|
|
center>
 This film may not be released until sometime in 2000. There is another Joan of Arc movie that was released in November 1999 and there has been a TV mini series that aired earlier in 1999.
-Review by David Bruce |
JOAN OF ARC:
THE VIRGIN WARRIOR
(1999)
|
This page was created in September 1999
and was last updated on
May 17, 2005
|
Cast (in alphabetical order)
Jacqueline Bisset
Albert Finney
Derek Jacobi
Mira Sorvino as Joan of Arc
Written and Directed by Ronald F. Maxwell
Produced by Jean-Yves Asselin, Ronald F. Maxwell, Robert Rehme, Pierre Spengler
|
EXCITING NEWS FROM RON MAXWELL
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000
Dear David, Just saw your website. Bravo! And very interested to see the dialogue following my review of "The Messenger." Isn't the internet a liberating experience! You may want to post a link to my site www.ronmaxwell.com where I now have extensive material on my upcoming film Joan of Arc: the Virgin Warrior, including production designs, costumes, actual locations, etc.
Best wishes. Ron Maxwell
My daughter Kathleen and I met writer director Ron Maxwell at Director's Guild Theatre during the 1998 City of Angeles Film Festival in Hollywood. Following a screening of the great silent 1928 movie "The Passion of Joan of Arc" with a live orchestra, Ron Maxwell spoke to the audience of his dream of bring Joan of Arc to the screen. The impression he left us with was that of a man who with a passion for the true history of Joan of Arc. He studied her history for six years visiting the actual sites.
We are looking forward to this film with great anticipation.
This film may not be released until sometime after 2000. There is another Joan of Arc movie that was released in November 1999 and there has been a TV mini series that aired earlier in 1999.
HERE IS WHAT RON MAXWELL HAS TO SAY ABOUT LUC BESSMAN'S PRODUCTION:
"THE MESSENGER"
Dumbed Down Dame
The French ecclesiastics delegated by the occupying English powers to the thankless chore of determining whether Joan of Arc was an impostor or a heretic guided by Satan would love this film. Luc Besson attempts to prove what even the best prosecuting clerics of her day could not: that Joan was a demented, misled, hysterical, confused and guilt-ridden phony. But even with the power and money of Sony and Gaumont behind him, he is no more convincing than the inquisitors of Rouen.
Since the historical record of perhaps the most documented trial from the medieval era is almost totally ignored, among other things we are never told about the saints Margaret, Catherine and Michael. In the trial transcripts, under grueling cross-examination over a period of months, Joan herself identifies and describes these encounters. Why are these filmmakers not interested in taking Joan at her own words nor in the testimony of anyone else who knew her as recorded in voluminous first-hand accounts in the trial of rehabilitation conducted just twenty years after her execution? And why is no allusion made to the significance of these particular saints to the French and English societies of this era? The difference between the story of a young girl who claims to have been visited by specific saints and one who is transfixed by thrashing winds, rushing clouds and a wolf pack on the hunt is the difference between the real life Joan of Arc and the fictitious marionette of this film.
The film begins with the child Joan witnessing the brutal murder and rape (in that order) of her sister Catherine by marauding English soldiers. There is no evidence in the historical record that this ever happened and, in any case, it was not English soldiers who ransacked Domremy, but Burgundians from the other side of the river Meuse. Aside from the fundamental responsibility of any artist to strive for the truth, why does this matter? It matters because, with the subtlety of a pole-axe, the filmmakers are desperate to provide the young Joan with "motivation." Revenge, the all-purpose motivator of nineties movies! This graphically filmed scene (qualifying the film for an R rating, thereby keeping young people away from a story about a young person) is followed by a scene with a priest in which she rails at God for permitting these atrocities. There were many horrors that took place in the Hundred years War, and much to rage at both God and man, but this made-up incident wasn't one of them.
