best film: The Passion of Joan of Arc from Dreyer
- It’s formally flawless and stylistically audacious at the same time. It’s one of the 20-25 (or so) I think you could legitimately call the greatest film of all-time at this point. It’s a film I’m going to try to get to every year or so.
- Shockingly enough (he’s known for taking a lot of time between his work)- this was Dreyer’s 9th film—he has 9 from 1919 to 1928—he’d slow down considerably after this and would only have 4 more over the rest of his life (36 years)
- The only of those 8 films from Dreyer made prior to this that I’ve seen is Master of the House (1925). It is not good. Preachy and offers almost nothing stylistically- so this is really, as far as I know, his birth as an artist (I think the rest of his films prior to Passion of Joan of Arc aside from Master of the House were lost)
- He was big on non-professional actors and stripping away all overacting and emotion—clearly he’s a massive influence on Bresson (The Trial of Joan of Arc Bresson made in 1962- not nearly as good) who did the same thing and also had films on similar subject matter and theme
- No makeup uses- unheard of in 1928
- Maria Falconetti’s second performance- her last performance
- Dreyer and Falconetti didn’t invent the close-up as an art form (Griffith and Gish really did that) from an artistic standpoint but this is the close-up as art at its zenith. It’s searing imagery and one of the greatest performances of all-time without a doubt
- Ebert references Bordwell’s book on the film—apparently there’s a study on the disorienting cuts and he does a breakdown (I can only imagine- how awesome)—there’s true theme and variation in the choices by Dreyer- many don’t carry directly over- either way it’s a masterpiece built, amongst other things, in the editing room
- It’s also a masterpiece in front of the camera (performances, mise-en-scene) and with the camera- there are many rolling tracking shots. Formal brilliance.
- There are really no establishing shots- at least in the court room or the prison (there are a few I guess in the gorgeous exterior work in the second half of the film on the way to the execution)
- Apparently Dreyer editing the film from current footage in post when he had some issues with money—it took him a year and a half to complete in the 1920’s and very few artists (Griffith, Chaplin, von Stroheim) took that long
- the mise-en-scene is masterful. The concave shapes, the crosses, and in a few scenes- gorgeous displays of blocking and framing
the mise-en-scene is masterful. The concave shapes, the crosses, and in a few scenes- gorgeous displays of blocking and framing
- I look forward to continuing my Dreyer study but I don’t remember it to be that closely connected stylistically with his other work. There are hints of it in Vampyr but this is closer to Eisenstein (I mean the battle sequence in the last 10 minutes of Passion of Joan of Arc has to make you think of Potemkin and the art of editing) in most ways than Murnau (which Dreyer’s Vampyr feels more akin to)
- Authenticity in the text is a goal here- we have the script taken from actual text from the trial
- The opening track is a stunner of a shot (one that would be repeated regularly) through the crowd at the trial
- It could just be me but Falconetti looks a little like the profit kid (Jeremy Blackman) from Magnolia. Normally I wouldn’t think anything of it but knowing Magnolia and PT Anderson I wouldn’t put it past him
- Characterizations enhanced with grotesque faces, fat, warts, moles, hair in nose, padded fat suits on the judges-Falconetti is unreal with those unblinking eyes
- Reoccurring tracking shots of judges
- It’s a top 5 edited film of all-time
- The head judge’s performance is underrated- never heard him motioned
- Stark white walls with detailed mise-en-scene (crosses mainly) placed sparingly and strategically throughout—the walls also draw you to the performance
- Simple but formally perfect
- Variation on the angles—profile, from underneath—the low angle-work with the camera predates Welles—this is a major breakthrough for me on this film (after 5 viewings here)
- It’s a symphonic repetition in the editing
- There are countless inventive shots- images that belong on a wall in a museum too many to mention- over 100 in an 80 minute film
- Disorienting breaking of the rules of eyelines—gives to her mythic quality and state of mind
- Both stark (objects in the frame in front of blank slate) and expressionistic (creative angles, eyelines, ordering and sequencing of the images)
- Worms in skull
- Hill with a cross
- The entire film is form and aesthetic choices—it’s worth noting that the first 15-20 minutes are essentially a court-room scene with questions and dialogue back and forth. This type of scene, going into the 21st century 100 years later, is almost always done in such an uncinematic way— Dreyer makes a masterpiece of back and forth dialogue.
- Painful to watch hair cut scene
- Another stunner shot is the overhead upside down shot of soldiers marching towards the end
- The rolling tracking shots of the sad crowd at her death perfectly mirrors the opening of the judges shouting at her
It’s formally flawless and stylistically audacious at the same time. It’s one of the 20-25 (or so) I think you could legitimately call the greatest film of all-time at this point
most underrated: Champagne from Hitchcock
- Most memorable for being (I believe) cinema’s first freeze-frame. But it isn’t just in the archives for this one cinematic flourish—this film is a series of high-wire stylistic exercises Trojan-horsed in a pretty bland narrative
- The freeze-frame is brilliant- and it’s important—Truffaut is the auteur most aligned with the freeze and it makes sense that it’s from Hitchcock. You can trace the roots back.
