One could say that this film functions as a sort of 'rite of passage' for art film aficionados. As they say, 'If you can make it through this, you can make it through anything.' However, "Jeanne d'Arc" does not function as an overall great film in its own right, at least in my opinion.
Honestly speaking, I would have found it nearly impossible to tell whether or not this was a so-called 'great film' had I not seen it on '100-best' movie lists. Certainly, I admire the creative camera angles and other directorial achievements of the film -- in this sense, it is somewhat interesting. However, no one, not even the most pretentious film snob should claim this film is interesting in terms of 'entertainment value.'
Now, don't misunderstand me. Great works of art do not 'have' to be entertaining; but, all great works of art are 'fun' for one reason or another. I will explain.
First of all, this, of course, depends on one's definition of 'fun.' The most basic, fundamental definition of fun -- mindless amusement -- is not that to which I am referring, though some great films do have this sort of appeal. (All works of art should make their audience think). Rather, the kind of fun I'm referring to is best described as a feast for the senses. One reason why I particularly love "Citizen Kane" and view it as my ideal 'great film' is because, if one engages every part of their being as they watch the film, the film will open itself up to them. It comes at its audience from many angles: it is an absolutely hilarious film, a dark film, a frighteningly ambiguous film, etc., depending on the perspective of the viewer.
The problem that great films often pose to their audience is that they first REQUIRE that the audience think -- even be willing to suffer -- before they begin to give back in their feasting of the senses. Truly great films give back on one's investment of focus, engagement, and meditation on the film. I just don't believe that "Jeanne d'Arc" gives back enough. I can only take so much of Maria Falconetti's exalted expressions before my sense of logic tells me, "Okay, now! That's enough! I get the idea!" I feel like nearly half the film is spent staring into her pupils. To some, this might mark greatness; and yes, I admit that it makes the viewer think. But to me, it does not make the film watchable; and ultimately, I do not believe it pays off.
These are my thoughts about the film. Sadly, I was expecting to enjoy it. I was ready for another feast of the senses, to have some fun, like with so many other great films; but sadly, this film could serve only as punishment to a sort of 'frenemie,' someone I am trying to wear out or impress via my film knowledge. This is not my version of a great film and it's one of the longest 90 minutes I've ever spent in front of a screen. (2/5)
Honestly speaking, I would have found it nearly impossible to tell whether or not this was a so-called 'great film' had I not seen it on '100-best' movie lists. Certainly, I admire the creative camera angles and other directorial achievements of the film -- in this sense, it is somewhat interesting. However, no one, not even the most pretentious film snob should claim this film is interesting in terms of 'entertainment value.'
Now, don't misunderstand me. Great works of art do not 'have' to be entertaining; but, all great works of art are 'fun' for one reason or another. I will explain.
First of all, this, of course, depends on one's definition of 'fun.' The most basic, fundamental definition of fun -- mindless amusement -- is not that to which I am referring, though some great films do have this sort of appeal. (All works of art should make their audience think). Rather, the kind of fun I'm referring to is best described as a feast for the senses. One reason why I particularly love "Citizen Kane" and view it as my ideal 'great film' is because, if one engages every part of their being as they watch the film, the film will open itself up to them. It comes at its audience from many angles: it is an absolutely hilarious film, a dark film, a frighteningly ambiguous film, etc., depending on the perspective of the viewer.
The problem that great films often pose to their audience is that they first REQUIRE that the audience think -- even be willing to suffer -- before they begin to give back in their feasting of the senses. Truly great films give back on one's investment of focus, engagement, and meditation on the film. I just don't believe that "Jeanne d'Arc" gives back enough. I can only take so much of Maria Falconetti's exalted expressions before my sense of logic tells me, "Okay, now! That's enough! I get the idea!" I feel like nearly half the film is spent staring into her pupils. To some, this might mark greatness; and yes, I admit that it makes the viewer think. But to me, it does not make the film watchable; and ultimately, I do not believe it pays off.
These are my thoughts about the film. Sadly, I was expecting to enjoy it. I was ready for another feast of the senses, to have some fun, like with so many other great films; but sadly, this film could serve only as punishment to a sort of 'frenemie,' someone I am trying to wear out or impress via my film knowledge. This is not my version of a great film and it's one of the longest 90 minutes I've ever spent in front of a screen. (2/5)