BULLETIN BOARD
THE AGE OLD QUESTION
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001
From: C. S. Nakkas
...: did the audience get "it"?! Reading many audience reviews about The Messenger, I was genuinely distressed and even a bit irritated. I simply couldn't comprehend why so many (esp. American) viewers disliked the latter half of the movie on the basis of Jeanne not "continuing on with the great victory", as one viewer expressed it. First of all: Jeanne d'Arc was burnt on the stake. Allthough many parts of her legend are either fabricated or dubious (according to French historian Roger Caratini), this part is historical fact. It happened. Sorry!
I know, many Americans would have liked to see her being rescued by Gilles de Rais or Aulon, just like in Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves, slaying half of England's army as in Braveheart, defeating the King of England mano a mano and finally living happily ever after with a love interest. But then again, this isn't a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. Sorry for being so sarcastic, but this mentality truly annoys me.
I gather most of those who disliked the ending did so, because it reminded them that their own beliefs (and I'm not simply talking of religious beliefs!) aren't as infallible as they wish they were. The Messenger wasn't about the question: "Is there is a God who is personal? Are our prayers nothing more than self talk? Are we so hungry for spiritual experience that we...make it seem as though there is a God that cares and loves us?". It's not about God being personal, but God being the strawman for our own sinful desires, e.g. hatred. It's not about Jeanne talking to God, but whether God was talking to her, telling her to do what she did.
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." What if Jeanne misused God's name for her own sinful desires such as hatred, vengeance and selfishness? If God hates the English and loves the French, why did He let King Henry V defeat his French enemies (who outnumbered his severely weakened army more than 3 to 1) only three years after Jeanne was born? The question never was whether God exists, but whether God was on her side or on the side of any temporal and earthly power.
The most telling scene was after the the fall of Orléans. Soaked in blood with hundreds of corpses behind her, Jeanne has a beautiful vision of Christ, which suddenly turns into a "horror trip", as Christ (bleeding from his crown of thorns) asks her full of pain, "Jeanne, what have you done to me?". So which part of this vision was true? The part she would have liked to see and that made her feel comfortable with herself, or the one which made her feel guilty and would have made her question her motives?
After all, the Crusaders were constantly summing "If God is on our side, who can be against us" while slaughtering hundreds of innocent Jews, Muslims and even fellow Christians. So maybe it was time people watched this movie with a open mind. It's neither Braveheart nor The Patriot. It never was intended to be. Sure, the film has some flaws. But it really scares me to hear Christians saying stuff like "the audience is led to believe that her actions may have been revenge for the death of her sister. How is this Faith Affirming?" Hitler believed he was doing God's will, too. Mind if I question his motives? Oh dear, but that wouldn't be very "faith affirming", wouldn't it?! Does your faith has to be constantly affirmed? Is it so weak?
Truly saddened,
C. S. Nakkas
NOT FAITH AFFIRMING
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001
From: Mary Jo
Dear David,
Your site is really great. Movies and television are powerful mediums that can rapidly influence our thoughts about life. I would like you to consider removing The Messenger from your list of Faith Affirming films. I rented it last night with two friends and we all thought viewers are left with a terrible empty feeling at the end of the film. I looked through your readers' comments about the film and many agree that the scene of Joan's dialog with her conscience leave the audience with doubts about her visions. The audience is led to believe that her actions may have been revenge for the death of her sister. How is this Faith Affirming? Although the movie had many inspirational scences, it felt very dark at the end. We need light, not darkness right now.
Mary Jo
LEELEE SOBIESKI? ARE THEY SERIOUS?
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000
From: -Jessi Marie
I enjoyed The Messenger for its beautiful cinematography and Milla's acting (although I didn't get the whole "quivering before the Dauphin" thing). I enjoyed the scene where Dustin Hoffman showed up as "the man in black". I discussed this with friends, and we concluded that he was possibly the personification of Joan's own doubts. I didn't really see it as removing Joan's authenticity. But you're right- the film was historically inaccurate (although I didn't realize just how inaccurate before your review). It had the potential to be much, much better. (My personal favorite is Shaw's Saint Joan.) But about the TV miniseries- I didn't like it AT ALL. I found Leelee Sobieski's portrayal static and unfeeling (although she was the one closest to Joan, age-wise. I am a 17 year-old-girl and, believe me, Joan would have been much more emotional). I've always seen Joan as fairly emotional- passionate about her calling and her beliefs. Leelee's Joan left something to be desired. I am looking forward to this new movie as somewhat of an opportunity to 'fix' what the others have missed. also...I agree with Gifted- Angelina Jolie would be my first choice for the role. Thanks for the site. -Jessi Marie
BRITISH VERSION
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000
From: Jeff Hoyle
Saw the movie last night here in Englad, and it includes a scene where she is examined to see if she is a virgin. Is this a different edit to the one that was reviewed? Jeff Hoyle
Response: The U.S. had a different edit! -David
ENDING OF JOAN
Subject: thoughts on Film ending.