When a film is founded on a lie, and a perverse one at that, nothing that follows can be trusted. In the case of "The Messenger," a true story of love and sacrifice, of dedication and faith, is cinematically morphed to a false one of hatred, bitterness, fury and revenge. How was this incredible revelation overlooked by playwrights Shaw, Schiller, Anouilh, Peguy, Brecht; historians Duby, Pernoud, Michelet, Warner, Fabre, Quichertat, Contamine, Luce; novelists Anatole France, Claudel, Delteil, Dumas, Malraux, Twain, Tournier, Vioux, Keneally; and, filmmakers Dryer, Ucicky, Gastyne, DeMille, Fleming, Preminger, Robert Bresson, Enrico, Panfilov and Rivette?
This Joan, strangely removed from the medieval universe in which she lived, neither speaks the names of her saints nor the names of the Virgin Mary or of Jesus, even though she had these names sewn into her banner, regularly prayed, exhorted others to pray and regarded her own virginity as crucial to her mission. This question of her virginity, so significant to her contemporaries, is not even alluded to in this film. In the fifteenth century, all believers knew that Satan could not enter into the body of a virgin. That may seem a quaint notion to us now, half a millenium later, but it made all the difference to those who considered giving Joan their support and to those who would later seek to condemn her.
The sets and costumes indicate a film set in the early fifteenth century, but nothing in the character and belief system of this portrayal takes the slightest step out of the pop culture of the late twentieth century. If the intention is allegory, why set it in its own physical context? Is this honest? Bertold Brecht, in "Saint Joan of the Stockyards," transposes the scene to 1930's Germany, where she becomes a "creditable visionary and worthy antagonist for powerful and nasty men." In the Russian feature film, "The Screentest," (1970), Gleb Panfilov sets Joan's story in Moscow, wrapped within a film crew making a movie about Joan of Arc. Both are examples of poetic license and both stand as convincing portrayals of the character of the actual woman.
If "The Messenger" is an attempt at fabricating a feminist Joan, one who carries the torch of womankind into a man's world, the filmmakers would have done well to avail themselves of Christine de Pizan's epic poem on Joan, the only poem written by a contemporary. It is a paean to womankind, an ode to Joan as liberator and woman of faith in the tradition of Judith and the selfless saints of antiquity whom Joan herself adored. If Joan was indeed the boorish, screaming, hysterical, frenzied, petulant, angry and weepy female as portrayed in this film, the salutary proto-feminist poet would not have written about her, nor would anyone of either sex have followed her out of her pasture, let alone into a campaign to liberate France.
In our modern world, persons who claim to hear voices are sometimes thought to be delusional or schizophrenic. At the very least, the sound of bells ringing in one's ears can be diagnosed as tinnitus. In Julian Jayne's fascinating treatise, "The Origin of Consciousness . . . " he suggests the relationship of the brain's left and right lobes as separate entities in a life-long dialogue. Such an exploration might have made for an interesting and worthwhile film, but this film tosses out the possibility of a delusional Joan like a sensational expose in some glossy gossip weekly instead of as a valid idea to be seriously explored as was the case with films that at least tangentially deal with these themes such as "Breaking the Waves," "The Anchorite," or "Therese."
Near the end of the film Dustin Hoffman appears as one of her voices, ostensibly her conscience, his mission being to debunk the mythology of Joan's belief system. There follows a laborious sequence where the miraculous appearance of Joan's sword in her youth is recalled and then explained by circumstantial evidence. The beautiful photography, insisting score and weighty authority of Mr. Hoffman's performance cannot hide the fact that Mr. Besson is setting up an historical straw man just so he can tear it down. In keeping with all the other historical infidelities of this film, there was no sword in the field, and the real Joan never claimed that her sword fell down to her from heaven.
This cinematic hocus-pocus is revealing of a more profound absence in this film, the total inability to comprehend and to express the miraculous while simultaneously adding to the clutter and confusion which has over the centuries accumulated to the Joan story like barnacles.
