SAINT JOAN (director: Otto Preminger; screenwriter:Graham Greene/ From play by George Bernard Shaw; cinematographer: Georges Périnal; cast: Richard Widmark (The Dauphin, King Charles), Richard Todd (Dunois, Bastard of Orleans), Anton Walbrook (The Bishop of Beauvais), John Gielgud (Warwick ), Felix Aylmer (Inquisitor ), Jean Seberg (Saint Joan), Harry Andrews (John de Stogumber ), Archie Duncan (Robert de Baudricourt), Kenneth Haigh (Brother Martin), 1957)
Reviewed by Dennis Schwartz
Hollywood adaptations of plays rarely come off much worse than this B&W one did. There is no kind way to put it otherwise, or to say if only it did this or that the film could have been saved, nor is there reason to say, if the acting was better the film could have been bearable. No. This was a complete miss and the director, Otto Preminger (Advise and Consent/ Whirlpool /Laura), must bear full responsibility for this train wreck. He took the agnostic's George Bernard Shaw's intelligent story, had the very able Catholic novelist Graham Greene act as a screenwriter and change parts of it to give it a ghost-like flavor, and what results is an unintelligent and indecipherable story, one that is hokey and risible.
The problem with the film starts firstly with the casting of the two main actors. Whenever they were on screen the film was unwatchable. The first-time actress who was chosen as a result of a national talent search for a newcomer for the part, was won by the Iowa teen-ager, Jean Seberg, who doesn't have whatever inner strength it takes to be Joan of Arc, at least she doesn't have it at this point of her career, and should have not been cast in that part; her shrill voice does not make for a naive peasant girl who hears the voice of God, nor does the closing of her eyes portend that she is a visionary. Richard Widmark, who played the future King Charles VII, the Dauphin, as if he were Jerry Lewis in one of those stupid Lewis and Martin comedies of the 1950s, was not a good casting decision either. He appeared to be ridiculous emoting in his spastic gestures at the camera, as if he was in the wrong film and didn't understand that this one wasn't meant to be a comedy. The story had no emotional appeal or urgent power, and seemed like it was shot by a rank amateur filmmaker who had no idea how to get coherence from a scene and real passion from his performers, in a story that was supposedly all about passion, this one had none. It was an exercise in futility and arrogance on the part of the director, a thumbing his nose at anyone who disagrees that he is a great filmmaker and that he could make any type of film. It is no surprise that there was no audience for this film, that film critics roasted it, and that the ever-arrogant Preminger sneered back at them in contempt. But if he wanted to know what Joan was all about, he should have observed Carl Dreyer's masterpiece "The Passion of Joan of Arc"(28), and he would have seen the spiritual qualities the story was imbued with and realized that his version had failed to capture the power of the story and why the argument against the church in the story means so much to so many, and for such a long time the story poetically moved a people interested in those who have visions.
The film opens as King Charles is in his pj's, tossing and turning in his castle bed, and the ghost of Joan appears, and through flashback her rise and fall is traced.
Leaving her small-town farm and family, the illiterate Joan declares that God has chosen her for battle, that she is a soldier for God and wants to lead the French forces against the English. She knows what to do because she hears the voice of St. Catherine, St. Marguerite, and the angel Michael. She talks the captain of the army into getting her an audience with the Dauphin, after she proves she is a saint by getting the hens in the small-town who stopped laying eggs, to lay them on her command. Inside the castle, she handles a soldier who is harassing her, by saying God has told me you don't have long to live. Well, naturally, the repugnant soldier drops dead on the spot, as if he were struck by a bolt of lightening. That scene is my all-time favorite. It was unbelievable. Its worth seeing the film just for that. With Joan, all high-and-mighty on her steed, shouting out things like, "I get my orders from God," this film was just too much of a brain-drainer. It was filmmaking at Preminger's worst.
Some more minor miracles come about as she meets the future king for the first time (having to pick him out of a crowd of court favorites) and urges him to act like a man and not be afraid of all those around him who treat him like a fool. The archbishop (Anton Walbrook) recognizes her usefulness and gives the church's blessing confirming that she is actually a saint, and that she should be allowed to go to Orleans in 1428 and lead the soldiers in kicking the English out of France.
Another miracle occurs in Orleans, as the French troops won't fight until the wind changes directions. But Joan proves once again that she can perform miracles with the aid of God, as the wind changes directions and the men cross the bridge and win the battle, and all because they fervently followed her intrepid lead into battle.
But things start to change, as the weak Charles is at last made king and the church is satisfied with their victory, not wanting to fight the English anymore, only Joan wants to finish the fight with the English and kick them out of Paris. Her rulers would rather sign a truce and live with the spoils gotten from battle and not wage the continuation of an expensive and dangerous war. All the ones who mocked Charles previously are rewarded by his coronation and newly gained power, but the one who made him king receives nothing but humiliation. The two-faced archbishop tells Joan if she doesn't stop disagreeing with the church, he will have her ex-communicated as a witch, which means being burnt at the stake.
Well, if you're in Joan's shoes, and you really believe you're tuned into God, you have no choice but to continue to listen to those voices in your head.
She is arrested and tried at Rouen, and charged with 12 counts by the church for being a heretic. The most important charges being that she hears evil voices directed by the devil and she dresses like a man. The church decides to try her in their court, while the English, in the new air of peace, with their 800 soldiers in town, await the church's decision under the command of the Earl of Warwick (John Gielgud), who presses for her death sentence. What was a great actor like John doing here, and to the bargain, why was he wasted in such a small role? Maybe, if he could have played both Joan and King Charles this dog would have had legs!
The film tried hard to make something of the trial and the intrigue and irony that went on at the court, that was certainly shown in Shaw's striking work to be a mockery of a trial, as the church court got the girl to retract her sainthood but convicted her anyway, giving her a life sentence, until she changed her mind again and chose death rather than live with such despicable people as her accusers. But the film never made it seem like she was anything but a quack, committing herself to a self-imposed death, and she is always seen behaving irrationally. There was no justification for the story's outcome, no power in its presentment, and its style suffered from an ill-humor.
Preminger, takes a cue from one of the lines in the film, when Joan says, "I always know I'm right- because I hear the voices." He must have felt that same awesome egomaniacal power when he put this bowwow together.
REVIEWED ON 12/10/99 GRADE: D
Dennis Schwartz: "Ozus' World Movie Reviews"
http://www.sover.net/~ozus
ozus@sover.net
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DENNIS SCHWARTZ
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews