Joan of Arc (1948) User Reviews (47)

Not even Ingrid could save it

[HotToastyRag · 5/10 · 25 January 2022]

Of all the wonderful Ingrid Bergman dramas, I don't understand why Joan of Arc was one of the famous ones. Sure, it's always nice to see her sparkling blue eyes in Technicolor, but the script was corny and the production almost felt like it was a spoof. Remember how silly Danny Kaye looked in his suit of armor in The Court Jester? I couldn't shake the image from my head when Ingrid put on her own oversized armor. A larger than life actress in her own right, I'm not sure it was really her fault that Joan of Arc was so lousy. Perhaps no one could have saved this spectacle.

It is notable for debuting José Ferrer to the screen public, although it's hardly a memorable performance. Just wait two years and catch him in his signature Cyrano de Bergerac. You'll also see many, many familiar faces in the supporting cast: Charles Bickford, Gene Lockhart, Ward Bond, Roman Bohnen, Selena Royle, Ray Teal, Robert Barrat, Jimmy Lydon, Richard Ney, and George Coulouris. If you're a die-hard old movie buff, you'll want to put this classic on your list. But it won't really give you a great impression of Ingrid Bergman. Try her out in the lesser known drama The Visit for one of her career-best performances.

A very well made failure.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 4 September 2023]

"Joan of Arc" is a film with a much larger budget and more prestigious cast than you'd expect from a movie released by RKO. After all, RKO was clearly a second-tier studio whose output was far lower budgeted than most films from MGM, Twentieth Centure-Fox and Warner Brothers. But here, the studio released a prestige film...with vivid color, a LOT of familiar actors and a plot involving one of the great women of the late Middle Ages. Unfortunately, the public did NOT respond well to this and the film actually lost money. How?

Ingrid Bergman plays the title character and the story consists of her life from her middle teens to her execution at age 19. This is a SERIOUS problem, as when the film began she was about 15-16...and looked like the 33 years she actually was.

The other main problem with the film is that the filmmakers were too reverential towards the character...with dirge-like music and a pace slower than a snail! Telling it faster and with perhaps more behind the scenes intrigues would have helped. Regardless, I just kept wanting the film to speed up...particularly at the end when you KNOW what's going to happen and it takes too long to get there. Well made and nice looking...but also a film that might bore you as well.

By the way, although it didn't impact my viewing, the film was a pet project of Ingrid Bergman but she also was responsible for helping to tank the film. Negative publicity about her affair with a married man became public at about the time the film was released. This very unsaint-like behavior surely must have negatively impacted the box office numbers.

Spectacle without sparkle

[1930s_Time_Machine · 6/10 · 27 August 2022]

Medievalists might enjoy this - it's reasonably factual.

Joan of Arc was one of those individuals who quite literally changed the world. Had this insignificant little girl from an obscure Germanic part of France not believed that God was speaking to her and more importantly that she convinced Charles Valois and his friends that God wanted him to be king rather than a six year old English boy (who was the grandson of the previous French king), Europe and then the world would have ended up being very different.

Had she known that Charles, one of several pretenders to the French throne whom she helped become king was a duplicitous, homicidal tyrant she definitely would not have bothered. But that's another story........ this review is about very watchable if slightly flat technicolour extravaganza.

Why flat?

If a 14 year old girl were these days to walk into the Elysee palace or the White House and tell the president that God has commanded him to invade Russia, she would be quietly taken away to a dark room so it's difficult for our modern minds to understand how such a 'crazy' belief was so acceptable as being normal back then. Most people believed with the same absolute certainty of knowing that the sun will rise each morning that everything that happens happens because of God. To them and to Joan, God was as real to them as the food they ate or the air they breathed. It would therefore be impossible for any film to portray such a world whilst still being entertaining for a 'modern' audience but playwright Maxwell Anderson and the RKO team (including the great Victor Fleming) manage to create a reasonable compromise between our world and that of the 15th century.

Ingrid Bergman, even though double the age of the real Joan, is believable as a real person. She had wanted to play this role for years and her enthusiasm and commitment to being the innocent, naive inspiration for revolution really comes across. Although there are some spectacular '1950s Hollywood style' battles, her own performance is purposely not dynamic, it's restrained and thoughtful which makes you think there's a lot more we need to know about her. This enigmatic and somewhat frustrating persona does however create a distance in empathy between her and us. Other than 'modernising' the story, which is unacceptable, anything else would be almost impossible.

