Joan the Woman

Geraldine Farrar's performance as Joan of Arc, along with some memorable visual sequences, are the main reasons why "Joan the Woman" is still worth seeing today, despite the availability of many other movies about the celebrated French heroine. Although Farrar is not as remarkable as Maria Falconetti was 11 years later (which is by no means a criticism of Farrar - no one else has come close to Falconetti in the role of Joan, and most probably no one will for many years to come), she is very good, especially given the limitations of the time.

Except for clearly being older than the historical Joan was, Farrar conveys pretty well the most important characteristics of the heroine. She and DeMille did well to avoid making her too feminine, instead making her a strong and interesting leader with a limited but heartfelt set of priorities. The story does include some rather fanciful DeMille touches, but as cinema they work well enough, even if on a handful of occasions they may seem out of place in Joan's story. The screenplay also gives Farrar a chance to show many different sides of her character.

Some of the large-scale sequences are also nicely done for an era in which film-makers usually had to work out by themselves how to film such scenes, with only a handful of previous examples to go by. While some of the seams might show now, they did a very good job with what was available, and they must have looked rather impressive in their day.

Raymond Hatton performs well enough in the rather thankless role of the weak king Charles, and Theodore Roberts has some good villainous moments as Cauchon. Some of the other characters, while satisfactory, are a bit too non-descript to be a fully effective complement to Joan.

The one real weakness of the movie is the now-extraneous sequence set in the World War that was in progress when the film was made. It's not bad in itself, and contemporary audiences might have found it worthwhile, but the story of Joan of Arc is really powerful enough that it should be allowed to stand on its own.

Overall, "Joan the Woman" is a good to very good movie in just about every respect, and it is still among the better Joan of Arc films. Perhaps the only one that is clearly superior is the amazing 1928 Dreyer/Falconetti masterpiece "The Passion of Joan of Arc". Since there are a number of sound movies about Joan available, this one unfortunately may not get much attention anymore, but for those who still enjoy the silents, it's worth seeing.

The problem with Joan of Arc is that she was only seventeen when her story began.Geraldine Farrar was 25 and she was obviously too old for the part.Most of the versions to come had the same problem:to name but three,Ingrid Bergman in Fleming's epic,or MIchèle MOrgan in Joan's native country or even Falconetti in Dreyer's masterpiece were not physically the maid of Orleans .Otto Preminger was right when he cast a nineteen years old Jean Seberg.

This is minor quibble .De Mille' s movie is a good,nay excellent epic. It was a propaganda movie,cause it featured a "modern" prologue and an epilogue which took place in the tranches during WW1.DeMille would continue in that vein in his "ten commandment" (1923) where a long biblical part was followed by a "realistic" contemporary tale.But propaganda movie does not mean bad movie!Cecil Blunt de Mille was a storyteller extraordinaire,only equaled in the silent era by David Wark Griffith.

Joan's adventures are half history (The meeting with the queen in Chinon,my own native town ,the trial ,Jean de Luxembourg selling Joan)half fictionalized history: Eric de Trent appears at the beginning of Joan's epic ,in Domremy,we find him back in Orleans,Compiègne,Rouen,all along the way,which has nothing to do with French history.Ditto for the king's failed abdication just when Joan is in the castle ,or worse the poisoned wine (by Bishop Pierre Cauchon,no less.Eric de TRent looks like an alter ego of Gilles de Retz (or Rais) -not present in the movie- who reportedly was in love with Joan and who ,becoming mad after her death ,buggered and killed lots of children (the legend made him Blue Beard).

This is a very well told story;La Tremouille's despicable role -he is referred to as "the spider" ,I have not noticed his name in the lines- is not passed over in silence;the battles in Orleans are better than ,say,the Lara Croftesque ones depicted by Luc Besson's recent "the messenger" ;the martyrdom in Rouen where De Mille makes an unusually inventive use of color for the fire.All the lines are in Middle -Ages English :funny how ,since William the Conqueror,many French and English words look like each other (coward=couard ,old French for "lâche" ).Sentences from the trial are often authentic.

French's honor!This "Joan of Arc" is one of the best!

Like this? Try these:

"La Merveilleuse HIstoire de Jeanne D'Arc" Marc(o) De Gastyne,1928 "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc " Carl Dreyer 1928 "Joan of Arc " Victor Fleming 1948 "Destinées" Jean Delannoy 1953 (one sketch) "Giovanna d'Arco al rogo" Roberto Rosselini,1954 "Saint Joan" Otto Preminger 1957 "Procès de Jeanne D'Arc" Robert Bresson 1962

All the Demille trademarks are here - huge crowd scenes, wild orgies, torture - but there is also a beauty and imagination here that is lacking in some of his later work. The use of double exposures for Joan's visions, the magnificent use of lighting and colour tinting, reveal a film-maker of greater depth than we might expect.

Opera diva Geraldine Farrar seems a little old and hefty for Joan of Arc, but once you get past that she truly gives an excellent performance. And Wallace Reid as her English lover lends strong support.

The camera is a little static and the "spectacular" battle scene is really just hundreds of people running around waving sticks in the air and falling backwards off walls (and I think very little attention was paid to the safety of the extras and the horses), but this is still a very rewarding and innovative film. And we get the original 1916 score performed on a Wurlitzer.

The historical story is framed by a World War 1 (then currently raging in Europe) scene, which adds poignancy to the piece, but does make the central thesis of the story (that God takes sides in wars) a little harder to take. Ramon Novarro's in this somewhere - can you find him?

You must watch this film from a certain angle, and you also have to know in advance who Cecil B De Mille was, in which way he oriented his movies. Big budget for many of them, high christian propaganda movies, destined to naive audiences, a bit dum for my opinion, great stories which he set up according to his desires, his political opinions, his belief, no matter the actual facts. De Mille was the perfect anti realism director, among many other ones, I admit. His silent era movies were overlong, and some of them speaking of couple relationship from a Christian point of view. I saw a dozen of those and I will never repeat it again. But he also was a specialist of gigantic productions, only excellent for the eyes, rarely for the purpose. This movie is a big metaphor, using Joan Of Arc myth for WW1 in France. It is a good film, if you wish to know some De Mille's stuff, and not so known too. Less than THE TEN COMMANDMENTS for sure. Awesome battle scenes around a castle assault. In actual history, Joan Of Arc has never been tortured. Put in jail, certainly yes, but not tortured.

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.