MovieChat Forums > La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (1928) Discussion > Let's stare at a face for 50% of the mov...

Let's stare at a face for 50% of the movie


I don't know.. Half of the entire movie is just close-ups of us staring at her face. Her face is going to be imprinted into my brain for the rest of my life just because I was forced to stare at it for so long. Either crying or carrying a big bug eyed look on her face the whole time. Could any silent era actress not have done that? I love silent movies and everything about old movies, but talk about an overrated movie.. I could probably record a close up of an over emotional female and clip it into this movie in no time.

reply

You don't seem to have much appreciation for silent screen drama, do you?

What facial expressions would you recommend for her reactions and responses to her tormentors in her interrogation & torture scenes?

How would you have her portrayed? Remember, the historical Joan believed she was on an holy mission to save her country from the English occupiers. She was tried, tortured and convicted by corrupt, French collaborators of the English. The two hours of narrative are told in real time. Mme Falconetti is portraying those last two hours in which nothing good happens to her character. Would you have her adding more "variety" of emotions? Should she also laugh a lot? Show righteous anger against her captors? Tell jokes? Display wit & sarcasm? I don't think ANY such "variety" as I've suggested took place in the historical Joan's final hours.

But I'm dying to hear your sage take on how you could improve Falconetti's performance! What did director Carl Dreyer do or fail to do, in your estimation, to get a better performance out of her or find a better actress?

Oh, this is gonna be good! REAL good! The floor is now yours!

reply

You're a key example of why people hate dealing with cinephiles, snobbery and arrogance toward another film lover does not make you smarter or better than them.

reply

I never implied superiority; that's a bogus assumption on your part and I have just enough humility to be fully aware that there are plenty of folks who have more smarts in their little finger than I do in my whole body. Yeah, so...? (For congeniality's sake, I'll refrain from lumping you in with me in my candid self-admission.)

One man's "arrogance" is another man's "I disagree, and here's why..." One man's "arrogance" is another man's "I take exception to your disparaging remarks about Maria Falconetti's peformance and will match your own arrogance, tit for tat!"

"Cinephile?" Guess you got me there! But, working stiff that I am, I wish I had even more time to wear that label like a badge and that I oould watch and discuss film more than I presently do.

I'm far from the only person who considers this to be a finely crafted masterpiece in cinema. In this open forum where I can express my thoughts every bit as freely as you and the OP have done, he set himself up for a challenge and I was the first to come along and take him up on it. What would you have me do instead of what I actually did? Holler a hearty "amen?"

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

reply

I don't think vinidici gave a disrespectful answer to the OP, he actually clearly explained why the film couldn't be any different and I agree with his exposition. And to say that anyone could have done this film, not only shows tremendous actual disrespect towards Mr. Dreyer, but it proves that the OP actually doesn't have a clue about the fabric of Film.

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

reply

Thank you, Filler_Killer!

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

reply

I think both of you over-reacted and did not read or comprehend the title of this thread. It seems the OP was posting/complaining about the fact that 50% of the movie (his or her estimation) is made up of close-ups of Falconetti's face. Not that she didn't play it well, or that she should have had other expressions than the ones she used. Just that half the screen time was made up of close-ups of her face in one expression or another.

I took the comments to be more directed at Dreyer, for it would have been his decision to shoot the film this way. Falconetti was just following his direction and turned in a performance for the ages.

But I understand the OP's point, I've seen several silent films (Potemkin, Nosferatu, Chaplin et al), and I don't recall any other film being shot in this way. Take it or leave it. I happen to think it's fantastic, but I can understand why some people just see this as '110 minutes of close-ups of faces.' If you try to get into Joan's mind and imagine what she went through, though, this was amazing. I truly felt like I was watching Joan here and not Falconetti.

reply

Give the OP a break! So what if he didn't like this film, not everyone does.
It doesn't mean he hates film or decrease his knowledge of film. It just means he had a different opinion, which he is more than entitled to. I myself loved this film, but I still respect the OP's right to disagree with me. There are plenty of critically acclaimed films I don't like and vice versa.

reply

Give the OP a break! So what if he didn't like this film, not everyone does.
It doesn't mean he hates film or decrease his knowledge of film.


If he had posted this in the Classic or Foreign message boards, I'd have been less inclined to rebutt his rather scathing assessment which he posted HERE in the TPOJOA boards, where far more of its admirers than not are present.

It doesn't mean he hates film or decrease his knowledge of film. It just means he had a different opinion


Yes, he gave us his opinion but where are we who disagree supposed to go from there? Can we not state our own reasons for believing him to be wrong in his assessment? Can't we have an opinion, too?

which he is more than entitled to.


