Jeanne d'Arc

For 1900, this is an epic in many respects: its sheer length (10 minutes), the mythical/historical subject, and number of sets (12). It also attempts to seem like a cast of hundreds by having its actors parade across the screen, then circle back off-screen and parade by again. Obviously when viewed today, this kind of scene is pedestrian (no pun intended) and lacks the impact it may have had at the time. Overall, it's also a pretty straightforward depiction of the story of Joan of Arc, simply marching through chapters of her life in long shot. Perhaps this film and the many other representations of her in the arts played a role in getting Joan of Arc sanctified twenty years later. Regardless, the real miracle is how old this film is, and the fact that it survives.

It's only befitting that one of the most venerable pioneers of French cinema should have addressed himself to portraying one of his nation's great national heroines. By some miracle his version has survived complete with the original tinting.

As usual with Melies the characters saunter back and forth with little sense of urgency before finally engaging the English, while Joan herself is depicted playing no part in the hostilities, her hair for once not shorn.

During her trial the use of tinting adds emphasis to the brazier containing hot coals soon to be applied by a torturer dressed in satanic red prior to her final burning at the stake.

In the history of films, there's a lot of debate about which film was the first full-length movie. During the 1890s and into the 1900s, films were generally one to three minutes in length. Sometime in the early 20th century, the first full-length movie was made...but which one was the first? And, most importantly, what constitutes full-length? I've seen some say that Georges Méliès' "The Trip to the Moon" was the first while others say "The Great Train Robbery". Well, the answer's not that easy. Both these films were less than 20 minutes in length (which is still pretty short) and Georges Méliès' "Joan of Arc" was eat least as long as his "The Trip to the Moon" which he made two years LATER. As for me, I have no idea...but I do know that soon after these three films, Italian filmmakers were making films of over an hour in length.

This story of the life of Joan of Arc is missing a few portions but as is, it clocks in at about 10-11 minutes. I say 'about' because film length is hard to determine for silents as the cranking speed of the cameraman determined how long the film lasted...there was no standard like today's 24 frames per second. But what remains is very nice--with lots of sets, lots of great costumes and many sequences which are hand-colored. It really is an amazing film for 1900...far ahead of its time....and telling a complex story, unlike 99% of the other films from 1900. Sure, it's all a bit stagy and sets are much like those you'd see in a play...but still, for 1900 it was something! In fact, when you see it today, it still impresses.

Joan Of Arc (1900)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

aka Jeanne d'Arc

Breathtaking version of the classic story tells the life and death of the one and only Joan of Arc. This film is unique for many different reasons including the fact that it runs ten minutes long, which certainly wasn't common for the day. Another unique factor is that the entire film was hand colored and this is where the true beauty of the movie comes into play. The colors of the film are downright brilliantly done and makes other color films from this period look quite poor. The red colors of the dresses and the bright lime colors are beautiful to look at. The story is also told through narration and this is another plus as it's able to tell us a lot about what we're watching and it also points out the various roles being played by Melies. This film holds up incredibly well today and is one that would probably be enjoyed by plenty of kids who wouldn't normally watch a film from 1900.

This is not a bad quick version of the story of Joan of Arc. The colouring is nice, acting pretty good but I felt there was too much of Melies' style in this film that I felt I was watching a fairy-tale instead of a historical piece.

7.5/10