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000
From: Timothy
The film "Joan of ark" The ending did leave me with a tear in my eye,simply because after having signed the confessoin, supposedly giving her freedom(signing away her faith in God) ,she immediately had a visitation.(you call it her subconscious, I call it God) And in that time she did have great need for forgivness ,demonstrated by chasing after the confession in order to rip it up, to reaffirm her religious beliefs, after having a lap's in order to escape the flames..understandable i think.given the situation. All the chat between her and God("your" subconscious) was the test of faith,where in the end she did pass, through the affore mentond change of heart over the signing of the confession, and the constant requests to confess to a preast, once having been given her supposed freedom. In the end God did give her the Confession in her cell. She died having been forgiven and therefore feeling a little peace, and all was well except the fact that she never should have been killed in the first place.
Tim.A ike@paradise.net.nz
HAD POTENTIAL
Subject: Comments
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: "Marc Q. Owen"
You may include my email if you like. The Messenger had all the potential to be a great film. It had the glitz that the TV mini-series lacked. It had the potential to touch the audience with great sounds and special effects that can't be equaled in the TV version. The sad part is; it was a horrible movie. I was very disappointed in the portrayal of the character of Joan. It was such as callous disregard for history and Christianity. It was a very in your face mockery of Christianity.
Marc Q. Owen Norman, OK
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.
FANTASTIC, YET CHESSY
Date:Thu, 09 Dec 1999
From: "Jo McFetridge"
I'd just like to add some comments onto your (very good) site! I thought The Messenger was a fantastic movie. I thought that some of the first half was cheesy and formulaic, whereas the second half was profound, and interesting. I know that it is unrealistic to expect Hollywood to depict any historical movie perfectly (I mean, look at Braveheart! What a travesty!), yet I was impressed at the historical accuracy of The Messenger. Okay, we know that Joan didn't get shot in the chest with an arrow and then fall off the scaling ladder (these two events both happened, but not simultaneously), but that's just sensationalisation, and that's what people go to movies to see. I can forgive that. Joan, by her contemporaries, was not perceived as miraculously coming back from the dead. In fact, little mention in the historical transcripts of her incident with the arrow, except that she had predicted being shot a day earlier. The scenes of the little girl frolicking happily through fields of different coloured flowers made me cringe. The rape scene designed to make the audience sorry for Joan was also uncalled for, and historically untrue, and I thought it was detrimental to the effect of the movie as a whole. I liked the way that many of Joan's words and phrases in the movie were almost straight out of the true Joan of Arc's mouth. "You have been with your counsel, and I have been with mine," etc.. I thought that was possibly the best part of the movie. The props and the acting were also terrific--Milla Jovovich was believable and inspiring. Although a few historical details were smudged somewhat, the majority remained intact, and very entertaining. Many of the props were cleverly placed throughout the film, such as the young Joan lying in a cross-shaped position, in a field, right next to the sword that has possibly been sent from God, which also has a cruciform shape. Or when Joan is in the Church, and she is framed by the door behind her, then the camera pans to the stained glass window in front of her, in parallel to her own backdrop... marvellous imagery, and full of underlying implications. The second half of the movie, to me, was all about perception and faith. I thought that, absolutely, the best part of the movie was the fact that it made your mind race, your thoughts fly past at a thousand miles an hour. Was Joan a nutcase? A schizophrenic? Was she actually an angel of God? I disagree with the person who wrote on this site that Joan was made out to be a crazy woman whose visions turned out to be hallucinations, and that it was shown that she was fighting out of anger. On the contrary: I thought that the movie brilliantly portrayed a devout, faithful human being, living her life, trying to make heads and tails of the visions she was having, suddenly discovering that PERHAPS what she had believed was not the truth; the movie emphasized that NOTHING is clear-cut, that everything is subject to perception, and that TRUTH is relative. It is assumed by some that the character played by Dustin Hoffman was her Conscience. I interpret this character as God. Whatever it is, the character quizzes Joan on TRUTH, and perception (Joan : "It was a sign!" Hoffman: "It was a sword in a field."). The movie beautifully raises such questions about our own perceptions of truth, and makes the audience THINK about the nature of truth, the nature of faith, and even, thanks to the Hoffman character, the nature of God. That is one of the strongest aspects of the movie : that it makes you think! Thinking is something that most people should do more often. I walked out of the theatre inspired by one young woman's ability to inspire, to lead, to conquer, and, despite NO EDUCATION, to be profound and intelligent. That in itself is the Miracle of Joan of Arc. Although, in the end of the movie, we wonder what her motivation was --was it hatred, or was she a messenger of God, or both? -- it does not change the TRUTH that Joan of Arc accomplished miracles through her own faith and strength. The movie is about Truth, the power of faith, and about self-fufilling prophecies. That is a heady subject for a historical movie to tackle, don't you think? Luc Besson has outdone himself on this one.
