| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
 Posted - 05/05/2011 : 01:41:49
|
And so to the third instalment of our fledgling 'Four Word Film Review' Movie Viewing Club... a little later than planned... mea culpa. 
From an idea originally suggested by TitanPa, we will choose, view and discuss a new film twice a month - with each new round beginning on the 1st and the 15th.
Everyone is welcome to contribute if you have seen the film in question, and all the better if you have recently seen or have recently rewatched the film. With all films chosen up to a month in advance it will allow those interested in contributing to source and view the film in question, either bought, rented or borrowed on DVD; through a subscription service or simply viewed online. You are also welcome to comment on any previous rounds.
Each film is chosen by fwiffers in the order of initial interest shown on the discussion thread here. If you want to select a future title simply express interest on the thread linked above or drop me a message and I'll add it to the list.
The current line up is as follows:
01.04.11 - TitanPa - TEETH (2007)
15.04.11 - GHCool - DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)
01.05.11 - demonic - THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (1928)
15.05.11 - Se�n - MONSTURD (2003)
01.06.11 - benj clews
15.06.11 - bife
01.07.11 - Cheese Ed
15.07.11 - [matt]
01.08.11 - wildheartlivie
15.08.11 - ChocolateLady
01.09.11 - BaftaBabe
15.09.11 - Tori
01.10.11 - Randall
There's no commitment to watching and commenting on every movie in every round, but all reviews, comments and contributions will be very welcome from all comers. It goes without saying these threads will be a spoiler heavy area, and anyone reading posts before viewing the film in question should be fully aware of this.
------------------------------------------
The film under discussion for MVC #3 is "The Passion of Joan of Arc", the silent classic from 1928 directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer and starring Maria Falconetti in the title role. Let the trial begin. |
Edited by - demonic on 05/05/2011 01:47:46 |
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 05/05/2011 : 03:02:02
|
Because this post is late, and because it was my choice of film I feel I should get cracking immediately and offer my thoughts.
As I mentioned on the discussion thread this is a film I only saw for the first time in recent months and made a big impression on me; since then I've been recommending it to all my friends interested in film, and last week I got to see it screened in London with a new score by Will Gregory of Goldfrapp and Adrian Utley of Portishead - two bands I have a great deal of time for. It was a brilliant evening - unquestionably enhanced by their music which included nine superb singers, two harpists and six electric guitarists; a powerful, sometimes violent score that still managed to complement and not detract from the power of the images.
So why this film? I've been watching a fair amount of classic and early cinema in recent years filling in yawning gaps in my film knowledge and found I had a particular fascination for the films of the teens, 20s and 30s when the medium was still in its infancy but managing to produce films of great beauty and justify the medium as a serious artform. I'd seen many of the silent classics... some interesting antiques, some still good films, a handful great... but all pale in my estimation before Dreyer's film of the trial and execution of Joan of Arc.
The story behind the film is fascinating in itself - apparently the original cut was lost in a fire forcing Dreyer to recut the entire film from alternate, previously disregarded takes. This seems almost impossible to believe given the quality of the film that we have - was the original cut genuinely better? Or were we fortunate that the leftovers align so perfectly with what we now perceive as quality film-making? Because this is what floored me when I first saw it... it's staggering to think that this was a film made in 1928 at all. The camera work and the acting are so beyond anything else seen in the cinema of the era, so modern, that you would be forgiven for thinking you were watching a film made thirty years later. It's that good. Watching "Sunrise", made a year earlier, or "The Wind" from the same year I simply can't equate them. Those two examples are like watching films made my talented amateurs - basic stories, simple camera angles, early special effects, theatrical acting in an extremely broad, melodramatic style usually accompanied by a great deal of powder and heavy mascara (notably the men). This was how I perceived the silent movie style - and it's a style I like and have enjoyed - particularly in the darker films of the era - Chaney's "Phantom of the Opera" or "The Man Who Laughs". But "The Passion" is something else entirely... shot with dramatic, off-kilter camera angles like the German Expressionists, but with extraordinary fluidity and attention to the performances, a psychological complexity and a story that encompasses political, spiritual and personal upheaval and most strikingly - naturalistic and deeply felt performances shot almost exclusively in close-up with no make up.