A film that separates fact from fiction would be welcome. What is the point of a film that further obfuscates, that makes the already murky waters an impenetrable tar? Beyond the mythology and folklore lived a real person in real times who said and did real things. The known facts, or even the events as conjectured by the best historians, are infinitely more interesting and dramatic and fantastic than any of the lame inventions of this film. When you haven't taken the trouble to learn about the real civil war in France between Armagnacs and Burgundians, about the actual intrigues inside the Valois court, about the centrality of faith to fifteenth century peoples, about the schism in the Catholic Church, about mystics and witchcraft and the nascent Inquisition, about pilgrimages and crusades, about symbols and chivalry and the circumscribed role of women in medieval societies - all forces that swirled around Joan, informed her world view and shaped her destiny - then you're left with nothing but to make it all up. The result is "The Messenger," which only pretends to portray Joan of Arc, informed as it is by nothing more than hand-me down folklore, pop psychology and the current maxim to make it "relevant" and "accessible" to a modern audience, to squeeze Joan's immense cosmology into the narrow confines of fashionable skepticism and the cinema of "cool."
The point, however, is not that this or that miracle occurred or didn't occur. The "miracle" is Joan herself. How did a seventeen-year-old girl, a peasant from the fringes of the kingdom, manage to enlist the trust and support of a nation and play a pivotal role in expelling a foreign invader? Not only does this film fail to pose this central question, it seeks to remove the authenticity of Joan's faith and the faith of her countrymen as at least a factor in these complex events.
The film does try to portray Joan as a warrior, which is in welcome contrast to the sometimes limited view of Joan as simply a pious victim. De rigeur, there are hacked off limbs, decapitations with blood gushing forth, maulings and maimings, and spilled entrails - plenty of superficial movie mucous. But there is none of the dark beauty of equally violent films such as Kurosawa's "Yojimbo" or "Sanjuro," with their existential undertones and potent sense of character imbedded and connected to a specific time in a specific place. Ms. Jovovich's Joan is a thoroughly modern Milla who struts and poses across the battlefield as if she's doing a layout for Vogue. She is surrounded by a motley crew of armored buffoons and clowns who have as much to do with Dunois, Lahire and Giles de Rais as La Cirque du Soleil. Real jeopardy is replaced by theatrical bravado and cliched camaraderie, the kind of movie where every other stunt is supposed to be a joke. So much so, that Joan's wounding at Les Tourelles arouses neither sympathy nor apprehension. It is emotionally empty. When it comes to scenes of battle, this film has neither the character based grittiness of Kenneth Branagh's nor the sheer visual splendor of Laurence Olivier's "Henry V" films, both set in precisely the same epoch.
Might this film be Vanity Fair or, to put it in its proper historical context, a bonfire of the vanities? The term originated in feudal times, when the populace were exhorted to dispense with the trinkets and trivialities of their earthy excesses, hurling dice, ornaments, fancy clothes and playing cards into the flames in an orgy of self-purification. Perhaps this film teaches us what should be relegated to the flames: the vanities of arrogance (thinking a film on Joan can be made with no regard to the research and the record), of self-adulation (believing that cleverness can substitute for a genuine search for the truth), and of vanity itself (the obvious way in which the role was cast and the reason for which the movie itself was made.)
Notwithstanding other qualifications and talents, can a filmmaker attempt a film on Joan of Arc without a sense of humility and a willingness to listen; perhaps not to the Saints who visited Joan, but at least to the hundreds of real life people who knew her and whose testimony has been recorded for posterity, to the hundreds of scholars who have studied her over the centuries and to the artists who have written poems and plays and novels and made movies about her? Would there be something innately authentic in availing one's self of this kind of knowledge, in submitting one's self to this kind of discipline, in modestly accepting one's valid place in the collective effort of generations seeking illumination and truth? In such organic context could a filmmaker make a lasting contribution to our understanding and our continuing fascination with this remarkable woman?
Regrettably, "The Messenger" stands off by itself, disconnected from any authentic witness or tradition or community, whether religious, artistic, cinematic, historic or psychological. It is the ultimate ego trip, the polar opposite of the historical Joan, who surrendered her ego to what she herself saw as a higher calling. She came to be a liberator at the head of armies because she earned their trust, because she was self-less, she was viscerally connected with her people, she was authentic, she was faithful and she was loving -- immensely loving. That is partly an understanding of her power -- the power to rally soldiers, inspire the common people, win over princes and prelates, and the power to endure in our hearts over the centuries. All else is mystery. The inability to distinguish between what is historical and what is mysterious, compounded by the inadequacy in rigorously pursuing either choice, is the failure of this motion picture.
