Juana de Arco

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Good things:La Tremouille's bad influence on the king;Joan who did not realize in 1430 that fighting had been replaced by negotiations;the abjuration: in Rouen,you can see a commemorative plaque which reads "Here ,in 1431, Joan of Arc suffered the infamous ordeal of abjuration"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)

"Joan of Arc" is a film with a much larger budget and more prestigious cast than you'd expect from a movie released by RKO. After all, RKO was clearly a second-tier studio whose output was far lower budgeted than most films from MGM, Twentieth Centure-Fox and Warner Brothers. But here, the studio released a prestige film...with vivid color, a LOT of familiar actors and a plot involving one of the great women of the late Middle Ages. Unfortunately, the public did NOT respond well to this and the film actually lost money. How?

Ingrid Bergman plays the title character and the story consists of her life from her middle teens to her execution at age 19. This is a SERIOUS problem, as when the film began she was about 15-16...and looked like the 33 years she actually was.

The other main problem with the film is that the filmmakers were too reverential towards the character...with dirge-like music and a pace slower than a snail! Telling it faster and with perhaps more behind the scenes intrigues would have helped. Regardless, I just kept wanting the film to speed up...particularly at the end when you KNOW what's going to happen and it takes too long to get there. Well made and nice looking...but also a film that might bore you as well.

By the way, although it didn't impact my viewing, the film was a pet project of Ingrid Bergman but she also was responsible for helping to tank the film. Negative publicity about her affair with a married man became public at about the time the film was released. This very unsaint-like behavior surely must have negatively impacted the box office numbers.

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.

I am lucky enough to have a video of the uncut version of this film, in which the trial is shown in full. This is the part of the film in which we see Ingrid's best acting. It's so immensely moving! Ingrid believed in Joan and it shows. She had just come from a triumphant Broadway run in Joan of Lorraine, the play on which this movie is based. The movie is a more straightforward telling of Joan's story [the play is a play within a play] and I would say it's accurate, though some details have to be left out, due to lack of time. Sadly, Ingrid's popularity in the USA had waned when this film was released. What a tragedy! I am amazed that a so-called enlightened and free nation could turn against this honest woman, because of her love for an Italian film director and the birth [out of wedlock] of their beautiful son. I think Ingrid would have won another Oscar with "Joan of Arc", had it not been for the "scandal". It's definitely the best film version of this remarkable saint's story and a fulfilment of Ingrid's lifetime wish. Long live Ingrid Bergman - and her favourite saint! Mary Hutchings [Founder, Ingrid Bergman International, Yahoo clubs]

Joan of Arc is perhaps Bergman's finest "high acting" performances. (Her greatest performance is still her "minimalist" performance in "Casablanca"). This is a better than good movie, but not great. With the cast, it should have been GREAT! It is, however, well worth seeing; Bergman is in fine form.