i just wanted to know people's opinions regarding these two movies. i thought joan was better in terms of cinematography. both movies had a very good score (if you include the voices of light). but the passion of christ was more emotional, to me at least. no denying the great performance in this film though.
shareUh... In what way are these movies alike at all?
shareHow about they both end with an execution. They both discuss people who were influenced (supposedly) by God. Both antagonists try to use the religion against these two figures using "tricky" logic. Both characters are willing to accept their execution. Both have good scores, if you count "Voices of Light" as a score. Both were controversial movies in their time. Both are filmed in a different language.
Both have Italian actresses, although Bellucci is much hotter. Just thought I'd throw that one in as well.
I also forgot to mention: both movies cut to a baby sucking on his or her mother's breast. In the Passion of Christ, an "evil baby" is being breastfed by Satan while Jesus is being whipped. In the Passion of Joan, if I remember correctly, Dreyer cuts to a picture of a baby being breastfed during Joan's execution. When I was watching the Passion of Christ, I remember thinking that this was definitely borrowed from Dreyers Passion of Joan.
shareI re-watched the Passion of Joan of Arc shortly after watching the Passion of the Christ, and noticed that both really do have a lot in common . . . but naturally so, because essentially both conform to what a Passion play should be. I couldn't help but remember a lot of comments that people made about PotC saying that there wasn't enough plot, there was too little about his life shown. I just kept referring them back to PoJoA, to show that this is a valid (and successful, I might add) format of narrative, in which the whole attention is directed towards the suffering of the individual, and not the reasons of such suffering.
I would go so far as to say that Dreyer decided to use close-ups more than any other type of shot to achieve this focus, while in PotC, Gibson used violence and blood. Reflection of the times?
Another interesting parallel I noticed (and you mentioned) is the fact that in both, the figures are being tried by people who claim to have authority from God, and who deem their judgements as righteous, and both films imply how mistaken they were.
A&R
[deleted]
One way the two movies are most similar is that these are the two most historically accurate movies ever made. I am not saying that they are completely true to history, but they are closer to history than any other films made. Gibson's epic does borrow from Catholic tradition and add some elements which may not have occurred (the throwing of Jesus off the bridge) but it is in most every other way taken almost word for word from the Bible. So too did the Passion of Joan of Arc follow very closely the actual trials of Joan from the Inquisition. Both rank among the all time great historical epics in terms of their directing and style alone. Lest any one thing that I am being biased, I should point out that I am not a Catholic and, therefore, did not like Gibson's additions, nor did I think Joan of Arc deserves the reverence she has received in contrast with men like Jan Huss or William Tyndale, but on a purely cinematic level, there are few historical films better.
shareJoan over Christ. For me this is subjective- I'm not a Christian, and for the most part I think being Christian or having some kind of Christian connection brought more people to emotion with Gibson's film- also, I'm not into the kind of manipulative sytle Gibson tends to use. Dreyer's film works better for me because of what it doesn't show, what symbollism and allegory carry with it far greater than with just the slow-motion, over-bearing use of the music score, and of course the blood, which makes it seem like some kind of dream, only a dream out of a damn Pasolini movie or something (also, I almost view the film as being worthy more for television if not for the blood-letting, which seems more pornographic than the one little scene of blood and more horrifying torture in 'Joan'). I'm sure there are others out there that will feel the exact opposite of me. But I just can't get out of my head the fact that The Passion of Joan of Arc will remain a landmark for those who don't believe or do (it struck me as being essentially a story of having as much to do with faith as not having it), not to mention loaded with some of the most unforgettable faces and angles ever put to film (especially considering it's all alternate takes). The Passion of the Christ will be remembered for the controversy and the money it maid, and I don't consider it an awful film, but I wonder already if it may (or could) become a mere cult film compared to 'Joan', which I grant is not known in every nook and cranny like POTC. If ever was the case of art being in the eye of the beholder, these two films bring it out for people.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm disappointed by the last two comments. Don't just say one is better than the other. Give examples. Express your knowledge. Otherwise you'd sound ignorant and biased. And dumb.
