of the other films from 1900. Sure, it's all a bit stagy and sets are much like those you'd see in a play...but still, for 1900 it was something! In fact, when you see it today, it still impresses.

It's only befitting that one of the most venerable pioneers of French cinema should have addressed himself to portraying one of his nation's great national heroines. By some miracle his version has survived complete with the original tinting.

As usual with Melies the characters saunter back and forth with little sense of urgency before finally engaging the English, while Joan herself is depicted playing no part in the hostilities, her hair for once not shorn.

During her trial the use of tinting adds emphasis to the brazier containing hot coals soon to be applied by a torturer dressed in satanic red prior to her final burning at the stake.

For 1900, this is an epic in many respects: its sheer length (10 minutes), the mythical/historical subject, and number of sets (12). It also attempts to seem like a cast of hundreds by having its actors parade across the screen, then circle back off-screen and parade by again. Obviously when viewed today, this kind of scene is pedestrian (no pun intended) and lacks the impact it may have had at the time. Overall, it's also a pretty straightforward depiction of the story of Joan of Arc, simply marching through chapters of her life in long shot. Perhaps this film and the many other representations of her in the arts played a role in getting Joan of Arc sanctified twenty years later. Regardless, the real miracle is how old this film is, and the fact that it survives.

Without a word uttered and being only ten minutes this was better than Milla Jovovich starred "The Messenger."

Knowing the story of Joan of Arc would help immensely in watching this short. She is a patron saint of France, honored as a defender of the French nation for her role in the siege of Orléans and her insistence on the coronation of Charles VII of France during the Hundred Years' War. Stating that she was acting under divine guidance, she became a military leader who transcended gender roles and gained recognition as a savior of France.

I'm sure that's very hard to capture in a ten minute video with no dialogue, but for the time this was the best you were going to get.

This is an elaborate production for its time, with 11 tableaux, 250 meters and a runtime of 10 minutes. Additionally, the print available on the Flicker Alley set is wonderfully hand-colored. There's also a nice vision scene-within-a-scene, which is a rather common, but appreciated, occurrence in early films. On the other hand, this early story film especially seems to be bogged down by Méliès's typical theatrical style, perhaps because it's a historical reenactment film rather than some amusing fantasy or fairytale. I don't find it as entertaining as his later films such as "Bluebeard" (1901), "A Trip to the Moon" (1902) and "The Kingdom of the Fairies" (1903), which more greatly overcome their stagy and primitive qualities. For instance, the revolving parade scene and the lame battle are goofed even for 1900. In addition, Méliès plays too many different roles in this one, which could have been confusing without the lecture provided.

Nevertheless, it would take a couple years before other film pioneers, including Edwin S. Porter, Robert W. Paul and Ferdinand Zecca, to name a few, began to make narrative films to compare to this one. "Joan of Arc" came on the heels of Méliès's earlier and first super-production "Cinderella" (1899), which, like this film, connected its tableaux by dissolves. "Joan of Arc" is somewhat more polished than "Cinderella" was, as, likewise, Méliès's later féeries (fairy films) are more refined and sophisticated than this film.

Also of note, Joan of Arc has always been a popular screen subject. The first filmed version I know of was by the Edison Company in 1895. The Lumiére Company made a shot-scene reenactment of the trial, titled "Execution of Joan of Arc" (Exécution de Jeanne d'Arc), just a year before Méliès's film. The Lumiére film, which has been available on home video, isn't worthwhile except for perhaps that it, too, survives in a hand-colored print. When I saw it, and when considering its title and that they only had a single shot-scene, I wondered why they wouldn't use the hand coloring to exploit the attraction of a burning at the stake. Méliès didn't miss opportunities like that.