Maria Falconetti, so the story goes, was first seen by Dreyer on the stage in a comedy - the genre she was best known for in France. In her only screen role she is simply stunning, a revelation. I've read that her Joan is considered one of the finest screen performances ever seen and I don't think that's a million miles off the truth. She utterly inhabits the role and is genuinely gripping, fascinating and heartbreaking. It must be the first time in the history of cinema that an actor is seen emotionally living a role so fearlessly and completely. Her performance literally takes my breath away. She's surrounded by a superb array of characters as well - all chosen it seems to best reflect the inner vileness of her persecutors, all fine actors themselves - deeply lined, warty, corpulent, sneering... one even with two locks of hair twisted into little horns; a lovely touch. All make a terrific contrast to the sad, beautiful, sometimes hopeless, sometimes joyous features of Falconetti. She experiences practically every human emotion in the film and we experience them with her. The close-up is the key of course - every nuance of her performance is captured, with great care, and the overall effect is one of claustrophobia - like Joan there's no escaping from the huge faces bearing down on her from all sides. It's smart film-making - the form matches and enhances the content.
It's also quite shocking - again, not really something I was expecting from a silent - Dreyer pierces an arm (not Falconetti's - she probably had enough on her plate as it was) to show a fairly graphic blood-letting, and a real dead body was burnt at the stake for the sake of authenticity. That image is incredibly powerful, underlined by the violent riot scenes that close the film.
The first watch - on Youtube with the now standard "Voices of Light" soundtrack - I was left with a sensation of the futility of Joan's belief. This exceptionally brave 19 year old peasant girl who lead armies to victory burns at the stake for refusing to renounce her visions of angels. It's worth pointing out that I am an atheist, so not a surprise that fervent belief to the point of martyrdom is not something I particularly empathize with. However this last time, in the cinema, I had a change of perspective and saw more of the great beauty in Joan's personal sacrifice - the willingness to die to be true to herself no matter the consequence was something that stayed with me. I can't wait to watch it again. In a very short space of time I've come to consider "Joan" to be a favourite film. I honestly think it's one of the best films ever made. |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 05/06/2011 : 22:55:56
|
I've never met anyone who's seen this film and not been totally blown away by it. As dem and many have pointed out, any atheist viewers are as affected by the film's overwhelming power as are religious believers.
Dryer's own beliefs were guessed at, but I don't think he ever stated them. It's well known that as an illegitimate child adopted by strict and dour parents, his formative years were spent in a poisonous atmosphere of repression.
This film is his greatest expression of all that mouldering emotion. As Shakespeare says: lillies that fester smell far worse than weeds. And Dreyer was fascinated by the way the purest of beliefs and the most opulent feelings become rancid when they're shut off from freedom.
We mustn't forget, either, that the Passion of the title refers not to lust or desire, but to the suffering of Christ as related by the same gory telling that fuelled Mel Gibson's equally disturbing and controversial film.
But it's a different comparison that this film always brings to mind for me. In the early 1960s teens and young adults were lapping up the heady cultural cream pouring into the streets and cinemas and clubs of Greenwich Village. In 1962 the buzz was all about Robert Bresson and his film The Trial of Joan of Arc.
At a running time of just about an hour - nearly half that of Dreyer's film - but shot, like Dreyer's, in black and white, and emulating his choice of camera angles, it wasn't so much how similar the two films were, but who the hell was Dreyer and why hadn't we seen his films.
Several movie theaters of the time were the meccas for both our genuine and pretentious cine-tastes: The Bleecker Street Cinema, the Museum of Modern Art's basement screening room, and our uptown trip to cine heaven, the Thalia. Before too long we had seen for the first time The Passion of J-of-A.
