so she was insane? - Joan of Arc (1999) Discussion

[–] wallacesawyer 9 years ago

It certainly looks that way. More crazy than I would've figured even for someone claiming to talk to their God.

http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

reply

[–] jcarpenter-1 9 years ago

I would say rating Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult a 9 is pretty insane...

reply

[–] wallacesawyer 9 years ago

I would say rating Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult a 9 is pretty insane...

The whole trilogy rocks.

http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

reply

[–] Clusium 9 years ago

Actually, the rape & murder of her sister was only made up for this particular movie. There is nothing to indicate that was her fate.

http://www.jeanne-darc.info/p_jeanne/family.html

Totus Tuus O Maria!!! Totus Tuus O Jesu!!!!

reply

[–] Maya55555 8 years ago

Jeanne D'Arc was not insane, as she speaks quite lucidly in her trial transcripts. That is the history, not a stupid atheistic film.

"A stitch in time, saves your embarrassment." (RIP Ms. Penny LoBello)

reply

[–] flash_drive 8 years ago

Like a lot of other people throughout human history she attributed what she saw, felt and experienced to "God". Just because you believe it's God, doesn't mean it is.

-- "Mulder, toads just fell from the sky!"

reply

[–] wcpom 8 years ago

Of course she was!

Anyone who believes that you can kill your way to peace is insane and there are far too many of them wandering around for it to be safe for any of us.

http://www.oztvreviews.com/

reply

[–] Daedsikcaj 8 years ago

But that's exactly what she did. There was peace because of her victories.

reply

[–] wcpom 8 years ago

No she didn't. The Britons and the French continued to fight each other on and off until the 19th century, when the Germans became the common enemy.

Every war leads to another. You can't put out a fire with fire.

http://www.oztvreviews.com/

reply

[–] prakashsant7 8 years ago

That's a stupid, ignorant comment. Joan of Arc was fighting for her homeland against a foreign enemy invading her country, what other alternative did she or anyone have, just roll over and let themselves be conquered, raped and mass murdered by the English invaders? Are you really that dumb? And in fact she was successful, expelling the English and ending the 100 Years War. England and France fought wars later on for a ton of other reasons, the same way dozens of other nations did for completely unrelated reasons. To attack Joan because her victory "didn't end all the wars" is totally naive. And no Germany becoming "the common enemy" later on had absolutely nothing to do with it, ultimately Britain and France stopped fighting each other because they lost their colonial empires and became second-rate powers craving peace and stable societies, it wasn't worth it to fight anymore.

As for Joan, she had probably the most success that anyone in either army could have had, expelling a foreign enemy of her country when things were looking their darkest. And in fact she did bring long term peace to France because even though Britain and France did fight more wars later (though none on the awful scale of the 100 Years War), most of those wars were in colonial conflicts far away, France's own territory was basically spared.

reply

[–] wcpom 8 years ago

... and her own people killed her.

That's why I believe that stupidity and ignorance are far more the domain of the warmongers than those who seek peaceful solutions.

http://www.oztvreviews.com/

reply

[–] DFC-2 8 years ago

But that's exactly what she did. There was peace because of her victories.

First, the Norman English were defending their own French territory, which they never abandoned, but also their legitimate right to the French throne. All the various wars at that time were between royal cousins competing for control.

Second, she was not successful. There was no peace because of her victories. Joan had only about one month of success in the field. The "English" were STILL battling in France for another two decades after her death.

It wasn't until the French king finally had control of the whole mainland that he refurbished Joan as a divine messenger.

Joan's campaign should be seen like endorsing Ted Cruz for the American Presidency, saying that he was divinely ordained to win, dying in jail as a crackpot, and then him losing the election.

Twenty years later, Cruz wins the presidency, and builds a monument to her as a prophet of his magnificence. It is precisely this banal.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

I think the film had an even money bet on this issue.🐭

reply

[–] Asterios_Mousios 8 years ago

So what if she was insane ? We all are, in our own way, we just don't admitted.! As an insane person..... or a true believer, she earned more victories than the ''logical men'' who were slaughtering each other for so long time and gave an end to the people's suffering.! At list to the towns that she liberated. Luc Besson is a wonderful creator and the movie is a real masterpiece.!!! Thank you for listening my opinion.😃

reply

[–] prakashsant7 8 years ago

Yes, a great point and it gets at the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter what Joan's visions or religious motivations were, and it's idiotic to try to impose 21st century viewpoints about this on the Middle Ages. What matters is that Joan of Arc got the job and managed victory where her contemporaries and the other commanders failed. It made her successful, so it's just dumb academic argument to nit-pick about what exactly her beliefs were going into it.

reply

[–] KrissAnd159 8 years ago

According to the movie: I'd say yes. Bat *beep* loco.

reply