Avis des utilisateurs

The Trial of Joan of Arc (1962) chronicles the last days of the fifteenth-century French patriot, from her interrogation by members of the Parisian clergy to her execution by burning at the stake. In the entire film there are only three locations: the courthouse, the jail and the place of Joan's execution. The words of Joan and her prosecutors, lifted almost exclusively from transcripts of the trial, take centre stage.

The clergymen probe relentlessly into Joan's religious beliefs. Twisting her words at every turn, they insinuate that she is a pagan and a heretic. Joan, parrying each thrust of their argument, appeals to a higher religious authority to prove her innocence. The clergymen, however, are mere stooges of the British, and resolve to brand her a heretic. Facing death, Joan initially recants her heresy, but then reaffirms it, thus sealing her fate. Her meagre possessions are placed at the foot of the stake, echoing the way in which her testimonies have been used against her. A clergyman holds aloft a crucifix for her but this image of Christianity is lost in the smoke from her burning pyre.

The Trial of Joan of Arc features an impressive cast of non-professional actors. Florence Delay is superb in the role of Joan, radiating defiance behind her impassive countenance. A few of the performances elsewhere are a bit wooden, but the grave manner of Bishop Cauchon and the benign gaze of the sole sympathetic priest testify to the overall strength of the casting.

Running to little more than an hour in length, The Trial of Joan of Arc might seem on paper to be an insubstantial work. Yet this is an extraordinarily intense film, thick with powerful dialogue and requiring the full concentration of the viewer. For someone not fluent in French, it is a challenge to read the subtitles and follow the images on screen, but, whether you are French-speaking or not, I highly recommend this powerful piece of cinema.

To appreciate this film you have to be a supporter of the 'less is more' school of thought. Bresson presents the viewer with a stark, simple story, employing virtually no cinema devices at all - whilst 'Trial of Joan of Arc' isn't one of his best known efforts, it bears all the hallmarks of his genius.

With a running time of just over an hour, the film covers the trial of the famous French heroine, the script solely based on the historical notes from the trial itself. As usual with Bresson, the cast is made up of non-actors who prove that simple delivery of potent narrative, can still be convincing.

The actress who plays Joan, Florence Delay, is superb and stunningly attractive - I assumed she was a major star of 1960's French cinema, rather than an unknown in her first ( and last?? ) role. The film concentrates so much on her character that she has to be convincing - every word she delivers has an edge to it and you can truly believe that here was a teenage girl who had an inner strength which entire armies would follow.

Everything which is good in foreign films is encapsulated here - the simple approach, the dialogue, the static camera and the realism. Bresson's next film was the highly praised 'Au Hasard Balthazar'(1966), which continued some of the themes, but overall I think this is the better film.

This is a magnificent rendition of the trial of Joan of Arc (Florence Delay in his only acting); as after the successful liberation of Orléans and Reims , the Dauphin can be crowned traditionally in the cathedral of Reims - and does not need her anymore, since his wishes are satisfied. The uncrowned King Charles VII sent her to the siege of Orléans as part of a relief mission . Jeanne d'Arc gets set up in his trap and is imprisoned by the Burgundians. In a trial (presided by bishop Cauchon well played by Fournier) against her under English law, she can't be forced to tell about her divine visions she has had continuously since childhood. Being condemned of witchcraft and being considered as relapsed heretic, she is sentenced to death . Jeanne d'Arc is burnt alive in the marketplace of Rouen on May 30th, 1431, at only 19 years of age .

This excellent film by Robert Bresson was based entirely on the transcripts of the real-life trial , adapted in theatrical fashion ; concerning Joan's imprisonment, interrogation and final execution at the hands of the English . Joan excellently played by Florence Delay asserted that she had visions from God , Saint Catalina , Saint Margarita and Angel St Michelle that instructed her to recover her homeland from English domination late in the Hundred Years' War. Although the story takes place in 1431, Jeanne's hairstyle is strictly a popular mode of the early 1960s. This is not a "goof" but an intention on the director's part to help young people identify with the character. It was shot in a spare , too serious and low-key style . Runtime movie is short , approx. 65 minutes , but is neither boring , nor dull but thought-provoking . The ending scenes in which she's condemned is very interesting and the sentence at the burning pole is overwhelming .