100-minute edit a mangled embarrassment

[jimjo1216 · 20 April 2011]

(NOTE: This review concerns the 100-minute edited cut shown on TCM.)

This 1948 version of Joan of Arc's story is a big disappointment considering the talent involved: director Victor Fleming, who directed both GONE WITH THE WIND and THE WIZARD OF OZ in 1939, and a cast including Ingrid Bergman, José Ferrer, and Ward Bond. JOAN OF ARC (1948) fails to live up to any expectations.

The editing is amateurish. There are abrupt cuts from one shot to the next, often cutting off bits of dialogue on the soundtrack. The voice- over does its job in setting the scenes within a historical narrative, but gives the movie an air of vintage "making of" TV specials. It almost seems as if stand-alone scenes were shot without knowing how to weave them together.

The storytelling is too sincere and sentimental, giving the film an awkward hokey sensibility. Whereas Carl Theodor Dreyer's 1928 masterpiece THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC left room for interpretation regarding matters of divine intervention, this version is pretty straightforward about holy miracles, playing like a Sunday school movie. That is to say it's a religious fable about Ste. Joan of Arc, rather than a historical piece about Joan rallying her countrymen against English rule. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Ingrid Bergman was actually nominated for an Academy Award for her portrayal of Joan, a French teenager in the 1400s who believed she was called upon by God to raise an army against the English occupation of her country, later to be convicted of heresy by a council of pro-English clergymen. (It was Bergman's fourth nomination out of a career total of seven, including three wins.) José Ferrer also earned a nomination, playing the French Dauphin whom Joan fought to put on the throne. The top performances were by Bergman as Joan, Francis L. Sullivan as the corrupt judge, and J. Carrol Naish as a slimy one-eyed nobleman. Much of the supporting cast is second-rate.

Maybe JOAN OF ARC is only unimpressive today as viewed by modern cynics. Or perhaps the trouble lies with the existing copies of the film. Whatever the case may be, the movie earned seven Oscar nods (including Best Editing!) and won an honorary award for its moral values.

NOTE: Apparently the original release was a 145-minute cut, which was trimmed down to 100 minutes with added voice-over narration. This chopped-down version is shown on TV and is an embarrassing mess. The 145-minute version won the awards and is supposedly available on DVD.

UPDATE 1/9/12: The full 145-minute version (just shown on TCM) is clearly superior to the edited-down version with the awful narration. It's an ambitious production, although its Sunday School tone is still a bit over-the-top (at least for this reviewer). The film takes itself way too seriously overall, but Jose Ferrer brings personality to the proceedings and Francis L. Sullivan stands out in his villainous role. The second half, with Joan's trial at the hands of the wicked Sullivan, is more effective than the first half and Ingrid Bergman's best moments are in her final scene.

5/10 for the butchered version; 6.5/10 for the full-length epic

"My victory is my martyrdom."

[brogmiller · 7/10 · 26 June 2023]

'Joan of Lorraine' had enjoyed great success on Broadway and was a triumph for both playwright Maxwell Anderson and star Ingrid Bergman. It was only natural that Miss Bergman should relish the chance of transferring her performance to the silver screen but the commercial requirements of Hollywood required Anderson and his collaborator Simon Holt to depart from the the play's original pared down 'then-and-now' concept and to present a straightforward treatment in the form of a lush, big-budget mini epic.

Our perception of certain films is often coloured by the reputation that precedes them and this one is no exception. Although disdained by critics and failing at the box office Victor Fleming's film is not nearly as bad as some would have us believe.

It boasts ravishing Technicolour cinematography by Joseph Valentine, fabulous art direction by Richard Day and a magnificent score by Hugo Friedhofer. As one would expect, the script is literate but one suspects too much so for the average film goer. Although it espouses the glory of France and the perfidy of Albion there is not a single French accent to be heard although the performances by British/American actors are uniformly excellent notably José Ferrer making his screen debut, Francis L. Sullivan, Cecil Kellaway, John Emery, Ward Bond and J. Carroll Naish. Unsurprisingly the film fared pretty well in France where it no doubt symbolised recent liberation from Nazi occupation.

