Jeanne d'Arc

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]

Good editing always improves the rough vision of the accumulated daily takes. Chopping the heart out of a completed film, however, should simply be a hanging offense.

The original 1948 Joan of Arc at 145 minutes is magnificent. The 100-minute version that's been foisted off on the USA buying public is below mediocre. Key scenes were deleted wholesale with no regard to continuity or development.

The only enjoyment from the severely and amateurishly edited version is to see Ingrid Bergman do what she does best. But only if you have seen the original version can this chopped and cropped semi-copy have any marginal value.

Check the specifications on any version you are tempted to buy. If the running time is 100 minutes, don't bother. Some European versions are longer at 125 and 133 minutes. Hopefully, someone will offer this masterpiece in a full 145 minute DVD version

This Ingrid Bergman film was so under-rated. She put her heart and soul into acting the part of her great heroine and then the film was not only slated at the box office but horrendously cut when issued for television and on video. WHY?????? We know it didn't do well at the box office, because of the circumstances of Ingrid's private life in 1949 and 1950 - sadly, Hollywood and the whole world judged this lovely lady and they shouldn't judge anyone, ever!!! Miss Bergman was a lady and a great actress. But why was the film cut for video? The cut version, with silly voice overs and maps, is not one iota as good as the full version, where we see the young Joan and her experiences of her voices and also have a fuller version of the trial - where her acting is nothing short of brilliant. I hope someone who is able to influence the issuing of the entire film on DVD reads this comment! Mary

"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.

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)