University of Minnesota Press
  • Risen from the Ashes:The Complex Print History of Carl Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

Carl Theodor Dreyer's (1889-1968) La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc (The Passion of Joan of Arc, 1928) has endured a harrowing journey since its 1928 premiere. Prints of Passion were butchered and put through fires on at least three reported occasions.1 However, the film miraculously survived and resurfaced in almost immaculate shape. Passion had become so associated with flames, both in Joan's ordeal and the film's prints, that a book publisher titled an anthology of Dreyer's screenplays Fire Film.2

Ironically, in a strange twist of fate, objects that burned with Joan on the pyre later helped save one of the few prints of Passion. After he cofounded the Cinematheque Française in 1936, film archivist Henri Langlois (1914-77) located an interpositive of Passion that he included as one of the film museum's top artifacts.3 When the Germans [End Page 53] occupied France during World War II, Langlois reportedly hid this print in his bathtub through the end of the war.4 Coal and firewood apparently covered the boxes of film reels that contained a copy of Passion.5 After the war, Ebbe Neergaard (1901-57), manager of Denmark's national film institution, Statens Filmcentral, obtained a new print made from Langlois's duplicate negative. This copy was handed over to the Danish Film Museum (DFM).6 The Langlois print became known as the "mother copy" for all later prints made in the United States.7

This article examines the various roles content providers have played in changing the form and content of Passion. It seeks a balanced analysis of Passion's various incarnations and their content (re)producers—delivering relatively equal breadth and depth to each. It argues that the DVD and Blu-ray releases issued by the Criterion Collection and Masters of Cinema Series have given the film a new life and contributed to the rebirth of Dreyer's work. The article also sheds additional light on some rare prints of the film, including an unreleased cut that was supposed to play in Paris in autumn 1928. It calls for archivists, digital restoration artists, and an independent video distributor to reassemble the cut based on existing footage. In film preservation discourse, this is known as a reconstruction. A reconstruction entails locating the most original material artifacts (if available), comparing all existing sources, and producing an editing decision list that will guide the editing process throughout the workflow.8 A completed chart will document all the decisions made by the restorer with regard to assembling the restored version and the sources needed to reconstruct it.9

To illustrate the contributions that Dreyer and his collaborators brought to Passion, I first survey the film's origins and its production history. I then deliver a chronological history of Passion's release versions. The purpose of this section is to identify the film's different remediators, ascertain their roles in the process of remediation, and determine specific changes that they made to the original. In the context of film laboratories, archivist Giovanna Fossati defines remediation as a practice that refashions old restoration technologies by means of new ones.10 The first part explains how Passion came together, describes Dreyer's working relationship with novelist Joseph Delteil, and delineates sources for the screenplay.


In 1926, Master of the House (Dreyer's seventh silent feature) became a box-office success in France, screening in fifty-seven Parisian cinemas in three weeks and in seventy-two provincial cinemas overall.11 Dreyer emerged as a rising director in Western Europe, [End Page 54] prompting the French company Société Générale des Films (SGF) to offer him a major film project on one of three historical female figures: Catherine de Medici, Marie Antoinette, or Joan of Arc. Dreyer chose the last, and SGF granted him a budget of seven million francs (about three hundred thousand dollars).12

SGF's producers purchased the rights to Surrealist writer Joseph Delteil's (1894-1978) biographical novel Jeanne d'Arc (1925).13 They were likely attracted to Delteil's work because it garnered the Prix Fémina (one of France's top literary prizes), became a national best seller, and was widely read through its many language translations.14 Although adaptation study is not a focus of this article, it is necessary to rectify common misconceptions critics have had about Delteil's involvement with the film, about his novel, and about his own script. David Bordwell asserts that Delteil's role in the project was "slight," whereas Tony Pipolo claims that Delteil's scenario was "not used at all."15 While the form and structure of the novel bear little relation to the finished film, Dreyer retained at least a handful of Delteil's story events. Granted, Delteil devoted only three of his novel's nineteen chapters to Joan of Arc's trial and its aftermath. But significantly, important scenes that Delteil created, such as the torture chamber episode, the graveyard outside the prison, the doves flying overhead the castle yard at Rouen while she burns, and the guards peering through the slits and peepholes of Joan's cell wall, are transferred to the screen. While these scenes are part of Joan of Arc's historical legend, their reoccurrence came about because Delteil and Dreyer wanted to do something new with them. Together, the two scribes researched many possibilities and directions for the film during their one-month collaboration in 1927.16 (Dreyer began work on a script in October 1926.17) Delteil contributed ideas and images with exuberance and "à l'envi" to Dreyer.18 In January 1927, Delteil completed a "conrinuite cinematographique et filmee" (continuity script or "scénario-roman") for Dreyer.19 Delteil's screenplay adapts material from two of the last chapters of his Jeanne d'Arc and adds other scenes, such as the donning of Joan's straw crown, the bloodletting scene, and the crisscrossed prison windows displaying crosses on the stone door.20 So Delteil's role in the preproduction of Passion is more substantial than he is usually given credit for.

Aside from choosing passages from Delteil's work, Dreyer also based his screenplay on Anatole France's novel Vie de Jeanne d'Arc (1908) and on Pierre Champion's authoritative two-volume record of the trial's testimony, Procès de condamnation de Jeanne d'Arc: Texte, traduction et notes (1920-21).21 According to French medievalist and Joan of Arc scholar Nadia Margolis, Dreyer employed Champion as a consultant on the film because he possessed a similar "scholar's patience and fastidiousness" as the French historian and politician.22 Dreyer also determined that his movie necessitated [End Page 55] the preeminent scholar of Joan and found that individual to be Champion.23 Medieval studies scholar Gail Orgelfinger has scrutinized Champion's curated edition of the trial testimony and observes that Dreyer shared Champion's steadfast interest in the overlap between politics and spirituality as they deal with ramifications of religious persecution.24 Orgelfinger discerns that Dreyer envisaged the same connection between Jesus and Joan as Champion; that is, their suffering represented political passion.25 In sum, scholars tend to credit Champion with having had the most influence on Dreyer's script.