Many have commented on Miss Bergman at thirty-three being too old for the part. Whereas it is true that Simone Genevois, Angela Salloker, Jean Seberg and Florence Delay were nearer Joan's actual age, Sandrine Bonnaire played the role at twenty-seven whilst Renée Falconetti whose portrayal is the template by which all others are judged, was a mere thirty-six! For this viewer at any rate Miss Bergman gets away with it here and her performance both touches the heart and engages our emotions which is all that really matters. It is probably best to draw a discreet veil over the lamentable 'Joan at the Stake' which she made for Rossellennui six years later.

This turned out to be Victor Fleming's swansong and although claiming it to be a 'disaster', he has succeeded here in combining pageantry and sensitivity, action and intimacy. He had last worked with Miss Bergman on 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' and he himself was something of a Jekyll and Hyde director if one thinks of his final film and the one that preceded it, 'Adventure'! Although his films are a mixed bag, Fleming is, in the words of Andrew Sarris, 'one of the few Metro directors who could occasionally make the lion roar.'

Quality

[wheatley-20230 · 7/10 · 6 July 2022]

The film I watched did not have any voiceovers so I assume it was not the much maligned heavily cut version, although I did not note the running time.

The quality of this film shone through. It seemed to me that it was "true" to the play on which it was based, being focused on complex characters and events rather than spectacle or action.

Plus Ingrid Berman gives us an impassioned performance.

All of which was sufficient for me to overcome my distrust of religious fervour to the extent of awarding this a 7.

But if I had a hundred fathers and a hundred mothers, I could not go back. I must go forward now.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 5 January 2020]

In the Fifteenth Century, France is a defeated and ruined nation after the One Hundred Years War against England. Up steps a teenage farm girl who claims to hear voices from heaven telling her to lead God's army against Orleans and to crown the weak Dauphin Charles VII as the King of France. Joan gathers the people with her faith, forms an army and advances on Orleans - from here real history is formed in all its heroic and tragic glory...

Savaged by some critics, cut by the studio to various run times, it really is a case of asking film fans to at least see the now readily available full 145 minute version to give it a fair trial. Starring Ingrid Bergman in the title role and directed by a clearly fawning Victor Fleming (he takes every single opportunity to focus on Bergman's natural beauty), it's unfortunately a mixture of a stirring historical epic with over theatrical stage bound theatricals.

Bergman, although surrounded by a great array of superlative supporting players, carries the lead role with aplomb. She clearly dives into the role with a passion of some distinction and film lovers are rewarded with a performance of great depth and feeling, none more so with the sequences in the last tragic quarter of the pic.

The screenplay by Maxwell Anderson and Andrew Holt (based on the play "Joan of Lorraine") is beautifully written, with dialogue passages that stir the blood whilst holding court. For some the literate passages may come off as long winded, even tedious, but in Bergman's hands they hopefully will entice the masses in the way that "The Maid of Orleans" actually did. 7.5/10

Joan of Arc

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 5 January 2023]

Whatever you do, try to avoid the dreadfully hacked version of this - the original version; coming in at just under 2½ hours is far, far better. That said, however - it still isn't all that great. Ingrid Bergman doesn't so much act as Joan of Arc, she suggests quite strongly that Joan of Arc would have been just like her! The pained, saintly expression coupled with the rousing battle cries and heartfelt pleading make it hard to imagine the real woman could have been anything but! José Ferrer expertly plays the, duplicitous, selfish monarch who'd betray his own mother for a sou in a creepily magnetic fashion and, of course, Francis L. Sullivan is super as the presiding Bishop Cauchon serving whichever master suits him best so long as our heroine goes to the flames. The rest of the cast rather underperform though: Ward Bond, Gene Lockhart and Cecil Kellaway are fish out of water and Lief Erickson is frankly dreadful in the quite pivotal role of Dunois. The writing is dreary; way too wordy. The ensemble performances never seem to set foot out of doors, which renders the battle scene largely ineffective and the trial scenes are just all too bitty to establish any genuine sense of the threat she was under during this corrupt trial. Maybe it needed Cecil B. De Mille to take the grand scale cinematography to it - the story certainly merits it; but this is uncomfortably constricted and too physically theatrical. The costumes are glorious, though, and the lighting does go some way to compensate for the rigidity the production. Well worth watching, but it could have been much better had Victor Fleming had more imagination.

