A Disney Adaption of Joan

We have discussed numerous times throughout the semester what we would do if we had the means to make our own Joan of Arc film. One brief discussion was what if Disney were to make a film based on Joan's life. What aspects would have to be met? Though some of their films have some dark aspects, their films normally have satisfying if not happy endings. Would it be appropriate to make this film since Joan's story involves plenty of violence around her and I do not think Disney's younger audiences would be too thrilled to watch the trial scene. Assuming that Disney was going to make Joan's tale an animated film the following aspects would help make the film possible.

1. If all Disney films have one thing in common, it is the main character always pulls through and live happily ever after. With Joan's story, it does not match that criteria. To match their criteria instead of having Joan as the main character, make her a supporting character. Make the main character someone that new Joan closely. Someone who was around her through her battles like her page or even her brother. What matters is that the plot can carry on despite Joan's death and the audience is not completely bummed out when Joan dies. Disney has killed off characters in their movies, but they have always been supporting characters or characters that have little impact to the plot. Joan being a supporting character, the audience will be devastated, but their main hero is not gone.

On another note if Joan has to be the main character maybe end the movie after her victory at Orleans. This aspect may be annoying for historians, but I don't believe that Disney is into historical accuracies 100%. At least in this aspect, Joan can be the main character and the idol for all the young viewers and in the end, still have a happy ending. 

2. The death scene is a defining scene in all Joan of Arc films. With Disney's younger audience, this scene would not be very appropriate for them to see. However, the scene should not be omitted from the plot. Let the audience know that she has been sentenced to burn, and have the whole scene happen off camera. Afterwards, capture the reactions of each character in the film to Joan's death. Then maybe have one of the characters, maybe a priest reassure the cast (and the audience) that Joan's soul is in a better place. In the end of the film, maybe show a brief scene showing the retrial, and her being named a saint years later. This shows the audience that she still has an impact and presence in today's world.

3. There always needs to be a antagonist in Disney's films; a "bad guy". In this case, the English would be an obvious choice. When you look at antagonists in other Disney films, you can notice a pattern. They always seem to be older than the protagonist(s), ofter larger or taller in size, and many of the times, wearing red. Maybe make one of the English commanders the main villain and like many of the Disney films, a lackey that provides some comic relief.

Regardless, a Joan of Arc Disney film will turn some heads and maybe raise some controversy. Some may argue that Joan's story is not appropriate for Disney's target audience. I believe with my suggestions above, it could be possible. For some reason if Disney were to go through with a Joan of Arc film, I'm sure it will be heavily attacked by not only film critics but historians as well.



What aspects do you think need to happen in a Joan of Arc Disney film?

Burned at the Stake; Questions Answered

We have watched a handful of films this semester and of course, each Joan film has the key scene of her execution, being burned at the stake. Each time I watch these scenes, I always end up with the thoughts in the back of my head, "what if this was me?" I cannot imagine what not only Joan was going through, but what every other person was feeling as they were burned alive. This method of execution seems extremely unreasonable and I don't understand why they use this method over others. The whole concept of raises a few questions for me and I found the answers.

1. What causes death in this form of execution?

There are a few possible causes when one is being burned. The most common cause of death came from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by the smoke. Normally, this cause of death would come to effect before any damage to the body would occur. For a quicker death from this poisoning, the executioners should use more wood to create more smoke. However, if they did not use enough wood, there are other possible causes of death. In some cases, the victim would die from pure shock. In other cases the victim would die because of heatstroke. For those unlucky cases, then the victims would die because of thermal decompositions to key body parts.

2. Was burned at the stake used as the punishment for many crimes of just secular crimes?

 In the medieval period, burned at the stake was the go to form of execution for those deemed a heretic or guilty of heresy crimes. There were even acts or laws put into place that made this official such as the  De Heretico Comburendo Act. However, death by burning was also an option for sexual crimes or other crimes against nature. This form of execution was not just limited to this historical period. Throughout time and around the world has references of burned alive as a form of execution. There are even examples dating back to the times of Ancient Egypt.

3. How was the pyre set up?

Pyres were very simply set up. A key part was the stake in the center. The person was tied to the stake usually with their limbs bound together. Underneath and surrounding the stake were numerous bundles of sticks. As the pyre is lit, more and more bundles had to be added because this was a time consuming process to completely burn the body.

Works Cited:
Carroll. "The Benefits of Burning Heretics at the Stake." The Benefits of Burning Heretics at the Stake. January 1, 2002. Accessed November 5, 2014. http://biblelight.net/burn-heretics.htm.



"Death by Burning." Wikipedia. July 12, 2014. Accessed November 1, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning.

Myth Hunters: Joan's Relics

I tuned into a little Netflix on Saturday night after a long day of studying and editing. In my search to find something to watch, I came across a show called Myth Hunters. The summary of the show is in the title; the story of people who hunt for answers about famous myths like Noah's Arc, The City of Gold, and Nazi treasures. After watching one episode, and I was less than impressed, I scrolled through the two seasons of episodes trying to find one that I may find interesting. In the second season, I found an episode by the name of, "Relics of Joan of Arc".

The pace of this show is pretty slow. Each episode runs for about 47 minutes and it repeats a lot of the information they told you several times. There are even crude reenactments of the people's actions who are hunting the myths. Each episode starts with the introduction of the myth. In this case the myth was; were the relics authentically Joan's. This is the part that caught my attention. The relics were suspected cloth from Joan's clothes and even bones from Joan herself. I was doubtful from the beginning of this episode on the relic's authenticity since I'm pretty sure we would have mentioned this in class.

The relics were found when workers were clearing out an old building in France. In the attic were jars with the cloth and bones. The bones looked to be of a rib and there were other pieces that were hard to pin point where they belonged in the body. In the jars was an old parchment that read these were of Joan. Word got out pretty quickly and of course, the Catholic Church was interested to know the authenticity of the relics. There was a variety of methods they went through to prove their authenticity. A forensic examiner was brought in to start things up. He in fact was an expert with remains dating back centuries. His first attempt was to extract DNA from the bones and compare it to DNA from Joan's known ancestors. However, their was no DNA within the bones. The conclusion for that was, even though DNA could survive all these years, it can be lost through being exposed to extreme heat or tampering. For lack of better terms, this did add fire to the argument that this was Joan's.

Then the argument of how these relics survived the fire when Joan was burned. That was countered with the argument that bodies can explode with the gases inside the body being exposed to extreme heat. It was a possibility. They even brought in a perfumer with a trained nose to smell. In his analysis he detected hints of vanilla. This was extremely important information because ancient forms of embalming and body preservation used a material that left a scent of vanilla.What was really the kicker, was with closer examination of the specimen and with more experts, the relic that was thought to be one of Joan's ribs, turned out to be a thigh bone for a cat.

Finally, what really took away from the argument that these were authentic Joan relics was the examination of the cloth.  Under close examination, the stitching pattern did not match the common method used in Medieval Europe. Though the cloth was centuries old, it did match the stitching patterns used in the Middle East. Through all the information gathered on the relics, the relics were in fact not Joan's, but from a mummified cat. Something that still is interesting, but not from a Saint of France.

If you want to watch the full episode, I said at the top, it is on Netflix. Just search Myth Hunters. From what I researched on the show, the third season is actually supposed to show actually this week on the History Channel.