Dreyer compressed the twenty-nine interrogations of Joan's eighteen-month trial to five sessions over the course of two hours. Although it is unknown if this was his purpose, Dreyer adhered to Aristotle's three classical unities: (1) action (Joan's spiritual battles with her ecclesiastical judges), (2) place (the Rouen castle and its surrounding locales), and (3) time (less than twenty-four hours). Furthermore, the making of the film mirrored the actual trial, because the beginning of writing the script through the completion of editing also took a year and a half.26 It remains an uncertainty if Dreyer originally planned for the production to last the same duration as the trial. Dreyer began shooting the film on May 17, 1927, in the studios of the Omnium Films of Billancourt, a suburb of Paris.27 Filming wrapped six months later, followed by several months of postproduction work.28 SGF gave Dreyer free rein on all aspects of the film.


To establish a framework for Passion's remediated states, it is necessary to specify which versions of the film are under consideration, which will help account for the various censorial cuts and transmutations the film has undergone. Although there is a lack of documentation on any of the prints in the vaults of the Cinémathèque Française and the Danish Film Institute Archives,29 there is nonetheless an amalgamation of sources from a variety of works that can help provide answers to the following questions:

  • • Who were the film's "remakers," and how did they inflict changes on the original?

  • • What roles did the film's remediators occupy?

  • • What is the length of the original releases compared to the truncated versions?

  • • Which countries banned the film, and why?

  • • Why was the film censored in France?

Before Passion's opening, Dreyer recalled the circumstances underlying possible censorship guidelines at a test screening: [End Page 56]

When in Paris in 1928 I had finished the cutting of my film The Passion of Joan Arc, the company's managers decided that the finished copy should be shown at a preview to a party of 70 or 80 specially selected and impartial intellectuals—mainly authors, clergymen, psychologists, historians, and editors of periodicals of different complexions. The purpose of this preview was, of course, to find out if there were scenes or sequences which might be offensive or unhistorical, as there was time to make changes before the film was to be shown to the great public. There was nothing to be said against the length of the film; it was only 7200 feet long.

In order to provide some positive material as a result of the preview, I suggested that we among ourselves should divide the party into smaller groups; and that each one of us, as soon as the light went on again, should ask the opinion of every single person in our group, particularly aiming at clarifying what the person concerned might have to frown on and might want to get changed or possibly cut out.

Everything was carried out according to plan, and when the guests had left, the rest of us got together with our notes and made a list on a big sheet of paper so that we could compare possibly offensive sections, desirable changes and what might be cut out entirely. When the material collected had been arranged in accordance with the plot, we found that if all objections had to be considered, nothing would be left of the film in the form I had given it. The managers now knew for certain: the film had to be shown to the public in the form I had given it.30

SGF made two prints (each 2,210 meters or 7,250 feet in length) with Danish intertitles.31 The first print passed through the censorship board on April 20, 1928, without any cuts. The second print also passed unconditionally the following day.32 Dreyer's wishes for an untampered print came true when Passion had its world premiere on April 21 in Copenhagen at Palads Teatret (Palace Cinema). No evidence has ever materialized that the film was trimmed or altered for its general release in Denmark. The director's cut was presumably the only version shown there. Danish critics almost universally praised the film. It played a dozen times at Palads.33 It is a misnomer to judge Passion a box-office failure as some have. Palads had a spacious auditorium with 1,930 seats and was sold out on Passion's opening night.34 Also, it was not uncommon for a film to screen just twelve times at Palads. Dreyer's The Bride of Glomdal and Master of the House played only eight times there.35 Passion could not receive more than twelve screenings because Palads, like other theaters in Denmark, closed during the summer months, and the [End Page 57] spring season of 1928 concluded on April 30.36 The film must have done reasonably well, because circa May 15, it was picked up by another cinema in Copenhagen, Odeon Teatret, which ran it for nearly a week.37

Passion would not experience the same fortunes in France. The film fell under both clerical censorship and public state censorship. With the goal of appeasing a manifest audience of Catholics, the film's producers invited a Parisian clergy to a June 1928 press screening of Passion to gain the Church committee's acceptance of the film.38 Officials of the archdiocese stated that the film in unexpurgated form "risked being denounced from the pulpits and attacked by the Catholic patronage."39 Representatives of the Catholic Church soon incorporated changes to the script.40 The archbishop demanded many excisions, including the scene where Joan's arm is bled.41 ("You don't bleed a saint!"42) Conservative journalists and politicians were offended at the idea that Dreyer, a foreigner and a Protestant, would film a subject that is so distinctively a part of French history.43 The archbishop pressured SGF and L'Alliance Cinématographique Européenne (ACE, Passion's French distributor) to recut the film sans Dreyer's involvement.44 Dreyer told DFM archivist Arne Krogh that he was barred from the studios and had no say over which scenes were altered.45 Without Dreyer's permission, the producer and distributors complied with the French censors to make cuts.46

When the film opened on October 25, 1928, at the Salle Marivaux in Paris, it was nearly eight minutes shorter than the print approved by Danish censors six months earlier.47 According to film journalist Léon Moussinac, who saw the truncated version, "the public would only perceive a tedious Catholic film in which the Tribunal of Rouen had become almost sympathetic and in which the trial was reduced to a theological discussion without dramatic progression."48 The bowdlerized version proved a major miscalculation on the part of business dealers, because the film did not perform well.49 Apparently, eight months elapsed until an unabridged presentation screened in France.50 Antonin Artaud, who played the film's sympathetic monk, Jean Massieu, corroborates this fact. He claimed in a 1929 interview that he was "glad that the presentation of [Passion's] uncut version has changed the general opinion of this overwhelming film."51