Jo McFetridge
TWO THUMBS UP
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999
From:"Olga"
Sunday night my boyfriend and I went to see the movie The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc. All my boyfriend wants to say is: "DUSTIN RULES!, he's not God he is Satan with Gods face. Can't you see this too is an illusion?" All I want to say is WOW, two thumbs up!
LIKED THE MOVIE, NOT THE END
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999
The movie was great all of the way up until the point where Joan was visited in her cell by Dustin Hoffman. Many parts of the movie were not historically accurate, like the rape of her sister in the beginning or the destruction of her village. All of this never took place. The movie didn't even show her brother who later fought with her. But I still enjoyed the movie, it did well in portraying the life in those times. The props and battle scenes were very realistic. Still, it was made to look like her signs were illusions. They left out the part that she predicted 2 days before that she would be wounded in the battle where an arrow went through her chest. I think that itself is a miracle, she was really shot in the chest with an arrow and they say it went all the way through and stuck out of her back. The odds of surviving a shot like that are almost none, especially in those times with no disinfectants.The movie made it look like it was a sin for her to lead her countrymen to freedom from the English's invasion. I do not want to be misunderstood, I loved the movie, the beautiful Milla Jovovich made an unbelievably great performance. I just did not like the end where it was made to look like she fought a whole war , and gave up her short life just out of revenge for her family being killed, instead of being told to by God.
LEFT ME HANGING
Subject: Joan of Arc reply
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999
From: Debbie Griffin
This movie was very inspirational to me, yet I do agree, it left me confused at the end. It really brings out the importance of having your own faith, which means to me not relying on the church to have faith for you. You need to know what you yourself believe in. I believe Jesus to be personal, instead of going to a priest to talk to him for you, although I do respect that, but I feel that in this movie God seemed to leave Joan, and I was expecting him to come back. It seemed to all end in God's silence, when I guess I was expecting him to have the last say in this movie, with continuing on with the great victory. Although I cannot say that perhaps it did not end that way. Maybe it was through this way that it made us think about God's ways, and victory may not always be a happy ever after story. Even though confused I must say the movie still had a great impact. Half way through the movie I was saying "Yes, I want to be the next Joan of Arc!!!" I grew to really admire her, and even though at the end we questioned her like she questioned God, I often wonder how we would be in her shoes! Trials came at her left and right, but they might of given a bigger purpose than what meets the eye. Keep the faith, no matter what doubts and trials come. About the church, well, I believe that Joan pointed out that God is not more personal with the "church" than he can be with us. The "church" in the movie made it clear of the "superiority" they had, but of course Joan's God had a different idea and he made it clear through her. Enough with the focus of traditions and the rules of how close you can be to God. Here nothing seemed to hold Joan back from God until she began to doubt, but of course you can get many different points from this movie. It left you hanging in the end, but I'm sure it could speak to all of us differently, and all in all this movie spoke for itself. It can appear to be simply inspiring, and leaves us wondering "where do we stand?" (Thank you for your time, I am very greatful. You may post this if you like.
Keep up with your great work!)
Sincerely, Debbie Griffin (a teenager who likes your site!)
DAVID YEUBANKS REVIEWS MESSENGER
RE: The Messenger
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999
From: David Yeubanks
Hello. I want to say that I enjoy your site. You have some very interesting reviews and I enjoy reading your viewpoints. I did like your comments on the movie The Messenger, and for the most part I think I agree with you. When the movie started taking its twist away from the true story and made it look like the voice of God and Joan's faith all were in her head, it angered me. Initially I felt totally robbed of my hero (or heroine I guess I should say). Despite this reaction I still found the picture incredibly inspiring. It prompted me to pray earnestly for more than an hour following the movie and I had a wonderful time in that communion with the Lord. I went to see the film a second time, and despite my
understanding of what it appeared the producer of this film was trying to communicate about Joan, I entertained a completely different perspective on the film that actually was quite surprising even to myself. In all truth I enjoyed the film more the second time. Rather than rambling on here, I want to invite you to read the review I wrote about the picture on my own website. It's a bit lengthy but maybe it will interest you. I don't care if you share a link to my page on your site if you choose. Thank you for letting me share my comments. Keep up the great work on your fantastic site! God bless you and your family!
