Juana de Arco

Luc Besson directs and Milla Jovovich stars as the Maid Of Orleans who lifted France of its knees-and was tried and executed for being a heretic. The End.

Well that's what you would think all Besson's film amounts too, given the hate and general negativity that pours down on it from many of the worlds cinematic sources. Well, look, it's not brilliant, but is it really the devil that many have painted it as? Not so say I. It's about as subtle as a sledgehammer all told, but Besson's study of the iconic/infamous waif who did indeed expel the British hoards has gusto by the shed load. He nicely crafts the 15th century lands from which to tell his story, and then, to quote someone from another period epic, unleashes hell. Literally. Yep the British armies are stereotypically vile {I bet Mel Gibson loves the Brit portrayals here}, and the blood that is shed is vicious and borderline sick. But it works well in the context of Jeanne's prominent rise and subsequent fall, with her religious confliction deftly blending in with the blood being shed in the pursuit of liberation. Visually the film is a treat, and for action construction it holds up to be one of the better modern day historical epics in that department. But where's the substance?

Ah, there's the big problem with the movie. Besson and his co-writer Andrew Birkin are so pre-occupied with the horrors of war and Jeanne's leadership qualities, they turn the rest of the film into a skeleton in need of flesh. And it's actually Jovovich who suffers the most. She's great when she's screaming and launching into the enemy, taking an arrow hit with grace and dedication . But there's been no character depth laid out, so Jovovich's Jeanne just comes across as a moody teenager out to cause trouble. We need to have some insight into her troubled predicament and what drives her on, not the scantily written filler moments that actually are just appetisers to blood letting battles. There 's also annoyances when the film slips into moments of modern day speak, it's a crass and lazy oversight by the makers to think that we wouldn't notice such speak in 15th Century France. Besson surrounds Jovovich with some fine acting talent tho, even if some are a tad underused. Rolling out are John Malkovich, Dustin Hoffman, Faye Dunaway, Vincent Cassel, Timothy West, Desmond Harrington and the always watchable, and scary, Tcheky Karyo.

So a bit hollow it be, but on the outside it's a ripper. Visceral, explosive and yes, fun too. 7/10

I found Luc Besson's take on the story of Joan of Arc thoroughly compelling. Like all of Besson's films, The Messenger is highly stylized, nicely cast, and visually powerful. The film is also forgivably anachronistic in terms of language while developing a strong period feel through sets and costume.

Joan was, of course, the deeply religious teenage girl who lead Prince Charles' army to improbable victory over the invading English at Orleans and helped re-consolidate French sovereignty. Joan considered herself God's appointed messenger, and France apparently saw her as an avenging angel. Today, she is commonly regarded as a schizophrenic. She was canonized in the 1950s, 500 years after her death. Regardless of whether God or insanity was the source of her strength, power, will and incredible courage - there is little ambiguity about her role in the salvation of France nor the fate that awaited her afterward.

In general, the acting is quite good. Jovovich's much-maligned performance is actually very good and exactly appropriate for what Besson was trying to do with the film. Comparing Joan of Arc to her other Messianic role as Leelu in the Fifth Element is, frankly, ridiculous. I believe that the problems people find in Jovovich's performance are problems those same people bring to the film. Malkovich and Dunaway are phenomenal. Tcheky Karyo and Vincent Cassell provide excellent support.

Besson strays from what we think we know about the details of Joan's story, but only to present the truth of the big-picture more accurately. His film steadfastly refuses to answer the questions many people will bring to it:

* Was Joan schizophrenic? * Was she a catholic messiah or divinely inspired prophet?

Why is Besson so careful about accurately presenting the ambiguity of the story? I think he wanted to make a moving film, but not a film which would unsubtly challenge its audience's beliefs. If you do not believe, you will tend to explain Dustin Hoffman's character as a manifestation of Joan's psychological problems. If you do believe, you may want to think of him as Satan, am angel, perhaps both. Thus, Besson, who is a deeply spiritual person, makes a powerful statement about faith through his metanarrative while maintaining an appropriately unevangelical position. He took similar paths in his more uplifting films The Fifth Element and Angel-A.

Highly recommended for Besson and Jovovich fans. Not a biography - avoid this if you must have the "plain" facts! Mildly recommended as a piece of historical fiction.

My first Milla Jovovich movie was Ultraviolet, which has spawned more "worst movie ever" threads on IMDb than any other. Well, I wouldn't call it that bad, but still... it hardly gave me any faith in Milla's career as a dramatic performer.

So I popped this flick in the DVD player not expecting much. Sacrée merde! What a surprise. It seems, stripped of her futuristic-mutant-motorcycle-riding-vampire persona, she's really quite good. This film--probably the least glamorous of her entire repertoire--really gives her a chance to show her full dynamics. I can't say much more without giving away the plot, so I'll drop it for now.

Now on to the director Luc Besson. For the first half hour or so, he seems to suffer from "I wanna be Kenneth Branagh" syndrome (which is almost as painful as the avian flu). We get a dozen scenes of someone running down a corridor with the camera chasing behind. We get a dozen overhead-camera-twirly shots of someone lying on the ground. We get so many crane shots, you start thinking you're on a construction site. What's wrong with all this? I'll tell you. When the camera swings & sways too much it detracts from the actors' performances. Sure it adds visual drama, but so can a good fireworks scene (with just as much subtlety).

But suddenly, right around the halfway mark, the camera man simmers down. The whole tone of the film changes, becomes darker and more intense, relying on the power of the actors instead of the gimmicky camera-work. This works brilliantly, especially when Dustin Hoffman finally steps in.

