On The Road With Al and Ivy: Archive Site: Joan of arc

“All that Mankind has done, thought, gained or been: it is lying as in magic preservation in the pages of books. They are the chosen possession of men.”

- Thomas Carlyle (Heroes, Hero-Worship And The Heroic In History - 1841)

THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC

I recently watched the 1928 film, The Passion Of Joan Of Arc. I first saw it in 1994 on DVD that featured a new oratorio composed by Richard Einhorn called "Voices Of Light" and performed by Anonymous 4 (a group) and various soloists. The film is making the rounds on sites like Freevee (free with commercials), and after viewing the beginning, I was drawn in by Maria Falconetti's shattering portrayal of The Maid. By coincidence, I was rereading W.P. Barrett's 1932 translation of the French and Latin transcripts of Jeanne D'Arc'd trial for heresy and apostasy.

The movie simplifies the trial for dramatic reasons. However, what is remarkable is that she was tried by a group of sixty French politicians, lawyers, and ambassadors who were considered skilled and knowledgeable in the intricacies of the legal and theological hearings. It was an unprecedented show of political force against a young peasant woman. Almost all had suffered political or financial damage from her military successes and were avowed enemies. Most were or had political and economic ties to the English.

The life and achievements of Joan Of Arc are mainly controversial outside of France, like those who diagnose the mental illness of historical figures. She has her critics there, but on the whole, the people of France revere her as a national hero and Saint. I think Jeanne was arguably saner than some American heroes whose mental state was never as scrutinized as closely and for such a sustained period.

She is one of history's most written-about women, and the documentation is extensive. So, my aim here is to riff on a few particular points and offer some observations and opinions that might give readers a different perspective on this remarkable person.

Note: Treat my words as coffee house rambling on the subject and think what you want about it.

There have been different portrayals of Jeanne in film, from girlish and devout to impulsively energetic. My guess is that she might have been all of those things. She was a young woman during an era when one of the few things that would make the nobility take notice of a peasant was an unusual religious personality, not just a vision, but charisma. In this case, it happened to be religious, but the clergy and theologians who examined her judged her as sincere.

Not only that, but these men and the nobles, including the one Jeanne would crown as King, Charles VII, saw something in her that inspired the trust to put her in command of the French Army to relieve the City of Orleans under siege by the English.

I've read opinions that imply that she was a figurehead used merely to take advantage of her popularity with the common people and that the Generals did it all. In fairness, a noble or even a King would more often than not have to depend on professionals to handle the operational end. Undoubtedly, a 19-year-old woman wouldn't know the logistics and organization to run an Army. It's evident that on a tactical level, they needed to run things.

However, the war wasn't going so well when she arrived. The relief of Orleans was bogged down, and the men were demoralized. It probably seemed like another more of the same after almost a hundred years of unsuccessful fighting against the English.

Also, though many people might think otherwise, France wasn't a country in the sense we know it now. It was like Germany, a collection of smaller countries that a King needed the support of to hold the title. The French Army was a typical medieval gathering of nobles who brought men at arms with them and, like many high-born men, probably weren't well-liked by the ordinary people who were perhaps shaken down or robbed by them at one time or another.

…galvanizing…

If Joan of Arc did anything, she galvanized the soldiers, and the relief of Orleans was a military success. Her next campaign resulted in another victory at Patay and the unopposed occupation of Reims, where Charles was crowned King. Unfortunately, the new King didn't give her much support after his coronation. She was captured leading a volunteer company of soldiers to relieve Compiegne, which was under siege by the Burgundians (who sold her to the English).

She was still a national hero to many of the French, and jealousy may explain why Charles didn't make an effort to save her. In those times, a nobleman could be freed after a ransom was paid, but the trial proceeded without any political or military attempt to stop it. It's doubtful that the English would have sold her back to Charles anyway. They thought she must have been a witch (and other disreputable terms) to have reversed a long period of English dominance.

Also, staging such a large trial attests to her popularity. If she had been an unknown peasant, they would have just executed her or given her to the soldiers to do what they wished. Clearly, it was essential to them to establish that she was a dangerous heretic and mollify the English who hated her. It was a textbook witch trial, unlike the modern perception that such affairs are the chaotic rage of bumpkins. Witch trials were a spectacle put on by the so-called betters, in this case, using a sham trial to put a legitimate face on a state-sponsored execution.

