MovieChat Forums > La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (1928) Discussion > Joan receiving communion on film

Joan receiving communion on film


First off, I admire this film greatly. It is incredible how powerful it is, especially considering it is over 80 years old and (the way I watched it) without sound.

However.

As a Catholic, I have a problem with the scene where Joan receives communion. We see the priest take the host, say a blessing and hand it to Joan, who swallows it. Why? They could have pretended. Making play out of the holy sacrament of communion like that just doesn't sit right with me.

Now, the reason for this post is not to simply state my opinion, but to find out what other people - of all creed or no creed at all - think about filming a scene like that the way they did in this film. Because I want to straighten out the thoughts in my head about it. So, if you have any comments on this, please feel free to share. Thanks!


-- It wants no straps (The Exorcist)

reply

As a fellow Catholic, I am slightly confused as to your objection to the scene. Joan is shown receiving communion. Are you saying that films should never simulate the reception of communion, or are you under the impression that the actress playing Joan was actually receiving communion?

Strange post. Great film.

reply

If you ask me, yes, the actress, Renée Maria Falconetti, is receiving communion. And I don't object to filming someone receiving communion (although I think it should be done with caution and respect), but I felt uncomfortable watching the sacrament being used as a prop.

-- It wants no straps (The Exorcist)

reply

Director seems to be very serious about realism. It is agreed on that the blood draining scene was real. One poster even claimed that they used a real cadaver at the stake burning. Those are more,i can't find the right word, surprising ?

reply

Do we have any evidence for that? I only ask because it seems strange to assume she is actually receiving communion unless there is some evidence!

reply

Reading your replies makes me think I am indeed making too much of this :) However, if you ask me, there is enough evidence to suggest the actress is receiving communion: she swallows the host that has just been blessed... unless one would care to argue that it may not have been consecrated. I must admit I am not too familiar with the ritual of communion for the dying, which is in a different form than when celebrating the Eucharist. Of course we can assume that the host has not actually been consecrated, which makes it a different situation.

Anyway, thanks for your comments so far :)

-- It wants no straps (The Exorcist)

reply

Gummo Rabbit,

I have just finished watching this film, and as a Catholic myself, I can understand your qualms about this scene -- if they were using a consecrated host.

When I made my First Communion, roughly thirty-eight years ago, we went into the church and practiced what would happen, and we used real hosts. Of course, the hosts were not consecrated, and therefore, we were not receiving communion, only practicing for when it would happen for real. I think it was probably the same in filming this scene. The host was unconsecrated, which means it was just a host, not the Eucharist. In spite of the director's quest for realism (such as the "doctors" actually bleeding someone), I don't think he would have gone so far as to use a consecrated host for this scene. The scene is so beautifully reverent, and you can see the spiritual joy Joan has at receiving communion, but it was all acting. Unless someone tells us both differently, the bread was unconsecrated, and the actress received a host, and not a Host.

On another note, when a person receives the Annointing of the Sick, (better known as, though inaccurately, as Last Rites), he or she receives the Eucharist. The only difference between this and communion at Mass is that the hosts are consecrated and given at Mass; during the sacrement of the Annointing of the Sick, the host has already been consecrated at Mass, and then housed in the tabernacle.

I'm sure I have probably confused a lot of readers here, but I bet you understand what I'm talking about.

Spin

reply

Hi Spin,

Thanks for your reply! I understood every word :)

-- "And I do THIS to loneliness!" - Max (Where the Wild Things Are)

reply

Dear GummoRabbit:

Understand your objections. I sincerely doubt that the host (notice the lower case h), was consecrated.

Dreyer had to show the history somehow. I was just acting.

reply

i would also add that the words spoken were not spoken by an ordained priest. it would be the same if i were to say it (and i'm not an ordained priest in the slightest) and it would mean nothing.

reply

[deleted]

I see no reason to think they used a consecrated host, so no I didn't have any problem with the scene... except it made me wonder, and I don't have the answer, if people burnt at the stake for heresy really received the communion before the execution.

Does someone know anything about this? It is strange, to me, that someone whose belonging to the Church was denied for heresy should receive the communion before being burnt...

Just a question crossing my mind. That being said, I found this film remarkable.

Midway through the journey of our life, I found myself within a dark forest...

reply

Dear AlmaWynemiller:

Good question!

I am reading "Joan of Arc: a Spiritual Biography"---By Siobhan Nash-Marshall.

She discusses this "mystery" about the entire illegal execution of Joan.

Read it for yourself, as it is a well researched volume, but the bottom line was the English WANTED to punish her in the worst way possible.

They understood that Joan was NOT a lapsed heretic. They wanted her destroyed and degraded to the farthest extent that they could. That is why she was allowed the sacraments, they knew she was innocent of heresy.

Many things about her execution were illegal.

Should you wish to read it, I will not spoil it for you.

reply

I do understand that her death had more to do with politics and revenge... Still, she was indeed condemned for heresy and burnt at the stake. In all logic, she should not have received communion unless she abjured...

Is the scene accurate by the way? Did she, in actuality, receive communion, or is it a fantasy of Dreyer's?

Don't assume. Read - and in French.

reply

Dear AlmaWynemiller:

I did not study French, sorry to say. I had studied five other languages, but not French. For that matter, I cannot read Hieroglyphs, and I have faithfully studied Egyptology for many years.

Joan, (In every text that I have read), did receive the Holy Eucharist, in real life.

The film, was just acting. I do not understand how anyone could think otherwise.

reply

Surely a consecrated host would not have been available to the crew unless the actor who gave the host to Joan was an actual priest and he blessed it himself. I don't imagine that he was a real priest, though if he was and Falconetti truly received communion on camera, I don't see the problem.

reply

I personally don't get the kerfuffle... well, I do, but really? I'm a former Catholic, and I'm not afraid of saying that it's just a piece of bread. I grew up with "transubstantiation"; now? It's really... well, silly to me.

Sorry. That's how history went; the blessed sacraments were valued about life itself. The Church was incredibly powerful in that time; they were allowed to make a mockery of a woman's fate because good men did not know any better.

reply

Well of course non-Christians don't believe in the Eucharist nor Christ hence why you're a non-Christian, lol.

reply

If the film was an accurate depiction of the sacrament of communion as practiced in that place and time and a depiction of a real historic event, I consider its inclusion appropriate.

If the actress wasn't really Catholic and the actor playing the priest wasn't really ordained it wouldn't count anyway, right? Lots of marriages and baptisms are filmed and all those people aren't really married, also some of those being baptized on film are Jewish or from other faiths or no faith so the baptism does not "take."

reply