The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
Written by Joseph Delteil and Carl Theodor Dreyer
Directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer
How could a Dane make a film about Joan of Arc and do her story any justice? This was the sentiment of many French nationalists when Carl Theodor Dreyer was invited by the Société Générale des Films to make a film about the historical figure as her popularity resurged in the 1920s. Dreyer spent a year studying the transcripts of her trial before starting to write the script. He would cast Renée Jeanne Falconetti as Joan, an actress who never appeared in another film and died at age 54 by suicide. When it was released, various institutions deplored the picture. The French government censored it so as not to offend Catholics. It was banned in the U.K. due to its accurate depiction of English soldiers. Critics claimed it was a bore and gave it poor reviews. Yet, decades later, it is hailed as one of the greatest films ever made.
Joan of Arc (Falconetti) is captured after leading the French in numerous battles against the English. She’s brought to Rouen to stand trial before French clergy loyal to the English. Her claim this entire time has been that God spoke to her and sent her on this mission. Through her interrogation, the clergymen hope to get Joan to say something that shakes her belief and makes a mockery of her commitment to the cause. Only a couple present speak out in her favor, seeing her as authentic in her faith. Joan is unwavering, and so her accusers become increasingly more duplicitous and cruel in their attempts to break her. Over time, the young woman’s sanity is wholly broken until the monsters get what they want, and she is sacrificed.
Every aspect of this film production challenges our contemporary notions about cinema in this period. Based on years of hearing and reading about it, it’s a film that I thought I knew. I was utterly wrong, and it’s an instance of art not being something you can passively read someone’s accounting for and understand. You have to experience it for yourself. What struck me most about this film were the intense use of close-ups and Falconetti’s stunning performance in the lead role. It showcases what a profound director Carl Theodor Dryer was, making movies while the medium was still in its infancy. When the field before you is so vast and open, it makes sense to play it safe because you are overwhelmed with all the possibilities. Dryer does none of that and presents images that rival even today’s cinema.
Dreyer insisted on no make-up for his actors. That sounds like a daunting choice, given the proliferation of close-ups throughout the film. But it was the perfect choice. Joan of Arc and her story feel very distant from our own time. Humanizing her and the people around her is vital, which is achieved through this extremely naturalistic look. That is given a counterpoint with highly expressionist cinematography. It is through this combination of elements that Joan is illuminated. Her insanity is expressed in a manner that isn’t exploitative or mocking but deeply humanizing. Throughout her interrogation, she slips further and further into madness. She is brutalized in every manner imaginable as her captors are desperate to ruin her in the eyes of the people who follow.
I’m agnostic, nearing atheism, and so I don’t believe Joan’s story of a vision from God. However, that didn’t diminish how much I cared about her while watching this film. The men who lead her mockery of a trial are worse than a true believer. They are politicians using people’s trust in them through faith to push destructive and oppressive political agendas. Joan was a genuine challenge to their authority due to her gender, age, and physical appearance. The fact that she was so devout in her faith in the Christian God made her someone they had to destroy. It would have meant the end of their power if she had been allowed to flourish.
Joan doesn’t fight back at all. It could be easy to see the film as torture porn to some extent, but I think that is a lazy read of the picture. Joan’s faith leads her to be passive. She believes that God will save her and that if she does die, it is her God’s plan. To endure these tortures makes her more like Christ, in her opinion. This would only work with Falconetti’s revolutionary performance. There is such depth of character in her face. She doesn’t have to utter a word. She can stare off at some phantom point in the middle distance and tell a complete story through her eyes. Falconetti’s own experiences with mental illness informed her performance and led to why it is so profoundly moving.
The film would not have worked without Dreyer’s deep study of the court transcripts. This makes the film feel like a recreation of history but not something that keeps us at arm’s length. The history feels alive and present here. The lighting is used to create a grotesqueness to the faces of the men without dehumanizing them. It washes away any glamor that might have been associated with cinema or the rose-colored mythologizing of history and positions it as a medium for studying humans. We are appalled by the men who mock and physically torture Joan but also moved by the sad few who attempt to speak out on her behalf but are threatened into leaving.
This is a story about a hero who has been predetermined to lose. If Joan was to be found innocent, that means God is on the side of her and the French, not the English. Dreyer reveals religion for what it ultimately is in our time, a political tool. It might be practiced with authenticity in small, intimate settings, but on the scale of nations, it has little to do with humanity’s connection to any higher power. Religion at the state level becomes a means of associating the current regime with the culture’s deity. If you disobey me, the rulers say, you disobey your God.
If you have yet to see The Passion of Joan of Arc, please do. It is one of those films that will alter how you perceive cinema as an art form and a piece of history. The filmmakers of the early period were just as, if not more, mature & complex in their storytelling as anyone working today. This was my first Dreyer picture, making me eager to watch more of his work. These visuals are stunning and their influence can be felt in movies nearly a hundred years later.
PopCult Reviews 