…not a lunatic…

The Barrett translation of the trial transcripts attests to the immense effort to legitimize the inevitable execution. The records, which her enemies kept, don't show her to have been a lunatic or witch. She appears to have been a remarkably strong teenager who was put under extreme pressure by a large tribunal court and abused and tormented by the guards in her cell.

It would be hard to create a mental picture of her ordeal without resorting to modern caricatures, though most women could imagine being mansplained and abused by a large group of males who had the power of life or death over her. It would have been understandable if she had broken down under the relentless pressure.

That's where this 1928 movie comes in. The silent film has minimal dialogue text drawn from the trial transcripts. It's all about faces and personalities; after seeing it, it's hard to imagine how a talking film would have improved on it. The main image of the early part of the movie is the constant barrage of questions and accusations by the tribunal, all delivered with threats and extreme aggression, and Jeanne's self-possession fluctuating between confidence buoyed by spiritual certainty and earthly fears of death and confusion caused by the manipulative questioning.

…close up…

The Director, Carl Theodor Dryer, chose to primarily use close-ups so the emotions that passed through the faces of Jeanne and her inquisitors are plain to see. In the case of the judges, there isn't a steady buildup like a modern court film, but a sustained rage at a young woman who upended their lucrative collaboration with the English. You see the constant desire to punish Jeanne on their faces.

The face of the actress, Renee Jeanne Falconetti, dominates the film. In the trial segments, she's on the screen most of the time, and her ability to express varied reactions and emotions is remarkable. You feel that this could have been how Joan of Arc behaved in the trial.

The crisis is when they finally manipulate and pressure her into recanting the claim that she received her mission from God. Falconetti does an impressive job of showing that this act took away the spiritual refuge and strength that had sustained her during the trial and broke her spirit. When she decides to recant that agreement, you see her strength coming back, and even some of her enemies feel grudging respect.

That recanting seals her fate, and she's condemned to be burned at the stake.

This moment is where the movie leaves the trial transcript and moves into a historical account of her execution, which I've never seen done better by any later films about her.

I'll give a spoiler alert here. I'm going to discuss the ending.

The execution begins with a poignant, very human scene. Jeanne tells God that she accepts her fate but asks him not to let her suffer too long. She looks very young in this scene, and the way she asks shows a feminine side for the first time. Once her fate is determined, she seemingly sheds her epic role on earth and becomes the young woman she was before these great events became her life. It's probably the most affecting and human scene in the movie. We're no longer seeing the future Saint or great military commander but Jeanne, the 19-year-old woman. It makes the following scene all the more shattering but also makes you admire the courage and faith that transformed her ordinary life into mythology.

The film shows the grief of the peasants and clergy who believe in her. When the fire is lit, the depiction of the following pandemonium is a stunning cinematic feat. As she begins to die, a man exclaims that the English are burning a Saint, and the soldiers begin to attack the now-aroused crowd. The smoke from the fire gets thicker and starts to cover the frenetic action of the riot, and a haunting image of peasants and soldiers falling into a pit looks like people falling into a smoke-filled underworld. It's a shattering image that's all the wilder because it's not CGI; it's like a chaotic tumbling into Hell.

Instead of showing Jeanne screaming, she reveals her extreme pain and succumbs, and the image of her limp body as a silhouette in the smoke and rioting is heartbreaking but is described as her soul leaving the body and becoming the soul of France.

Jeanne D'Arc's final victory was over herself. By reasserting her faith, she chose death but died whole.

-Al Handa

ontheroadwithalandivy@gmail.com

UPDATE ON ON THE ROAD WITH AL & IVY: THE ANTHOLOGY VOL. 1 (2016-2018)

I’ll be pulling this ebook off Kindle Unlimited sometime this month and will resume free distribution on other sites. The main reason, besides shifting the focus to wider readership is that this Anthology will come out as a revised version sometime this year. I’ve obtained most of the social media posts from this period and will insert edited versions into the book in chronological order. This adds the day to day observations and activities which will add continuity and many of the blog entries will make more sense in context. Also, I’ll add new commentary to make this volume feel like a chronological account of the period. Until then, it makes sense to make this version free to increase interest in the new edition.