Joan of Arc

Of all the wonderful Ingrid Bergman dramas, I don't understand why Joan of Arc was one of the famous ones. Sure, it's always nice to see her sparkling blue eyes in Technicolor, but the script was corny and the production almost felt like it was a spoof. Remember how silly Danny Kaye looked in his suit of armor in The Court Jester? I couldn't shake the image from my head when Ingrid put on her own oversized armor. A larger than life actress in her own right, I'm not sure it was really her fault that Joan of Arc was so lousy. Perhaps no one could have saved this spectacle.

It is notable for debuting José Ferrer to the screen public, although it's hardly a memorable performance. Just wait two years and catch him in his signature Cyrano de Bergerac. You'll also see many, many familiar faces in the supporting cast: Charles Bickford, Gene Lockhart, Ward Bond, Roman Bohnen, Selena Royle, Ray Teal, Robert Barrat, Jimmy Lydon, Richard Ney, and George Coulouris. If you're a die-hard old movie buff, you'll want to put this classic on your list. But it won't really give you a great impression of Ingrid Bergman. Try her out in the lesser known drama The Visit for one of her career-best performances.

This Ingrid Bergman film was so under-rated. She put her heart and soul into acting the part of her great heroine and then the film was not only slated at the box office but horrendously cut when issued for television and on video. WHY?????? We know it didn't do well at the box office, because of the circumstances of Ingrid's private life in 1949 and 1950 - sadly, Hollywood and the whole world judged this lovely lady and they shouldn't judge anyone, ever!!! Miss Bergman was a lady and a great actress. But why was the film cut for video? The cut version, with silly voice overs and maps, is not one iota as good as the full version, where we see the young Joan and her experiences of her voices and also have a fuller version of the trial - where her acting is nothing short of brilliant. I hope someone who is able to influence the issuing of the entire film on DVD reads this comment! Mary

Good editing always improves the rough vision of the accumulated daily takes. Chopping the heart out of a completed film, however, should simply be a hanging offense.

The original 1948 Joan of Arc at 145 minutes is magnificent. The 100-minute version that's been foisted off on the USA buying public is below mediocre. Key scenes were deleted wholesale with no regard to continuity or development.

The only enjoyment from the severely and amateurishly edited version is to see Ingrid Bergman do what she does best. But only if you have seen the original version can this chopped and cropped semi-copy have any marginal value.

Check the specifications on any version you are tempted to buy. If the running time is 100 minutes, don't bother. Some European versions are longer at 125 and 133 minutes. Hopefully, someone will offer this masterpiece in a full 145 minute DVD version

In Europa,I've often heard people complaining .Why has the movie been boiled down to a digest of barely 100 min? In France,Joan's native country,it's a scandal!It was broadcast on the history channel yesterday and again in the "short" editing.It seems that many scenes were replaced by a voice over which is infuriating ,cause Fleming's version of "Joan Of Arc" ,although inferior to Preminger's and Dreyer's works, is quite interesting.

Although too old for the part,Ingrid Bergman had enough charisma to make you forget that Joan was 17 when her epic began.Fleming's style is far away from Dreyer's bare aestheticism or Luc Besson's video game battles.Holy picture best describes his way of filming Joan,which makes sense ,cause it begins with the heroine's canonization (only in 1920!).

Good things:La Tremouille's bad influence on the king;Joan who did not realize in 1430 that fighting had been replaced by negotiations;the abjuration: in Rouen,you can see a commemorative plaque which reads "Here ,in 1431, Joan of Arc suffered the infamous ordeal of abjuration" .On the "Place du Vieux Marché" ,where she was burnt alive,another plaque reads "To you,Joan,who knew that a hero's grave was the heart of the living." (André Malraux)

A very poor film translation of a stage play--rather than being tailored to the movie medium, this is very stagy, overly talky. The dialogue is arty and artificial. Everyone is obviously acting, giving a performance, though Bergman is radiant and her performance is passionate and sincere.

All of the exteriors (outdoor shots) which feature close ups of the lead actors are obviously shot on a sound stage. Some beautiful outdoor footage is used occasionally for establishing shots or transitions between scenes, but Bergman never leaves the soundstage.

On the positive side, the film is beautifully photographed, many individual shots are works of art, masterfully lit and composed. However, the camera moves only when necessary to follow the actors, the shots are static, adding to the staginess of the production. Which reminds me of CB DeMille; you could get a good idea of this film by saying it's like a DeMille film, only with more high art pretensions and less spectacle (no cast of thousands here).

The most outstanding aspect of 'Joan of Arc' is the music, it's prominently featured, good and loud, and it deserves to be--it's gorgeous.

The DVD has no extras at all, though the image and sound are excellent--a very good restoration job. A commentary track would have been very welcome; my guess is this was a challenging production, possibly with a long production period (three cinematographers are listed). It was a commercial failure, at least in part because of public condemnation of Bergman's personal life. I believe director Victor Flemming died soon after production. Lots of meat here for an interesting commentary or two.