In 1899 Georges Melies produced the very first film on Joan of Arc. There is more truth in any single frame of that silent, awkward beginning than in this entire inflated state of the art mega-mess. It's not Joan who should be judged as a fraud. It's this silly, heartless, mean-spirited, small-minded and completely phony film.
Ronald F. Maxwell November 7, 1999
www.ronmaxwell.com
Mr. Maxwell wrote and directed the motion picture "Gettysburg" and is preparing his own film on Joan of Arc.
|
|
BULLETIN BOARD:
CAN NOT ARGUE, BUT...
Subject: Coming to this late...
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000
From: Trish
I come to the discussion late, only just finding this site. I just read Ron Maxwell's review of THE MESSENGER, and it was a well-informed, well-written review, and I cannot argue really with a word of it. I appreciated learning from it, and readily admit I was not aware of the inaccuracies of the film, but had my hunches there were liberties taken. That being said, however, I must agree with Robin's comments from April 20, 2000 and say that despite the problems, the way the film was presented did not denigrate Joan to me, but rather inspired me because, to me, it showed that she had a heavy burden, that as a human being, it would be normal to have doubts, etc., and Beeson made used cinematography and soundtrack music in a highly effective way to manipulate my experience, and I appreciate that. I found I wanted to know more when I left the theatre, and I found out more due to the inspiration the film gave me. I didn't like the wind instead of voices thing either, but on the other hand, I chose to interpret that as a respect like they once did in films on Jesus, not showing his face: I didn't assume she didn't hear a voice, I rather assumed she heard what she heard, but we were given a more impressionistic version. I found Mila to be a STRONG performer in this role, and she affected me greatly. I did NOT like the girl who did the role on television - to me, she wouldn't have inspired me to walk a block following her anywhere, let alone into battle.
THREE CHEERS FOR RON MAXWELL
Subject: Three Cheers!
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000
From: Steve
Finally someone is making an epic film depicting Joan the way she really was. Taking the time to study her and show her in her true light. Depicting events the way they really happened. This hasn't really been done since the old glorious movie classic with Ingrid Bergman from the 40s. Mira Sorvino will be excellent!
ARE THEY THE SAME?
Subject: hello
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000
From: kathrine
hi i really loved the movie but i was wondering is the messenger almost like the joan of arc movie? please respond kathrine
Response: Same story, but very different approach.
EXCITING NEWS FROM RON MAXWELL
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000
Dear David, Just saw your website. Bravo! And very interested to see the dialogue following my review of "The Messenger." Isn't the internet a liberating experience! You may want to post a link to my site www.ronmaxwell.com where I now have extensive material on my upcoming film Joan of Arc: the Virgin Warrior, including production designs, costumes, actual locations, etc.
Best wishes. Ron Maxwell
Response: I really like your site Ron. Everyone who is interested in the production of Joan of Arc should check this out. I believe this is going to be the definitive film. -David
PICTEX
Subject:- another update
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000
From: HEIDI
Just went to the website-looks like there is a website of the company that will be producing the show- called pictex....you can log onto it through Ron Maxwells site or through pictex.com- Their site is under construction right now, But it works like this...the public puts in ideas or what kind of movies they want to see and therefore they have direct impact on what kind of movies are made there. The joan of arc movie is soposed to be made through their company- Also they are offering a deal where anyone can pay for tickets in advance- and if a movie isn't made they would refund the money... I wonder if this was made specifically with the Joan of Arc project in mind? they will give anyone who pays a refund if needed. And they also said that as they are making a movie, they will have updates ,costumes- cast etc...basically anything that a director would see making a movie- which means we basically would see it being made from the ground up...I think this sounds pretty good... heidi
A GREAT FILM
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000
From: Robin
I thought "The Messenger" was a great film, although historically inaccurate and a disservice to Jehanne Darc herself. The scenes were visually stimulating and seemed to pull one into the period. I viewed the film twice because I found it so inspiring. However, throughout the film the producer/director constantly questions whether or not our heroine really hears voices from God or simply in her head. This is fair, but it was done to such a point that one walks away with the feeling that this film has erased away the possibility that Joan was actually inspired by divine intervention, define that however you may. As I recall from other articles, Jehanne/Joan claimed the voices to have been that of Saint Michael (the patron saint of France), Saint Margeret and another saint that escapes me. I do not believe she claimed that the voices were directly from God. Also, what I think is clear in this film, and historically, is that the church did not believe Joan was a heritic, however, England wanted her declared so in order to justify their cause and rally the troops. I think what this and other similar films show us is that the pursuit of wealth and power truely are the roots of evil, and that the good always end up martyred, because in this life, wealth, power and self-absorption are all that matter.