RESTORED VERSION ON DVD IS OUTSTANDING!

[blue-7 · 10/10 · 22 May 2004]

The difference between the butchered 100 minute release of Victor Fleming's final film, JOAN OF ARC and the original 146 minute version is like night and day! UCLA has worked on restoring this film to its uncut form for some 10 years -- the results can now be seen with the May 2004 release on DVD by Image-Entertainment. My opinion of the film has greatly changed for the better. For some years I have had access to the 100 minute cut on a nice Laser Disc copy. Seeing the new DVD is a revelation. Not only is the Technicolor splendor of the original on the DVD, but the film as conceived by Victor Fleming is 100% better in its restored form. Ingrid Bergman may be a bit old to play the part, but she is quite marvelous as is Jose Ferrer as the Dolphin, in this his first film appearance. If you have any interest in this film and have only seen it in its butchered form, then do yourself a favor and take a look at the DVD. In this form it can take its place along side Victor Fleming's two most famous films, GONE WITH THE WIND and THE WIZARD OF OZ.

Worth Disinterring for Ingrid Bergman Alone

[[e-mail] · 7/10 · 7 April 2008]

I don't find this an especially stirring version of the story of Joan of Arc. Shaw's play, seen on stage, is much more vivid (though talky, as are most Shavian works). But it has a young Ingrid Bergman as Joan and if you need to be reminded of how beautiful she was and what screen presence she possessed, you owe it to yourself to see this 1948 film. Jose Ferrer also appears in the movie in one of his early roles and numerous other name actors of the period are distributed among the characters. Considering that the script is by Maxwell Anderson, the dialog is surprising flat and uninspiring. Victor Fleming is the director but it is not clear to me what exactly he brought to the party. There's a fair amount of spectacle but it is vintage spectacle and in no way comparable to what could be (and is) done today, even in movies for TV. Ingrid Bergman's persona is all that makes this film believable in any way. She almost carries it the distance. I once saw the Shaw play with a 19-year-old college kid as Saint Joan. That girl, like Bergman, made Saint Joan believable because she inhabited the role. Jean Seberg, a few years later, was Saint Joan in a film based on Shaw's play and she just didn't have what it takes. But Bergman did.

Accusing Ingrid Bergman

[wes-connors · 4/10 · 21 May 2013]

Bathed in colorful cinematography, pretty little Ingrid Bergman (as Jeanne d'Arc aka "Joan of Arc") looks divine in a 15th century French church. Her farming family frets about Ms. Bergman's preoccupation with prayer. However, Bergman has a more direct line to God than anyone knows. Inspired by her savior Jesus Christ, Bergman decides to go to fight the British occupiers of France. She also sets out to ensure God's chosen man is crowned King. People tell Bergman it is impossible, but she insists, "I must save France!"

To enlist, Bergman disguises herself as a young lad. With a busty figure, make-up and cute new French haircut, the actress simply does not look like a boyish teenager. The miscasting could have been successfully addressed by sticking with the original stage version's "play within a play" format. It was about a troupe of actors dramatizing the heroine's life. The stage format allows more leeway in casting...

The last film directed by Victor Fleming, "Joan of Arc" was elevated far above its worth by "Academy Awards" voters. It won three Oscars and was nominated for five more, including a notable one for supporting actor Jose Ferrer (as the Dauphin aka Charles) in his film debut. Unsatisfied by all the attention, producer Walter Wanger refused to accept his special award because the film failed to be nominated in the "Best Picture" category. "Joan of Arc" has been restored to its original epic length, which turns out to be a mixed blessing.

**** Joan of Arc (11/11/48) Victor Fleming ~ Ingrid Bergman, Jose Ferrer, Francis L. Sullivan, J. Carrol Naish

Friedhofer's Music

[sendraguy · 9/10 · 27 November 2006]

After what seems like gargantuan efforts to obtain the DVD and the necessary equipment I have finally managed to see the uncut version of Joan of Arc.

