This response is due Friday, September 28. You get extra credit if you write your own response and also respond to someone else's quote (agreeing or disagreeing).
Please choose one essay prompt and write at least 2-3 well-developed paragraphs.
Essay #1: From Roger Ebert's essay on The Passion of Joan of Arc:
"There is not one single establishing shot in all of 'The Passion of Joan of Arc,'' which is filmed entirely in closeups and medium shots, creating fearful intimacy between Joan and her tormentors. Nor are there easily read visual links between shots. In his brilliant shot-by-shot analysis of the film, David Bordwell of the University of Wisconsin concludes: 'Of the film's over 1,500 cuts, fewer than 30 carry a figure or object over from one shot to another; and fewer than 15 constitute genuine matches on action.'''
Many avant garde films also do not have matches on action or carryover shots. Compare The Passion of Joan of Arc to one of the avant garde films we watched in regards to editing and miss-en-scene.
Essay #2: From the Ib Monty article I gave you:
"When the film was released, the close-up technique was regarded as shocking. Dreyer defended his method by stating: 'The records give a shattering impression on the ways in which the trial was a conspiracy of the judges against the solitary Jeanne, bravely defending herself against men who displayed a devilish cunning to trap her in their net. This conspiracy could be conveyed on the screen only through the huge close-ups, that exposed, with merciless realism, the callous cynicism of the judges hidden behind hypocritical compassion— and on the other hand there had to be equally huge close-ups of Jeanne, whose pure features would reveal that she alone found strength in her faith in God.' As in all of Dreyer's major films the style grew out of the theme of the film. In La passion de Jeanne d'Arc Dreyer wanted 'to move the audience so that they would themselves feel the suffering that Jeanne endured.' It was by using close-up that Dreyer could 'lead the audience all the way into the hearts and guts of Jeanne and the judges.'"
Agree or disagree with this quote.
I agree with the quote, because I believe that the use of close-ups by Dreyer was the best way to show the conspiracy during the trial and provoke emotion from the viewer. The use of close-ups makes everything more personal and real for the viewer and lets the director guide his viewer into the very essence of Joan. It is for these reasons, and more, that this film is so loved throughout the ages.
ReplyDeleteDreyer’s use of close-ups does a tremendous job (accompanied greatly by Falconetti’s acting) at going into the depth of Joan and her trial. Especially compared to other films made during that time period (and even when compared to a lot of modern movies), this movie achieves depth and emotion. Most movies during this time had a comical feel, with the actions, the acting, and the non-diegetic music. The actions and acting were exaggerated, as if meant for a play, and the music was fairly light-hearted, even during a serious moment during a film. The Passion of Joan of Arc was ahead of its time in many aspects, but especially in provoking emotion. The performances had depths and were for film, not plays. I feel this is partially achieved through the lack of screen action, because due to the camera’s capacity of shooting, everything looks slightly sped up, and for me, personally, that takes away some of the seriousness and emotion. There would be other ways to shoot this film and get similar provocation of emotion, but this way worked so well, I feel it is not worth attempting to match. The close-ups gave a very personal and vulnerable look at Joan, and a very ugly and atrocious look at the priests who tried her. Also, the close-ups added to the very chaotic feel to the film, which represents all the thoughts rushing through Joan’s head, like ‘Am I going to die?’ ‘Has God forsaken me?’ ‘If this was God’s will, why would this happen?’.
The use of close-ups does a good job at leading the audience all the way into the hearts and guts of Joan and judges, because there is nothing else to see onscreen but those. There are very little distractions, except if you chose not to look at the screen, from the condescending looks of the judges, and the look of pure petrifaction and fear of Joan. With medium shots and long shots and establishing shots, the viewer can get distracted and think or look at something else that Dreyer did not what, but through the use of close-ups, the viewer has no choice but to look at this innocent girl get ridiculed by these harsh and grotesque judges. You see exactly what Dreyer wants you see, and that is the coldness of this trial, nothing more and nothing less. Also, through the close-ups the viewer will have no choice but to notice the complete contrast between the judges and Joan, and this adds more sympathy for her and makes the emotion and pity for her all the stronger, because the more intimate a person is with another, the more heart-breaking an injustice to that person is.