The film also ran into trouble with the British censor. It was first reported by Carl Herring of the London Mercury in summer 1928 that there was no news of a release date for Passion in Britain. Herring acknowledges that he saw the film twice in May at a private press screening, but laments, "It is absurd that it should be in this country and not be shown at once."52 The New York Times film critic Mordaunt Hall attributes as a reason for the ban the stark realism of the scenes where Joan is led to the stake in the Place du Vieux Marché, Rouen.53 In fact, the British censor initially demanded trimming [End Page 58] the stake scene.54 He then ordered additional cuts to the middle of the film.55 The unflattering light in which Dreyer cast the English army that supervises Joan's trial also irked the censor. In January 1929, Vossische Zeitung (Berlin's daily newspaper) confirmed that Britain had banned Passion because its anti-British attitude was too conspicuous.56 I agree with film critic George Blaisdell's insinuation that the military attire and tin hat worn by General Warwick resemble those donned by British soldiers circa 1914.57 Indeed, another reason that Passion may have incensed British authorities is that the sight of army apparel rekindled the recent wounds of World War I only a decade earlier. At the British Film Institute's National Archive in London, a 35mm nitrate print of Passion from 1928 is conserved in four reel cans that total 6,203 feet (1,890 meters), nearly 1,000 feet (304 meters) less than the prerelease version.58 This is likely the same print that Herring saw. Several shots were deleted, including the bloodletting shot where Joan's arm is punctured.59 The ban was not lifted until November 16, 1930, when the film was shown to the Film Society of London.60

Between late 1928 and 1930, troubling things began happening to prints of the film. Dreyer recounted in an interview from the 1960s that on December 6, 1928, a fire permeated UFA's labs in Berlin where chief cameraman Rudolph Maté had developed the film's panchromatic stock, destroying the original negative and leaving only a few worn prints.61 But scholars could take Dreyer's recollection with a certain degree of skepticism. Two critics who saw the film in Berlin do not refer to any fire or damaged prints. For example, the Christian Science Monitor sent its foreign correspondent "P.B.W." to Germany, and the December 24, 1928, review reveals no traces of a worn theatrical release print: "The intensity of Carl Dreyer's realistic vision floods the film with wonderful pictures and striking tableau vivants."62 Additionally, an anonymous reviewer for Vossische Zeitung watched Passion at Berlin's Gloria Palace. The New York Times picked up this review on January 20, 1929. Nothing about the print appeared out of the ordinary, and there were no scenes deemed missing: "At all events we have never experienced the tragedy of Joan in such a way before, not even with [George Bernard] Shaw, not to mention [Friedrich] Schiller."63 Global news coverage of December 1928 contains no items about a laboratory fire at UFA. Dreyer scholar Casper Tybjerg found no mention of it in the German film trade papers.64 A detailed search of the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times archives through the ProQuest Historical Newspapers database did not produce any results. The Berlin fire is not printed in the list of documented film fires found in the volume This Film Is Dangerous: A Celebration of Nitrate Film.65 Also, it is not cited in Klaus Kreimeier's book The UFA Story: A History of Germany's Greatest Film Company, 1918-1945.66 Still, it remains a possibility that the original [End Page 59] negative perished in the fire—but it is equally possible that it simply went missing.

In any case, Dreyer presumed the camera negative lost and proceeded to reconstruct the film. With the aid of a release print for comparison, Dreyer and editor Marguerite Beauge put together a new version using existing rushes, outtakes, and alternate shots.67 Dreyer used between five and ten takes for most of the shots.68 He also repeated scenes thirty or forty times until they accorded to his exacting demands.69 Dreyer initially brought 85,000 meters of film (about 276,000 feet) in the editing room so he had a surfeit of footage to work from when he assembled the second negative.70 This also became known as Dreyer's work print, which is a copy of the film spliced with tape or glue that acts as the basis for reconstructing the original editing.71 Unfortunately, Dreyer's hard work appeared to go to waste when, in early 1929, a fire supposedly demolished the Gaumont laboratory in Paris where the work print was stored.72

Passion experienced a far more auspicious fate when copies of the film that avoided the fires were exported to the United States in late March 1929. The film opened at the Little Carnegie Playhouse in New York to glowing reviews. Critics mentioned the UK ban and French sanctions imposed on the film, but all indications are that only the uncut version played. Earlier that January, the reviewer and editor of National Board ofReview Magazine noted the presence of dual-language intertitles in French and English, which likely derive from the uncensored print that initially screened in France in summer 1928.73 According to Comte de la Roziere, who was well acquainted with the film's production details, Passion was assembled in eight reels.74 An April 1929 review in the Film Daily lists the film's length at 7,000 feet (2,133 meters),75 making it close to the prerelease version. The disparity of two hundred feet (sixty meters) may have something to do with the different sets of intertitles that were spliced on each print's reels, although it remains unknown which print contained more title cards. A Variety review (also from April 1929) records that the film ran for eighty-five minutes.76 I concur with Tybjerg that Passion was most likely projected at 24 fps in the United States, because that had become the standard speed for all films.77 After it played in New York for at least two weeks, the film also had showings in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, and Boston.78


Passion played sporadically on the US film exhibition circuit from 1930 to 1931. As its prolonged run wound down, talkies were already firmly established as the medium's preferred mode of entertainment. Since The Jazz Singer (Alan Crosland, 1927) ushered in synchronized sound and spoken dialogue, most studios worldwide made the transition [End Page 60] to sound-on-films. Because Passion was a resounding critical success and was likely seen by a lot of people in major metropolitan areas, it became a popular candidate for a remediated sound version. In 1933, the New York film producer and distributor Sherman S. Krellberg (1891-1979) hired well-known radio commentator David Ross to record voice-overs that played over Dreyer's film. Pierre Arnaud, Krellberg's editor, recut Passion to a runtime of between fifty-seven and sixty-one minutes.79 Ross's narration supplanted all the film's intertitles (which were removed) and was accompanied by Massard Kur Zhene's original score.80 Ross described the on-screen action using original notes by John Michael Flick from Joan of Arc's trial.81 When Passion returned to the Little Carnegie Playhouse in autumn 1933, critics embraced Krellberg's new rendition. William Boehnel's headline in the New York World Telegram read, "Sound Film Greatly Aids Joan of Arc."82 Boehnel singles out Zhene's music as bringing "a new value to [the film's] dramatic theme."83 While Boehnel has reservations about Ross, the Film Daily calls his narration "masterful."84 New York's Motion Picture Herald's Charles S. Aaronson likewise praises Ross's and Zhene's contributions, which "unquestionably add definitely to the effectiveness of the whole film."85 Aaronson also provides a telling sign for why, perhaps, Passion was severely abridged from its original runtime of eighty-plus minutes to only an hour. According to Aaronson, Midtown Manhattan had a solid Catholic community at the time and, based on the shortened version he saw, the exhibitor had "a strong selling film."86 Aaronson encourages religious groups and school organizations to flock to the theater "if they are properly approached."87 Clearly Krellberg not only refashioned Passion so it became a more marketable film but he also likely toned down its brutality so that he could ingratiate a wider audience, especially a younger demographic. This reedited cut likely resembled the censored version shown in Paris, where Catholic groups had strong sway over the film's content.88 WorldCat's catalog records indicate that the Krellberg version still exists, with 16mm or 8mm prints held in at least five libraries across the United States.89