I am thrilled with this new DVD and will add nothing further to the positive comments that have already been made. However I should like to pay particular tribute to the wonderful music of Hugo Friedhofer. Of course, for years I loved his score for 'The best years of your life' but in terms of writing for an earlier period I never regarded this composer is quite the same league as, say, William Walton, whose Shakespeare/ Olivier scores were so memorable. But I have been forced to revise my opinion.

It was Max Reger who commented to the English composer Vaughan Williams: 'you have a veritable obsession with the flattened seventh' Well so, it seems does Mr Friedhofer! I suppose one either likes or loathes pastiche and modal writing. I adore it, and think that in Joan of Arc we get the best of both worlds. The music has a direct and powerful emotional appeal. It could scarcely fail to have. Yet given the fact that Friedhofer uses C20th conventions, harmonies, instruments and musicians, his 'nods' in the direction of C15th French church music are tastefully enough done for us to feel that such scenes as the coronation are, if not exactly in any sense 'authentic' then still marvellously effective.

I should dearly love to know whether anyone has arranged the score into a suite of pieces and recorded it. That would be a rare treat. Perhaps some other readers can advise?

Fleming himself said "It's a disaster, that picture"...

[Doylenf · 4/10 · 15 June 2004]

I haven't seen the DVD version. This commentary is based on the horrible VHS print I viewed and promptly tossed out. I now know that 45 minutes of the original film was missing and replaced by commentary that in no way made the story coherent.

But the shortened version contained dialog that sounded so theatrical and was delivered in non-credible fashion by a cast of professionals under Victor Fleming's uninspired direction.

This is clearly not one of Bergman's best performances. She is radiant in many of the close-ups although a little too old to be believable as the young Joan. The film betrays its stage origins and is much too talky for extended sequences. The only time the film embraces some action is during a poorly staged battle sequence.

Summing up: I suppose it's unfair to judge the film based on the print I saw--but even allowing for the bad editing, it is apparent that this was not a successful transition to the screen of what apparently was a marvelous stage role for Ingrid. Jose Ferrer gives the most interesting performance as the Dauphin but others are simply part of the scenery.

Costumes are beautiful and some of the sets look impressive but overall it has no cinema magic and leaves the viewer with a flat viewing experience. I'll have to watch the DVD version if I'm to change my opinion since the cinematography surely must look better on DVD.

P.S. - Have just read Michael Sragow's new book on Victor Fleming and even the great director himself said, "It's a disaster, that picture."

P.P.S. - TCM has just shown the fully restored version of JOAN OF ARC and it's a much better film than it appears to be in the edited print which I first saw on VHS. Furthermore, the sets are magnificent, the color restoration is excellent, and all technical issues are much better represented. But the script is too talky and leaves the film stage bound at points. Bergman looks incredibly radiant in all of her close-ups but it seems like a surface performance and one that is not that deeply felt.

At 100 minutes this is a waste

[crow-blush · 4 December 2003]

Good editing always improves the rough vision of the accumulated daily takes. Chopping the heart out of a completed film, however, should simply be a hanging offense.

The original 1948 Joan of Arc at 145 minutes is magnificent. The 100-minute version that's been foisted off on the USA buying public is below mediocre. Key scenes were deleted wholesale with no regard to continuity or development.

The only enjoyment from the severely and amateurishly edited version is to see Ingrid Bergman do what she does best. But only if you have seen the original version can this chopped and cropped semi-copy have any marginal value.

Check the specifications on any version you are tempted to buy. If the running time is 100 minutes, don't bother. Some European versions are longer at 125 and 133 minutes. Hopefully, someone will offer this masterpiece in a full 145 minute DVD version

Ingrid's Dream Project

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 4 February 2006]

The only version I've seen of Joan of Arc is the VHS edited version. But what I saw convinced me that it was indeed a triumph for Ingrid Bergman. Unfortunately it had lousy timing in when it was released and poor editing that cut it to 100 minutes.

Ingrid got her greatest stage reviews in this part and she does a grand job in playing the charismatic Maid of Orleans who rallied a nation with her simple faith and piety.

