OK, guys. I am posting this a little late, so you get an extra night to work on it. Your responses are due on Tuesday, September 20. If you are having difficulties with Blogger, email me your responses. Please do try to post to the blog because I want to see you guys commenting on each other's comments. You get bonus points from me if you comment twice or more. Once as your response and once (or more) as a response to one of your colleagues.
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 mise 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 conspir- acy 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 look forward to reading your responses!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who was moved to tears when confronted with the huge close-up of Joan’s pained face as she faced death alone, I feel it is undeniable that Dreyer succeeded at “mov[ing] the audience so that they would themselves feel the suffering that Jeanne endured.” It was indeed these powerful close-ups that led me “into the heart of Jeanne,” something that would not have been possible otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the film Falconetti’s face was replete with emotion, most notably when she would cry a single, heart-wrenching, tear. These moments of intimately moving emotion were captured in close-ups, making them even more pointed. From one of the first shots in the film, a high-angle shot in which Joan tries to count on her fingers in an effort to figure out how old she is, the viewer is touched. The angle, and the fact that she is uncertain of her own age, produce a feeling of helplessness that is only intensified by the close-up in which it is captured. The sympathy that the viewer has for her only grows from there, for each close-up look into Joan’s pained eyes makes the viewer feel pain themselves. This kind of touching emotion would not have been possible if not for the close-ups, as demonstrated by her execution. As a result of the close-ups, we not only see, but also feel Joan’s sadness as the cross gets ripped from her hands. We see the tears fall from her eyes and the quiver of her mouth, at this moment in which she is now totally alone, facing death. We see her face as she burns, as if we are right next to her, making us truly feel her pain. However, if this scene was filmed from afar her emotion would not have translated as effectively, and the viewer would have been less invested.
The sympathy that the viewers felt towards Jeanne, as a result of close-ups, was intensified by the close-ups of the judges, who appeared evil and corrupt. Just as the close-ups of Joan produced feelings of sadness and pity, those of the judges inspired contempt. The judges were often filmed from a low angle, highlighting the undeserved power that they possessed, as they looked down upon Joan. As the shots were often from Joan’s point of view, they gave the illusion that the judges were also looking down upon the viewer. This, when combined with the close-ups of the rotund, pitiless, judges, causes the viewer to feel the hatred that Joan must have felt towards them. This feeling, for me at least, was strongest when faced with shots of the judge whose hair was styled like Devil horns. There was something about him, possibly his implicit evil nature or his repulsive appearance, that made me feel uncomfortable and angry, emotions that were strengthened further by the close-ups, as was Dreyer’s intention. As the viewer sees these despicable judges up close, we feel even more for the 19 year old girl who was burned at the stake.
In “Passion of Joan of Arc” (1928), director Carl Theodor Dryer composes the film almost entirely of close-ups, using medium shots sparingly, and almost no wide/establishing shots. To add to that the director employs the use of jump cuts, often jarring the viewer. Film critic Ebert notes that this is done to create a “fearful intimacy between Joan and her tormentors” – and it does just that, as well as adding the viewer to that intimacy. However, the lack of match cuts and carryover shots can lead to a resemblance of an avant-garde film – one in particular being Rene Clair’s “Entr’acte” (1924).
ReplyDeleteAmbiguity is a major part of this. Both are silent films, but this is beside the point as silent films are still able to directly feed audience their message and themes. “Joan of Arc” forces to viewer to figure out many of these things by themselves. There is no connection between shot A and shot B, and many times they have nothing to do with each other at all. Dryer will put a low angle shot of an interrogator to make him feel superior as he apparently yells before and above Joan, but then the editor inserts a shot of Joan looking in a different direction, shot from an obscure angle. Of course, avant-garde cinema often takes this idea to the next level, sometimes putting shot after shot of disjointed and unrelated images. But, the jarring technique is often used as well. One notable use is the scene with the man trying to shoot the egg. Another man with a gun is shown from a low angle with his gun pointed upward and then shoots the other man off the roof. The angle leads the viewer to believe that he is above the other man, but his actions show otherwise – and there is no match cut or camera movement to confirm one or the other.
It is clear that Dryer was clearly influenced by the avant-garde cinema of the early 20s, if not even “Entr’acte” directly. Dryer seems to have based his mise-en-scene off of the avant-garde films as well. The structure of close-knit sets is apparent. In both films, the audience is quite aware of the grander scheme (in “Joan of Arc” we get an upside down shot of guards running, in “Entr’acte” there is a shot of a coffin falling off a wagon and into a field), but only briefly. Both directors/films prefer to keep the audience on the subject at hand, but neither let them forget about how it fits into a larger theme as well – whether that theme is a critique on the bourgeoisie society or on the power of faith. This comparison shows that narrative films and avant-garde films can be equally powerful and ambiguous in their direction, presentation, and underlying meaning.
