In class recently we just finished watching Joan of Arc: The Messenger. The movie is about Joan of Arc and her amazing journey through her short life. Story covers everything from her early childhood up until her death at the stake. After watching the movie and comparing it to what the primary sources had to say about what really happened, something interesting caught my attention. In particular her voices. The movie and the primary sources depict them in different ways.
The movie depicts Joan's "voices" as a single voice. This voice comes directly from God himself. When Joan is giving her sign to King Charles VII in the movie, she describes the voices coming to her as a strange, violent wind. She also makes no mention of saints in the film and only recalls her interaction with God. The scene where Joan tells King Charles this information is one of mystery also because no one knows what Joan and King Charles talked about in that time they were together. Therefore any movie scene made depicting this is purely speculation.
In the primary sources, Joan describes her voices as those of Sts Michael, Catherine, and Margaret. She explained that the saints were delivering God's message to her. Where the film says God himself was directly speaking to her, Joan herself said otherwise. The other interesting thing I noticed about the film was its portrayal of God. Throughout the film, God always appears as the same age as Joan. I suppose the writer made it this way to make a statement saying "Joan's notion of God changed in her own mind as she aged." As the movie progresses, we see God almost questioning Joan, asking her what has she had done and seemingly reversing his involvement with her. This happening in the film seemed a little odd to me. It's as if the writer is proposing that Joan is starting to think differently now that the attack on Paris had failed and things seemed to be heading downhill. The writer almost seems to imply that God is in her head and nothing more.
What do you all think of how the movie handled her voices? Did they seem correctly represented to you or were they wrongfully portrayed?
Link to movie: http://watch32.com/movies-online/the-messenger-the-story-of-joan-of-arc-207361/full.html
Work Cited
The Messenger. Performed by Milla Jovovich. France: Columbia Tristar Home Video, 1999. Film.
Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc by Herself and Her Witnesses. New York: Stein and Day, 1966.
11.08.2014
11.06.2014
La Porete vis-a-vis La Pucelle
As mentioned in class, like Joan, Marguerite de Porete was a woman in
the Middle Ages who was brought to trial for heresy. Specifically, as a mystic,
Marguerite de Porete believed and espoused in her book, The Mirror of Simple
Souls, that one did not necessarily have to go through the theocratic “red
tape” so to speak of the Church to have a relationship with God. Clearly, this
was related to her role as a mystic, someone who possessed a personal and
direct form of communication with God. She essentially placed the development
of a personal love of God above that of one guided and limited by the Church
and its parameters of ritual. In response, the Church not only burned her book,
but also condemned and burned Marguerite on charges of heresy in 1310. Joan and
Marguerite’s trials took place for different contextual reasons; Joan can
almost be considered a prisoner of war in some aspects, while Marguerite was
solely under fire for her arguments laid out in The Mirror of Simple Souls.
However, their trials have interesting parallels. For example,
Marguerite apparently refused to answer questions on trial which is reminiscent
of Joan’s own authoritative responses that she would either answer later, keep
info between her and the King or wait for her voices’ permission. Also
Marguerite’s burning is described somewhat similarly as Joan’s, especially in
relation to the reaction of the crowd. A
chronicler, William of Nangis, stated in 1310, “She [was] both pious and noble,
in her death...For this reason the faces of many of those who witnessed it were
affectionately moved to compassion for her; indeed, the eyes of many were
filled with tears” (The Trail of Marguerite Porete). Additionally, Marguerite
experienced a long lead up to her actual burning, as did Joan. For one,
Marguerite’s book had been criticized and denounced for years before her trial
and according to William of Nangis, she neither renounced her book after being
excommunicated nor did “she, although having been lawfully summoned before the
bishop...want to appear and held out in her hardened malice for a year and more
with an obstinate soul.” Overall, due to the relative rarity of burnings in the
Middle Ages, perhaps it is not surprising that Marguerite and Joan’s circumstances
are somewhat comparable.
Image Source:http://www.albin-michel.fr/images/couv/5/7/5/9782226221575g.jpg
The first illustration of Marguerite Porete on a modern copy of her work, The Mirror of Simple Souls, is interesting when placed beside this Les Vigiles Joan of Arc illustration.
Margerite de Porete
Earlier this week, we talked about French mystics who have
been condemned by the Church and burned as a heretic before Joan. And Margerite
de Porete caught my eye because similar to Joan she also went through Church's inquisition.
Marguerite published her spiritual work “The Mirror of Simple Souls” around
1290. According to the Web, in her writing she states that when in the state of
contemplative love of God the soul has no need of Masses or prayers. That
statement was clearly belittling the Church’s authority. We can understand why
the church felt threaten and took action against Margerite, immediately.
Therefore her work was quickly condemned by the bishop.