This is the break that takes the movie in an entirely different (and possibly offensive) direction. It looks like some IMDb reviewers weren't too happy. I'm sure plenty of others got bored (because the swordfights stop). But me, I thought this change of mood was what made the movie. Suddenly it becomes a spooky, psychological thriller with a lot of great dialogue and a ton of good acting. THIS is the payoff.

My biggest gripe with the movie is that after seeing the 2nd half, I kept saying to myself "why the hell did Besson waste so much time getting here?" There were a few too many insignificant fluff scenes in the beginning (like the virginity test lol) that should have been replaced with more of the powerful Milla-Dustin dialogue toward the end.

I won't comment on historical accuracy, religious sacrilege, lack-of-realism or the fact that there were a few too many American accents for 15th century France. These flaws fall by the wayside if you're instead paying attention to the complex conflict brewing in Milla's character. This is really her movie, and a damn good one at that. Like my title implies, it's good enough to make me want to give Ultraviolet another try.

If you are wondering about Luc Besson's vaguely heretical "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc", try to imagine a cross between "Excalibur" and "Heaven's Gate". It looks great but the basic story gets lost in the histrionics and excess.

There really was a very religious young girl who was considered a savior to France during The Hundred Years War. Although things may have eventually sorted themselves out the same way without her. Three years after her birth, the new tactics of the English archers were responsible for arguably the most one-sided battle in military history at Agincourt. The result was credited to Henry V's piety and he got a great passage in Shakespeare. The French aristocracy was almost wiped out by the battle and the English became solidly entrenched in France. Fourteen years later a new generation of French nobility was beginning to assert itself and it was the English and their French allies who were having leadership problems.

Both countries were Catholic at the time and both claimed that God was on their side, a bit like the football player who thanks God for the victory over another team that apparently God did not favor.

Although there are records of both of Joan's trials (her Condemnation Trial and her Rehabilitation Trial) both proceedings had their own political agenda and should be taken with a grain of salt. Besson's film seems to follow the generally accepted version of the story but takes obvious liberties with Joan's mental condition and visions. There is no way to prove or disprove any of this so it is probably as plausible as any other speculation.

What hurts "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" is that Besson's best scenes are at the very beginning and set too high a standard for the remainder of the film. Jane Valentine is wonderful as the young Joan and Besson shows that his directing skills with young actors was not confined to Natalie Portman's performance in "Leon". This early stuff features some of the most interesting scene juxtaposition that you are likely to see in any film. IMHO it gets off to a better start than any film in cinema history. And the sequence where the young Joan is standing on a hill watching as the English burn her village is as visually stunning as anything ever filmed.

But once Milla Jovovich's grown-up Joan takes over most viewers will find it difficult to stay focused on the story. It's not miscasting, Jovovich is noted for aggressive and daring performances (see "The Dummy") rather than subtlety and nuance, making her a good fit for the take Besson wanted on Joan's personality. The problem is that while a viewer could identify with the young Joan, the older Joan is just repellent. Her story should be inspirational and tragic. Instead it is a bunch of comic book battle scenes and comical melodrama.

But it is worth watching for the production design and the beginning sequences.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

...but it still made interesting viewing. More biographies of Jeanne d'Arc exist than of any other person, and any attempt to portray her rather incredible life as France's greatest heroine and martyr on film can expect to encounter a similarly large number of second-guessers. This is precisely what happened when this picture came out. Reviewers went on at length about what the picture should have been about, and how Joan should have been portrayed (and by whom), leaving readers to wonder what they thought of the picture that HAD been made. This tendency to review the picture they wish had been made is a classic failing in many critics and this picture seemed to bring it out especially often.

The picture that Luc Besson made here deserves to be appreciated on its own merits. It is visually stunning, rousingly action-packed, and full of interesting period details. Yes, casting his supermodel wife Milla Jovovich in the lead was a risky choice, as her looks were hardly those of a typical medieval peasant. Yes, her performance did not resonate with the period the way one by a more classically trained actress might, although she was clearly never trying to be Ingrid Bergman. Still, Milla's hyperactive personality made her interesting and watchable as a historical person about whom so much has been written, who nonetheless existed so far back in the past that she lacks a strongly identifiable humanity. When somebody makes a better statue than a person, as Joan does from a contemporary viewpoint, odd casting choices can be forgiven if they work. Milla's twisty mannerisms, rolling eyes and whispery speech give the viewer constant occasions to ponder just how much of Joan's fanaticism came from genuine devotion to God and the church and how much was just an under-medicated personality disorder. This is actually one of the key scholarly issues surrounding Joan's life, and the picture brings it to the fore in its latter part as Joan herself tries to come to terms with her own claims of divine communication by means of a debate with Dustin Hoffman as her confessor-priest/conscience. That Besson takes no particular viewpoint here is an interesting choice, and one which actually helps the viewer to understand why Joan's story has compelled so many generations of historians.

The political aspects of Joan's life and legend were also dealt with in a nicely balanced fashion. Like many figures in times when political and national alliances changed with the seasons, Joan herself blew back and forth between being tremendously useful to the French throne at times and dangerously inconvenient at others. Fame is a powerful commodity at any time, and the picture carefully tracked the rise and fall of Joan's fortunes as she watched hers be manipulated, leveraged and ultimately put on trial.

I thought a lot of The Messenger and recommend it. Religious and historical scholars are advised to approach with caution.