At the beginning of “The Passion of Joan of Arc” I was originally thrown off by Dreyer’s unwavering reliance on repetitive close ups. I remember accusing Falconetti of overacting after we had viewed our first installment of the film. However, at the time of this accusation I was not fully aware of Jeanne’s precarious situation and after watching the conclusion of the movie I would like to retract that statement. I think part of what persuaded me into my original opinion was partly due to the close-ups. Initially, I was frustrated with the seemingly slow pace of the film, which seemed to be made longer by long close ups with inconsistent match cuts. However the longer I watched “The Passion of Joan of Arc”, the more I recognized the value of the close-ups.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was not reduced to tears like Flora was, by the end of the film there was no doubt in my mind that Falconetti was remarkable in her role as Jeanne and that the close-ups had played a significant role in my coming to this opinion. It is certainly necessary for Dreyer to show the establishing shot of the court to allow the viewer to understand the setting. But aside from the initial sequence when Jeanne walks into the court, the vast majority of the shots are close-ups. What seems to make Jeanne appear so pure in the eyes of the viewer is ultimately the close ups. Falconetti’s face is smooth and natural. Her eyes are virtuous and her gaze is steady and righteous yet tears still trickle out of her eyes in a piteous fashion. Through Dreyer’s close-ups the viewer gains a greater appreciation for Jeanne’s immense spiritual, emotional and physical pain throughout the ordeal. As I mentioned in class the shots that left the most lasting impression on me were the panning low angle close-ups of the civilians as they mourned for Jeanne. I felt as though Jeanne’s fighting spirit was being transferred to the villagers and was further represented by the extreme low angle of the close up. Dreyer’s treatment of the close-up is undoubtedly revolutionary in “The Passion of Joan of Arc”. I whole-heartedly believe that as a result of the plethora of close-ups throughout the film I felt more profoundly for Joan’s plight.
I think it's very apparent in Flora's response that Dreyer's use of the close-up caused a particularly emotional reaction for her. I enjoyed reading her contemplation of significance of the close-ups of the judges. I hadn't even considered that particular effect of the close up yet as I consider it, it's a very well thought out analysis.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, Alex's response was extremely enlightening to read,as well. I hadn't considered the effect that "Entr'acte" and other avant garde films especially on the technical level of shot order that Alex discussed. His connection to the jarring technique made me recall scenes in "The Passion of Joan of Arc" such as when the shot of the villagers running is upside down which thus skews the viewer's concept of space.
Alex's comparison is definitely insightful, and Dreyer was definitely influenced by avant garde cinema. However, I want to interject that although the shots of Joan and the Judges were not match cuts, and were often jarring, they did not really bother me, but instead added to the desperation of the film. It seemed to make more sense in the context (as Joan could have been filmed from the side looking at one judge while a different judge was looking at her from another angle but filmed straight on) than its avant garde predecessor, who seemed to have no method for their madness.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to both Alison’s and Flora’s comments, I agree completely with their statements that the close-ups in the film only add to the emotional response that the film elicits from the viewer. Certainly Dreyer knew what he was doing when he stepped behind the camera. The film may have worked with wide-shots, but the impact and the outcome would have been completely different. The film would fall more in the category of a historical period piece rather than the intimate drama that it is viewed as.
ReplyDeleteBefore I really got into the film, I did find the extensive amount of close-ups to be rather irritating. I found myself wanting to see more of the scene and setting, instead of constant images just of Joan’s face. Much like the shocked responses at the time of the films release in 1928, I felt trapped within this very closed frame unable to see anything beyond exactly what Dreyer presented. However, as “The Passion of Joan of Arc” progressed, I began to really appreciate the director’s use of the close-up, and quickly started to understand it’s great significance.
ReplyDeleteIt is plain to see that Dreyer achieved just what he was hoping for. His goal was “to move the audience so that they would themselves feel the suffering that Jeanne endured.” I speak for all of my peers when I say that this most definitely happened. Whether we were moved to tears like Flora, or just affected in some emotional aspect, his dream became reality. This was achieved not only by the film’s intensely raw subject matter, but by the use of the close-up. Through the use of this tool, the audience gets great insight into Joan’s mind, heart, and soul. As her eyes light up, almost as if she is stuck in a trance, we get a clear picture of the deepness of her spirituality and faith in God. In other instances, we see the how much pain this horrible situation is causing her. The close-up also allows the audience to relate with Joan on a very intimate level, a level which would be impossible to reach if Dreyer had implemented anything but this particular type of shot.