During the Inquisition, the questioners focused on her writing and conflated
her writings with the heresy of the Free Spirit. According to Virtual Medieval Church and its writing,
Free Spirit was believed that it is possible for a human being to attain
spiritual perfection in the present life, and that once an individual has
attained such a state, he or she may then commit any sin with impunity (http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/medieval/julian/Marguerite.htm).
Her trial records show that Marguerite refused to
acknowledge the Church’s authority. Instead she did not answer their questions.
Her headstrong is admirable. I really like this part of the trial, it says,” Yet you refused to swear [the oath]. Even though you
were questioned by us many times and in many places about this, you always
remained contumacious and rebellious about these matters; because of your obvious
and notorious contumacy and rebellion” (http://www.uncg.edu/~rebarton/margporete.htm).
Unfortunately her faith did get her
killed. She was excommunicated and burned at the stake on June 1, 1310.
Sources:
You can find the trial here http://www.uncg.edu/~rebarton/margporete.htm
11.05.2014
Cause and Effect: Joan's Death
The people who had put Joan to death immediately began to regret their actions. Witnessing the death of Joan and interpreting her as truly being holy struck fear into the witnesses. Pernoud included one witnesses statement along with a couple of reasons to worry about any divine consequence. Pierre Cusquel admitted to not being there but "heard say that Master Jean Tressard, secretary to the king of England, returning from Joan's execution afflicted and groaning, wept lamentably over what he had seen in that place and said indeed: 'We are all lost, for we have burnt a good and holy person'..." (Pernoud, 233). It went on to include an Englishman confessing his sins for his role in Joan's death and that he "greatly feared to be damned for he had burned a holy woman" (Pernoud, 233). The reasons for such a change of heart came from Joan crying out Christ's name throughout her death, wishing for there to be a cross visible and a small cross with her, a white dove appearing after her death, etc.
The idea that such an awful consequence must follow whatever group of people responsible for a great sin was shown during the middle ages with Jewish men and their need for blood libels and the curse that women have to suffer. There was a belief that Jewish men had menses as a divine punishment for the crucifixion of Jesus and women suffered from menstruation for the original sin Eve committed.
The fear that some of the Englishmen and witnesses portrayed immediately after Joan's death seemed to have been a learned fear based on the religion. If Joan was holy enough to have had a heart that could not be destroyed by fire and be reincarnated into a white dove, it would have been understandable to be concerned of God's wrath if they were religious.
Resnick, Irven M. "Medieval Roots of the Myth of Jewish Male Menses." Harvard Theological Review: 241-63. https://druryonline.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-1155555-dt-content-rid-8250650_2/courses/2014_FA_RELG0385DMAINSE01/JewishMaleMenses.pdf.
http://www.joanofarc.us/joan-of-arc-images/joan-of-arc-stake.jpg
11.03.2014
Braveheart Movie Review
Gibson, Mel, dir. Braveheart.
Writ. Randall Wallace. Paramount Pictures, 1995. CD-ROM.
The movie Braveheart directed
by and starring Mel Gibson portrays the life of William Wallace, a medieval
Scottish war leader and rebel. The film illustrates the rise of William Wallace
who incites a Scottish rebellion for freedom after his wife is murdered by an
English solider whom she assaulted after he attempted to rape her. William soon
after begins attacking English camps, killing all soldiers and declaring the need
for Scottish independence. The tyrant English king, Edward I, is originally
unable to defeat William and his men until William is captured and imprisoned
by the English and tried for treason. He is sentenced to torture and death but
only after winning the favor and respect of the Princess of Wales, Edward II’s
wife. William is executed at the end of the film, but nobly refuses to beg the
English crown for mercy, and instead utters his last dying wish before being
beheaded: “Freedom!” (Braveheart).
The film is
seen as one of the more historically inaccurate films of the modern era,
featuring many historical falsities. One of the more glaring inaccuracies
within the film is the illustration of William’s social class. Throughout the
film William is pictured as a poor peasant, wearing brown rags with a dirty
face, living in a small hut made out of sticks, mud, and stone. This is a
traditional Hollywood view of medieval peasantry, whereas historians know
William came from a lower noble family, and not of the extreme poverty as shown
in the film. Another inaccuracy portrayed in the film is the idea of ius primae noctis or “right of the first night”. This fictional idea holds that the rightful king of
the land is allowed privileges to all of the brides within his kingdom on the
first night of their marriage. This is shown in the film as Edward I attempts
to solidify his domination over Scotland by declaring ius primae noctis . Upon
William’s return to his home village, and after Edward had declared his right
of the Scottish brides, an English army comes to the village and takes away the
newest bride amidst the village wedding celebration. This is the first act of
the English that anger the Scottish men. In the scene of the Battle of Falkirk,
William gives a speech to his men before the battle, claiming the Scottish
right to rebel. He shouts, “They may take our brides, but they cannot take our
freedom!” (Braveheart). Throughout the film, the idea of ius primae noctis becomes
one of the most important symbols of the robbery of Scottish rights. However, this practice is in no way historical, and was never declared by any medieval
king.
