Joan of Arc

Joan of Arc (Ingrid Bergman) receives messages from God that she is going to lead France against the British and restore the throne to the Dauphin (Jose Ferrer). She starts out on her mission and she succeeds. However, subsequent events conspire against her and she finds herself imprisoned where she is pressurized to renounce her visions... The problem with the film is that it is very staged. People deliver their lines and then we move on to the next scene. Its as if they are going through what they need to do and say - its not realistically executed. The cast of characters also becomes confusing. Its difficult to follow who is on who's side as the film simultaneously bores you so that you are not really interested in following the story. Ingrid Bergman is annoying as she is way too humble and full of religious clap-trap. She also looks out of place in her suit of armour leading the troops - rather like a Cyberman. I spent the film wishing that it would finish.

This movie is about the peasant girl who helped crown the Dauphin. If you are a history person, you'll notice that not everything that happened was in the film. Also, Ingrid Bergman made Joan seem somewhat annoying in this movie, she whines too much. But I think she fit this part well, plus most things in the movie were true. Again, this is a Hollywood film, so you can't always trust it as completely accurate.

Joan of Arc is perhaps Bergman's finest "high acting" performances. (Her greatest performance is still her "minimalist" performance in "Casablanca"). This is a better than good movie, but not great. With the cast, it should have been GREAT! It is, however, well worth seeing; Bergman is in fine form.

Ingrid Bergman plays Joan with such faith, and such dogged earnestness. And she was so beautiful. I, too, would have liked to have seen the massive amounts of footage cut from this film. I vaguely remember seeing this film on television when I was a small child. I couldn't understand why the Church would put a good person to death. It was some years later that I became aware of politics.

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

After what seems like gargantuan efforts to obtain the DVD and the necessary equipment I have finally managed to see the uncut version of Joan of Arc. I am thrilled with this new DVD and will add nothing further to the positive comments that have already been made. However I should like to pay particular tribute to the wonderful music of Hugo Friedhofer. Of course, for years I loved his score for 'The best years of your life' but in terms of writing for an earlier period I never regarded this composer is quite the same league as, say, William Walton, whose Shakespeare/ Olivier scores were so memorable. But I have been forced to revise my opinion. It was Max Reger who commented to the English composer Vaughan Williams: 'you have a veritable obsession with the flattened seventh' Well so, it seems does Mr Friedhofer! I suppose one either likes or loathes pastiche and modal writing. I adore it, and think that in Joan of Arc we get the best of both worlds. The music has a direct and powerful emotional appeal. It could scarcely fail to have. Yet given the fact that Friedhofer uses C20th conventions, harmonies, instruments and musicians, his 'nods' in the direction of C15th French church music are tastefully enough done for us to feel that such scenes as the coronation are, if not exactly in any sense 'authentic' then still marvellously effective. I should dearly love to know whether anyone has arranged the score into a suite of pieces and recorded it. That would be a rare treat. Perhaps some other readers can advise?

Spoilers herein. I wonder if there is anyone who can view this film with any sort of fondness today. Everything about it is false, with no element one can point to for relief. Yes it has Ingrid, but as wooden as a pike. Yes it has a powerhouse story, but rendered here lifeless. Even the Jovovich disaster had an energy and even mystery missing here. You can tell we are in trouble from the very first shot: actors acting actorly, staring into space. And that space is almost all painted backdrops. It may have seemed spectacular in its day. And thanks to the code, it may have even seemed a bit titillating (visions, sex, purity, death). But not now. Simply a disaster, and I'm talking about the 'fully restored' version here. Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

The only version I've seen of Joan of Arc is the VHS edited version. But what I saw convinced me that it was indeed a triumph for Ingrid Bergman. Unfortunately it had lousy timing in when it was released and poor editing that cut it to 100 minutes. Ingrid got her greatest stage reviews in this part and she does a grand job in playing the charismatic Maid of Orleans who rallied a nation with her simple faith and piety. This should really be seen in conjunction with Henry V either the Olivier or the Branagh version. Henry V is the 100 Years War from the English point of view, Joan of Arc is from the French. Henry V is also the prologue of the events leading up to Joan of Arc. Henry V has decimated the French army and has asserted his claim to the French throne as well as the English. He forced a treaty with the French, married the French princess and had the French king disinherit his son, the dauphin from the line of succession. Then Henry V died quite suddenly and his infant son Henry VI became the claimant to the French crown. All the politics surrounding that is dealt with in Shakespeare's Henry VI Part I. In the meantime the Dauphin is keeping up a rear guard action in exile. In this film he's played by Jose Ferrer in his screen debut. Ferrer captures the dauphin perfectly. Not exactly one of France's noblest kings, he's weak and unsure of himself. Still when Joan the Maid of Lorraine comes to him and convinces him of her sincereity, he believes in her. He's successful with Joan as a symbol at the head of his army and he starts taking back his kingdom, bit by bit. But Ferrer loses interest and signs a truce with the English. Joan keeps on fighting with some loyal followers and is captured by the nobles allied with the English. The high point of the film and her life is the trial where she is condemned as a witch and burned at the stake. Francis L. Sullivan plays Bishop Cauchon of Beauvais who does the dirty work for the English and he plays the part with relish. Did Joan really hear voices from on high and was actually divinely inspired? If you believe in results then yes she was. After she died she inspired a nation to revolt. By the end of the Dauphin's reign when he became King Charles VII the English were only controlling Calais and its suburbs. Poor Ingrid Bergman. The tabloids of the day did some job on her. As this film was in general release the scandal broke about her affair and the pregnancy resulting with Roberto Rosellini and the film tanked at the box office. Getting cast as a saint here and as a nun in The Bells of St. Mary's was just too much for the American public who back then really believed the images film stars conveyed. I'm glad this film is fully restored now. Hopefully we'll see it on DVD one day.

Bathed in colorful cinematography, pretty little Ingrid Bergman (as Jeanne d'Arc aka "Joan of Arc") looks divine in a 15th century French church. Her farming family frets about Ms. Bergman's preoccupation with prayer. However, Bergman has a more direct line to God than anyone knows. Inspired by her savior Jesus Christ, Bergman decides to go to fight the British occupiers of France. She also sets out to ensure God's chosen man is crowned King. People tell Bergman it is impossible, but she insists, "I must save France!" To enlist, Bergman disguises herself as a young lad. With a busty figure, make-up and cute new French haircut, the actress simply does not look like a boyish teenager. The miscasting could have been successfully addressed by sticking with the original stage version's "play within a play" format. It was about a troupe of actors dramatizing the heroine's life. The stage format allows more leeway in casting... The last film directed by Victor Fleming, "Joan of Arc" was elevated far above its worth by "Academy Awards" voters. It won three Oscars and was nominated for five more, including a notable one for supporting actor Jose Ferrer (as the Dauphin aka Charles) in his film debut. Unsatisfied by all the attention, producer Walter Wanger refused to accept his special award because the film failed to be nominated in the "Best Picture" category. "Joan of Arc" has been restored to its original epic length, which turns out to be a mixed blessing. **** Joan of Arc (11/11/48) Victor Fleming ~ Ingrid Bergman, Jose Ferrer, Francis L. Sullivan, J. Carrol Naish

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)