- Silent, comedy—the set-up (a lot of light flapperism that is a distant cousin plot to 1934’s Oscar-winner It Happened One Night
- Bookend visual flourishes- shot through the champagne glass- ingenious
- Like Murnau before him (this is clearly influenced by Sunrise in many ways) and Scorsese (the rubber biscuit drunk in Mean Streets), Aronofsky (a pounding headache in Pi) and many others after Hitchcock is determined to shoot everything creatively—he doesn’t want to tell you the ship is rocking violently back and forth, he wants to show you with the camera. Pure cinema. Sea sickness here.
- Vaseline on the edges around the entire frame to give the edges a soft focus and put the attention on the character in the center—alternative between his and her POV here
- Tracking out of Demme-like close-ups—really well done
- Hitch has another brilliant sequence here—he shows a robbery by showing only the feet of the characters—he’d perfect this of course and do it in 1951’s masterful Strangers on a Train
- Many graphic match transitions— once he goes from the blueprints of a boat to the room number on it
- The famous freeze frame edit comes 49 minutes in. There are people dancing and then we freeze and we’re in her POV looking at a picture (of people dancing) and he tracks away from it. Stunning
The freeze-frame is brilliant- and it’s important—Truffaut is the auteur most aligned with the freeze and it makes sense that it’s from Hitchcock. You can trace the roots back.
most overrated: Nothing from 1928 in this category. The TSPDT has The Cameraman ahead of where I would but it is a strong film so I’d be splitting hairs.
gem I want to spotlight: The Wind from Sjöström features Lillian Gish’s best performance, is a great drama, and is extremely accessible for the fan of contemporary cinema looking to tap into the silent era. The way Sjöström shot on location and used the sand and wind as characters in the film is quite astonishing- a great achievement.
trends and notables: 1928 is absolutely loaded. We have one of the best films of all-time leading the way and even without Murnau and Eisenstein contributing to the 1928 archives, there are multiple Must-See films and a legit top 10. Despite the advent of sound by Warner Brothers in 1927 with The Jazz Singer these are almost all silent films. Like 1927 the years are starting to get more and more depth so we have really superb films (The Cameraman, The Wedding March, Spies, Docks) from top line filmmakers from the era (Keaton, von Stroheim, Lang von Sternberg,) rounding out a top 10. There aren’t as many great auteurs as there are at any given time in the back-half of the 20th century or early 21st century— but the ones working during the 1920’s were more prolific. Sadly, this is largely the end for Buster Keaton—his last two archiveable films (giving him eleven in seven years). What a run! You can’t overlook the first archiveable film for Dreyer. As far as actors- the great French actor Michel Simon makes his archiveable debut in Passion of Joan of Arc.
Sadly, this is largely the end for Buster Keaton—his last two archiveable films (giving him eleven in seven years). What a run!– the house falling on him and his narrow escape in the open window in Steamboat Bill, Jr. here
striking imagery in Fritz Lang’s Spies
best performance male: It isn’t the best work from either of them- but both Chaplin and Keaton deserve another mention for their work in 1928. The depth here from both of them is impressive- strong lead performances again and again in some of the years’ best work.
many will guess this is the final shot from 1936’s Modern Times and it isn’t- another iconic walk off into the distance final shot from Chaplin, years before, in The Circus
best performance female: I want to say a tie because Lillian Gish is wonderful in The Wind. But, I definitely have to give the best performance of the year to Maria Falconetti in The Passion of Joan of Arc. It’s a devastating performance, her last performance, and one of the best 10 performance in cinema history.
top 10
- The Passion of Joan of Arc
- The Crowd
- The Wind
- The Circus
- Champagne
- Steamboat Bill, Jr.
- Spies
- The Cameraman
- The Wedding March
- Street Angel
Archives, Directors, and Grades
| A Woman of Affairs- Brown | |
| Champagne – Hitchcock | HR/MS |
| Docks of New York- von Sternberg | |
| Show People- Vidor | R |
| Spies- Lang | HR/MS |
| Steamboat Bill, Jr– Keaton, Reisner | HR/MS |
| Street Angel- Borzage | HR |
| The Cameraman- Keaton | |
| The Circus- Chaplin | MS |
| The Crowd- Vidor | MS |
| The Horse Ate the Hat – Clair | |
| The Last Command- von Sternberg | |
| The Passion of Joan of Arc– Dreyer | MP |
| The Wedding March- von Stroheim | HR |
| The Wind- Sjöström | MS |
| West of Zanzibar- Browning | R |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-See- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
Have you expanded from 5 to 20-25 of which you consider that can be the best? I remember reading in Joan of arc review that there were only 5 that can be considered the best
@Aldo- 4-5 was my number. That hasn’t change. But I’m more open to the idea there there is a legit case for more than that of course.
