The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc

            The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc is a movie that portrays the journey of Joan of Arc to liberate France and help to rid them of their oppressors, the English. The movie begins with a telling of  “Jeanne’s” childhood, and how it led her to be the commander of a French army, with the task of liberating Orleans and Reims. After experiencing the extremely traumatic raping and killing of her sister by barbaric soldiers, Joan wished to immediately become “one with God.” The movie does not end up exactly showing the visions received by Joan that lead her to believe in her mission, however the audience is made to assume that there is no doubt that she has had these visions and is now one with God. She then travels to meet Charles, the Dauphin. She manages to convince him that she is fulfilling God's will, and he provides her with an army in order to attempt to retake Orleans. The way the movie deals with transferring power from the men to Joan is something the movie represented very poorly, however this will be mentioned later on. Joan is able to retake Orleans and Reims using some very unconventional strategy that the movie again creates a very poor demonstration. Due to her success, Charles is the crowned King of France, and then refuses to provide her the support to fight further into the English army. After eventually being captured and refusing to submit to the will of the holy church, Joan is eventually burned at the stake to end the movie. 

The first very obvious criticism of this film comes down simply to logic. For instance, when the surprise attack on the English army fails and the French are retreating, somehow Joan riding up on her horse gives the French the numbers advantage they were looking for. The English then immediately decided to retreat and raise the bridge they had just lowered moments ago due to their advantage in numbers. If this event actually did take place, there had to have been many more factors involved that the movie simply skipped over and owed it all to the fact that Joan is a messenger from God, therefore it just works. The film also created almost a hatred for the character Joan from the audience in certain scenes. The most prominent example is when she first arrives in order to take over the French army, the male general is surprisingly made out to be fairly understanding, and simply wants to know her reasoning behind attacking in a place that from a strategic standpoint would lose them the fight. Joan then begins to tell them to just do as their told, she begins to yell and her body begins to twitch, depicting her as beyond reason. My main criticism of this film is that although there is a large degree of wrong doings done to Joan simply because she is a women, the men's actions are made out to be more reasonable than hers, which does not seem like a proper understanding of the Middle Ages given that there most likely would have been far worse actions taken if someone like Joan were to act the way she did around a group of men.  

The film definitely did a solid job when it came to creating a medieval atmosphere. There was no denying the time period that this was taking place due to the clothes, weaponry, architecture, and many other seemingly accurate details. The writers and producers are definitely important when it comes to the depiction of Joan. There is undoubtedly traits of Feminism all over the story of Joan of Arc, simply due to her struggles based on her gender. However, in this film if Joan would have been presented in more of a civilized manner, it could have gained more sympathy and emphasized those traits even further is she was still wronged.  

 

The central historical message of this film is definitely not easy to identify due to the changes that occurred throughout the movie. For example, after Charles' coronation, you could definitely categorize him as a bad king, and therefore the movie is trying to clarify that kings should not have held such positions of power. However, before Charles was made king he seemed perfectly fair and understanding, especially since Joan believed it was her duty to make him King. The main message of this film is made when Joan is having internal conflict in her jail cell. The audience becomes no longer aware of whether she actually saw the visions she so adamantly stated were God's message to her. She begins to almost convince herself that the miracles that happened to her were just coincidences. Therefore the main message is that no one today really knows if Joan really was God's messenger, or if she really existed in the first place. All we know is that if she did exist, her story really is one full of miracles, coincidence or not.  

Horvat, Marian. Messenger - The Story of Joan of Arc - Movie Review by Marian Horvat, www.traditioninaction.org/movies/002mr.htm. 

“Joan on the Screen: Burned Again?: Perspectives on History: AHA.” Joan on the Screen: Burned Again? | Perspectives on History | AHA, www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/february-2000/joan-on-the-screen-burned-again. 

Brave (2012)

Brave (2012)

Set in the 9th-12th century Scottish Highlands, Brave tells the story of a young princess of the clan of BunBroch.  The movie is a bit of a coming of age story. It teaches moral lessons about learning from your past and not repeating the mistakes of those before you.  Merida, the princess, is against the idea of marriage when she learns that the other clans are going to be competing for her hand. Traditionally, in the movie anyway, the princess gets to choose the competition in which the eldest sons will be participating for her hand.  She decides to take matters into her own hands and chooses archery, which she excels at. After the sons have fired their arrows, Merida steps out and shoots perfect bullseye over their own shots, theoretically winning her own hand. Merida’s mother, the queen Eleanor, is mad at Merida and even throws Merida’s bow in the fire in anger.  Merida rides away on her horse because she is so upset. She stumbles upon a stone circle much like Stonehenge. She sees a will o’ the wisp across the circle and follows it, where she comes upon a witches cottage. She tells the witch that she wants a spell to change her fate. The witch gives her a spell in the form of a small cake, which she gives to her mother when she returns to the castle.  After eating this cake, Eleanor is transformed into a bear. The rest of the movie is spent attempting to turn the queen back into a human. At the end of the movie, Eleanor is transformed back into a human and the bond between mother and daughter is mended.  

This movie is accurate in some aspects but definitely has some exaggerations and even depicts the 9th-12th century as less developed than we know it to be.  Wisps are a very common occurrence in this movie and are shown as being the souls of those who have died. These are seen today. They are actually thought to be caused by gas emissions from bogs and swamps reacting with the oxygen in the air.  

The clothing in the movie is actually fairly accurate among women.  Some of the clothing is more contemporary and would be found in the 14th or 15th century Scotland.  The men in this movie wear kilts, which weren’t actually worn in Scotland until the 1500s. Clothing in this time period was actually very similar to what people in England were wearing.  Many of the clansmen are also shown wearing face paint to show which clan they are from, however, this was not an actual practice at this time. Food shown in this movie is fairly accurate.  There is an entire conversation about haggis. While there is no proof that this recipe was around back then, it is very likely. A cookbook from 1615 was found with the recipe for haggis. One inaccuracy is the use of forks, which were not used at this time. They also ate many of the things that we have been talking about in class in the section about eating.  Something that I found interesting was that banqueting was very common in this movie, which we learned about in our reading.  

Haggis

Tipperary Cakes
Recipes exist today!

The Kingdom’s castle is quite accurate.  The producers of this movie did do their homework when it comes to landmarks and the landscape.  Arranged marriage is a huge theme in this movie. Merida is told that she must marry whichever man it is that shoots the best arrow.  While arranged marriages were common among nobility at this time, women had the right to refuse the marriage. This was often looked down upon and was believed to be selfish, making it uncommon for women to do so.  

All in all, this movie was fairly accurate.  While this might not be shown in a history class wanting to learn about 9th-12th century Scotland, you can definitely see many accuracies that make this movie a decent representation of the Scottish Highlands. Don't get me wrong, though. It definitely has flaws!  Personally, I love this movie and definitely recommend it! 

Sources:

Barnett, Laura. “A Scottish Historian on Brave.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 29 Aug. 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/aug/29/scottish-historian-view-brave. 

“Disney Pixar's Brave: Historically Accurate?” Apprentice of the Chosen One, 23 Aug. 2015, https://apprenticeofthechosenone.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/disney-pixars-brave-historically-accurate/. 

Riley. “Scottish Highlands.” Clothing of the Ancient Celts-Scotland, 1100-1600 AD, http://www.marariley.net/celtic/SentToKass/Scotland.htm.  

Bennett, Judith M. Medieval Europe: a Short History. Langara College, 2016.

Henry V (1989) Film Review

Henry V is a movie created in 1989 and is based on a William Shakesphere play of the same name. It stars Kenneth Branagh as both the director and as the titular title character Henry V. In the film, King Henry is convinced that he is the rightful ruler of France and goes to war against King Charles IV and the current French regime with a much smaller army than the French, culminating in the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. The film doesn’t deviate too much from Shakesphere’s original play as the movie is usually considered one of the more faithful adaptations of Shakespeare. The reception to this film is astounding, as the film holds a perfect 100% on the popular movie review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes. Kenneth Branagh was even nominated for Best Actor and Best Director at the 1990 Academy Awards. With all of this praise, the movie must have done something right in regards to its historical accuracy and depictions of Medieval society. Does the film’s representation of Medieval times hold up to the massive critical acclaim?

I would say that for the most part, the film does a good job in accurately portraying Henry V's story and Medieval life in general. At the Battle of Agincourt, Branagh shows off a variety of medieval weaponry like swords, axes, lances, and maces. The film also shows the importance of the longbows that wiped out much of the French army. Branagh also emphasizes how the English were underdogs, not only in how the English army was outnumbered 5 to 1, but also in how the French have better equipment. The Frenchmen wear conical and bascinet helmets along with chest plates and leggings. While some English soldiers have hauberks (chain mail armor for the head and neck area) and some armor, they were less equipped compared to the French. The film also shows off the Christianity prevalent in the Middle Ages, like when English soldiers pray to God and kiss the ground before battle. The English soldiers also sing a latin hymn named Non Nabis Domine after their victory at Agincourt, which is probably the greatest musical composition in the movie.

One of the more interesting aspects of the film is King Henry’s relationship to the citizens in his army and in his country. Throughout the film, King Henry makes many difficult decisions to further his goal of conquest, which tires his men as they might be paying a terrible price for this war started by King Henry. In one scene, he disguises himself with a cloak to gauge his army’s reaction to fighting this war. The response was polarizing, as some of the soldiers lament the fact that they are risking their lives for Henry V’s gain. Henry V’s internal conflict with taking France versus helping his people can be connected to real-life conflict of the Middle Ages. The struggle between the royalty and the common folk was very pronounced in the Middle Ages, and the film uses this conflict well for dramatic effect and giving more insight into King Henry as a character. 

This doesn’t mean that the movie’s historical accuracy is perfect though. Upon doing some research, Henry V actually ordered mass executions of French prisoners after his victory at Agincourt, a decision which is omitted from the movie. However, I can understand why Branagh would leave this out if he wants to make Henry V more sympathetic and not wanting to kill the mood of the victory of England with the death of prisoners. However, whether it’s because of the excessive violence or slight differences in how both sides attack, the film’s depiction of the Battle of Agincourt is not the most historically accurate (although it makes for a good climax). Other than that, the movie has many scenes of which it’s muddy, rainy, and/or dirty, kind of making the Middle Ages look more unsanitary and dirty than it really was.

Henry V manages to be entertaining and insightful about the Middle Ages. The film accurately paints a picture of the battles and lifestyles that typically took place in Europe in the Late Middle Ages. All in all, I would say that the high praise for the film is mostly deserved.