Saint Joan

Joan of Arc is probably the most extraordinary character in French history.So introducing fantastic elements in the screenplay makes sense.There are so many mysterious things about the Maid of Orleans ,although,thanks to the manuscript of her trial,she 's the most known character of the Middle Ages.BUt this woman definitely eludes human

Otto Preminger did not commit sacrilege when he showed Joan reappearing one night in Charles the seventh's bedroom ,with other dramatis personae:bishop Cauchon,Dunois and the soldier who made a cross for the heroine with two pieces of wood just before she died."They cleared your name" the king says "Can you unburn me?" she says.Robert Shaw 's vision of Joan is not unlike that of Jean Anouilh in "l'alouette":Anouilh ended his play on a glorious note:he demolished the stake and he brought back Joan in Reims cathedral.

I sincerely believe that Otto Preminger's movie has been unfairly dismissed :in my native France,they say it's a static movie ,and however,I had never the impression to be watching a filmed stage production.To my mind ,it's the best Joan of Arc ,with the staggering exception of Dreyer's masterpiece ,of course,which will probably never surpassed.But all the others ,Bresson,Fleming,Rosselini,Besson (Besson???),Rivette ,et al,cannot hold a candle to Preminger:his Joan is a woman of flesh and blood and Jean Seberg (debut) had a strong presence .But the stand-out is definitely Richard Widmark :his fans won't recognize him,particularly in the sequences where he appears as the old king at the end of the road;but he gives a very fine portrayal of Charles the seventh ,probably outré -this king was finally a smart one :he knew when war had to give way to negotiation,which Joan could not understand.But watching Widmark the tough guy of many a western or a film noir playing hopscotch is just a joy.He easily outshines such luminaries as Jose Ferrer,in Fleming 's version or John Malkovich ,in Besson's video game.

There are funny anachronisms:"this horse cost 16 FRANCS" (the franc came much later);or Joan calling Gilles De Rais "Bluebeard" :Charles Perrault ,admittedly inspired by De Rais ,wrote his fairy tale more than two centuries later.But it's not a problem:Joan will come back after her death,and she will know the whole French history ,because ,unlike her contemporaries,she's eternal.The relationship Joan/Dunois is wonderfully treated :it's some kind of love story ,and seeing the young maid mother him brings something romantic .

One can regret a detail:it's not because she was afraid of prison for life that Joan was relapsed :it's because they took away from her her woman's clothes and thus forced her to dress up again as a man.It' minor ;Shaw's lines ,depicting these foolish things which Joan could not live without,if she were buried forever in a hole ,are deeply poetic.

I say it again:one of the best films about Joan Of Arc.

The Joan of Arc story is always a hard one to deal with, especially for skeptics. Did she really hear voices, divinely inspired, that put the burden of liberating France on her 17 year old shoulders? Or should she have been locked in a loony bin?

I'm not really sure that any other culture than the French ought to be telling her story, inevitably the interpretation will fall short of the mark. It falls short here because we have two diametrically opposed viewpoints working on the treatment.

The key to this film is that it is adapted from a play by George Bernard Shaw by Graham Greene. So we have the writing of a Fabian Socialist being interpreted by one very Catholic writer. I think there's a great deal more Greene than Shaw.

Shaw gets his innings here, but I think Graham Greene dominates the film. If he had lived I'm sure Shaw would not have approved.

Charles VIII in history or as portrayed by Richard Widmark here or Jose Ferrer in the Ingrid Bergman film about Joan of Arc, is not the noblest of monarchs. If you are a good Catholic, what he did was going against the will of the Deity. Otherwise though what he tries to do in consolidating his gains makes perfect good sense.

It's funny that I did a review of Olivier's Henry V which viewed from the English point of view which shows how the French got in the situation they were in. What happens afterwards is that Henry V dies quite suddenly like Alexander the Great and England with an infant monarch and fifty year plus struggle for power implodes internally.

Before he died however Charles VII disowned his son the Dauphin and blessed the marriage of Henry V to his daughter Katherine with the provision that Henry succeed Charles VII as King. The French for good reason do not list the English Henry as one of their kings.

Enter Joan of Arc whose visions inspire an army and a nation. As played by Jean Seberg she's in the right age group to be sure. But I think Ingrid Bergman being the far more skilled professional carries it off better in her film. Ditto for Jose Ferrer instead of Richard Widmark. The best acted parts in this film are Anton Walbrook as Cauchon the Bishop who presided over the trial and the clever and serpentine John Gielgud as the Earl of Warwick.

Maybe if Otto Preminger had chosen to film pure Shaw, Saint Joan would have been better received.

This version by Otto Preminger is based on the play by Bernard Shaw, in which the ghost of Joan of Arc appears to Charles VII years after her execution. We then see in flashback how the young maid led the soldiers to victory at Orleans and made the Dauphin king, and how she was later betrayed by nobles, church, and soldiers alike.

Jean Seberg plays Joan as a very modern looking, very young girl who questions everything she sees and is at first tolerated and then shunned and feared. Richard Widmark is perhaps too comic as the Dauphin and comes across as miscast, while John Gielgud is reliable as Warwick, the English kingmaker. Other key roles are played by Anton Walbrook, Harry Andrews, Finlay Currie, and Richard Todd.

This version of the Joan of Arc tale has a greater feel of realism that the 40s version with Ingrid Bergman, but I rate the silent versions 'The Passion of Joan of Arc' and 'Joan the Woman' higher. Although Seberg puts across a fine performance as Joan, she can't hold a candle to Falconetti in particular.

Perhaps it's just my weakness for short-haired brunettes that made me think that this film had far more in it's favour than it had detracting from it. The direction was admittedly slow, nay stationary, and some of the actors did not help this much.

What was not originally appreciated about this film is that the story of Joan of Arc is an exceptionally simple one, but yet cloaked in mystery. Where the film failed was perhaps in not making us empathise with Joan, because we are given nothing of her motivations or her life before or after the seige at Orleans. Compare this to the Besson film, that fails in my eyes for the exact opposite reason, it gives us too much! I liked the film, but I liked it because although I couldn't empathise with a saint, I could empathise with a young woman who knew what she was doing, but didn't know where she was going. What I shall always remember about this film is Seberg's transformation from trusting, coy and innocent to bewildered, bothered and (dare I say it) bewitched. A great performance, and she really ought to have gone on to greater things.

Otto Preminger's much-maligned version of Joan of Arc's inquisition and defeat came under critical scrutiny for, among many things, the casting of an unknown in the demanding leading role. Jean Seberg was touted as Preminger's discovery, and her youthful energy and doe-eyed rebelliousness are the right ingredients for the Maid of Orleans. What Seberg lacks is forceful projection--though, with so much talent surrounding her, one hardly notices. After promoting the foppish Dauphin as the next King of France, a simple but fierce country girl heads the French Army into battle against England; sadly, with her triumphs passed her and her usefulness run dry, she was turned over to the courts where she was declared a heretic, her talk of voices the ramblings of a demonic influence. Graham Greene adapted George Bernard Shaw's celebrated play, putting much of the emphasis on Joan's trial; still, one clearly senses Preminger's pithy hand in the playful framework complete with ghosts and a music-box score. The costumes are plushy, the sets passable, yet one longs for more involving action (there's the set-up for battle, but no fighting); without a grander design, a more florid visual scope, what we're left with is textbook history. Certainly the performances make the film worth-seeing, and Seberg shouldn't be counted out in this regard. Hers is an empathic reading and, while she isn't yet a riveting presence, the newcomer manages a connection with the material (translating it to the viewer) which many seasoned pros might have found unmanageable. **1/2 from ****