I really like Flora’s comparison between the shots of Joan and the shots of the judges. I hadn’t thought about that juxtaposition before and seeing it explained so well gives me an even greater insight into Joan’s mind, and into the world of the story.
I also really enjoyed and agree with Alison’s analysis of the close-up. I felt the same frustration at the beginning of the film, and the same satisfaction and understanding at the end.
I completely agree with the second quote. The idea that close ups were very shocking and unique in this time in film history seperarted Dreyer from other directors of the time. In the avant garde era it is very common for the shots and scenes to not neccessarily have a connection but i felt that even though this film followed that pattern i was still able to understand the action and follow the storyline. I like the idea that the close ups were not only used to follow the norm of avant garde films but also in context of the film itself to represent the idea of the judges trapping Jeanne.
ReplyDeleteI feel that if this film was remade or if the large amount of close ups were not used i dont think that the audience would react with the same amount of emotional sympathy and feelings. The close ups in this film definitely didnt just show the actions that Dreyer wanted the audience to pay a lot of attention to, but it was like a character of the film. The close ups made me feel that much stronger about the situation and kept me interested in what was going to happen next.
I completely agree with this idea that Flora had.
"However, if this scene was filmed from afar her emotion would not have translated as effectively, and the viewer would have been less invested." The close ups showed the emotion in a way that made me as a viewer to feel as though i was there or as though i was part of the storyline, and not just watching it happen on screen.
I also realized that he used close ups to connect the religious values of the time and have cuts to a cross.
P.S i enjoyed this film Mrs. Holden:)
It is undeniable that Dreyer’s technique reflects the “shattering impression” of Joan’s trial records onto film. Although the use of close-ups was extensive in his work, the method is proven necessary in prompting the emotional response of the audience. It also lessens the need for overacting, which is common in silent films. Rather, strong emotions are illustrated on Falconetti’s naturally soft face providing a more realistic and relatable situation for the viewer. The same goes for the clergymen with their often hard and distrusting expressions in pressuring Joan to admit that it was not God who has possessed her, but the devil. Ironically, Dreyer refers to the men’s course of action in trapping Joan as “devilish” in his statement defending the film’s structure.
ReplyDeleteFalconetti was truly born for the part of protagonist, Joan. The ability to distort her face in order to render true emotion is flawless and the camera positioning only highlights her talent. In concerning the priests, ruffled brows and perverse scowls complement the fearful and hopeless look in Joan’s eyes, and close-ups only intensify Dreyer’s desired mood. Thus close-ups are utilized so often that nearly every main character’s face takes up the entire frame at one point in time. This creates an intimacy for the audience that relates them to Joan and forces them into the story. Without close-ups, one can feel detached from a situation. In this film, however, Dreyer makes it nearly impossible for the viewer to feel nothing for Joan as they are quite literally up close and personal with the character for the majority of the film, from each heartfelt tear to the utter desperation to avoid the stake.
The last comment was me, Leah.... my google/blogger account doesn't work apparently.
ReplyDelete"Passion of Joan of Arc" (1928), directed by Carl Theodor Dryer, was a film completely filmed in closeups and medium shots, without a trace of any wide or establishing shots. As stated in the quote by Robert Ebert, this created a “fearful intimacy between Joan and her tormentors.” Also, by utilizing many jump cuts, Dryer created a film with not much continuity. The film did not flow from shot to shot, which makes this film resemble an avant garde film, such as Rene Clair’s “Entr’acte”.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of continuity is what truly composes an avant garde film. As Alex said, both films are silent, causing the viewer to rely more on the visuals of the films, and when relying primarily on the visuals, the viewer is able to identify with the camera, as well as pick up any themes that begin to float around. But this is also seen as a hard task since the film is actually lacking these visual continuity. “Entr’acte” is a film where every shot had nothing to do with the shot that proceeded it, causing the viewer to focus more. This creates an ambiguity for all avant garde films.
“Passion of Joan Arc” is less of an avant garde film, but still an avant garde film none the less. In most avant garde films, shots that proceed another shot are often completely different from one and other, and have no connecting to a specific story. In “Passion of Joan of Arc”, shots that proceed each other have to do with the story at hand, the story of Joan. But, it does take after the style of an avant garde film because it also lacks continuity. No cut or jump flowed smoothly, and there were no visual link between shots. THIS is what makes this film an avant garde film.
Nice job, everyone. Please remember if you are commenting on hair-dos or costumes or sets that you are commenting on mise-en-scene. Obviously, I want you to comment on these things, but you should utilize the vocab in your esssays. It's good practice...
ReplyDelete