This one vs. Dreyer's Joan of Arc?

[deleted]

Regarding the status of the Dreyer film before the 1990s - it didn't disappear completely, and Godard uses several large excerpts from it in VIVRE SA VIE (also 1962). I think what was restored in the 1980s was Dreyer's "original cut", which was rediscovered around that time; the film had formerly circulated in a truncated version. Sorry for the trivia - but, for the record, the Criterion DVD of PASSION gives some of the history of the different PASSIONS.

Both Dreyer and Bresson are master filmakers with their own aesthetic taste. Falconetti's performance in Dreyer's film is considered one of the all time greats, yet I am more drawn to the austere Joan in Bresson's film, and think his climax is more powerful. It's like you can almost feel the fire.

I have a visceral dislike of the Dreyer film. All those constant close ups seem like a gimmick to me. I also don't like Falconetti's overly dramatic emotions all the time. Joan of Arc was a FIGHTER. She fought with men in battle. The trial transcripts show a woman who fought back and told the men who judged her that they were wrong. She wouldn't have sat there like a deer in headlights, with tears streaming down her face. I much prefer Bresson's film. It's more realistic and I like its minimalistic style.

Dreyer's, of course.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

I'm a little over halfway through this movie for the first time. I've seen several Bresson films, and to those who are frustrated that Bresson's Joan shows fewer emotions than Dreyer's, they are undoubtedly correct, yet isn't that the point? Bresson tries to minimize emotion in his mis en scene so that we might focus on the morality, the dialogue as text, and the reality of words and morals. It's an idealistic approach that I both admire and find difficulty in watching. It's a challenge, but a rewarding one.

Dreyer is a different kind of master. His Joan comes across as incredibly passionate and arguably manic. It speaks of a reality and morality that is just as true as Bresson's. Bresson's says dispassionately "my truth will live on beyond the flesh and history" and Dreyer's says "my truth is here and now in front of you, pay attention!" Both are indispensable.

We must strive to do what is right each and every moment and we must look beyond the moment to consider what will be right in 500 years.

Simply put: Dreyer's film is emotional to a point I sometimes expected Charlie the Tramp (Chaplin) to jump into the scene and provide some comic relief.
Dreyer re-used his technique in Ordet to an even greater effect with the idiot/prophet Johannes.

Bresson OTOH achieves in this last part of his prison trilogy his creation of space and movement through discrete sequences that work like a Riemann surface.
In Bresson's cinema, space is time, and it's discontinued. For example you never see a complete room, not even a wall. You never see a full body, only the parts that you need to see to understand who is who or who does what.
The dialogues follow a similar logic of stylization: you hear what you need in order to understand. For example in the first minutes of the film, when Jeanne is brought back to her cell after the first hearing, she's untied and cries.
What you see: her feet and the guard's hand, then her face when she starts crying. Stop. Next scene: the back and head of English soldiers walking out of the prison, etc.
As a viewer, you know exactly what you need to hear and see in order to understand. The "weaker" moment of the soldiers walking out allow you to connect the dots in your mind so that the story happens as much in you as on the screen.

Bresson has essentially (whether intentionally or not) made the exact opposite film from Dreyer using the same source material. Both films are masterpieces however.
Does anyone have a source of Bresson criticizing Dreyer's film?