Neither Dreyer nor Bresson actually cherished actors, famously putting them through mini-tortures for the effect to be created in the editing. In Dreyer's case the irony is significant. He ran for most of his life to escape tyranny of one sort or another, and then used the tools of tyranny to shape what has been rightly praised as one of the most influential films of all time.
The mise en scene itself reflects his control of our vision, of our attention, and shapes our thoughts about the meaning of every shot. Because he chooses his narrative as a series of close-ups and very personal p.o.v.s he drags us willing or not into Joan's fate. He almost casts each and every one of us as Joan.
Of course, the woman he did cast was the amazing Falconetti. There is no disguising her other kind of passion in this performance of a lifetime. Dreyer may have believed her onscreen presence was entirely his creation, but that's to misunderstand her total identification with a teenager driven by a complexity of fervor. It's the same pure passion demanded by Shakespeare of Juliet who will willingly die for love, or the tortured passion of Lady Macbeth willing to taste the flames of hell for her beloved husband.
I totally agree with dem that this is modern filmmaking - well, let's say it's timeless filmmaking. Because if it's buried in a time capsule and shot off into space and discovered some thousands and thousands of Dr Who years later - everyone who sees it will be as entranced as WALL-E is at seeing that musical.
Thanks, dem, for giving us a chance to revisit this masterpiece.
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 05/06/2011 22:57:48 |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/14/2011 : 23:57:17
|
It's been at the top of my queue for two weeks now, listed as low availability, so I'll have to be patient... 
I guess I'll be late on this one, but definitely will watch it. If it doesn't turn up in a week or two I guess I'll just ILLEGALLY DOWNLOAD IT. 
|
Edited by - Sean on 05/14/2011 23:59:47 |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 05/15/2011 : 00:01:42
|
| Sorry I didn't get a chance to watch this. It looks great and I will eventually, but I've been swamped lately. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 13:31:02
|
OK I saw it (DVD arrived).  It's 12.30am so will report back tomorrow.
Edit: OK, I guess I wasn't quite as enthralled as others, but it's pretty impressive. The things that stood out:-
- Flawless editing: Plenty of movies from this era are rather clunky; not this one. As has been pointed out it's very competent and 'modern' in it's seamless flow.
- Camera angles: Used to show the vulnerability of the protagonist and position of power/domination of the inquisitors; again it's very modern in it's usage.
- Emphasis on characters rather than events.
- Characters looked 'normal'; not the eye-shadow-laden drag queens common from this era.
I also liked the fact that Jeannne's history (as a battle queen) and the political reasons for her prosecution (a secular agenda in the guise of an ecclesiastical trial) were essentially ignored. It was all about a strong-willed but vulnerable young woman and how she coped with the show trial she found herself a part of.
One of my favourites from the silent era.
8/10
|
Edited by - Sean on 05/27/2011 00:07:54 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 05/29/2011 : 23:29:26
|
Hey, 8/10 for a film you weren't enthralled by is pretty good going in my book.
Interesting to point out I went to see another silent classic being screened in London last week with a live piano score - "Pandora's Box" from 1929. This is the perfect example of how virtually all silent film was decades behind Dreyer. I watched both with a busy, appreciate movie savvy crowd - but the difference was obvious. The audience were laughing regularly at the preposterous acting style; the bizarre facial expressions being employed to express emotion, the clumsy editing that made whole scenes disjointed, not to mention the comically implausible melodrama of the plot. It did look extremely stylish - particularly foggy London in the ninth (..another groan went up..) act - and Louise Brooks was a great beauty and very watchable. But comparatively? They're worlds apart. I'm going to watch some more Dreyer to see if "Joan" was a fluke, or I was just won over by the quality of Falconetti et al.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
MVC #3 - The Passion Of Joan of Arc