Other films about this historic character are the following : TV version (1999) with Lelee Sobieski , Neal Patrick Harris as Charles VII , Peter O'Toole as the Bishop , Powers Boothe , Olimpia Dukakis and Peter Strauss ; Joan of Arc (1999) by Luc Besson with Milla Jovovich , Tchéky Karyo as Dunois , John Malkovich as Charles VII and Toby Jones ; Saint Joan (1957) by Otto Preminger with Jean Seberg , Richard Widmark , Richard Todd and John Gielgud ; Joan of Arc (1954) by Roberto Rosselini with Ingrid Bergman ; Joan of Arc by Victor Fleming (1948) with Ingrid Berman , J Carrol Naish , War Bond and Jose Ferrer as Charles VII . Furthermore , silent adaptation such as the classical La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (1928) by Carl Theodor Dreyer with Maria Falconetti and Joan The woman (1916) by Cecil B Demille .

The movie was set in ¨Hundred years war¨ developed between 1337 and 1453 (downfall date of Constantinopla by Turks). The historical deeds are the following : Henry V vanquishes Charles VI in Agincourt (1415) that was a major English victory against a numerically superior French army in the Hundred Years' War . The battle occurred on Friday, 25 October 1415 and Henry V takes over on Normandy . Charles VI of France signs ¨Troyes treatise¨ in which Henry V is wedded to Charles's daughter . Later on , Henry VI of England proclaims himself king of France but then Joan of Arc proclaims in Bourges to Charles VII as king , after being crowned in Reims . She gained prominence when she overcame the dismissive attitude of veteran commanders and lifted the siege in only nine days. Joan of Arc acting as a divine mission defeats English army in Orleans .Several more swift victories led to Charles VII's coronation and settled the disputed succession to the throne . But she's captured by the Burgundians and is handed over to English authorities and they fire her for heretic and witch in Rouen.

Bresson's film is quite extraordinary. An entirely static camera, a repertoire of what seems like only a handful of angles, and no music save the unnerving thumping of medieval drums at the beginning and end, all add up to a form restrained to the point of stasis. The movement of the film comes entirely from the words and from the faces. And from the rigorous choice of those few camera angles. It is a moot point as to whether or not it is relevant that the script is composed almost entirely of transcripts from the actual trial. However, the viewer armed with this knowledge must surely be privy to an extraordinary sense of time-travel - a restrained, respectful and highly spiritual journey back into the "dark ages". There is necessarily an inescapable sense of people hundreds of years dead speaking through the mouths of the (non-professional) actors, whose limited but affecting range fits perfectly with the curious juxtaposition of past and present, of cinema and grace.

As has been pointed out many times before, one of the primary differences between Bresson's film and Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc is in their formal delineation between good and evil; where Dreyer uses light and shadow to point up the difference, in the Bresson film the contrast is more subtle, resting, it would seem, mainly on the fact that the Bishop Cauchon is shut exclusively head on, whilst Jeanne commands a variety of oblique camera angles. But the subtlety of the camera also brings out a fantastic sense of time, space, and place. The numerous close-ups of period shoes are all we need to have the era set firmly in our minds; the medium-shots - and complete absence of anything like a long shot - simultaneously reinforce the claustrophobia of Jeanne's predicament, and focus our attention on her, and that which falls under her gaze. The one notable exception to this is the short series of shots while she burns on the pyre, of the white doves fluttering above the canvas awning, suitable parallels with the absent characters of the Saints Catharine and Margaret, whose presence is felt and whose names recur throughout the trial. A simple film, formally, perhaps, but only in the sense that everything is pared down to a minimum, and the choices are only made with the greatest of care and most rigorous of logic. The words and the faces do not need embellishment. They need attention and simplicity, in the same way that the words uttered by the real Joan of Arc are simple and unadorned. A masterful marriage of form and content.