UPDATE ON JOAN OF ARC
Subject: another update
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000
From: heidi
Just went to the website-looks like there is a website of the company that will be producing the show- called pictex....you can log onto it through Ron Maxwells site or through pictex.com- Their site is under construction right now, But it works like this...the public puts in ideas or what kind of movies they want to see and therefore they have direct impact on what kind of movies are made there. The joan of arc movie is soposed to be made through their company- Also they are offering a deal where anyone can pay for tickets in advance- and if a movie isn't made they would refund the money... I wonder if this was made specifically with the Joan of Arc project in mind? they will give anyone who pays a refund if needed. And they also said that as they are making a movie, they will have updates ,costumes- cast etc...basically anything that a director would see making a movie- which means we basically would see it being made from the ground up...I think this sounds pretty good... heidi
JOAN OF ARC LIKE MESSIANIC FIGURE
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000
From: Sue
Having just viewed this production on video here in the UK, although it was a rather basic script I was interested to see the interpretation of the Passion Narrative with Joan as the Messianic figure. Even a "mother" in the shape of her fictious nun friend and the "beloved disciple" who has been with her from the beginning, the alternation of Joan's final cries from "Jesus" to "God" echo Jesus' cry "My God, My God...." I've seen better character development but all in all an enjoyable experience and the biblical references where not lost.
Sue
MAXWELL'S JOAN LEFT ME IN TEARS
Subject: read the screenplay
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000
FroM: Heidi
I just finished reading the screenplay for this movie-I read till 1:30 am yesterday, and finished it this this will be the most accurate movie on Joans life that I have seen-and it left me in tears at the end. It showed joan as I feel she was. What an incredible movie this will be!!
Heidi
Response: I really hope the movie happens! -David.
MORE INFO ON JOAN OF ARC
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000
From: heidi
I just finished Regine Pernouds book-"Joan Of Arc-By herself and her witnesses" (Pernoud is soposed to be THE expert on Joans life) I had some more thoughts.. I have studied Joan for 2 years and have been interested in the making of this movie - especially after the historical flop the Messenger was- case in point- Joans sister was not raped and killed- She died in childbirth. Another thing is that Ron Maxwell (who also wrote Gettysburg- a screen play that Ted Turner had intended as a series on tv- but was so impressed with it that he decided to fund it for the big screen) studied Joan for 6 years in France- Besson tho he lives in france obviously didn't study her. The only historical part of the film is laughable- Sony said that it was historical stating this fact- Besson had the exact amount of soldiers that Joan had. Thats nice- If your looking to numbers- But what about the records that are there for anyone to read.... was he too busy to read them?? If your going to make a movie on Joan- You better!! I was furious at this pathetic attempt to make a movie on Joan without studying her true character-along with the lies this movie portrayed. (ESPECIALLY the so called rape & killing of her sister making Joan want revenge-???He just changed the history books on Joan to suit himself - How many people now think that actually happened when it didn't!!)How dare he take someone so selfless and make her into a selfish, bloodthirsty lunatic. In many instances- she was seen in the battlefield crying over the enemy- Even held an Engish soldiers head in her lap, crying and comforting him as he died. Now I believe that this movie that Ron Maxwell will not only show us who Joan of arc was - but show us her true spirit- Her devotion and love for her country- And the mission she was called to. I e mailed him- ( I don't know him) and am impressed at the time and effort he's spent in making this movie on her.At this point it is still in post production- But on his site there is now a link on his Joan of Arc production- And for those who want to read his screen play- He has it on his web site for $29 ( Just saw it yesterday)and it looks as if its a go-as soon as everything is right. I really liked his review on the messenger too- He said it would take someone who was humble to make a film on her- someone who looked at everything she said and what people who knew her said of her- Its there for anyone to read- I have read her trial- And the testimonies of her friends- If I could - Why didn't Besson??? But the high point to this is that Maxwell DID, and that to me is in itself the reason why this movie will be the best movie done on her life.The reason? He's taking the time to do it right. heidi
My response: Thank you. I appreciate all the additional information.
