Jeanne la Pucelle I - Les batailles

The one and the only Joan of Arc of the movie world is Renée Falconetti, from the 1928 silent film of Carl Dreyer. I don't give credit to Jean Seberg in Preminger film, and to Ingrid Bergman, both in Fleming and Rosselini movies. One pretty good Joan of Arc movie was a French TV Movie of 1989 : Jeanne d'Arc: le pouvoir et l'innocence (it is not listed on IMDB!) featuring Cécile Magnet. And please, I don't want to think of that ugly 1999 film by Luc Besson. And here comes veteran Jacques Rivette, with this two part production of 1994. As many viewers have pointed out, it is very strong on an historical point of view. Sandrine Bonnaire is also very good, especially in the second part. But, like most of the Rivette's movies, it is too long. I know that it is his style, but sometimes, it's a little bit boring (like the crowning of the dauphin.) And everybody knows that the real Joan of Arc was a teenager. Everybody knows it, except movie directors. Sandrine Bonnaire is in her mid thirties! Why not take a younger actress? I think, for this film, that young very good actress like Marie Gillian or Élodie Bouchez (I love you, Élodie!) could have been more realistic. I don't mean to say that miss Bonnaire is bad, but it should be more realistic with a younger actress. There is also a sense of respecting the language of the priest, of the dauphin, but some soldiers talks a lousy 20th century french, which sounds very strange in this movie. One says : J'en ai plein l'cul (which means : My ass!) - oups! sorry! - and another says : J'vais t'casser la gueule = I'm gonna knock you out. Oh yeah? Really? In 1429? Despites these little annoying facts, I still think of the film as one of the best Joan of Arc movies of all time.

In the November 15th 1999 issue of "The New Yorker," Joan Acocella called Rivette's "Joan the Maid Parts 1 and 2" "the best Joan of Arc movie ever made." I couldn't agree with her more. It's also the most historically accurate to date. The scenes and dialogue are taken practically word for word from primary source accounts made by her contemporaries. Unlike Hollywood's big-budget Joan of Arc "epics," Rivette's film is modestly low-budget, but its simplicity makes it all the more charming. It focuses on the character of this extraordinary 15th century woman rather than the big battle spectacles. As "Sight and Sound" magazine put it, "Rivette takes us not onto the stage of history but backstage -- to its green room." I found Sandrine Bonnaire's performance very moving. Most film portrayals of Joan of Arc fail what I call the essential "leadership test." (Would anyone follow Milla Jovovich's Joan of Arc into battle? We'd sooner put her in a padded cell.) But Sandrine Bonnaire portrays Joan as an intelligent, confident young woman that anyone would follow. She charms the audience as much as the real Joan charmed her countrymen.

This is "realism"? If Rivette was seeking to give us a ground-level study of a woman in a certain place and time and how she was able to influence (and was influenced by) the world around her, he has failed miserably. Most prominently because we never get a clue as to why thousands of men would have followed her into battle. There is certainly not enough exposition of the cultural/historical context to define the country's need for such a savior and, god knows, there is nothing particularly charismatic about Joan as she is presented here. Unless Bonnaire's wooden posturing and flat line readings are supposed to indicate transcendent faith and determination. The use of landscape is particularly uninspired - we never lose the feeling we are watching twentieth century actors wandering in a supposedly medieval landscape. And as for the battle scenes (which, in contrast to some commentors claims, do take up a good 15% of screentime)- they look like look like some some History Club from your local high school recreating a medieval siege, although the kids would no doubt put more passion into it. I will give Rivette credit, however, for picturing a side of Joan left out by other movies: that of a petulant, naive, and narcissistic adolescent (played by a woman all too clearly at least twice the age of the character she is supposed to portray) obviously unable to understand her place within the movement she is helping to create or the world existing outside her own passions. Joan's outrage at her own soldiers swearing and astonishment at the enemy for their lack of respect and obedience to her are jarringly spontaneous and believable notes (you suddenly realize such moments must naturally have occurred)in an otherwise uninvolving historical "representation". Unfortunately they also serve to point out precisely what is not addressed on screen -what made Joan SPECIAL? I must say I also continued to be puzzled and frustrated by certain foreign film lovers who equate tedium and lack of dramatic involvement with "artistry" and "seriousness". Does this film really increase our understanding or involvement with the subject? Or with anything for that matter? 4/10.

I found the performance flawless and would endorse it to any of my students, especially those of french history. The way in which the battles were portrayed on such a low budget would make any film fan proud. The mild problems in French English can be overlooked, and all I see is a wonderful performance by a gifted actress. The artillery fire was a bit drawn out, and some of the special effects teams may want to take a lesson in CG, and I found just two sound effects which were taken off Casablanca, perhaps as an omage. The cannons I can say were somewhat out of era, as the "le swine, Dvallalle models were not in production for another 15 years, and some of the long shots displayed these inaccuracies. Overall a great film.