Tad Pole
. . . just happened? Why does writer\director Robert Bresson assume that he can dispense with a back story and an ending here? If a person hasn't aced Western Civilization recently or grown up in New Orleans (which has a statue of Joan somewhere), they probably won't know Joan of Arc from Joan Van Ark. This film--THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC--is based upon another French flick, the 1928 silent THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, but as a "talkie," it manages to tell a lot LESS of Joan's story than its predecessor. As "Joan" in THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC, Florence Delay seems much more happy-go-lucky than Melle Falconetti, who, as Joan, appears crazed and scared out of her skull in the earlier treatment, directed by Carl Dreyer. When it comes to saints, who can argue that crazy isn't better?
Magic Lamp
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.
Michael_Elliott
Proces de Jeanne d'Arc (1962) *** (out of 4) Robert Bresson's take on the legend and trial of Joan of Arc played here by Florence Delay. I should leave the comparisons to Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc out of it but I will say neither film really tells a good courtroom story. While this film is also visually less impressive it still manages to keep the viewers interests due in large part to the performance by Delay. It's pretty hard to take your eyes off of her and the actual story has always been an interesting one. The 65-minute running time goes by very quickly, which is the biggest bonus of the film. The film is nothing special and not really anything that should be searched out but it was still a good time killer.
Spleen
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.
AD