While various European censors made different cuts to prints of Passion, Krellberg was the first remediator of the film, because he added narration, music, and sound effects. Krellberg fits the profile of what Paul Read and Mark-Paul Meyer call a commercial entrepreneur restorer, an individual who only wants to make money from an older film without considering the basic principles of preservation or moral conduct that concern restoration.90 Krellberg repositions Dreyer's work from an artistic film to a commercial vehicle. The advertising and publicity materials designed by SGF and Capital Film Exchange (CFE, Krellberg's marketing firm) illustrate completely different intentions by Dreyer and Krellberg. In the weeks leading up to its US debut, SGF pulled out several [End Page 61] publicity advertisements in the industry trades promoting Passion as a legitimate film d'art and a visionary triumph by its director. For example, in one prerelease ad, the French production company highlights these aspects in the body copy (the main text of a print ad that appears below the headline and any subheads): "A Distinguished contribution to the art of the motion picture. … Produced with a new conception and technic [technique] under the direction of Carl Dreyer."91 Two other ads put "a carl dreyer production" beneath the film's title.92 At the top of one ad, Dreyer's depth of field is illustrated with a wide, deep-space composition of Nicholas Loyseleur (Maurice Schutz) praying in the right foreground of the anteroom as Joan (Falconetti) receives her final communion from Massieu (Antonin Artaud) in her cell.93 The subhead "A Cinematographic Inspiration" appears at the bottom. Another ad promises that the film will break new ground with the headline "An Unusual Cinematographic Achievement."94 In a special weekend movie advertising section, the Los Angeles Times drama editor Edwin Schallert assembled a collage of stills from Passion and underlined the film's succession of close-ups as well as Mate's use of novel camera angles.95 Schallert lauds Dreyer for a confrontational approach that charts "new paths for the silent film."96 In short, Dreyer's name appeared prominently in most print ads.

By stark contrast, CFE's promotional materials all but eliminate Dreyer and rebrand the film a fiery spectacle. For instance, a color poster put Joan in the center, encircled by flames and her judges.97 It also misled the audience into thinking that the new version contained "English dialogue" and recognized Ross's "radio fame."98 (A two-page spread even proclaimed, "You hear [Joan's] immortal utterances as she answers the judges' questions!"99) Dreyer's name appeared nowhere on the poster. CFE also distributed 28" x 42" posters, cutouts, and photographic enlargements to exhibitors for display in theater front windows and lobbies. Two stills featured theater ticket insets with "Sherman S. Krellberg presents" followed by the film's title.100 Another poster reproduced Krellberg's credit with the headline "a new thrill in talking films!"101 The movie title was rendered Art Deco with ornamental characters and alternating fonts, which contrasted with SGF's more traditional lettering style. The Deco typefaces on the poster gave a potential viewer the false impression that Passion may be an avant-garde film in the sound era, a label that Dreyer did not want.102 Because Dreyer's name appeared only once on CFE's distribution materials (toward the bottom in a tiny font), an audience which is acclimating itself to Passion for the first time may have inferred that Krellberg was the central producer of the film. In sum, the 1933 sound version established Krellberg as the first significant remaker of the film.

For the next two decades, prints of Passion became scarce, but more copies were made after the opening of several film museums. On May 18, 1939, Iris Barry [End Page 62] (1895-1969) of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) acquired a copy of Langlois's positive print, which ran longer than other US prints in circulation and replicated one of the versions approved by Dreyer.103 This print measured 2,355 meters (7,726 feet), although it is unknown whether it included intertitles.104 Following the war, Passion played many times on Avenue de Messine, number 7, then the address of the Cinémathèque Française.105 The DFM, founded in 1941, acquired various prints of Passion from European archives in the 1950s and 1960s. Arne Krogh compared them and assembled a composite 35mm print that included shots absent from individual prints.106 Krogh's compilation did not produce a complete version of the film, but it presented visitors to the museum with a longer cut than some of the censored versions. Apparently, Krogh did not consult the prints stored at the Cinémathèque or at Gaumont.


In 1951, the Italian-born film historian Joseph-Marie Lo Duca (1910-2004) visited a warehouse at Gaumont's studios where he discovered Dreyer's reconstructed print of Passion in near-pristine condition.107 Lo Duca's attempt to transform Passion into a hybrid silent/sound-on-film makes him the amalgam of a commercial entrepreneur restorer and what Read and Meyer deem an artist-restorer. Artist-restorers are defined in two distinct ways. On one hand, they unearth older materials to restore the films without deliberately inflicting any physical damage on the original elements. On the other hand, they create a new product from the original work without showing any respect for the film's foundational materials.108

Lo Duca definitely embraced the second role. He added a sound track with excerpts from pieces by Bach, Vivaldi, Albinoni, and other classical composers. To accommodate the music on the filmstrip, Lo Duca had to create an analog optical variable-area sound track. A pair of squiggly lines (i.e., the "waveform") appears in the sound track area of the film between the sprocket holes (perforations) and the picture frame.109 In the process, Lo Duca cropped one-third of the image along the right side of the frame. The loss of image information means that viewers of Lo Duca's print are only seeing two-thirds of Dreyer's original film. When Dreyer and Maté photographed Passion in the standard Academy aspect ratio of 1.37:1, they carefully thought out material they wanted to fit into all four sides of the image. Aesthetically, Passion is a unique film because it makes full use of practically every camera angle. Because the compositions resulting from those angles are so precise and distinct from most other films, they need to be projected that way. Lo Duca's image trimming produces aesthetic harm in which portions of heads and faces are cut off from view.110 [End Page 63]