I agree with the second quote. The extreme close-up shots used throughout the film were definitely necessary for the film to achieve the effect it was going for it. The film would not be the same if it was shot differently, and I feel that the film would not have been as emotionally affecting otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe "merciless realism" that Dreyer describes is evident throughout the entirety of the film. These shots force the audience to force the audience to look at nothing but the facial expressions of the characters on the screen. The viewer is able to feel Joan's pain and anguish by seeing her emotions and reactions so closely. As well, the close-ups of the unsympathetic jurors allow the viewer to see the proceedings through Joan's eyes. Even in the final scene, when Joan is being killed, the camera lingers on her face, keeping it in the viewer's mind and memory for the duration of the film, and long after.
2.) I agree with the quote. The Passion of Joan of Arc has an iconic style, utilizing intense close-ups and forgoing establishing shots completely. This thrusts the viewer into the action, and gives the film a "fly on the wall" effect that is immensely powerful and disturbing. The film intends to be a nearly real-time dramatization of Joan's trial, and the heavy visual style contributes greatly. Instead of using establishing shots to depict the setting of the trial, or where Joan was within the room, the viewer is subjected to close-ups of the judges' and Joan's faces. The faces are rendered in extreme detail, with every physical imperfection and tear immediately evident.
ReplyDeleteThis causes the film to feel more personal, and more painful - where long shots would make Joan look small and pathetic, the close-ups force the viewer to see the purity of Joan's expressions, and the menacing brutish looks of the judges. Joan's face is rendered a canvas of anguish. The close-ups make it clear: the film is about Joan's passion throughout the trial. A more conventional style would render the film more subjective. The use of close-ups forces the viewer to understand Joan's suffering, and more readily know the anguish she was subjected to.
P.S. - I agree with Jordan's and James' sentiments. Regarding the" "sped-up" quality of the film that Jordan describes - I too am bothered by it. I am comfortable with the limited dialogue of silent films, but the slightly sped-up footage that is used in them to compensate for the silence has always bothered me and disinclined me towards silent film. It always looks garish and discomfiting to me.
Joan of Arc versus Meshes of the Afternoon
ReplyDeleteAs Joan leaves the inquest room, the viewer catches one of the few glimpses of its dimensions after a scene that was almost completely constructed from close-ups. This method, deliberately limiting perception of space, mimics Joan’s frantic claustrophobic vulnerability and “[creates] fearful intimacy between Joan and her tormentors.” Much like Joan, Deren is rarely identified in relation to her surroundings and the camera often appears to film from her POV. By limiting the viewer’s perspective to the limited range of the woman’s point of view, Deren creates a compressed space similar to Joan of Arc.
In Meshes of the Afternoon there are often segments that deliberately undermine the viewer’s spatial understanding; for example, when Deren leans back through a window she is shown outside of a window over a staircase, shot in such a way that the viewer cannot perceive where she is in relation to the window, where the window is in relation to the staircase and the rest of the house, or even whether all of these shots are occurring in the same window. Then Deren stands up in the frame and appears to look out at, shown in an eye-line match cut, the room beneath her. However, the dimensions of the house as they’ve been previously established would mean that the living room could not possibly be seen by her from this perspective. Similarly, when Deren drops her key, she is only shown in close-ups of her hand that don’t reveal the context of her person, making the staircase appear infinite. The film manipulates the viewer’s understanding of film space by limiting the range of the viewer’s perspective and subverting the viewer’s reliance on film conventions such as the eye-line match cut or establishing shots that reveal the character in relation to her surroundings. This along with the fact that Meshes of the Afternoon cyclically returns to the house setting, creates a sort of dreamy claustrophobia that mimics the limited range of perception in dreams.
I agree with Jordan, James, Matt, and Ib. The viewer can’t “look away” from the characters’ faces when the characters are only shown in close-ups and there is nothing else in the frame to look to.