MovieChat Forums > Joan of Arc (1948) Discussion > Entertaining but not a classic

Entertaining but not a classic

posted 20 years ago by Antoine Tremblay
10 replies | jump to latest

I just spend the whole afternoon watching the wonderful 144 version of this film on DVD. They really did a great job remastering this film. For a long time, critics and film fans have panned this movie for no good reasons. The version that most people saw was a cut one, give Fleming's film a second chance with the new DVD. This being said, let's cut to the chase, Ingrid Bergman gives one of her most passionate and sincere role here. She is radiant as always, they truly did a great job by creating this luminous light upon her. She is by far the high point of this movie, she carries it even in some of the most dullest moments.

While I know that this is an adaptation of a stageplay, the film was too stagy at some points. What I did like was the beautiful cinematography, some of the imagery was astonishing. An entertaining film with a luminous and talented Bergman. While far from a classic film, Joan of Arc is a good movie to watch on a rainy day afternoon. 7 out of 10.

[–] prjdean 20 years ago

Antoine - nice to see someone else who appreciates this classic Bergman performance and the underrated film it's in. I waited for about six years after UCLA archives restored it in 1998 - either for a local presentation in Chicago (preferable) or a dvd release. Image did a nice job but it is a bare bones edition. UCLA has a bunch of fascinating material on the film, including various cuts (one is a 50s widescreen version) which should have been included. And there is more that could have been added- why not have her daughters do a commentary(Pia Lindstrom was a young girl when her mother made this)? And there was an extensive and quite beautiful publicity campaign for it(including a comic book version). But Im grateful it was at least released. The one thing I was struck by was that even at its restored length(145 min) it seems to be too short. Some well known actors such as Ward Bond, Hurd Hatfield , Rand Brooks, etc., seem underutilized, or in Brooks' case( as Joan's brother )barely onscreen. I have a gut feeling Victor Fleming's original cut was at least three hours or more. Whether such a version was ever publicly shown I doubt. This version though quite good has continuity problems and seems a bit choppy even now. I think Fleming saw this as on the scale of another Gone With The Wind(check out those great opening credits). But he may have been forced to cut it to a more marketable length.

[–] prjdean 15 years ago

why isn't this movie better remembered?

maybe because the uncut version has never been televised?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fivefids 14 years ago

If you believe the gospels (four books with unknown authors), what Frantique Fromage claims is absolutely true and what you claim is true too.

[–] rgcustomer 14 years ago

The reason I liked this film was that, unlike some of the other films on this subject, it made almost no attempt to show that Joan was actually hearing the voices of saints or god or angels. Indeed, it wonderfully shows the folly of religion, essentially a cover for politics and madness, that people may gladly go to their deaths for it. It should be required viewing.

[–] ilahilda 10 years ago

I didn't know Joan had options before her demise.

[–] momurr43 9 years ago

Joan put her life hazardously at risk by leading armies into battle without having had any military training - and also by possibly carrying nothing but a banner. (She claimed that she never killed anyone in battle. Not only did she not want to but she probably couldn't, because she may have been unarmed.) But, like some other deluded religious figures - think of the 'Children's Crusade' of 1212 - she probably thought that she was invulnerable.

But then again, what decent human being today would not want to rescue her from the stake? She was surrounded by people more deserving of inflammation. (Shakespeare's - or Thomas Nashe's - depiction of her as a witch complete with demons in "1 Henry VI" was disgraceful, but don't overlook the atheist G B Shaw's very sympathetic treatment of her in "Saint Joan".)

There is something very loveable and very admirable about this tragic nineteen-year-old girl. She was an extraordinary person, so much so that it can be difficult to believe that she was real. There are many 'skeptics' who would deny that she ever existed if there weren't so much solid historical evidence that she did. She would be regarded by them as a myth rather than a legend. In that, she wouldn't be unique.