Furthermore, Lo Duca tried to modernize the film by designing new main titles, intertitles, and subtitles (in French) that rewrite and overwrite Dreyer's narrative lexicon. Lo Duca apparently neither consulted any intertitle lists from known prints of the film nor utilized the original trial transcript or Dreyer's continuity script. Instead, Lo Duca reconstructed the dialogue with the aid of lip readers.111 It is strange that Lo Duca entrusted this not entirely reliable method to others when he could have requested the script from Dreyer or through a film archive. After all, Dreyer instructed his actors to speak their lines in toto during filming.112 The script could have provided Lo Duca with a verbatim record of the dialogue. Lo Duca's neglect of primary sources is significant, because at several moments, characters speak without the display of subtitles or intertitles.

Moreover, Lo Duca fails to explain or communicate to the viewer why he switches from intertitles to subtitles when characters speak. He displays subtitles at the bottom fourth of the screen in about forty-six shots. The only evident reason for this oscillation is that the subtitles are generally shorter than the intertitles and often accompany shots that only appear for a few seconds. But Lo Duca never identifies a specific compositional pattern or camera angle of Dreyer's that would necessitate a subtitle rather than an intertitle with background décor. The subtitles also give the misleading impression that Passion was originally a sound film or at least featured some spoken dialogue heard by viewers. Various audiences first saw Dreyer's film between 1928 and 1931, a period when sound-on-films and talkies surged in growth and popularity. In addition, when Lo Duca produced his sonorized version of Passion in the early 1950s, foreign films began to enjoy wider international distribution, so audiences overseas became increasingly accustomed to reading subtitles. Lo Duca perhaps realized this opportunity for commercial exploitation and decided to "window-dress" the film for contemporary viewers.

Originally, Dreyer insisted that the opening contain no credits. "Why put our name on the film? Why impose our livelihoods on the characters we play? That is how one takes away all illusion from the audience. We have to become capable of really giving the audience the impression that they're watching 'reality' from a keyhole."113 Lo Duca, however, inserts several title cards that credit all major cast and crew members. Although he attributes the film's direction to Dreyer in a separate card, he creates a reedited version credit for Gaumont and himself: "Sous la Direction de LO DUCA." Rather than place the credits on a black background—as was the custom for most silent films—Lo Duca superimposes them over a Gothic painting of a church interior containing recessed archways and a statue of a biblical figure. Lo Duca returns to this backdrop once more before Joan is escorted to the cemetery following her interrogation in the torture chamber. (This is an odd moment to use as a transitional device because the film moves [End Page 64] from indoors to outdoors.) The painting provides an aesthetic blueprint for Lo Duca's other pictorial representations of the Middle Ages throughout the film.

Lo Duca also departs from the film's narrative space by inserting seventy-seven shots (including repeated images) of stained-glass windows depicting medieval icons. The first prominent example occurs when Bishop Pierre Cauchon (Eugene Sylvain) asks Joan to recite the Lord's Prayer. Lo Duca displays a full shot of Christ on the cross accompanied by young followers at his side. This foreshadows Joan's own crucifixion and identifies her passion with Christ's. When an examining judge asks Joan if she hates the English, Lo Duca cuts to a window depicting a person with a sword slicing a figure amid strewn bodies. This icon is likely a reference to the Siege of Orléans (1428-29), where Joan enjoyed her first significant military victory over the English. Initially, it appears that Lo Duca's linking of shots in the film with stained-glass windows will carry relational value. However, while Lo Duca sporadically connects the intertitles with medieval imagery, his rather haphazard edits throughout betray that intention. Rather than create consistent emblematic associations between cinematic compositions and church icons, Lo Duca's juxtapositions appear random and arbitrary to viewers from three different eras: those who caught a theatrical screening of Passion's uncut version in the 1920s, those who saw the compilation print Krogh put together in the 1960s at a film museum or art cinema, and those who watched one of the first theatrical versions (Danish or French) on either the Criterion DVD or Eureka Blu-ray. In a letter dated March 16, 1956, Dreyer writes to Jean Jay, chairman and president of Gaumont, complaining that none of Lo Duca's chosen backgrounds "has anything to do with the style of the film."114 It is easy to understand Dreyer's consternation. Lo Duca too often aims for visual abstraction between his word-image pairings, producing a disjointed relationship between Dreyer's shots and the pictorial objects seen in the stained-glass windows. Aesthetically and conceptually, the filmed images of real actors and the static compositions of church architecture appear incompatible when edited together in a sequence of shots. In other words, the raw celluloid material that Dreyer captured seems more "filmy" and organic compared to the ersatz pictures that Lo Duca took and inserted into the Gaumont print.

The stained-glass windows alter the audience's sense of orientation in a scene. They particularly affect both one's perception of what a character sees and the unknown perspective of Dreyer's subjective camera. For instance, Lo Duca inserts a dome-shaped window with sequined patterns on grisaille glass panels during Joan's swearing in. This cut-in makes it seem Joan is looking up at the church's ceiling instead of at the person off-screen administering the oath.115 The shift in Joan's point of view from a figure to a ceiling is important because the camera is nearly always looking up at people from a low [End Page 65] angle.116 In his analysis of Passion, Bordwell refers to camera angles and movements that seemingly represent optical vantage points as impressionist subjectivity.117 The insertion of church windows in between a character's (specified or unspecified) point of view ruptures the camera movement and montage of shots that depict Joan's clashes with her judges. Lo Duca's extraneous material further obfuscates the film's impressionist subjectivity. The film critic and director Paul Schrader observes that Dreyer's camera takes as many as four or five vantage points in a single scene.118 The straight-on or low-angle shots of the windows add a sixth "screen" that intrudes upon the trial proceedings.