I saw this film along with numerous other Bresson films being shown at the National Gallery of Art in DC. In this film the English characters speak English and the French characters speak French. I knew little about Joan of Arc and was expecting it not to be one of my favorites. I was blown away by the way it brought Joan and her tragic experiences to life. It and Diary of a Country Priest were my favorites. I had the advantage to talk to a gentleman who teaches a course on Great Trials of the World who gave me background including how well this uneducated girl was able to handle the questions at the trial, how Bresson was faithful to George Bernard Shaw's play based on transcripts from the trial, etc. The emotional power of Joan of Arc's trial in this film is truly amazing. It should be available on Netflix for all to see.

This is minimalist film-making, with little beyond the questions and answers of Joan and the inquisitors. But what an impression it makes! How deeply we are forced to think about Joan! The calmness of her replies, her absolute consistency, her unassailable integrity, all leave you wondering, where did it all come from? What made her like this? She was no mere deluded martyr. It's not nearly enough simply to say she believed in her visions and her divine mission. She not only believed in them, she embodied her convictions so totally that it is difficult to understand her as a person without believing in her completely. No wonder her troops followed her into battle to their deaths! I think the transcript of the trial alone would be riveting, but this understated film does a wonderful job of bringing to life one of the most extraordinary people ever to walk the earth.

The director's signature style adds pretty much nothing to the story, the subject of one of the greatest works of cinema, Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc. If you don't like Dreyer's melodramatics – and that famous silent is indeed enormously melodramatic – then maybe Bresson's toned down version will work for you. But, really, most of the film consists of long, dry scenes of question and answer sessions between Joan and her judges. It only runs just over an hour, but a lot of it feels like a chore. It's not a worthless film, of course. Once in a while Bresson captures a powerful image. I loved the shots of Joan through the peephole, as well as the reverse shots of the Englishmen staring through it. And the final sequence, Joan's ascension to the stake, is as powerful as anything in the Dreyer film (although I usually list The Passion of Joan of Arc among my ten favorite films, I will admit that he missteps during the final sequence with that historically inaccurate riot and the Eisensteinian moments that ensue), and as good as anything else Bresson has made. Also, Florence Delay, who plays Joan, could be mentioned next to Falconetti without embarrassment. She is exceptional.

A superb demonstration of Bresson's talent as one of the last century's greatest film-makers. It is a short film, set minimally in a courtroom, then Joan's cell and finally, with immense power, at the stake. The actors are amateurs, as usual with Bresson, but the message they convey is universal - and as relevant to the 21st century as to the 15th century, when the events, realistically described in the film from court texts, took place.

Was Joan really a freedom-fighter and a saint, receiving messages from God through her saintly visions? Or was she a 15th century terrorist, opposing both the power of the English occupying army and the tenets of the Catholic Church and its bishops? As the trial is enacted, there are no obvious villains - not even the English officer representing the occupying secular power. And Joan needs to be discreetly prompted by a white-clad priest, whose motives are obscure, casting some doubts on the certainties of her visions. The triumph of the director and the actors is that you feel that the viewer is totally involved in the interactions - and I had to rush to the history books to learn more about the main characters as soon as the film finished.

Apparently Robert Bresson did not like Dryer's La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (1928), so he produced Procès de Jeanne d'Arc (1962). Very different approach! Dryer's is almost a horror story, while Bresson's conveys more of a banality of evil scene. Jeanne d'Arc seems nearly emotionless for most of the Bresson film and has a mod haircut--apparently because Bresson thought that it would make it easier for young people to relate to her. But her blunt affect and monotone delivery make her seem more like a cranky teenager than a spiritual saint. Needless to say, I prefer Dreyer's creation.

There are only a handful of films that have engraved themselves in my memory indelibly. This is one of them. First, it is in black and white, and I find it impossible to imagine how this particular film could have been done otherwise. It is perfect.