I don't think ANYONE is "MORE THAN" entitled to their opinion, anymore than I think, between two pregnant women, one is more pregnant than the other. His right to his opinion doesn't trump the same entitlement of those who see differently and wish to respond accordingly. Again, did he really think everyone must jump into his "amen corner" after posting the OP here?

but I still respect the OP's right to disagree with me.


We all have the right to disagree; it's why I and others represented here have exercised our own rights to disagree with him.

There are plenty of critically acclaimed films I don't like and vice versa.


But are you a "party crasher" like our OP is? Do you purposely troll message boards of those critically acclaimed / popular films you don't happen to like and trash the actors and directors of those movies, without whose work those films would never have received critical plaudits and / or fan favorite status? I don't think you do and I have no recollection of doing that, my own self, either; but if you ever decide to give it a try, be prepared to get responses from "Mister Nice Guys" who don't see it your way and from others who view such posts as the trollery they generally are.



Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

reply

Her face is going to be imprinted into my brain for the rest of my life just because I was forced to stare at it for so long. Either crying or carrying a big bug eyed look on her face the whole time. Could any silent era actress not have done that?
You make it sound as though she oscillated between two completely fixed expressions for the entire film but that really isn't the case. She used her expressive eyes to the full, true, but they were effective and there was plenty of subtlety (if that's what you're after) in the movement of her other features.

Look at her quiet resolve when she swears on the Bible that she'll tell the truth.

...or the contented half-smile she gives as she deflects the judges' questions about St. Michael's appearance.

...or the way she twitches her mouth slightly, as if she wants to say something, when she looks down with confused pity at the judge who's fallen to his knees before her.

...or the weary sigh she gives as a question about God's promises to her prompts a moment of self-reflection.

...or how her ecstasy at seeing the cross in the light from the window turns to a look of calm concentration when she starts to thread her wicker crown.

...or the way she looks to be shrugging the question off when she finally answers whether or not she's already in a state of grace.

...or her look of rapt concentration, panting slightly, almost mouthing the words, as she watches the priest begin communion at the foot of her bed.

...or the ambiguous smiles of relief as she's handed a sentence of life imprisonment at the same time that she's assured confessing was the right thing to do.

There really is so much more to Falconetti's performance than you're giving her credit for. Perhaps other silent actors could have done as good a job but I seriously doubt any could have done a better one. Even if we take for granted the dedication evidenced by Falconetti's willingness to be filmed in close-up without make-up or long hair, think about how well she makes Joan into a human being even though Joan spends much of the film wearing a mask of ecstatic self-belief. It's the equivalent of a painter producing a subtle painting while being limited to using only bright colors. It's incredible.

Anyway, you seem to be much more of a fan of silent cinema than I am, so I'm sure I don't need to tell you that you should really give the film a second chance if you ever have the opportunity. It's worth it!

reply

This was the face I'd always remember her for:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/C4_KDf4xhU8/maxresdefault.jpg

I actually liked this movie. Very good acting for its time. I will never forget her performance.

reply

Yes, but WHAT A FACE SHE HAD.
Unforgettable.

reply

It's funny this post mentions her face. I am currently enrolled in a film class. Just last week we saw this movie. Not only was it a silent film, but we were watching a version that contained absolutely no sound--I mean not even a musical score. It was just utter silence. There was no way that I could sit through an hour and half of this, so I started going through my phone. Occasionally, I would glance up at the screen to see what was happening. Every time I looked up, it was a close-up of Joan's face! So it seems like I didn't miss much, did I?

reply

Do you pay to be enrolled in this film class?

reply

Yeah, but luckily not so much.

reply

Why bother turning up at all?

reply

The semester is getting better. Since we started in chronological order, the older boring ones came up first. We're now in the 50s, and it's getting interesting.

reply

From 1920's - 50's in three weeks?
Are you only watching one film per decade or what?
Which were the other two?

reply

Some movies we viewed in class, and others we viewed on our own as homework. So far we have viewed A Trip to the Moon, Battleship Potemkim, Nosferatu, Cops, Within Our Gates, Metropolis, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Citizen Kane and Vertigo.

reply

That seems pretty sporadic.
First 7 films pre-1930. Then only 2 films from the next 30 years.
By that pattern I guess your next class will be on The Exorcist. haha

Either way, I think you should give this film another chance.
It really is quite amazing - and the lead performance is legendary.
If you can't stand silence - just play fitting music at the same time.

reply

I think I will give this film another chance. It won't, however, be the version without a musical score. From what I hear, the musical score is amazing.

And yeah, the class is quite sporadic, but I think the professor sensed he was losing the class by showing them too many black-and-white films that he decided to speed things up a bit. We recently saw Vertigo, and the class really enjoyed that one.

reply

Wow, you suck. Spectacularly.

reply