In addition to stained-glass windows, Lo Duca used nineteen static shots depicting Gothic architecture and the city of Rouen as backdrops for the intertitles. Showing full views of medieval buildings is something that Dreyer did not want. None of the other versions of the film contains any "magnificent vista shots."119 In an article on cinematography, Dreyer articulates that "the task of photography is, through the exposure, to draw the spectator's eyes toward what is essential in every single shot. … The background must only be felt, not seen."120 Dreyer uses the physiques of his actors and the white walls in the church to "abstract" from space. In other words, the actors become a human landscape amid their spare setting. Lo Duca, however, pulls the audience out of the narrative center so they are drawn to extradiegetic locales outside of the film's domain. Lo Duca thus ignored Dreyer's preference for a minimalist mise-en-scène and followed the original wishes of the film's financiers, who wanted to display the production's expensive set as decorative spectacle.121 When they presumably saw the finished film, Passion's financial backers complained that the set was not "made full use of."122

It is true that Dreyer wanted a large set built, but for a very different purpose than to attain the aesthetic goals of his executive producers. According to Paul La Cour (1902-56), Dreyer's assistant director, the French architect Jean Hugo (1894-1984), consulted the illuminated manuscript Livre des Merveilles (circa 1400) at the French National Library for hand-drawn pictures of miniatures that eventually became models for the film's sets.123 Hugo and the German art director Hermann Warm (1889-1976) erected a large septagonal or octagonal castle with a tall tower in each of the corners and a high wall running between the towers. The church or chapel was built in the center of the courtyard, opposite the drawbridge. The crew constructed a seven-sided city square that bore a likeness to Trafalgar Square.124 Dreyer had his crew go to the trouble of building a big set because, even though little of it was shown in the film, it provided members of his cast with a simulacrum of a fifteenth-century setting that they could experience daily for nearly the same amount of time as Joan of Arc's actual trial. An elaborate set allowed Dreyer's actors to absorb details from a particular historical milieu. Their [End Page 66] assimilation into a specific period of history would contribute to performances drawn from the inside. Dreyer refers to this category of actors as "those who build [their parts] up from within. … [He] begins by identifying himself with the character he is to portray and he won't be satisfied until his heart is beating in the other chest."125 Dreyer means that actors perform naturally or instinctively according to their environment and not according to individual features like costume and makeup.

The temerarious Lo Duca demonstrates a complete lack of respect, not to mention utter disregard, for Dreyer's artistic intentions and filmmaking philosophy. He breaks away from the actors and their relationship to uncluttered settings. More precisely, Lo Duca's nineteen static shots of Rouen encroach upon Dreyer's enclosed locales and confined narrative spaces. For example, during the judges' interrogation of Joan in her cell, the inserted shot of a building exterior pushes the viewer away from the white walls. The cutaway to an outdoor setting that has nothing to do with the interrogation shatters the bound space in the scene and jettisons the viewer's feeling of claustrophobia. Lo Duca repeats this editing pattern several more times. He inserts a cityscape of Rouen to accompany Joan's answer of whether she is in a state of grace and when she requests to attend Mass. He returns to the shot of the building after Joan collapses in the torture chamber and is brought back to her cell. Lo Duca also incorporates part of the building's architecture as a backdrop to accompany Joan's exchange with Judge Guillaume Erard (Jean d'Yd) in the graveyard. Lo Duca additionally shows shots of church pews that appear unrelated to Joan and Erard's discussion of the King of France's religious motives.

Given Passion's sad history with fires, Lo Duca's insertion of fifteen moving images of flames adds an ironic insult to injury. He was perhaps aware that prints of Passion had been consumed by fires, but his cutaways to them are unnecessary. For example, he shows an extreme close-up of flames as Erard pressures Joan to sign a confession stating that her revelations came from the Devil. "If you do not sign, you will be burned alive." Lo Duca intersperses images of flames throughout the graveyard scene as Erard and Loyseleur urge Joan to sign. Most expectedly, Lo Duca inserts the same shot after Joan recants her confession. "Joan has retracted … she will be burned at the stake," a spectator on stilts yells to the crowd in the castle courtyard. An ill-timed moment when Lo Duca rekindles the fire imagery occurs during the coda: "Joan above Joan! Flame above flame!" Rather than stick with Dreyer's choice to punctuate Joan's spiritual transcendence with a tiltup to the clouds, Lo Duca inserts a static shot of the sky and another shot of artificial flames. These two pictures appear too stagnant when seen in the context of Mate's bustling camera movement and Dreyer's ultrarapid montage [End Page 67] (over sixty shots in this final scene).126 Overall, Lo Duca's shots serve paratextually as aesthetic addenda to dramatic points in the story.

The addition of sound also distracts the viewer from the action on-screen. Like Krellberg, Lo Duca employs voice-over commentary, but this time in the form of a French narrator who summarizes the social and religious circumstances surrounding Joan's incarceration and trial. The spoken words distract the viewer from Dreyer's long tracking shot behind the benches in the chapel, which establishes the space for the scene and situates the positions of the judges and clerics in the courtroom.127 According to Bordwell, who viewed footage of Passion culled from "many different prints," none of the other versions' openings contains any "commentative" or explanatory intertitles that replicate the narration.128 Lo Duca also digresses from the original Danish print, which displays a crawling scroll on a black screen describing the trial transcript conserved in the library of the Chamber of Deputies in Paris.129 Along with the 1933 sound version, the voice-over signifies a remediation of content at the film's beginning compared to the Cinémathèque Française and MoMA copies.