The close ups of Joan, testifying in the ecclesiastical court setting, were devastating. Whether this film mirrors history perfectly is irrelevant. What I saw on screen was a portrayal of absolute sincerity that, for me, exemplifies the highest human ideal. The dialog was spare -- not one extra word -- and the photography was flawless. I don't know whether Florence Carrez (Joan) has acted in anything else -- I think maybe not. But I suppose if she ever considered doing so, this would have been a nearly impossible performance to follow.

There is something especially evocative about the way in which this quite short film has been put together by Robert Bresson and Léonce-Henri Burel. In just over an hour, it offers us a startlingly bleak interpretation of the last weeks of Joan of Arc's life, imprisoned, manipulated and subjected to immense amounts of intellectual cruelty by a church and a state that was determined that she should burn - regardless of any guilt or innocence. Florence Delay is very effective in the tital role - probably the best characterisation of this woman I have ever seen. Jean-Claude Fourneau is also at the top of his game as the prosecuting bishop "Cauchon" offering us a vision of a man as devoid of any Christian kindness as it is possible to imagine. Given everyone knows what did happen to this tortured soul, Bresson still manages to elicit a considerable degree of optimism: might things end differently this time? The dialogue is bland. Not in any dull sense, but in a matter-of-fact, non-florid fashion. The photography is basic and almost rudimentary - indeed, that also adds a great deal to the authenticity of just what it might well have been like at the time. If you ever watch any films about this historical event, then this ought to be the one...

I had heard about Joan of Arc but I hadn't ever given her story close attention. She emerges as a very bold person, with courage and conviction, rooted in her faith. Being branded a state criminal, a witch, she still had courage in her to keep her sanity and not crumble. She is shown to have great clarity of thought. Her strength comes from her sense of purpose and her desire to be true to her beliefs. Its an amazing story. She must have felt very lonely, specially when she is faced with the consequence of death. Abandonment is scary. Fear of death contorts most people's beliefs and faith. Should she betray her faith or betray herself and live dishonored? And would life be worthy after that betrayal? She is burnt at the stake at in the same moment becomes immortal. What does it take to have such conviction? Perhaps it comes from strong attraction to a clear goal and knowing one's priorities. The movie is chilling in its accuracy of depicting the brutality of the trial and the intensity of the tribulations Joan goes through.

Robert Bresson apparently detested Carl Dreyer's Jeanne d'Arc Passion play, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, for "grotesque buffooneries", and one would also assume, overt melodrama. With a such a prompt dismissal, Bresson acted as though the 1928 silent film never existed. And with a cast of non-thespians dusted off Jeanne's trial transcripts for a subdued and downplayed retread. As melodrama would seem fitting the story of a young woman imprisoned and confronted with the omnipresent threat of torture, rape and execution, Bresson felt that the French national icon was instead stoic and self-assured of moral victory.

In the performances there is little to give away character thought processes and motivations, particularly from the English actors playing the guards. The additions to the script now have protagonists stating aloud what they intend to do next. And whether it was on Bresson's insistence to avoid melodrama, or the non-professional nature of the cast, those on screen come across as incredibly wooden and lifeless.

Florence Delay as Jeanne delivers the historic lines without feeling or inflection. To use a gauche comparison, Milla Jovovich whilst not giving a better performance in the same role, at least gave A performance. In between court appearances Delay literally has nothing to do but sit on her bed with her hands on her knees. No contemplation, or conversations with God. Whereas Renée Falconetti suffered regular torment from the guards, and had the weaving of a symbolic crown of straw to occupy herself in Dreyer's opus, Delay simply sits still, shuffles between sets, and reads her lines. Everything of course leading to the stake. However, in giving Jeanne self-awareness and fundamentally robbing her of innocence, the burning is anticlimactic.

Bresson's stark minimalism is unbefitting such a reenactment. The film as a whole suffers from early '60s cinematic conventions, and can not avoid unfavourable comparisons with Dreyer's original, which is widely regarded as a masterpiece. Procès is not simply sub par in the realm of Jeanne films, it is also a blight on the prolific career of Robert Bresson.

it is the main virtue. based by original documents of trial, the film is a cold portrait of Jeanne. minimalist, convincing, blank, without the ingredients of dramatization. a form of docudrama ? not exactly. a form of exposure of director faith ? almost. because the film is a confession, no doubt. but one escaping to expectations. sure, it reminds La Passion de Jeanne d 'Arc by Dreyer . but differences are significant not only for different styles or ages but for the common points. because the same source has the different way to a message who ignores, in the case of this Jeanne, at the first sigh, the technique solutions. so, an useful film.

Here's what I saw: a confused teenager (it may be misleading to call a nineteen-year-old woman a teenager, and who knows what being nineteen meant in the Middle Ages) trying hard to cut a fine figure, and succeeding better than most - which is to say, not very well. Bresson lets us know she IS inspired, she DOES court supernatural influence, probably God's, but somehow this doesn't change anything. It's clear Joan is as clueless as everyone else of her era. Sweet, but clueless.

This film is only just over an hour long, and although the trial meanders - no-one really knows what he or she is doing - there's no sense of padding. It's a swift, clean, beautiful fable. I'm not sure it has a point: if it does, it lies in the short sharp shock we get at the end. All that legalistic fuffing around and then something decisive and fantastic happens. Very few films can suddenly introduce fantasy at the end and get away with it: this is one; "A Canterbury Tale" (1944) is another. Although Bresson's film is less ambitious, and succeeds partly because it gives itself little opportunity to set a foot wrong, it's still quite a feat.

My Rating : 8/10

Between February 21 and March 24, 1431, Jeanne d'Arc was interrogated nearly a dozen times by a tribunal, always keeping her humility and steadfast claim of innocence. Instead of being held in a church prison with nuns as guards, she was held in a military prison. Joan was threatened with rape and torture, though there is no record that either actually occurred. She protected herself by tying her soldiers' clothes tightly together with dozens of cords. Frustrated they could not break her, the tribunal eventually used her military clothes against her, charging that she dressed like a man.

Simple, minimal and fluid - 'Procès de Jeanne d'Arc' is restrained, authentic and affecting in it's cinematography employing very few camera angles - it's almost claustrophobic so as to invite the viewer to the 'dark ages' of the 15th Century the film is based in. Bresson has scripted his film using transcripts from the actual trials and therefore bringing about a sense of the people living hundreds of years ago and the peregrinations of the time period.

Being an auteur, Bresson puts his ascetic stamp of cinematography by paring every aspect of the film down to a minimum showing the highest level of care and unembellished logical realism.

This is where cinema and grace are juxtaposed through suspension of linear temporality of time, space and dialogue. A masterful marriage of film-form and content - simple and unadorned.

On May 29, 1431, the tribunal announced Joan of Arc was guilty of heresy. On the morning of May 30, she was taken to the marketplace in Rouen and burned at the stake, before an estimated crowd of 10,000 people. She was 19 nineteen years old. One legend surrounding the event tells of how her heart survived the fire unaffected. Her ashes were gathered and scattered in the Seine.

Judging by the movie (and Bresson as a person) Jean d'Arc has obviously been a really inspirational person to Bresson. That's basically the constitutive problem with this picture. All of the humaine virtues that are most significant to him, are combined in this historical character: The willpower, the faith, the moral persistence...

The movie's an ode to a role model of his - a moral statement. There's nothing wrong with being political or making a statement, just as long as it's all part of the dramaturgical entirety, and not the dramaturgical entirety. Sadly, in this case, that's just what's happened.

The other main problem with the movie, is it's structure. All of the court dialogues - which concist about 90% of the whole picture - are reenactments of the inquisition, based on the actual found documents from the trials. There's very little dramatization, as the whole picture could be seen more as a documentary of these historical events, than a self-reliant piece of storytelling.

