When
I first heard of this upcoming miniseries on CBS, about a saint I hardly
knew anything about, but was right up my alley since I am a military
history buff, I could hardly wait to see it. I saw Joan - played by
Leelee Sobieski, someone I had never seen before - in the movie ad,
with her sword raised, teeth gritted, and on horseback at full gallop
with mounted knights riding behind her. Man, I couldn't wait! I especially
needed a really good movie to wash away the bad taste that NBC's trashy,
horribly acted and written "Noah's Ark" left in my mouth the
week before. "Joan of Arc" really delivered. One result, among
many, is my website at which you read this. Another is the many people
who were turned on to study and be fascinated by the real Joan of Arc.
Not often do we see a major TV miniseries with the Christian values
and ideals that this miniseries has. Yet, there were a few (mostly
forgivable) errors in the movie.
One thing I really liked about this movie is that it established early
on how Joan had a profound spiritual life. As she told her parish priest,
Fr. Minet, after her first visions, "it just felt wonderful to
pray." It also establishes early on the interest Joan had in her
country's affairs, as evidenced when Joan has Fr. Minet explain to her
why the English made the French people suffer. It also showed early
on how Joan was charitable, as shown when Joan tries to give a poor
child bread, in spite of her father. In fact, Joan was so charitable
that she gave up her bed for the night so a homeless man could sleep
in it. The only part of Joan's spirituality that they seemed to get
wrong, was that Joan didn't seem to understand that God isn't vengeful.
When Emile, her friend, dies in the fire, she cries out to God, "What
did I do? What did I do? What do you want me to do?" When her brother
Pierre dies at Paris, she does very nearly the same thing.
In the movie, it took Joan just a few
days to convince Sir Robert de Beaudricourt of her mission. In reality,
it took a few months. She finally convinced him of her mission a few
days after the battle of the Herrings, when a courier confirmed her
"live" report of the French loss. Another messup is
that Joan received her sword on her journey to Chinon. This was not
really the case - after Joan had been tried at Poitiers by Church examiners,
she received her sword and banner. They did get it right though, that
Joan knew where the sword was without having been there before. But
in reality the parish priests, at Joan's request, dug it out from beneath
an altar in the church and had it sent to her. In fact, she actually
had 4 different swords, and she broke the sword of St. Catherine while
hitting a prostitute with the flat of it!
The battle scenes in this movie were as exciting as any of the battle
scenes I've seen in my favorite movies. But the strategies employed
by the Joan in this movie were a little contrived. In the movie, Joan
relied on getting a flame over the wall of Les Tourelles and into a
bale of hay, to force the English into lowering the drawbridge. Well,
not to mention the fact that there was more than just Les Tourelles
across the river from Orleans(there were more bastides and also there
was an Augustinian monastery), the strategy employed in the movie would
never be taken seriously, and was not in reality used by Joan. The movie
also implied that the battle of Orleans only took a few days and the
victory there was all that was needed to prepare the way for Charles
VII. In reality, 4 more battles throughout the Loire Valley needed to
be won, and all 4 were won within a week of each other.
Joan, during the battle of Orleans, called out to William Glasdale,
captor of Les Tourelles, "Come out that I may send you to hell!"
And then he came out on the drawbridge and Joan signalled her "sharpshooters"
to kill him. Hmm. I didn't know what to think of that. That was
very out of character for this Joan. Blame the screenwriter. Joan NEVER
said that or did that. Nor would she if she were given the chance. In
reality, she called out, "Glasdale - Yield, yield to the King of
Heaven!" Glasdale came out on the nearly obliterated(it wasn't
actually in the nice condition you saw) bridge, and fell into the river
with many of his soldiers. Joan actually wept at the sight of so many
dying at once.
The coronation sequence was one of my favorite parts of the whole movie.
In it we see the culmination of all Joan's efforts and really sense
how much Joan really wanted Charles to be the King. In this scene is
also the best music of the whole movie. We hear Gregorian chant - Veni
Creator Spiritus, and then a trumpet fanfare
that was very authentic sounding and well written. The anointing and
crowning ritual used by the bishop, not to mention the sacramentals,
looked very authentic.
Joan was actually accompanied by Charles at the attack on Paris. But
yes, it still failed. Bertrand was not killed at Paris. In fact, there
is no mention of he or Jean de Metz fighing there, though it is generally
accepted that these 2 future knights accompanied her on all her military
endeavors. Also, Pierre, Joan's brother, was not killed at Paris - he
was there to testify at her Nullification trial 25 years after her death.
