Process and Pain: The Passion of Joan of Arc As a Reality Bending Work of Art

Joan of Arc was one of three historical topics presented to Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer by French film company Société Générale des Films, alongside Marie-Antoinette and Catherine de’ Medici. When invited to make a film that touched on a culturally relevant French figure, Dreyer quickly fell down a rabbit hole of research that lasted over a year and a half. The product of this is his 1928 film The Passion of Joan of Arc. One of the most sentimentally impactful films I’ve ever seen, it’s a masterclass in expressing and capturing emotion on film. 

French actress Renée Jeanne Falconetti (credited as Maria Falconetti) was 35 when she played the 19 year-old Joan, something that may have been an issue for a performer less suited to the role. However, Falconetti brought something that transcended the need for ‘accurate looks;’ the raw emotion and clear understanding of Joan’s personal experience was what drew Dreyer to her. Falconetti’s life before and after this film is not entirely clear to the general public; but it’s known that she started acting in amateur theatrical productions in France. It was during her time in the play La Garçonne that Dreyer discovered her talents and invited her to be a part of the film.

It’s been claimed that Dreyer was demanding, intense and an uncompromising perfectionist on the sets of his films. In April of 1951, journalist Paul Moor published an article titled “The Tyrannical Dane” in Theatre Arts Magazine. This article perpetuated these rumors, painting Dreyer as a director that created, and relished in, extremely harsh working conditions. Moor claims Dreyer “[knew] in the most exquisite detail just what he requires from [his actors], and he explodes into action with an energy so violent that his company is left physically and emotionally spent.” He goes on to suggest that nothing, not even an actor’s basic needs such as sleep, would stop him from completing his work. Falconetti allegedly suffered an emotional breakdown during production of the film, caused by physical pain and distress, and the experience is said to have led to her quitting acting. The Passion of Joan of Arc was Falcontetti’s first and only on-screen credit. 

After her time working on Dreyer’s film, Falconetti returned to the stage where she worked at the Comédie-Française theater producing comedic plays. Unfortunately, she began facing financial struggles and worsening mental health, which was only amplified as she was forced to flee France during World War II. She moved around Europe and South America, trying and failing to acquire an American visa. She moved to Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1943 where she tried to get back on her feet by teaching elocution classes and performed music and poetry across the city. She passed away at the age of 54, possibly due to indigestion, or a crash diet she had been on that caused malnutrition. 

Falconetti’s extreme performance in The Passion of Joan of Arc filled with pain and inner turmoil, becomes a complex topic when considering the rumors and stories circling the film. Dreyer allegedly made Falconetti kneel on hard stone (sometimes exaggerated as broken glass in retellings) on set to make her cry and draw out more raw emotions, before tasking her with wiping all emotion from her face so that the pain would come across as more internal. Dreyer’s perfectionism earned him a reputation for requiring many retakes for almost all shots in his films. Ultimately this would come to his aid as he was able to recreate the film shot-for-shot when the original copy was unfortunately burned. However, in the case of Falconetti’s performance it’s somewhat of a moral predicament to praise it, when it’s said that much of what we see may have been a product of her real life suffering. As a person who struggled mentally, Dreyer’s treatment of Falconetti was unethical and cruel, if the rumors are true. On the other hand, not just any actress could have given a performance like Falconetti’s, and while the emotions she showed definitely might have been drawn from physical experience, it’s more than recreation. Falconetti holds so much control and intention through her performance, there is absolutely no denying her raw talent in this film. 

Without synchronized soundtracks, the imagery and performance are vital, especially when dealing with a loaded topic such as this infamous trial and Joan’s subsequent fate. Dreyer knows exactly how to capture human emotions, and his choice to include not just the feelings, but the thought and realization that comes before and after, is brilliant. When it comes to Falconetti’s performance, control is the word that best describes it. It’s seen in the subtle twinge in her eyebrow, the slow movements of her head, or the tears that well up and fall down her face right at the perfect moments. 

Ultimately, Falconetti’s eyes are the heart of this film. So much of these aforementioned inner-thoughts and feelings are told through her eyes. The classic idiom ‘the eyes are the window to the soul’ is one way of describing it, although how it’s phrased in the Bible fits better, thematically and literally, as it describes the eyes being ‘the lamp of the body.’ Joan’s emotions as portrayed by Falconetti are not a constant stream where the audience looks at her and knows all.  Instead, we understand her through realization and the emotions that come to her, the way she believes God is sending messages and telling her what to do. Her beliefs guide, or ‘illuminate’ the way she moves through the world, and she loyally sticks to these beliefs. An example of this is how she refuses to change from her masculine clothes, even when doing so would allow her to receive the holy sacrament, and save her life.

By the end of the film, every character besides Joan blurs into one. Every judge collectively represents the betrayal Joan faces from her country and the church. Even when one member of the court shows her compassion while another yells at her, by the next scene they’ve swapped.  When the priest shows up with a fake letter from the king, trying to gain her trust, we find out he’s really working with everyone else to get her confession. These unreliable situations condition Joan, and the audience, into only trusting herself, which better helps us understand her final decision that leads to her execution. 

It’s difficult to say how much of Falconetti’s final performance was aided by the experiences Dreyer may have put her through on set. What is fact, however, is how Dreyer knows his way around human experience, especially as it relates to suffering and complex emotion. It’s debated whether or not Falconetti was a complete willing participant or not in these ‘acting exercises.’ Ultimately what lives on is an extremely compelling and clearly emotionally taxing (for her, as well as the audience) performance, that belongs to Falconetti and should be credited to her and her talent as an artist and actress. This isn’t a movie that could be made today, and Dreyer’s methods as a director wouldn’t fly the way they did in the 1920’s. It’s nothing short of sadistic to believe an actor lacks the ability to draw extreme emotion. Especially considering that Dreyer originally saw something in her, that raw talent, that drew her to this role. Falconetti definitely could have possessed the same performance even under a less grueling setting. However, what makes this film work so well and its impact hit so deep, may just be what makes it so controversial. In a movie of this kind, the content is echoed by the filmmaking. Joan of Arc as a figure was misunderstood by her country, by the people she believed she was sent to help. As we see by the film’s ending, the riot and the fight back against the court occurs once her fate’s been set in stone. Perhaps this was something Dreyer knew, that his methods reflected the legacy of France’s saint, condemned and flawed, but praised for its impact in the end.