Joan of Arc

The first half is a bit ridiculous because the film obviously doesn't have a budget. The trial part is more interesting and makes me want to see other films on the subject.

The film Joan of Arc starts with some ambition. And metaphorical shots which probably were meant to add to the movie, in a way or two, which failed drastically and I was almost flabbergasted with all that happened there after. The editing, the shots, the directtion, everything fell apart. Critiques claim, this might be a breakthrough, in filmmaking, or a big fail! Let's see.

Earlier films by Bruno Dumont had some experiments, but to this level, well, okay, we'll have to wait and watch. There is a predecessor to this film, which has the same approach, and the lead actor, which are unprofessional, but that's completely fine, if other ends are fulfilled. But lacking in that part, the film totally falls apart for me.

I found this film ultimately exasperating: not quite funny enough to be funny, or serious enough to be serious, or passionate enough to be about the passion of Joan of Arc. Dumont has produced such brilliant work in the past, and Joan of Arc could well have value as a way station to something else - a work in progress, a career evolution towards a new, tonally complex film-making language. But this film is opaque and unrewarding.

Even though Joan of Arc screened at the Cannes film festival, I don't find a point of passing this through the jury and if so, i don't see a valid reason behind this.

The production seemed tight in budget, the set design and even the actors, let's exclude the child actors the whole cast's acting died for me as they proceeded.

Even the cinematography was okay, probably, there was nothing outstanding in the film, for me.

Starting with the acting part of the movie, the said were only said not delivered , the locations didn't seem to fit the narrative in the first shots of the movie ,the only tried to convey the emotion of the charechter but didn't take the story forward which to seemed like a waste of time , the idea and effort of using more metaphors was something i admire, but more thought needs to be put in making the metaphors work and hvae the impact they need to have

And so I did. Why? The first 30 minutes annoyed me heavily. Tedious, amateuristic acting and scenes. Everything went on too long. Not a moment I saw something interesting or glorious or intriguing. I kept on thinking: this is amateur stuff. Sorry. Could not be lured to continue watching.

I saw this film seduced being by its trailer and surprised by so young Jeanne. The first half of hour was real weigh because all seems so amateurish, from the sand location to dialogue. But the hope dies the last , and I hoped than the film can be saved in a form of other. And it is. By imagination of viewer knowing the story of Jeanne D Arc, by presence of Fabrice Luchini as unfair old Charles and by the dialogue from trial, by the song of prosecutor and, no doubts, by the last scenes, real inspired ones.

A good point - the effort of so young Lise Leplat Prudhomme to sustain her character.

Obvious, it is far to be a bad film. It is only an eccentric experiment, expression of rich imagination and not the most inspired tools for serve it.

It can be defined, in same measure, as provocative.

So, maybe only sin of it - it is so long ... . And you hope, scene by scene, be more ...profound, remaining, in final, only with the images from Amiens cathedral, strange prison and, sure, the beach of first scenes.