After the failed attack on Paris, Joan wanted to go home to be with
her family. It's nice that we see her have permission granted to her
to do so. There's no doubt that Joan really wanted to. But, stubborn
Charles actually kept her at the royal court. It was during this stay,
and perhaps because Joan was homesick(and perhaps for a Christmas present)
that Charles tried to cheer her up by ennobling her and her family.
For those of us lucky enough to have the special edition on home video,
we get to see King Charles do just that. But Joan didn't return to duty
until about 5 months later (in May), when she tried to relieve the Burgundian
siege at Compiegne. It was then that she was captured, by getting hauled
off her horse, kicking and screaming. There was none of this "giving
herself up" that we saw here.
One
element I found interesting was the implied romance between Joan and
Jean de Metz. I had no problem with it, but why did they include it?
To make it more palattable for the modern viewer? Perhaps they reduced
Jean's age just so it would work. In reality, Jean de Metz was in his
late 30s at the time. This leads me to another question I have. How
did Joan so quickly decide to "relapse" again after Jean had
revealed that an army was coming for her? Was it because Joan thought
that she was going to be rescued? Or was it because she really believed
[that her voices had revealed] that she had committed a great sin by
recanting and signing? It seems as if the producers recognized this
dilemma, and somewhat addressed it, without doing away with the scene
with Jean de Metz. For, Joan tells Jean that "I killed everything
I believed in" and tells Cauchon that "What I said, I said
from fear - but every word was a lie."
The trial scenes were done well without too many noticeable flaws. Most
everything Joan said in the movie during the trial came from something
she really said. The scenes flowed pretty well. My biggest problem(however
small, it was my biggest) with this movie was what happens during the
execution. Yes, the scene has great emotional power and is very well
done and reverent. But Joan specifically asked for a crucifix to be
held so she may look at Jesus until she died. Jean de Metz retrieved
a cross from a nearby bishop and held it up to her. Well, where was
the corpus? Being a catholic reviewing a movie about a catholic saint,
I feel I should ask this question. Why did they do away with it? To
make it more palattable? Well, if the corpus wasn't on the cross, what
would be the point? Though Joan specifically asked for a crucifix, and
though there is a distinct difference between a "cross" and
a "crucifix", I feel this was acceptable(though not
preferrable) because of the symbolism of the cross to Christians.
Overall, Joan of Arc is probably my favorite
TV movie ever. The story was well told overall, Joan the person was
portrayed exactly the right way, and there was a good attempt to get
the story straight. I feel that with Joan's story, historical details
can be dispensable if you get the character portrayal of the person
herself right. Leelee was perfect for the role because she was exactly
the right age, and a virgin (which I'm sure you've heard her say proudly
many times!), and seemingly has the face of a saint. She brought the
youthful, enthusiastic and energetic feel that this role needs. Too
many times have directors cast someone too old to play Joan, because
they felt a teen couldn't handle the role. Joan handled her role pretty
well, don't you think? And she was
a teenager. It takes extraordinary actors to portray extraordinary people.
Leelee is no doubt the extraordinary actress that this role needed.
Overall, it was a very highly enjoyable, reverent, emotional, and inspired
look at the life of this great saint.
When
I first heard of this upcoming miniseries on CBS, about a saint I hardly
knew anything about, but was right up my alley since I am a military
history buff, I could hardly wait to see it. I saw Joan - played by
Leelee Sobieski, someone I had never seen before - in the movie ad,
with her sword raised, teeth gritted, and on horseback at full gallop
with mounted knights riding behind her. Man, I couldn't wait! I especially
needed a really good movie to wash away the bad taste that NBC's trashy,
horribly acted and written "Noah's Ark" left in my mouth the
week before. "Joan of Arc" really delivered. One result, among
many, is my website at which you read this. Another is the many people
who were turned on to study and be fascinated by the real Joan of Arc.
Not often do we see a major TV miniseries with the Christian values
and ideals that this miniseries has. Yet, there were a few (mostly
forgivable) errors in the movie. 
One
element I found interesting was the implied romance between Joan and
Jean de Metz. I had no problem with it, but why did they include it?
To make it more palattable for the modern viewer? Perhaps they reduced
Jean's age just so it would work. In reality, Jean de Metz was in his
late 30s at the time. This leads me to another question I have. How
did Joan so quickly decide to "relapse" again after Jean had
revealed that an army was coming for her? Was it because Joan thought
that she was going to be rescued? Or was it because she really believed
[that her voices had revealed] that she had committed a great sin by
recanting and signing? It seems as if the producers recognized this
dilemma, and somewhat addressed it, without doing away with the scene
with Jean de Metz. For, Joan tells Jean that "I killed everything
I believed in" and tells Cauchon that "What I said, I said
from fear - but every word was a lie." 
