The Passion of movie discussion

CineVerse members got a chance to see what all the fuss was about yesterday by viewing "The Passion of Joan of Arc," which is ranked high among the greatest films of all time. Here's a recap of our major discussion points:

WHAT IS MEMORABLE AND DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS FILM THAT DEFIED YOUR EXPECTATIONS?

·       It’s shot primarily in close up, with very few medium or long shots: for about 80% of the movie, we see a face in tight close up

·       It chooses to focus not on Joan’s military exploits or earlier backstory, but only on her trial, torture and execution

·       The actresses’ face is a blank canvas in that we’ve never seen her prior or since; this was her only cinematic performance, so she brings no baggage of other roles with her to this film, and neither do we

·       The film is shot less like a conventional film and more like a stage play, with five acts as a classical tragedy would have: each act, corresponding with a different reel of edited final film, occurs within a singular setting (e.g., act one takes place entirely in the courtroom)

·       The film plumbs real emotions and aims for realism in acting and dialogue, yet the sets, camera angles and editing are very stylistic and offbeat; Dreyer demanded realism in terms of having his actual actors cut their hair and maintain short hair throughout the long production schedule, and actually had a stand-in for Renee Falconetti endure the bloodletting, which was real, not an effect; the sets were designed by the same man who created the masterpiece of German Expressionism, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari;

WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT THE SHOT SELECTIONS, FRAMING/COMPOSITIONS, AND EDITING?

·       There are no establishing shots; close-ups and medium shots dominate; why frame this way?

o   To create an emotional and often unsettling intimacy with the subjects, and to evoke a claustrophobic visual mood and tone; Joan is also almost always isolated from any other people and the lone face in most of her shots, suggesting how alone and persecuted she is

·       Dreyer also avoids detailed scenery, elaborate costumes and harmonious spatial arrangements; why?

o   The filmmakers wanted to stay away from the expected look of an historical drama or biopic and disorient the viewer with more exaggerated, expressive sets and compositions

o   He also aimed for no sense of context: this story could have been set anywhere at any time (even though the story actually takes place in the 1400s; interestingly, one of the judges uses 20^th century eyeglasses, another clue that Dreyer was not aiming for realism or period accuracy)

·       The juxtapositions of shots depicting Joan and her captors actually doesn’t allow the viewer to identify with Joan, because we aren’t given many point of view shots of what she sees (the proof of this is that the camera is closer to her captors than she actually is); the filmmakers avoid the traditional shot-reverse shot sequence and order

·       According to film scholar David Bordwell: “Of the film’s over 1,500 cuts, fewer than 30 carry a figure or object over from one shot to another, and fewer than 15 constitute genuine matches on action”. Roger Ebert interpreted this as such: “There is a language of shooting and editing that we subconsciously expect at the movies. We assume that if 2 people are talking, the cuts will make it seem that they are looking at one another. We assume that if a judge is questioning a defendant, the camera placement and editing will make it clear where they stand in relation to one another. If we see 3 people in a room, we expect to be able to say how they are arranged and which is closest to the camera. Almost all such visual cues are missing from (this film).”

·       The film uses canted angles and curious compositions occasionally, such as when 3 inquisitors heads appear in the same frame, appearing as if stacked on top of one another

·       Joan is set against a more stark white plain background, perhaps underscoring her purity and innocence; she’s also shot with a subdued gray palette vs. the blacks and whites of the shots featuring the inquisitors, whose faces have no makeup and appear blemished so that the topography of their skin stands out in all its ugliness

·       The movie also uses startling images such as a building that seems to be moving (created by using a swinging camera) and an upside down and backward shot of the soldiers

THIS FILM IS NOT A BIOPIC OR AN HISTORICAL COSTUME/PERIOD DRAMA, OR A SOUP-TO-NUTS RE-ENACTMENT OF JOAN’S MAJOR EXPLOITS; SO WHAT’S THE POINT HERE? WHY MAKE THIS KIND OF FILM? WHAT KIND OF REACTION AND EFFECT WERE THE FILMAKERS TRYING TO GET OUT OF THEIR AUDIENCE?

·       Perhaps this was an attempt to humanize Joan; to strip away the myths behind the larger-than-life figure and simply show how a human being acts and responds when pushed to the absolute brink; in the way it is shot and edited, the film is meant to evoke extreme sympathy for this human being, despite the fact that she’s a French patron saint and religious martyr

·       Arguably, the filmmakers weren’t trying to preach or prosiletize or hammer home any religious or spiritual agenda; if so, they would have probably depicted the divine visions she claims to have seen and heard, such as we are shown in Biblical films like The Ten Commandments

OTHER WORKS BY CARL THEODOR DRYER

·       Ordet

·       Day of Wrath

·       Vampyr

·       Gertrud

OTHER MOVIES THAT REMIND YOU OF THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC:

·       The Song of Bernadette

·       The Trial of Joan of Arc (1962, by Robert Bresson)

·       The Messenger

·       The Passion of the Christ

·       The Trial