William as a boy, seen in brown rags, with his house (hut) behind him made of stone and straw.
Although the
film portrays many historical inaccuracies and glorified Hollywood ideals, the
producers and costume designers were particularly precise in their creation of
medieval fighting and armor. Much of the movie is dedicated to battle scenes, but
the costuming proved to be quite accurate to the time period of Wallace and the
Wars of Scottish Independence. In the late thirteenth and early fourteenth
centuries, mail was still a dominant form of body armor. The English soldiers
were often portrayed in mail, while the Scottish were seemingly less
sophisticated of a fighting force, and instead wore their daily medieval garb
in battle. The English also were shown in conical steel helmets, with swords and
lances. One of the battle leaders was even shown in a barrel helmet. The
Scottish, conversely, in keeping with the theme of their lack of
sophistication, rarely had swords, and instead fought with large warhammers and
small axes. Some Scottish soldiers even held slings. Both the English and
Scottish were shown with shields, both round and heater shaped, appropriate to
the century. The English, in keeping with the history and tradition of the
English army, were shown with their deadly longbow men yielding a deadly attack
upon the Scottish.
William with his army. Notice the weapons they hold: axes, blunt swords, and even large sticks.
Also
historically accurate was the film’s depiction of the manner in which battle
was executed. The Scottish soldiers were depicted yielding a battering ram upon
an English fortress to gain access in the Battle of Falkirk. In response to the
Scottish invasion, the English throw hot tar and fire over the top of the
soldiers from inside the fortress. Both of these events are highly exact
depictions of siege warfare, and the importance of laying siege and protecting
from it. Aside from the scene with the battering ram, all other battle scenes
occur with face-to-face combat, where the rules of battle were greatly
respected. Both the English and Scottish would meet at the battlefield and
would not launch any surprise or sneak attacks until the priests had completed
their prayers and both sides engaged one another.
One of the
central themes to the movie was the idea of chivalry and courtly love. Before
the rebellion begins, William falls in love with a local village woman, Murron,
and marries her in secret to avoid her being taken due to ius primae noctis . Shortly
after their secret marriage, however, an English solider in the village
attempts to rape Murron. Murron attacks the solider in response to his
attempted rape, and is killed in front of the village as a punishment for
confronting the English soldier. William is thereafter driven to rebel in
response to Murron’s murder, and desires to avenge the death of his bride. He
carries her handkerchief with him throughout the movie, only allowing it to
fall after being beheaded. Courtly love is also demonstrated in the film, which
holds that knights were so consumed with love for a woman, they would do
anything for her. William’s entire journey to freedom is interpreted even by
those around him as a response to his love for Murron and his desire to make
her happy and proud, even in her death. In the execution scene, before his
death, William sees Murron in the crowd, smiling, comforting him. This seems to
signify that William had finally succeeded in his courtly love duties, and
could finally go meet her in the afterlife.
William with Murron in the village before her death. William's love for her remained central to his cause throughout the entire film.
Another
central theme to the film was the idea of freedom and William’s rejection of
politics. William is often confronted with both English and Scottish royals and
nobles, yet he rejects their roles and instead believes each Scot should be
free. In an exchange between Robert the Bruce, the rightful king of Scotland,
and William, William discards politics and reveals his true thoughts about both
men’s roles. He says, “There's a difference between us. You think the people of
this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists
to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it,”
(Braveheart). Much of William’s desire for freedom appears to come from the childhood
influence of his father who tells him before going to battle: “Your heart is
free. Have the courage to follow it,” (Braveheart). The torture and execution
scene, perhaps the most important scene in the movie, reveals William’s ultimate
chivalry and bravery, as he is willing to die for Scottish freedom.
Robert the Bruce discussing Scottish freedom and politics with William. It is in this scene that William tells Robert he desires total Scottish freedom, and fights hard for it.
Overall the
movie Braveheart, while not known for
its historical accuracy, was an entertaining film that presented several
medieval themes and ideas. The film’s use of armor and fighting was pleasingly
accurate, as well as the notions of chivalry, bravery, and courtly love. While
the film did buy in to popular culture’s ideas of medieval life and peasantry,
it nonetheless presented an idea that is still important in today’s culture:
the desires of Scottish independence from Britain. Even in the wake of the 2014
election, while Scotland voted to remain a part of the United Kingdom, there
still remain supporters of William Wallace’s cause and love for independence
and freedom. For this reason, Braveheart will
remain a must-see for many people for many years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)