John Trent, a World War I British officer, finds an ancient sword in his trench bunker just prior to volunteering for what will amount to a suicide mission the next day. That night he is visited by the spirit of Joan of Arc and is transported back to the 15th Century. Joan's career begins when, as a peasant girl, she meets Trent's ancestor, also an English soldier, fighting for the Burgundians. After Trent is captured, Joan is brought to the attention of the beleaguered Dauphin, heir to the French throne, who cannot be crowned because the English hold the royal city of Orleans. The weak Dauphin is impressed by her vision and apparently heaven-sent powers which border on the supernatural and ultimately gives her command of the armies. She is victorious at Orleans and the new King is crowned. Joan resists Trent's entreaties of love and continues her struggle to free the rest of her country from English occupation. Sinister forces, both English and French, conspire against her and she is...Written by
Gabe Taverney (firstname.lastname@example.org)
When the film began its road-show run in major cities it was 12 reels long, but, over director Cecil B. DeMille's objections, was quickly shortened to 10 reels. See more »
When Trent discovers the sword, he holds the hilt in his right hand. In the insert close-up the hilt is in his left hand. In the cutback, it has returned to the right. (In fact, the insert shot has been spliced in upside-down.) See more »
This is a curio - the story of Joan of Arc leading on from a view of the English trenches in World War One (which was still of course, a reality when this film was made). Geraldine Farrar might not look the part of Joan but she manages to convey all the power, spirituality and vulnerability the part demands. her acting is a little theatrical as you would expect from an opera diva but she is excellent nontheless. Wallace Reid (a tragic casualty of Hollywood not that long after this) is pretty good as well, although I thought the love story angle stretched credibility a bit in places. The film itself meanders a bit but when you consider it is over eighty years old it still retains a remarkable amount of effect. Not as good as the 1928 Dreyer film but one to seek out.
7 of 7 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this