Reviews & Ratings for
The Trial of Joan of Arc More at IMDbPro »Procès de Jeanne d'Arc (original title)

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

23 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
A minor work from a sleeping giant which oozes quality and demands respect., 25 January 2002

Author: Wilbur-10 from London

To appreciate this film you have to be a supporter of the 'Less is More' school of thought. Bresson presents the viewer with a stark, simple story, employing virtually no cinema devices at all - whilst 'Trial of Joan of Arc' isn't one of his best known efforts, it bears all the hallmarks of being touched by genius.

With a running time of just over an hour, the film covers the trial of the famous French heroine, the script solely based on the historical notes from the trial itself. As usual with Bresson, the cast is made up of non-actors who prove that simple delivery of potent narrative is more than convincing.

The actress who plays Joan, Florence Delay, is superb and stunningly attractive - on watching the film I assumed she was a major star of 1960's French cinema, rather than an unknown in her first ( and last?? ) role. The film concentrates so much on her character that she has to be convincing - every word she delivers has an edge to it and you can truly believe that here was a teenage girl who had an inner strength which entire armies would follow.

Everything which is good in foreign films is encapsulated here - the simple approach, the dialogue, the static camera and the realism which combine together as a piece of cinematic art. Bresson's next film was the highly praised 'Au Hasard Balthazar'(1966), which continued the themes of quiet dignity and immense power within a basic framework.

17 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Form & Content, 21 September 1999
Author: Tom Newth from London, England

Bresson's film is quite extraordinary. An entirely static camera, a repertoire of what seems like only a handful of angles, and no music save the unnerving thumping of medieval drums at the beginning and end, all add up to a form restrained to the point of stasis. The movement of the film comes entirely from the words and from the faces. And from the rigorous choice of those few camera angles. It is a moot point as to whether or not it is relevant that the script is composed almost entirely of transcripts from the actual trial. However, the viewer armed with this knowledge must surely be privy to an extraordinary sense of time-travel - a restrained, respectful and highly spiritual journey back into the "dark ages". There is necessarily an inescapable sense of people hundreds of years dead speaking through the mouths of the (non-professional) actors, whose limited but affecting range fits perfectly with the curious juxtaposition of past and present, of cinema and grace.

As has been pointed out many times before, one of the primary differences between Bresson's film and Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc is in their formal delineation between good and evil; where Dreyer uses light and shadow to point up the difference, in the Bresson film the contrast is more subtle, resting, it would seem, mainly on the fact that the Bishop Cauchon is shut exclusively head on, whilst Jeanne commands a variety of oblique camera angles. But the subtlety of the camera also brings out a fantastic sense of time, space, and place. The numerous close-ups of period shoes are all we need to have the era set firmly in our minds; the medium-shots - and complete absence of anything like a long shot - simultaneously reinforce the claustrophobia of Jeanne's predicament, and focus our attention on her, and that which falls under her gaze. The one notable exception to this is the short series of shots while she burns on the pyre, of the white doves fluttering above the canvas awning, suitable parallels with the absent characters of the Saints Catharine and Margaret, whose presence is felt and whose names recur throughout the trial. A simple film, formally, perhaps, but only in the sense that everything is pared down to a minimum, and the choices are only made with the greatest of care and most rigorous of logic. The words and the faces do not need embellishment. They need attention and simplicity, in the same way that the words uttered by the real Joan of Arc are simple and unadorned. A masterful marriage of form and content.

16 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
Saint or terrorist?, 31 December 2003

Author: gray4 from Somerset, England

A superb demonstration of Bresson's talent as one of the last century's greatest film-makers. It is a short film, set minimally in a courtroom, then Joan's cell and finally, with immense power, at the stake. The actors are amateurs, as usual with Bresson, but the message they convey is universal - and as relevant to the 21st century as to the 15th century, when the events, realistically described in the film from court texts, took place.

Was Joan really a freedom-fighter and a saint, receiving messages from God through her saintly visions? Or was she a 15th century terrorist, opposing both the power of the English occupying army and the tenets of the Catholic Church and its bishops? As the trial is enacted, there are no obvious villains - not even the English officer representing the occupying secular power. And Joan needs to be discreetly prompted by a white-clad priest, whose motives are obscure, casting some doubts on the certainties of her visions. The triumph of the director and the actors is that you feel that the viewer is totally involved in the interactions - and I had to rush to the history books to learn more about the main characters as soon as the film finished.

11 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
This is far from Bresson's best work., 4 December 2006

Author: zetes from Saint Paul, MN

The director's signature style adds pretty much nothing to the story, the subject of one of the greatest works of cinema, Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc. If you don't like Dreyer's melodramatics – and that famous silent is indeed enormously melodramatic – then maybe Bresson's toned down version will work for you. But, really, most of the film consists of long, dry scenes of question and answer sessions between Joan and her judges. It only runs just over an hour, but a lot of it feels like a chore. It's not a worthless film, of course. Once in a while Bresson captures a powerful image. I loved the shots of Joan through the peephole, as well as the reverse shots of the Englishmen staring through it. And the final sequence, Joan's ascension to the stake, is as powerful as anything in the Dreyer film (although I usually list The Passion of Joan of Arc among my ten favorite films, I will admit that he missteps during the final sequence with that historically inaccurate riot and the Eisensteinian moments that ensue), and as good as anything else Bresson has made. Also, Florence Delay, who plays Joan, could be mentioned next to Falconetti without embarrassment. She is exceptional.