RON MAXWELL MISSES THE BOAT AGAIN
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999
From: Doug Ball
Twice now, that I know of, Ronal Maxwell has missed the boat.
He lost out with his far superior "Gettysburg," and now he's lost the race to bring Joan to the market. This must be frustrating for him, as it is for us his fans.
What happens? Do the Hollywood moguls get wind of what he's doing and then beat him to the punch with an inferior product that undermines the truth? Or does Maxwell simply take too long doing his research? Or is it a matter of raising funds?
And I agree with "Gifted." He should use Angelina Jolie as Joan. "Tough and beautiful" is right!
Doug Ball
I COMMEND RON MAXWELL
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999
From: Tanya Tiedje
The human race at this point is more open to believing in evil spirits communicating with people. The possibility of Angels and saints appearing to humans is looked upon with much skepticism, because for the most part this planet is so very disconnected from the higher realms, and has forgotten we are in fact spiritual beings more than material beings. We have lost hope in this world filled with (our own creations of) fear and destruction.
Yet beyond all skepticism and doubts of the mind (which is only a 'computer', not our essence) our souls are able to - upon breaking down the barriers of doubt and fear which surround our souls - recognise Truth. Joan of Arc has remained in the hearts and memories and fascination of the world, because deep within our souls we know her visions were real, as was her faith and her selfless love.
I commend Ron Maxwell for his dedication and his efforts, and for his courage and integrity in endeavouring to bring us a true portrayal of this powerful woman. Jeanne appreciates your efforts Ron.
Tanya Tiedje
HOW ABOUT ANGELINA JOLIE?
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999
From: Gifted
mira sorvino is way to prissy to be joan of arc.......
how about Angelina Jolie? tough and beautiful
HISTORY LESSONS
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999
From: Heidi
I had heard about the new Joan of arc movie - (The Messenger) and was exited about it, because I've studied her. But even before I've seen the movie- I've heard things he's put into the movie that NEVER were in history- Like the rape and killing of Joans sister..... never happened- just more hollywood glitter - ( Was he just trying to make it look like she did it for vengence?) And a sword didn't just fall out of the sky- she herself found it at the church. My favorite book is Mark Twains Joan Of Ark. He studied her for 12 years, went to France and England to look at records- And he concidered it his greatest and most important work. (I was happy to see that Ron Maxwell mentioned this book!!!) And the voices and angels she saw were not only male- they were female- these were things joan said- They are in the records anyone can read!!!
Theres so much more I want to say on how she's been taken apart by someone who looks like he hasn't done his history lessons - But I'll leave it to someone who's studied her much longer than I have- for 6 years he's been in france and elsewhere- looking at records, etc- he also made the movie Gettysburg- and I don't know when, But He's doing a movie on Joan of arc- which he's planned for years - with Mira Sorvino- Who in my mind (if you see the right pictures of her) looks more like Joan than Milla ever could ( Though I must say she is quite pretty, Just doesn't look the part- I have heard she does a good job in the movie. although joan had dark hair, not blonde, or all the other colors her hair was in the film... I've heard its symbolic-her hair- but does he really know who joan was- or is it just some strange twist on her story? Ron Maxwell has some exellent points about the movie that I'm sure you've already read. (since I've read about it on your site) I am waiting patiently( or should I say impatiently!!!!) for his version- It sounds like he wants to make it the way it should be-not just for glamour and glitter- But for her spirit- her devotion, and for the incredible person she really was. (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE- keep me informed on any of the latest info on his project on her!!!
heidi
LOTS OF JOANS
September 15, 1999.
Mira Sorvino as Joan of Arc????? Isn't she a BIT anti-waif? I think Mila Jovanovich is a bit TOO waify, but Leelee Sobrieski was PERFECT!
-Ted |
|
OFFICIAL SITE: NONE
|
|
| |
|
|