I saw PoJoA for the first time last night, and it will remain with me for a long time, I suspect. And as I was watching it, I just kept thinking of PotC--people who complained that it didn't show enough of Jesus' ministry--and then they hypocritically state that PoJoA is one of the greatest films of all time. There's no sense in that statement.
PotC certainly has its flaws, but it in no way deserves the overwhelmingly negative reviews it had received, especially in light of the near unanimous praise that PoJoA had received. Had PoJoA been released today for the first time, I'm sure the critics would balk at it, revealing their hidden bias. I'd hate to say that, but there is no other explanation. No. Other. Explanation.
POC is a violent flog fest focusing on the death of Christ in utter gory bloody detail, rather than his good works in life.
POJOA is a portrait of a woman of unshakeable faith. Her death is almost irrelevent...what is relevant is that her faith in God is so great she trusts God utterly with her fate, even when she is given the chance to save her own life.
I'm not saying Jesus wasn't equally faithful or noble, only that Gibson instead decided to focus on the torture involved in his death, rather than his faith and his works. I believe if he'd made his movie more like POJOA, that is focused on the face of Christ, and his belief despite his tormentors, and less on all the blood and gore, his film would have been much stronger, even if not the equal of POJOA.
And I am one of the secular people and yet I loved POJOA and hated POC. Because Dreier suceeded in making me care about Jeanne, and what she believed.
[deleted]
I'm sorry, I didn't even want to react to a sophomoric suggestion such as this one, but I must. To ask this question is to show that people, who have been barraged by nothing but crap in past years, do not know simply, how to watch movies anymore. Everything is imitation now, and not in a good way. Hacks like Mel Gibson try to rip the most sensationalistic details from others and pass it off as artistic tradition. It's similar to Spielberg using black and white for Schindler's List, an unfortunate and horribly disrespectful move. The beauty is that these two directors are not even smart enough to realize what they are doing.
The passion of jeanne d'arc is perhaps one of the most lyrical and beautiful movies I have ever seen, not because it exalts Christianity or even because it exalts God himself. It affirms the identity of Jeanne, when her identity is constantly threatened by supposed officials, by those who think they know better. The inclusion of God infuses the spirit of greatness AND goodness into the presence of a "mere" girl. She is, as she keeps saying, a child of God.
Now, the Passion of the Christ is nothing but an exercise in self-indulgent pseudo-artistry, but hey, for Mel Gibson, it's probably the best he could ever wish to do. That's not saying much, is it? Take another look at The last Temptation of Christ, a movie condemned by many who never even bothered to watch it, a movie which actually cared about Christ and Christianity enough to apply it to our time and think about it in a different way.
[deleted]
The Passion of Joan of Arc is exponentially better and more emotionally draining. Personally, I was put off by the excessive violence in the Passion of the Christ and liked how The Passion of Joan was more powerful without resorting to gratuitous gore. And the woman who portrays Joan gives one of the all-time greatest performances in the history of the cinema. This is one of my top three favorite films I have ever seen.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Interesting that this thread is more than a year old! I just saw Passion of Joan on Turner Classic Movies, and was blown away.
As a "progressive" Catholic, I was impressed with PoC. when I saw it in the theater. Gibson was very close to literal translation, with a few interpretative twists. The blood and gore, at first offensive, revealed itself, for me, as a close approximation of what Jesus really went through in the Passion. Of course, in this day and age, and given Gibson's love of blood & guts (Braveheart), the Passion and Gibson's concept of it worked for me.
But is it Art?
Passion of Joan was not only an incredibly moving piece of storytelling, it was an artistic feast for the senses. I was stunned as I watched it- not having ever heard of it before. The lighting, sets, photography, music and narrative are one of the most stunning pieces of art, in any medium, I can ever remember viewing.
As I Googled the film and read the reviews, I could not help but wonder what the impression was back in 1928, as originally shown yet still revolutionary for its time, and I wonder what it would be like to view that original today, with the slower frame-rate and the original "score"- I imagine it would seem a bit dated.
I can't wait for my order for the film to arrive!!