This should really be seen in conjunction with Henry V either the Olivier or the Branagh version. Henry V is the 100 Years War from the English point of view, Joan of Arc is from the French. Henry V is also the prologue of the events leading up to Joan of Arc.

Henry V has decimated the French army and has asserted his claim to the French throne as well as the English. He forced a treaty with the French, married the French princess and had the French king disinherit his son, the dauphin from the line of succession.

Then Henry V died quite suddenly and his infant son Henry VI became the claimant to the French crown. All the politics surrounding that is dealt with in Shakespeare's Henry VI Part I.

In the meantime the Dauphin is keeping up a rear guard action in exile. In this film he's played by Jose Ferrer in his screen debut. Ferrer captures the dauphin perfectly. Not exactly one of France's noblest kings, he's weak and unsure of himself. Still when Joan the Maid of Lorraine comes to him and convinces him of her sincereity, he believes in her.

He's successful with Joan as a symbol at the head of his army and he starts taking back his kingdom, bit by bit. But Ferrer loses interest and signs a truce with the English. Joan keeps on fighting with some loyal followers and is captured by the nobles allied with the English.

The high point of the film and her life is the trial where she is condemned as a witch and burned at the stake. Francis L. Sullivan plays Bishop Cauchon of Beauvais who does the dirty work for the English and he plays the part with relish.

Did Joan really hear voices from on high and was actually divinely inspired? If you believe in results then yes she was. After she died she inspired a nation to revolt. By the end of the Dauphin's reign when he became King Charles VII the English were only controlling Calais and its suburbs.

Poor Ingrid Bergman. The tabloids of the day did some job on her. As this film was in general release the scandal broke about her affair and the pregnancy resulting with Roberto Rosellini and the film tanked at the box office. Getting cast as a saint here and as a nun in The Bells of St. Mary's was just too much for the American public who back then really believed the images film stars conveyed.

I'm glad this film is fully restored now. Hopefully we'll see it on DVD one day.

Medieval Celebrity

[rpvanderlinden · 3/10 · 27 January 2012]

"Joan of Arc" feels rather vacant. Even the restored version, with all its lavish production values, gorgeous sets, vivid Technicolor, huge cast of stars in cameo roles and Ingrid Bergman's face it doesn't amount to much. It sort of washed over me.

We meet Joan running through the fields, then being chided for not paying attention to the everyday things that matter. She knows she's destined for something big. She's pious. She prays. One day she gets the call. Off she goes to lead the king's army against the enemy. There's something about her that humbles and draws respect from all who meet her. She's a medieval celeb. Soon this humble farm girl is seen in a series of tableaux. Look! There's Joan discussing strategy with the generals. There's Joan in a Mastercard front-of-the-line spot for the king's coronation. There's Joan leading the army. There's Joan, in her shiny, brand new designer armour, waving her sword and calling the troops to battle. There's Joan receiving a blue ribbon in the ratatouille cook-off (just kidding).

Director Victor Fleming takes full advantage of Ingrid Bergman's incandescent features, and she's not bad, but she didn't really convince me. There's little depth to her character. There's nothing in the film that shows Joan as so dangerous as to provoke the Church to prosecute and execute her. "I see angels". So what? Enough already with the piety and artificially imposed charisma. Let's have a closer look at the Joan who claims to have visions and a hot-line to God. Jose Ferrer bites vigorously into his role as the wimpy king of France, but it's a one-note characterization. I lost track of the horde of other characters. Many of the scenes seem perfunctory, and Joan's burning at the stake didn't move me.

The production design and costumes are absolutely stunning, and a lot of research seems to have gone into creating authenticity to a period of European history that's not often carefully depicted in movies. Many of the tableaux remind me of paintings I've seen of the Middle Ages (another film that takes a similar approach to its visuals is Laurence Olivier's marvellous "Henry V").

Recently I watched Otto Preminger's "Saint Joan", filmed in black-and-white. That film, essentially, tells the same story, but it was convincing, and really grabbed me.

The Maid who was sent from Heaven to support her failing France...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 18 August 1999]

We are in 1429, period of the "Hundred Years War" between France and England... The story follows the well-known outlines of the short life of the 15th century French saint, Joan of Arc...