In early March 1952, Gaumont unveiled the Lo Duca version at a gala held at the Cinema D'Essai, a Parisian experimental film house. According to one of Variety's foreign correspondents, the reissue was "well received" by audiences.130 In late 1953, Dreyer told film preservationist James Card that "[audiences] are not seeing the original version. [Lo Duca's] cutting has weakened many scenes."131 Despite numerous objections from Dreyer, the Lo Duca print became the most well-known version of Passion for the next three decades. It was also shown in schools and cinema clubs on occasion. In January 1967, for instance, the Associated Students of Occidental College (CA) screened it in Los Angeles along with Vivre sa vie (Jean-Luc Godard, 1962). The event organizers apparently approved of Lo Duca's seventy-seven-minute presentation of Passion, complimenting the stained-glass windows for serving as a suitable backdrop for the intertitles and for their often symbolic relation "to the dialogue and the events of the trial."132 By the early 1970s, the Lo Duca version became the film's most widely circulated print in commercial distribution.133 Later that decade, Gaumont brought it back to Paris cinemas, where it was greeted with a "fresh set of raves."134 How was it possible to continue to show this version of the film? The most likely explanation is that Passion (as well as many other older films) did not have an official copyright holder and fell into the public domain after its initial twenty-eight years of protection had expired.135 The Lo Duca version remained [End Page 68] in circulation until 1988, when Gunni Dreyer (1913-90), Carl's daughter, filed a lawsuit disputing Gaumont's ownership of the film. The French distributor agreed to withdraw all circulating prints in an out-of-court settlement with Gunni Dreyer.136

The Lo Duca version was not seen again by the public until 2012, when Eureka Entertainment and the Masters of Cinema (MoC) released it on Blu-ray in the United Kingdom. While Eureka presents it in high definition, the video label's decision not to give it a photochemical or digital restoration underscores the complex ethical judgments film restorers face. Though the sonorized version was popular with audiences and some critics, Dreyer scholars (Eric Breitbart, Tony Pipolo, and others) dislike the boldness with which Lo Duca drastically reshaped Dreyer's narrative. As Pipolo points out, Lo Duca "is the prime offender in most areas. … All the evidence indicates that an obvious tampering with the original footage characterizes this print, obliterating many signs of compositional variation and intertitle/image relationship."137 Breitbart compares the alterations to a painting retoucher "who, not being content with cleaning and restoring the surface, decides to enhance certain areas to make it more pleasing to the public's eye."138 Lo Duca's mock-up of the film is a historical curiosity (hence its presence on the disk), but as demonstrated in the next section, film restoration experts and archivists are more likely to give special care and meticulous attention to a filmmaker's original work, albeit with mixed results.


In 1981, one of the most remarkable discoveries in film history occurred in Norway. A workman was cleaning out a cellar at Dikemark Sykehus (Dikemark Mental Asylum), located in the Oslo suburb of Asker, where he found several film canisters in a trunk. These contained ten prints: nine shorts and one feature film.139 The workman telephoned the Norwegian Film Institute (NFI) to see if they were interested in acquiring them, and they were.140 Although Dikemark shipped the canisters to the NFI in autumn 1981, it took archivists two years to sort through the contents because of an inundation of other prints flowing into the archives.141 In early June 1984, senior NFI archivist Arne Pedersen approached DFM director Ib Monty during an intermission of a meeting at the International Federation of Film Archives Congress in Stockholm with some exciting news. "I think that we have found an original print of Jeanne d'Arc with Danish intertitles in Oslo," Pedersen calmly told Monty.142 After the NFI made a duplicate negative of the print for their collection, they sent the original nitrate print to the DFM as a gift later that September.143 After it arrived, Monty ran the print on a Steenbeck. (It was too shrunken to run through [End Page 69] a projector.) Monty immediately noticed the superior image quality compared to all other prints he had seen. The improved clarity made it easier to spot details on the white walls (e.g., the drawing of a cock crowing).144

Official documentation in one of the reel boxes confirmed that this print of Passion was one of the two prints shipped to Denmark in April 1928. The original wrapping paper contained a censor's card dated April 21, 1928, along with other papers sealed by the Danish censorship office that certify the print's authenticity.145 The Danish intertitles on the filmstrip bear the mark of being printed on French machines since "ae," a Danish monophthongal vowel phoneme, had to be replaced with the letters "ae."146 No grammatical errors existed in any of the titles, so they must have been proofread by a Dane, either Dreyer or one of his assistants, Paul La Cour or Ralph Holm.147

The specific reasons why an original negative of Passion was sent from Denmark to Norway remain unknown. (The film was never shown publicly in Norway.148) The boxes of reels were addressed to Consultant Physician Harald Arnesen (1862-1953), the director of the Dikemark Sykehus at the time. Arnesen had an affinity with France's medieval period. He wrote a 1928 book on Jean-Lambert Tallien during the French Revolution and also may have had an interest in Joan of Arc. Arnesen knew Henrik Refsland, a private importer and distributor of films in Norway, who likely ordered Passion from Denmark.149 Program notes inside one of the film cans suggest that Arnesen screened the film privately several times, possibly for patients in the ward.150

Jon Stenklev, director of the NFI, made an official statement about the discovery of the Oslo print in a press release on November 16, 1984.151 The original version debuted later that month at a Dreyer symposium in Verona, Italy, followed by its first public showing at the Sixth International Odense Film Festival in Denmark in August 1985.152 Passion attracted wide attention at the September 1985 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), which followed screenings in Bologna and Turin.153 The DFM sent TIFF a safety dupe negative with English intertitles "carefully timed and framed so that they are exact replicas of the Danish originals" courtesy of the National Film Archives (NFA) in London.154 Film critics and scholars made observations about the print that echo Monty's. Dreyer scholar Mark Nash, who first saw the print at a National Film Theatre screening in May 1985, remarks that it "is in better condition than many new prints from old negatives."155 Dave Kehr points out that "every pore of Falconetti's face seems visible. … The walls of the prison house, a wavering gray in the old copies, now shine with a celestial whiteness."156 The Oslo print contained reels shot and edited by Dreyer. All the original Danish intertitles were removed and replaced with a new translation of titles in French, though. In addition, a handful of shots filmed presumably by Dreyer's crew were [End Page 70] subsequently left out of circulating prints and neglected in the explicatory prologue.