Drake after you saw 7 samurai and Vertigo again, would you put it in the top 5? this movies you have seen recently and they are the choice of S&S and TSPDT for the top 10
@Aldo- I’m not sure. I think they’re in a pretty good spot probably but haven’t thought about it. I set aside that time to do the list every few years (I used to do it every year and it was just too much) and pretty much confine thoughts like “Is Vertigo better than Raging Bull?” to that one day. haha. The rest of the time I just think about and admire how good they both are if that makes sense.
i reject the idea that there is a set number. i mean obviously if someone called say rebel without a cause the best film of all time well that is wrong, but if it were say singing in the rain, metropolis, bringing up baby, gone with the wind, night of the hunter, or wizard of oz or seventh seal (all films i consider among the best not in your 25), you can make a legitimate case for them being the greatest.
Hi @m. I really like the movies you mention except for singing in the rain, but you are going out of the top 100, i think 100 is a lot, i would say 20-30 even 50, but 100 is a lot, there is disparity in quality, not much, compare number one (the searchers) with some top 60-70 movies like the wild bunch or TGTBATU and differentiate which is the best, it is clear that the searchers is better, another case ACO that is in the top 50 is good, but not better than 2001.
I wonder how many of the top 100 movies have you seen? I have not seen all top 100
@m- There may be more– the exact number isn’t the point and it isn’t something I’m going to fight you on- but I don’t think it is a terribly long list (as you yourself admit to by putting a stop on something like Rebel Without a Cause). I’m an admirer of Bringing Up Baby for example– but if you think you can make a case that Bringing Up Baby is the greatest film of all time… go for it. I’d love to see it.
I can’t make a case for bringing up baby being the greatest film ever because I don’t believe it to be but if someone did that would be fine. It is a film I laughed at every scene basically and the chemistry between grant and hepburn is just stunning to see. The visual comedy is great and the idea that they are both basically in love but don’t completely realize it and then grant remarks that the day they spent together was the best of their lives. The dinosaur set piece ending was amazing visually also.
@m- maybe— that’s a slippery slope. I think you’re sliding off into taste (someone who maybe prefers comedy to what we’re talking about here with cinematic art) and/or someone that can’t tell the difference between Bringing Up Baby’s achievement and 2001’s achievement because they’re just that- someone who can’t tell the difference
You don’t believe it here with Bringing Up Baby- and frankly it shows in your argument for it
@m- all I’m saying is you’re drawing the line between Rebel without a Cause and Bringing Up Baby– i don’t see the difference between that and me drawing the line between Joan of Arc and Bringing Up Baby. Right?
Yeah I suppose. I think the best film of all time has to be something emotionally captivitating original and aestheticically brilliant. I get you drawing the line with Joan of arc and bringing up babay even if I disagree, probably because you don’t consider bringing up baby as great of a visual achievement. I know a critic I admire, jeffrey anderson who has Sherlock Jr liberty valance Joan of arc and bringing up baby all in his top 5. Obviously valance over searchers is more personal taste than searchers even if they are both great. That’s another thing, that I think no matter what we say, our own personal tastes are what makes us call something the best. For example I am in awe of intolerance, 2001 and metropolis, and I was blown away by gone with the wind. Gone in particular, some might consider it impersonal or melodramatic but me I was just blown away by how great iwlt was in every aspect. When you have someone smart like pauline kael who knows cinema inside out who disagrees it is OK because you know it is for their taste. What do you think of that drake. For example many would disagree including myself with blade runner top 10 although it is great. Do you think that you can attribute that to your own wow factor or that it is objective.
Also I think with films like 2001 Lawrence or intolerance part of their greatness island what makes other movies incomparable in a way is the scope. Even a film like citizen kane which is as good as any work of art throughout history might seem small compared to 2001 where we are taken to the stars. How do you feel about how scope factors into greatness. Also how do you feel about ambition. For example raging bull was set out to be a masterpiece while the fighter has no problem using all the cliches in the book. Do you think a film by someone who says they just want to tell a good story (like hawks) can be called the greatest. Like with everything in cinema there are exceptions of course, and I think bringing up baby is one.
Well actually this is not that bad, he are choosing very high quality top 100 movies, there are literally people who consider themselves cinephiles and believe that the dark knight and shawshank redemption are the best movies ever made
I watched The Passion of Joan of Arc after reading through your notes. Admittedly, I hadn’t watched it until now (I’m in my 30s so I have no excuse haha). Falconetti’s performance blew me away, and by the end of the film, I was completely devastated. A downright amazing realization of Joan’s last moments. This is one of those rare films that has the power to change the way people look at cinema. It’s a tough viewing experience, but a positive one. I haven’t had quite this emotional response to a film since my first viewing of Breaking the Waves, and I think Emily Watson’s performance in that film is just as moving, beautiful, devastating.
You make a very astute observation comparing the look of Jeremy Blackman (Magnolia) with Falconetti. It has to be intentional, right?! Especially when you consider Jeremy’s role in Magnolia and that final shot/scene of him glancing up (“This is something that happens”).
Great thoughts here, as always. Your site has been very inspirational in getting me back into cinema.
@William- thanks for the comment here- much appreciated. It makes for a great addition to the page. I’m with you on making the comparison to Breaking the Waves– both in the emotion and the performance. As for Magnolia– I mean yes- it has to be intentional– I guess I don’t know for sure but knowing PTA and how he works- I mean every little detail in that film (look at the books at the library and references galore) seems to be intentional.