|
Critics and I rarely agree, and this is no exception. I was amazed when I read the reviews online; the critics HATED this movie. I thought it was cinematographically beautiful and stunningly well acted. Admittedly there were a few anachronisms, mostly *ahem* pretty four letter words.
The movie opens with an eight-year-old Jeanne (the French pronunciation of Joan) confessing to a priest for the third time that day. Jeanne's religious fervor and visions are affirmed by the priest. Little Jeanne then goes skipping into the surrounding fields. The following scenes are beautifully pastoral and Jeanne's first vision eerie. But is it all really a vision? Lights whizzing through the sky. Wolves running about. No, this part is NOT a dream. Jeanne's hometown is being attacked by British barbarians.
Here comes my biggest complaint about the movie. Jeanne makes it back to her house safely; clutching the sword she found lying in the field next to her (It came from God, she believes). Jeanne's older sister Catherine gives Jeanne her hiding place as the British barge into their house. There is no historical documentation that Joan of Arc ever had a sister. The British soldiers take the soup from the fire, spill it on the table and then sop it up with bread. Catherine holds Jeanne's sword up to one of the soldiers who is advancing on her. The soldier knocks the sword out of her hand and tries to rape Catherine. When Catherine struggles too much, he runs Jeanne's sword through Catherine and then proceeds to rape her corpse, while Jeanne is in the closet Catherine was standing against. This scene is absolutely brutal and completely fictitious. Sure, it COULD have happened, but I highly doubt it. The scene is effective in one thing; it drills fiercely into your head the fact that the British are true barbarians with bad dental hygiene.
Milla Jonovich, as the 19 year old Jeanne, is absolutely brilliant. She does a superb job at playing Joan. A Joan that fights with the men, and who feels a pressing need to fulfill what God wants her to do. John Malkovich plays the opportunistic prissy Dauphin of France. Faye Dunaway is perfectly sinister as the conniving mother-in-law.
Probably one of the most confounding things about The Messenger is it's refusal to take sides. Dustin Hoffman's character is unique and his portrayal flawless. The credits call him Joan's Conscience. I believe this title is more of a way to be noncommittal. Hoffman's character very well could be Joan's Conscience, but he could also be God or perhaps even Lucifer. The last thirty minutes, that are filled with Joan's trial and eerie appearances by Hoffman, are by far the most intriguing part of it all.
With all the questions that surround Joan of Arc, you would expect a movie about her to give a definite answer on what and who she was. The Messenger does NOT do this. The Messenger leaves it up to you to formulate your own opinion. Was Joan a religious zealot, a schizophrenic, or a real messenger of God? If you want a definite answer, go someplace else. Probably the most interesting part of the experience of The Messenger is thinking about it afterwards and coming up with your own hypothesis.
|