A missed opportunity by a pompous filmmaker

Rating: 2/10 (15 September 2016)

A number of challenges arise when attempting to produce a film based on historical events. The primary challenge being the decision of whose version of history is to be told. Another of the monumental challenges facing the filmmaker is deciding what resources to use in the design and execution of the film. By the late 1920's, advancements in cinematic equipment and technique were becoming more refined to include many of the basic cinematic innovations that are commonly used today. Careful filtering of different styles over the course of several decades led to these refinements. However, when it comes to methods of creating personal style, there are always those who want to spend time reinventing the wheel or those who decide that they know better than those that came before them. This often leads to artistic revolutions that last a short time before dying out and the art reverts to the basics. This essay will analyze the flaws in The Passion of Joan of Arc in both cinematic composition and narrative construction.
Before film, audiences were used to going to plays and seeing the action from one vantage point. As the art of cinematography was developing, filmmakers realized that the action had to stay on the same axis for continuity. This has become known as the 180-degree rule. This is a common rule of axis that allows the audience to orient the characters' relationship to one another regardless of the compositional framing. The Passion of Joan of Arc frequently breaks this rule, which has the effect of disorienting the viewer and giving no firm frame of reference to the geography of the Mise-en-scène nor to the positions of characters. This issue is compounded by the overuse of close ups and washed out background that is bereft of any compositional detail. This was an odd choice considering the overwhelming abundance of magnificent architectural constructs available to those filming in Europe.
This film is also hindered in the area of narrative construction. Although the historical figure of Joan of Arc might have been very familiar to European audiences due to her sainthood in 1920, it is no doubt true that some who may view this film might have no firm understanding of the events of the story. The lack of any expositional context is unforgivable even during this early period in cinema. The film opens with the book that supposedly contains the historical transcript of the trial from which the story is based. The text is written in two languages, one of which was swiftly fading from common use by the time of the production of the film. Another flaw in using this document as the basis for a story, which culminates in the burning death of a teenage girl, is the singular perspective of the transcript and the treatment of it as reliable. There exists no counterpoint to this trial therefore no advocacy of the defendant.
These issues point out the basic artistic and technical flaws of filmmaking that had been weeded out by most in the industry by the time this film was made. The single redeeming characteristic of this film based on these criteria is the acting. Thompson and Bordwell say, "Renee Falconetti gave an astonishingly sincere, intense performance as Joan" (Kindle Loc. 5896) It can be said that the performances in The Passion of Joan of Arc are beyond any negative criticism. However, this sole exception cannot compensate for the overall poor execution of this production. Therefore, it can be argued that had the filmmaker used more fundamentally cinematic techniques, The Passion of Joan of Arc may not have fallen into obscurity only to be discovered in a sanitarium in Oslo back in the 80s.