The storyline, nor the characters, do not develop due the course of the movie. There's very little aspects presented of the main character, and it leaves very little room for interpretation. Basically, what you see is what you get.

French filmmaker Robert Bresson used the actual transcripts from the trial of Jeanne d'Arc in order to reveal her character through her words in these final days. Bresson keeps leading actress Florence Carrez, a non-professional as are the others in the cast, speaking in a forthright monotone, without much vocal inflection or facial exaggeration in order for the viewer to concentrate solely on her words. His film is intentionally without scope (and has very little exposition) and some may find the cut-and-dried handling a bit pedestrian. Certainly it was financed on a minimal-budget, and some of the players are stilted, but the film's compact running time of 68 minutes works to Bresson's advantage: he's able to get right to the heart of things, and he leaves us with a haunting climax. That said, there were three things I didn't care for: the musical intro is so severe for an opening that it may provoke an indifferent response (the matching closer is less irritating); Joan seems to have a believer in one of the priests at her trial (he sends her subtle signals) but this isn't explained (which may again be intentional); and barefoot Joan's geisha-like quick steps leading up to the gallows are peculiar--was it her decision not to walk with shoes, and was the ground so hot she had to practically dance to her death? **1/2 from ****

It's funny that Robert Bresson accordingly disliked Carl Theodor Dreyer's 'La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc,' because between the two films only one is a household name, and it's not his. Just as much to the point, there are more similarities between the two pictures than there are differences. Specifically, Bresson's works are largely characterized by a low-key tone that lets the story speak for itself, and there are no dramatic flourishes added to this interpretation of historical records, just as was true in 1928. The storytelling is likewise kept very simple, hardly anything more than a rote dramatization of the proceedings against an icon in the fifteenth century. Overall it's a little more nuanced than that, of course, but the long and short of it is that Bresson's 1962 feature may not be as celebrated or remarkable as Dreyer's, but it's still enjoyable and worthwhile on its own merits.

It's interesting that in his own words Bresson sought to "avoid 'theater' and 'masquerade'" with his rendition, because ironically, I think this movie's greatest weakness is that it seems to have actively embraced just that. It's hardly a defining quality, but it's very notable that throughout these sixty-four minutes Bresson adds to the straightforward recounting of Jeanne d'Arc's trial by including the jeers and taunts of a crowd in the background soundtrack, including deriding laughter. Frankly it's off-putting not just for the inclusion in and of itself, but even more so because it's obviously audio inserted in post-production rather than a reflection of people who were on-set. The title tries to faithfully reproduce the mockery of a trial where the guilt of the accused had already been determined, in a scenario that pitted personal Christian superstition against institutional Christian superstition, with further themes of hypocrisy, misogyny, and patriarchy - and in this case, we effectively watch it unfold with a laugh track. Well, that's unfortunate.

With the camera drawn back to give a more conventional perspective than the close-ups that Dreyer heavily employed thirty-four years prior, Bresson sagely dressed up his visual presentation with sets and costume design that's a bit more ornate and detailed than that primary point of comparison. Hats off to the crew, for everything down to the hair and makeup look swell. I'm also fond of Léonce-Henri Burel's cinematography, which comes across as rather smart from top to bottom. I don't think the performances here are anything especially noteworthy, but the assembled cast perform admirably to round out the feature. And still - I'm sorry, but I keep coming back to those sounds of the crowd. I told myself it wasn't a big deal, but I can't stop thinking about it and it's obviously more distracting than I even thought at first. I didn't want this to be my lasting impression of a Bresson film.

When all is said and done this is mostly well made and enjoyable. Broadly speaking it's just about as solid as one would suppose of so esteemed a filmmaker. Whether one is drawing comparison to prior treatments of Jeanne d'Arc, however, or to other works within Bresson's own oeuvre, I don't think 'Procès' is anything special, and it's maybe even a smidgen lesser than. By no means is this to say that it's bad, because that's certainly not true, but setting aside one distinct drawback, there's also nothing about this that really stands out. And there's nothing wrong with that! There's no rule that says every film has to be a singular stroke of brilliance. Still, unless you're a devotee of Bresson or a major history buff, I don't think this really demands viewership in any capacity. Either way it's worth checking out if you have the chance, but don't go out of your way for it.