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
The one Bresson film you need not see, 29 December 2008

Author: m-vinteuil from New Zealand

Robert Bresson apparently detested Carl Dreyer's Jeanne d'Arc Passion play, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, for "grotesque buffooneries", and one would also assume, overt melodrama. With a such a prompt dismissal, Bresson acted as though the 1928 silent film never existed. And with a cast of non-thespians dusted off Jeanne's trial transcripts for a subdued and downplayed retread. As melodrama would seem fitting the story of a young woman imprisoned and confronted with the omnipresent threat of torture, rape and execution, Bresson felt that the French national icon was instead stoic and self-assured of moral victory.

In the performances there is little to give away character thought processes and motivations, particularly from the English actors playing the guards. The additions to the script now have protagonists stating aloud what they intend to do next. And whether it was on Bresson's insistence to avoid melodrama, or the non-professional nature of the cast, those on screen come across as incredibly wooden and lifeless.

Florence Delay as Jeanne delivers the historic lines without feeling or inflection. To use a gauche comparison, Milla Jovovich whilst not giving a better performance in the same role, at least gave A performance. In between court appearances Delay literally has nothing to do but sit on her bed with her hands on her knees. No contemplation, or conversations with God. Whereas Renée Falconetti suffered regular torment from the guards, and had the weaving of a symbolic crown of straw to occupy herself in Dreyer's opus, Delay simply sits still, shuffles between sets, and reads her lines. Everything of course leading to the stake. However, in giving Jeanne self-awareness and fundamentally robbing her of innocence, the burning is anticlimactic.

Bresson's stark minimalism is unbefitting such a reenactment. The film as a whole suffers from early '60s cinematic conventions, and can not avoid unfavourable comparisons with Dreyer's original, which is widely regarded as a masterpiece. Procès is not simply sub par in the realm of Jeanne films, it is also a blight on the prolific career of Robert Bresson.

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Unblinking, unflinching inquisition of the Maid of Orleans, 23 March 2007

Author: moonspinner55 from redlands, ca

French filmmaker Robert Bresson used the actual transcripts from the trial of Jeanne d'Arc in order to reveal her character through her words in these final days. Bresson keeps leading actress Florence Carrez, a non-professional as are the others in the cast, speaking in a forthright monotone, without much vocal inflection or facial exaggeration in order for the viewer to concentrate solely on her words. His film is intentionally without scope (and has very little exposition) and some may find the cut-and-dried handling a bit pedestrian. Certainly it was financed on a minimal-budget, and some of the players are stilted, but the film's compact running time of 68 minutes works to Bresson's advantage: he's able to get right to the heart of things, and he leaves us with a haunting climax. That said, there were three things I didn't care for: the musical intro is so severe for an opening that it may provoke an indifferent response (the matching closer is less irritating); Joan seems to have a believer in one of the priests at her trial (he sends her subtle signals) but this isn't explained (which may again be intentional); and barefoot Joan's geisha-like quick steps leading up to the gallows are peculiar--was it her decision not to walk with shoes, and was the ground so hot she had to practically dance to her death? **1/2 from ****

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Short, lovely-looking work, 9 July 2000

Author: Spleen from Canberra, Australia

Here's what I saw: a confused teenager (it may be misleading to call a nineteen-year-old woman a teenager, and who knows what being nineteen meant in the Middle Ages) trying hard to cut a fine figure, and succeeding better than most - which is to say, not very well. Bresson lets us know she IS inspired, she DOES court supernatural influence, probably God's, but somehow this doesn't change anything. It's clear Joan is as clueless as everyone else of her era. Sweet, but clueless.

This film is only just over an hour long, and although the trial meanders - no-one really knows what he or she is doing - there's no sense of padding. It's a swift, clean, beautiful fable. I'm not sure it has a point: if it does, it lies in the short sharp shock we get at the end. All that legalistic fuffing around and then something decisive and fantastic happens. Very few films can suddenly introduce fantasy at the end and get away with it: this is one; "A Canterbury Tale" (1944) is another. Although Bresson's film is less ambitious, and succeeds partly because it gives itself little opportunity to set a foot wrong, it's still quite a feat.

8 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Stunning, 27 September 1999

Author: David Sligar (audax22@earthlink.net) from Flagstaff, AZ

There are only a handful of films that have engraved themselves in my memory indelibly. This is one of them. First, it is in black and white, and I find it impossible to imagine how this particular film could have been done otherwise. It is perfect.