Guided by divine Voices, the visionary daughter of a plowman, Joan (Ingrid Bergman), wearing men's clothes, leaves Domremy her village town in Lorraine and takes her long journey to Chinon to meet the Dauphin Charles VII (Jose Ferrer).

Inspired by God to free France from the ravages of the invading English, the peasant girl persuades the indecisive Dauphin to recruit an army and run out the ruthless invaders clearing the way for him to be crown King of France...

Joan leads the French Army to victory over the English forces at Orleans and stands proudly besides her king - as she promised - at his coronation in Rheims' Cathedral...

The Maid's followers believed that she came from God and the Burgundians and English were stricken with fear at her success... But Charles was tricky, ambition and deceitful in his goals... A counterplot was at work as a mean truce is suddenly signed with England, frustrating Joan's zeal to rid France of the enemy...

In an ironic twist of fate, the Maid of Lorraine becomes a political prisoner... She is closely guarded and kept in irons, and is tried as a witch by an English-dominated church court...

With no council to aid her, except her Voices, we see the intrigued illiterate girl, pitted against Bishop Pierre Cauchon (Francis L. Sullivan) trained in all the complexities of legal exhausting questioning...

We may ask ourselves how so many ideas and intuitions are to be found in a person so simple as she was saintly... Joan is, above all things else, the wisdom of a good people... She is the people of France, the plain people of the countryside of Lorraine which is sweet and clean through the courage and faith of the people as much as through the smell of woods and orchards...

Ingrid Bergman portrays with deep conviction her role as the delicate innocent virgin who raised the spirit of the French to hope for better times... She curbed savage England and stopped the spoiling and burning of France... Bergman's smiling face invoked spiritual revelation, the required light of a charismatic true heroine...

Hollywood Rewrites Another Bit Of History

[StrictlyConfidential · 4/10 · 12 April 2020]

At a 2-hour-25-minute running time I found this 1948 production of "Joan of Arc" to be on the decidedly overlong side.

And, of course, with this period drama being a Hollywood presentation you can be sure that the scriptwriters had taken the liberty to rewrite this little bit of documented history in order to better entertain its intended audience.

Needless to say - Upon its initial theatrical release - "Joan of Arc" (filmed on a pricey $4 million budget) was a commercial flop.

And, finally - Speaking about actress, Ingrid Bergman playing the title character - Not only was she too old (being 33 years of age at the time) to be playing the part of a 19-year-old Joan - But, she was also not at all suited for her role, either.

I have seen the DVD, full length version--a very flawed film with some redeeming aspects

[pacificgroove · 9 November 2004]

A very poor film translation of a stage play--rather than being tailored to the movie medium, this is very stagy, overly talky. The dialogue is arty and artificial. Everyone is obviously acting, giving a performance, though Bergman is radiant and her performance is passionate and sincere.

All of the exteriors (outdoor shots) which feature close ups of the lead actors are obviously shot on a sound stage. Some beautiful outdoor footage is used occasionally for establishing shots or transitions between scenes, but Bergman never leaves the soundstage.

On the positive side, the film is beautifully photographed, many individual shots are works of art, masterfully lit and composed. However, the camera moves only when necessary to follow the actors, the shots are static, adding to the staginess of the production. Which reminds me of CB DeMille; you could get a good idea of this film by saying it's like a DeMille film, only with more high art pretensions and less spectacle (no cast of thousands here).

The most outstanding aspect of 'Joan of Arc' is the music, it's prominently featured, good and loud, and it deserves to be--it's gorgeous.

The DVD has no extras at all, though the image and sound are excellent--a very good restoration job. A commentary track would have been very welcome; my guess is this was a challenging production, possibly with a long production period (three cinematographers are listed). It was a commercial failure, at least in part because of public condemnation of Bergman's personal life. I believe director Victor Flemming died soon after production. Lots of meat here for an interesting commentary or two.

the best version, Ingrid Bergman is magnificent

[pik923 · 10/10 · 1 February 2006]

There are rare moments on film where the actor gives and gives and gives. This is Ingrid Bergman at her best. Her monologues are magnificent. Her timing, her rhythm, the delivery of her lines are transcendent. Not only for Bergman fans, or fans of Joan of Arc, it is the best version of the film. You cannot beat this greatness of spirit. Many have tried, but none have succeeded. Highly recommended for those who love film, for sure, for those who teach film, and for those who teach acting. It is our great fortune that we live in an era of DVD technology, to have such quality of reproduction, matching the quality of acting. And Victor Fleming - well, he had the great karma and good fortune to be associated with some of the most fascinating films of the studio system, and fascinating actors on the big screen.