Bresson at his most austere with a subject in keeping with that austerity, "The Trial of Joan of Arc" may lack the formal beauty of Dryer's film and Florence Delay may not be Falconetti but what Bresson's film has are Joan's words spoken directly from the manuscripts of the trial so this is probably as close we are likely to get to what actually happened.

Of course, with no wider backstory, other than what history has told us, it is difficult to place these events in a broader context which isn't to say the film doesn't work on its own terms. What we are seeing is a fragment of the tapestry rather than the tapestry itself while both Delay and Jean-Claude Fourneau as Bishop Cauchon are perfectly cast. Not one of Bresson's masterpieces, then, but quite extraordinary nevertheless.

This is the one Bresson allegedly made in response to Dreyer, though not sure if that was the real impetus or something said along the way to mark intentions. I can see how the project would appeal greatly to him; like his three previous ones, it's about an idealistic youth faced with a world that stifles the spirit. He must have felt it so apt that he could use actual transcripts of the trial kept by the notaries at Rouen.

He films the trial as a process of facts, no flourish allowed anywhere, sparse and all the other things you'll read in comments, and all this as asceticism that purifies the eye, or so it goes. Dreyer's Joan was assailed by passions so overwhelming they escaped the body to rend the cinematic air. Huge contrast with Bresson's who is stoic and dispassionate, the air is static, everything is kept in body.

One specific impetus behind the project I believe may hav been how to have the portrait of this woman, induce as much deliberate poverty of expression, and still give us a soul? He does it I think. He gives us a Joan who is indomitable, but also afraid, proud without losing her sweetness, glimmers of unsure innocence through the armor of god. He's gifted with a woman as marvelous as Dreyer had.

It was an ongoing project for Bresson that stretched back several films, he surpasses them here in complete austerity. He was probably a happy camper looking back.

But more than any individual film, it's his philosophy of purity that I feel is worth examining, and I'm in the middle of a few posts where I grapple with it. He was writing along the way a book that delineates this philosophy. It was seeing quotes from this book for years that prompted me to follow up on the films, it was something I've always had in the back of my mind tied to personal observations about emptiness and purity.

I won't have conclusions before Balthazar, which is next in line, and probably the one after, but there is something to say here.

We say that Bresson is pure, but if you look up close, there's a method. It's one of timing and blocking exact pieces, this extends from the camera to the actors, who become pieces to be moved. What he's doing is that he's taking the language of film and breaking it down to the most basic grammar. I see this as both an intellectually barren project to pick, why all your work will just be simplifying, and it sets you down a slippery slope where the only thing purer is is simple.

Bresson makes a lot out of the importance of stillness, but at the center I perceive another notion; he writes that he wants nothing false, nothing that the eye doesn't see. It's a grammarian's insistence on what is true, or seems so at this point, a dogmatist's claim on reality. How about all that we don't see but can feel move through us? He deliberately mutes this in the actors.

And in the film we have what? A young girl who is full of inner things she feels, god or madness it's the same courage for her, faced with a cadre of clerics who set out to disprove it all as impure, the devil's work. What's happening during the trial is that these dogmatists are trying to corner Joan into saying that she saw what the eye doesn't see, the abstract in the world of senses, which is what Bresson is working against.

(From a Christian view, it would be heretic to say that the divine was bound thus and so, and you were privy of that form)

Were the saints clothed? Did St. Catherine have her hair down?

Grammarians of spirituality.

Now the task is open. More interesting than the actual films for me is this battle in Bresson, between the grammarian of spirituality with his fixed notions on the divine and Joan who wants to preserve the truth of what she felt. Is the world full of presence? Balthazar is up next.