The close ups of Joan, testifying in the ecclesiastical court setting, were devastating. Whether this film mirrors history perfectly is irrelevant. What I saw on screen was a portrayal of absolute sincerity that, for me, exemplifies the highest human ideal. The dialog was spare -- not one extra word -- and the photography was flawless. I don't know whether Florence Carrez (Joan) has acted in anything else -- I think maybe not. But I suppose if she ever considered doing so, this would have been a nearly impossible performance to follow.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
"The Passion of Joan of Arc" vs "The Trial of Joan of Arc", 3 January 2010
Author: tieman64 from United Kingdom

Some points...

1. This is a brief review of Carl Theodor Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc" and Robert Bresson's "The Trial of Joan of Arc".

2. What's immediately apparent when comparing these two films, is how focused Dreyer is on showing the opposing subjectivities at Joan's trial. Who was the chief architect of her martyrdom? The English invaders who imprisoned her? The French clergy who tried and condemned her? God? The girl herself? The people who identified with her and gave her martyrdom political purpose?

3. Dreyer always keeps Joan isolated within the frame, plumbing a solitary soul's duress under persecution.

4. Dreyer deftly shows the transformation of the witnessing masses from a crazy mob into a responsible voice of moral protest.

5. Maria Falconetti, who plays Joan in Dreyer's film, is given some of the most celebrated close ups in cinema history. What became of her? One legend claims that she so identified with her one major film role that she ended up in an insane asylum, convinced she was Joan.

6. Unlike Dreyer's film, Bresson's is filled with non professional actors. His is a dry, almost distant film.

7. Whilst Dreyer's film oozes grand emotions, Bresson's is modern, minimalist, intellectual and existential.

8. Bresson avoids the circus and stresses Joan's solitude. His Joan is defiant in court, but privately she is at a loss, constantly praying for answers.

9. Dreyer's Joan (a kind of instinctual folk hero) acts according to her feelings, while Bresson's acts according to her conscience, which fluctuate as she broods.

10. Bresson's Joan is actually reluctant to embrace martyrdom. She's in over her head, unsure, confused.

11. In Dreyer's film, the audience becomes both Joan and the masses supporting her. In Bresson's, however, the audience is positioned as an outsider. We're the prison guards, the jailers, the priests, always "seperated" from Joan (by holes, by walls, by bars), the girl constantly kept at a distance.

12. Bresson's film is filled with visual echoes. Joan's hands, chained across a bible, resemble a pair of wings. At her execution, her hands, now tied behind her back, reappear in closeup. When doves appear, shot from below, we are reminded of Joan's "winged" hands to haunting effect. The point: an image of confinement has become one of ultimate liberation.

13. Bresson's film begins with two sounds: the ringing of church bells, followed by a drum roll. It ends only with a drum roll. Joan silences the Church that has put her to death.

14. Bresson has criticised Dreyer's film on numerous occasions, stating that he found the acting "grotesque". He's right. Joan was a hardened warrior who fought with men. Why then does Dreyer portray her in such a melodramatic fashion?

15. Bresson's film abounds with delicious ambiguities. Was Joan really receiving messages from God? Is she deluded? Was she a crazy freedom fighter or holy saint? Was she simply a 15th century terrorist, opposing the English occupying army and the tents of the Catholic Church?

8.9/10 - "The Trial of Joan of Arc"

7.9/10 - "The Passion of Joan of Arc"

Many find Bresson's approach to film-making to be off-putting, but I prefer his minimalist style. His films possess an austerity, a sense of intelligence, which Dreyer only hit upon with his later features.

Worth one viewing.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
History brought to life, 10 May 2008

Author: Robert_Woodward from United Kingdom

The Trial of Joan of Arc (1962) chronicles the last days of the fifteenth-century French patriot, from her interrogation by members of the Parisian clergy to her execution by burning at the stake. In the entire film there are only three locations: the courthouse, the jail and the place of Joan's execution. The words of Joan and her prosecutors, lifted almost exclusively from transcripts of the trial, take centre stage.

The clergymen probe relentlessly into Joan's religious beliefs. Twisting her words at every turn, they insinuate that she is a pagan and a heretic. Joan, parrying each thrust of their argument, appeals to a higher religious authority to prove her innocence. The clergymen, however, are mere stooges of the British, and resolve to brand her a heretic. Facing death, Joan initially recants her heresy, but then reaffirms it, thus sealing her fate. Her meagre possessions are placed at the foot of the stake, echoing the way in which her testimonies have been used against her. A clergyman holds aloft a crucifix for her but this image of Christianity is lost in the smoke from her burning pyre.

The Trial of Joan of Arc features an impressive cast of non-professional actors. Florence Delay is superb in the role of Joan, radiating defiance behind her impassive countenance. A few of the performances elsewhere are a bit wooden, but the grave manner of Bishop Cauchon and the benign gaze of the sole sympathetic priest testify to the overall strength of the casting.

Running to little more than an hour in length, The Trial of Joan of Arc might seem on paper to be an insubstantial work. Yet this is an extraordinarily intense film, thick with powerful dialogue and requiring the full concentration of the viewer. For someone not fluent in French, it is a challenge to read the subtitles and follow the images on screen, but, whether you are French-speaking or not, I highly recommend this powerful piece of cinema.

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another review

Related Links