In His grip,
David Yeubanks
http://www.geocities.com/~prayershack/moviereview.html
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE MESSENGER
Subject: No message from The Messenger
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999
From: Samuel Kelly
I was immensely satisfied to see such a thorough review of "The Messenger", or any movie for that matter, not to mention the review being nearly exactly as I saw the film. Rather than give to you my take on the true story or countless blunders made in the film, I will simply paste in the e-mail correspondence between my freind and myself, with whom I saw the film last night. As you will see, we are both fans of Mel Gibson's take on William Wallace, which had many claims of historical inaccurcies made against it. Unlike The Messenger, those "inaccuracies" in Braveheart were largely irrelevant and hardly arguable. More power to Ron Maxwell in pursuing the finalization of a noble and true film about Joan of Arc.
Our e-mails were as follows:
[from myself to my friend]
I have given that movie so much thought my head is spinning. I too want to judge it on its own merits, and rarely have even thought of Braveheart while contemplating what I saw last night. When I do compare it to Braveheart, it is strictly in the sense that both had the similar elements with which to work (the potential power of the story and the historical background). I don't compare them in story or anything of that sort. One thing is for sure: the more I think of this movie the more I recall of what they really botched. There were times in the film when I was actually thinking about who I would tell to go see this seemingly "neat" film. But none of those better elements were ever fulfilled. Maybe high expectations can give such a bitter after-taste, but I really do believe the majority of my disappointment comes from the fact that there was still so much potential and hope, even two-thirds into the film for a reasonably decent film (even by Braveheart standards), but they couldn't stay the course for such a simple thing (authenticity). I don't feel confused by what each scene meant, but instead that each scene toward the end made a completely different point. I'm somewhat confident in understanding where the writer/director was going with what "confusion" was portraying or insinuating. Yet I remain confused as to what point they were making by doing it that way. It's almost like they didn't try to figure it out themselves, despite trying to give it a direction or two that may have been their sole bias. They tried to leave as much of it up to us, which is a certain take, and I can live with that. However, they didn't even want to clarify what seemed to be their own bias. So I ask why not? What were they afraid of saying? I don't compare the movies. I compare the direction taken by those who created them. Gibson knew what was good about his story and he "said it" that way. (So to speak. Ha-Ha.) Besson doesn't seem to have a solid point of view, or balls, or something. Despite being a much better movie, I recall questioning the same kind of motives, judgements, perspectives, etc. in The Fifth Element.
[my friend's reply]
I just want to say that I concur completely with everything you said. You effectively put my feelings about the movie into words. As you said, I think my main frustration with the movie is that Besson and the writers were either unwilling or unable to really THINK about what they wanted to say, and how they wanted to convey their message. Thus, I walk away feeling unfulfilled, in a sense. In Braveheart, it was evident that every scene and every word had been carefully and diligently thought out. I feel that Besson "gave up" on the ending to this movie--because he felt he had obviously made an incredible movie (despite our objections to it, there's no denying the scope and effort of the film) while Gibson, knowing that he too had made perhaps the best film of all time, saw it through to the very end.
Thanks for your time.
Voila tout!
Sam
GREAT PICTURE OF CHRISTIAN LIFE
Subject: -Joan of Arc
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999
From: Shane Fuller
Shane Fuller - I watched Joan of Arc last night and it greatly intrigued me. I think it speaks much to our culture who loves to read their own personal view into the events of life. The scenes with Joan and God are poignant! Joan was shown by God that she read what she wanted into the signs of life. All the events of life that God originated were read by Joan as her call to be a thorn in the flesh to the persecuting English. When in reality, these were not signs for Joan's call to her ideal ministry for God. God brings all this to her attention and lets her know that she did this for her glory. At first, she denies the accusations of God and then she recalls all the events of her battles and realizes they were not the call of God but the call of Joan. God shows her that He never needed her and that she used the different events of her life for her own vengeance and pride. She was not quite as indispensable for God as she had originally thought! She confesses to God all of her wrongs, and then God asks her if she is really ready. The next scene pictures her burning in the flames of heresy!