Cheesy and Overlong

[kenjha · 4/10 · 10 March 2013]

In this adaptation of the Anderson play, a teenager in 15th century France is implored by God to lead her country against England. It has a cast of thousands, which is a problem as it is tough to keep track of all the characters, especially since they all look like Moe Howard with their soup bowl haircuts. Although it appears to be a big budget production, the sets, costumes, and makeup look rather cheesy. Fleming made a number of terrific films, but he was not a great director. Here, in his final film, he is not able to overcome the stage origins of the material, as actors look like they are reading lines. There is too much talk and the battle scenes are poorly executed. Bergman looks great but she does not look like a teenager.

Best Version Of All

[kwood2 · 10/10 · 8 June 2001]

Why? It was made in 1948, when it was still acceptable in America to have open/honest religious feeling in public, so the film's tone is not apologetic, as later versions are. Bergman is utterly immersed in her role and radiates "purity" above "sexiness", which modern film makers tend to emphasize to please the marketing people (among others). In 1948, "production" aspects of film (plot, characters, "significance" of story) were paramount; and marketing was secondary. The order is reversed today, sadly, so films sacrifice "significance" for "popularity" ...which dates the film quickly.

I don't need 45 minutes more of this...

[blueish35 · 3/10 · 19 February 2012]

To start with this is one of the most miscast movies ever. I gasped when I saw Ray Teal in armor. Ward Bond, Gene Lockhart, Francis L Sullivan, Morris Ankrum and J Carroll Naish as Frenchmen, who was responsible for that? Bergman was atrocious. Her performance was bland and doesn't hold a candle next to Jovovich's torture in The Messenger or Seberg's vibrancy in Saint Joan. Both Milla and Jean were mercilessly crucified, or should I say burned at the stake, by critics but I much rather watch them than endure Bergman's monochrome recitation. I think Ferrer was possibly hampered by the temperance of the day. What he did was possibly as weird for its day as what Widmark did in a more enlightened time. The only thing duller than Bergman's "acting" was Fleming's direction which was completely void of imagination. Fabulous music but maybe a bit loud, beautiful Technicolor, fine costume and set design don't cover up these major flaws and I don't need 45 minutes more to tell the apple is spoiled. TCM is at this moment showing the 100 minute version. I don't know why they're doing that but 45 extra minutes isn't going to change Bergman's performance or the casting decisions. Harsh, but we live in harsh times.

Ingrid's great triumph!

[mary-135 · 9 February 2002]

I am lucky enough to have a video of the uncut version of this film, in which the trial is shown in full. This is the part of the film in which we see Ingrid's best acting. It's so immensely moving! Ingrid believed in Joan and it shows. She had just come from a triumphant Broadway run in Joan of Lorraine, the play on which this movie is based. The movie is a more straightforward telling of Joan's story [the play is a play within a play] and I would say it's accurate, though some details have to be left out, due to lack of time. Sadly, Ingrid's popularity in the USA had waned when this film was released. What a tragedy! I am amazed that a so-called enlightened and free nation could turn against this honest woman, because of her love for an Italian film director and the birth [out of wedlock] of their beautiful son. I think Ingrid would have won another Oscar with "Joan of Arc", had it not been for the "scandal". It's definitely the best film version of this remarkable saint's story and a fulfilment of Ingrid's lifetime wish. Long live Ingrid Bergman - and her favourite saint! Mary Hutchings [Founder, Ingrid Bergman International, Yahoo clubs]

Burn, Ingrid, burn...

[smatysia · 8/10 · 16 March 2001]

Ingrid Bergman plays Joan with such faith, and such dogged earnestness. And she was so beautiful. I, too, would have liked to have seen the massive amounts of footage cut from this film. I vaguely remember seeing this film on television when I was a small child. I couldn't understand why the Church would put a good person to death. It was some years later that I became aware of politics.