I believe this to be a great picture of the Christian life. Many of us tell God what His will for our lives is. We take all the events of our life and call them signs from God to, in the end, do what pleases us the most. We are so involved in the daily battles of life that we forget who life is about. In our individualistic society, we become so focused on self that we develop a prideful amnesia that pushes us to forget that we are part of a community that works together for a common cause. We must remember Augustine's admonition: 'Our hearts are restless, till they find their rest in Thee". Until our ultimate desires are to put first the Kingdom of God, all of our earthly kingdoms and dreams will crumble and have a great fall as did Humpty-Dumpty. All the horses and men of this world can never put them together or pick up the broken pieces. God has a way of showing us that we are not quite the "saint" we would imagine ourselves to be. He lets us know constantly that "our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked". Given the right place, time or person, if left to ourselves, we will fall. But if we confess our sins, God will hear and forgive. He may even test us to see if we are really ready as He did Joan in this film. We must constantly remind ourselves, lest we forget, that the Creator of this universe and the Source of all life does not need us. He may choose to use us to bring glory for Himself, and yet He does not need us to accomplish His purposes
APPLAUSE BROKE OUT
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999
From: Sheryl
My husband and I went to see The Messenger and we thought it was great! While the first half was exciting and action packed, the second half was more interesting as Joan faced her accusors and her self doubts. What thinking Christian has not had doubts?? If you never question/think about your faith, then how "real" is it? The final scenes of this movie are shocking when Joan is burnt at the stake, but it is a powerful ending and it makes you wonder...."Do I have the courage to take the ultimate stand for my faith?" I liked how Joan's relationship with God was manifested by the visitations in her cell...at the end she/Jesus (depending on if you think she was delusional or not) absolved herself without the help of the church leaders. This speaks clearly to a personal relationship with God----one where you do not need a pastor, reverend, or priest to interceed on your behalf. I have read the reviews also, and I was so surprised to hear how negative they were. When the movie ended, the theatre-goers (and it was packed) were completely silent.....stunned....and then applause broke out.....I think people were applauding Joan's courage and faith. I believe that people will like this movie more than critics expect...
RECOMMENDS THE MESSENGER BECAUSE...
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999
From: Paul Harmelink
I have just returned from seeing "The Messenger, the Story of Joan of Arc".
I recommend seeing it for these reasons:
The movie portrays a women who is driven by what God wants, not what we want. She adopts the verse "If God is for us, who can be against us." If you live by the above statement, many things in life will work against you. This film shows that struggle too. What are the struggles with yourself of knowing what God wants you to do, versus what others or you want to do. Be careful what you ask God to do, he may let you do it! God CAN perform miracles regardless of our screwups! This does not bash the church. It tries to tell history. A rare thing in movies today.
I also caution some people on these grounds:
The movie is rated R for some very realistic scenes, not gratuitous but real violence. This is a war in the 1400's after all. Language is also frank at times (although not tolerated by Joan!!!) One scene, while little is shown, the impact and emotion is shockingly felt. For some the pace of the movie can be compared to being a pilot: hours of slow movement, followed by seconds of
blinding speed. Overall it does work just fine. There is interpretation of events and some people hate that in a movie. Sorry, you have to think sometimes.
Finally (as anyone who knows me) why else to see this:
Directed by Luc Besson (Fifth Element, the Professional, la Femme Nikita), and starting Milla Jovovich (Fifth Element) The photography is stunning. (see attachment) The camera is literally in the thick of things for all action shots! Music score is right on, blend of classical, conventional orchestra and synthetic melodies.
Acting is moving. Milla Jovovich is riveting as Joan; Dustin Hoffman, John Malcovich and Faye Dunaway are the big names, but there is not a bad actor I can recall! Overall very educational about the times, and life of a figure in history and Christianity. Trial dialog is almost verbatim from the original transcripts.
While I cannot give it the "Simon Birch" seal of approval, this is a movie that helps you examine your faith and who is first in your life.
--
Peace, Paul Harmelink
"Not my will Lord, but your will be done."
HISTORY LESSONS
Subject: Joan of arc- the virgin warrior
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
JOAN OF ARC
October 10, 1999. I have noticed a recent strain of double movies about the same subject, be it volcanoes, meteors, ants, or, most recently, haunted houses. Next we have a duo about the same feisty French girl.
Of course, I cannot pass judgment until I have seen both of them, but thus far I have liked the first movie to hit theaters better than its mate, which puts the ball in Milla Jovovich's court. That's not a very good reason, I know, but I think there are other ones. One good reason is John Malcovich. Another is Dustin Hoffman. And, because I can't stress it enough, there's John Malcovich.
But I think the real reason is Luc Besson. He's a cool and elegant director, who manages to get both coolness and elegance in the same scene (see the diva fight in 5th Element), which is essential if Joan of Arc is to connect emotionally with its audience. And, most importantly, he's the director of La Femme Nikita, which gives him quite the upper hand at creating strong, complex female characters in the military. -Rob |