Film historian Vincent Pinel and Dreyer biographer Maurice Drouzy presided over the restoration of Passion at the Cinémathèque Française. Pinel and Drouzy worked from a sparkling 35mm nitrate print, blemished only by one splice and signs of decomposition at the beginning of reel two.157 While audiences reportedly saw the "original version" of Passion at various film festivals and Dreyer retrospectives beginning in the mid-1980s, the film was remediated owing to a lack of oversight on Pinel and Drouzy's part. Ostensibly, the underlying intent behind their restoration was to re-create a complete and uncut version of Passion that audiences would have seen at the Salle Marivaux in Paris in late October 1928. In projection prints, Pinel and Drouzy added ten Gaumont newsreel segments consisting of aviation milestones, international sporting events, and other newsworthy incidents spanning the globe in the summer and fall of 1928.158 Pinel and Drouzy included newsreels to transport modern viewers back in time to social happenings that the film's original audiences saw before the start of the main feature. In the introductory credits and notes, a brief three-paragraph scroll summarizes the print history of Passion and acknowledges Drouzy for reestablishing the French text for a restored French version that is "probably very close to the original."159 Drouzy, in fact, translated all of the Danish intertitles on the Oslo print into French and displayed them on a black background. The Cinematheque's prologue mentions general sanctions imposed on the film but does not go into the archbishop's decision to censor part of the film or the eight minutes deleted from the Paris premiere. Because Pinel and Drouzy intended to present a cut of the film that closely resembled the uncensored version Dreyer showed in Paris at a private screening, any information about changes to the film would have been both essential and welcome. Audiences are thus deprived of important contextual details about the film's release history.


Another way that Pinel and Drouzy remediate Passion is by means of exclusion, that is, existing footage that they neglected to incorporate into the Oslo print. The focus of this section shifts from being a study of the remediation of the film to descriptions and analysis of surviving footage that has never received a wide release in the public domain. The extant shots are "golden scraps" that deserve to be seen in an alternate cut of Passion on a Blu-ray and DVD. According to Pipolo, at least five shots are in a truncated print acquired by the NFA in 1947 as well as a similar print conserved by the Yugoslavian Cinematek (now the Bibliothèque) that are missing from the Oslo print, the [End Page 71] Lo Duca version, all MoMA prints, and Dreyer's work print/second negative at the Cinémathèque:

  1. 1. a long shot of the opening trial scene in the chapel where the viewer sees a full view of the tribunal; Joan is seated on a small stool directly in front of the clergy with her back to the viewer; Massieu comes over to help her rise and leave the chapel as the others begin to disassemble;

  2. 2. another long shot that presents an even wider view of the span of benches where all the judges and priests have sat during the trial;

  3. 3. a shot of Joan being led up the stairs to her cell by Massieu after the initial interrogation scene; a full view of the landing reveals her cell door in the deep left background; a guard stands between the middle ground and the stairs which Joan and Massieu have just climbed on the right;

  4. 4. an establishing shot that occurs at the outset of the cemetery scene where Joan will be persuaded to sign publicly the recantation after the harangue of Erard;

  5. 5. a shot at the entrance to the cemetery showing Joan being carried through an archway on a stretcher by guards; the canopy and judges' stand are visible in the background from which Erard will presumably speak.160

These shots are also present in an archival print that Bordwell viewed at the DFM in the mid-1970s.161 Pipolo gathers that the NFA print containing these shots originates from the censored version in France rather than the censored version in Britain.162 The two prints are not identical. The NFA print has 328 feet (or about 100 meters) more than the 1928 print purportedly shown to critics in Britain.163 Furthermore, cuts in the NFA print mainly have to do with eliminating the Church's cruelty and persecution of Joan as opposed to curtailing the brutality and belligerent appearance of the English.164 Excisions were obviously made to the NFA print, but I disagree with the Criterion Collection's presumption that someone other than Dreyer put the five shots into the film during the censorship period.165 Though it remains speculation, it is possible that Dreyer added these shots for the special preview screening in Paris following the film's theatrical run in Denmark. Two weeks after Passion opened at the Palads, a review by Ebbe Neergaard appeared in Politiken (Copenhagen's daily paper) that mentioned how Dreyer's recurring emphasis on close-ups confused the audience about the action in the scenes.166 Neergaard suggested that Dreyer should integrate establishing shots with the close-ups.167 It is important to note that Neergaard was a dear friend and confidant of Dreyer's.168 Indeed, according to Dreyer biographers Jean Drum and Dale D. Drum, Neergaard's May 1928 article on [End Page 72] Passion marked the beginning of the critic's friendship with Dreyer.169 Dreyer read the review and agreed with Neergaard's opinions. In a 1963 monograph, Dreyer admitted that the succession of close-ups threw Passion out of balance and vowed that he would not repeat the experiment in later films.170 However, this does not mean that Dreyer inserted the shots in question or reedited the film right after reading Neergaard's review, so the preceding events should be taken with a grain of salt.

It is also speculative but probably unlikely that SGF, ACE, or a censorship board inserted the five shots after the film was taken out of Dreyer's hands. None of the shots is an "establishing" shot in the conventional sense that it opens a scene and situates the axis of action. For example, Dreyer seems to have placed the two wide shots inside the chapel—one of Joan seated on a stool in front of her judges and the other a full view of the tribunal from behind the benches—at the very end of the first round of interrogations to reorient the audience to the location of the trial. Dreyer had already executed a long tracking shot behind the chapel's benches at the beginning, so he likely would have deemed another shot from the rear redundant at that point. Had Dreyer's producers or the studio decided to use these shots, they likely would have inserted them much earlier in the scene or opened the film with them. From the standpoint of editing, the presence of these shots as placement markers at the conclusion of the scene initially seems odd. However, the edits have something in common with the unconventional camerawork in the film. Both aspects subvert one's traditional viewing expectations of a picture made in the formative years of classical Hollywood cinema. The shot where Massieu leads Joan to her cell serves the purpose of acting as a bridge between the scenic transitions of the chapel and the site of Joan's incarceration. The other establishing shots in the cemetery do not give the audience a complete representation of the castle courtyard (like the wide shots of the chapel do), but they nonetheless provide visual cues for the action, for example, the archway and peasants observing Joan as she is carried outside for her meeting with Erard. Altogether, Dreyer and Maté originally photographed these sets of shots, so they deserve to be seen in an alternate cut. No evidence has ever surfaced that SGF brought the film's cast and crew back together for reshoots. These shots are not "throwaways" but an important part of Passion's production.


In addition to the Oslo and NFA prints, there are aesthetic discrepancies between other versions of Passion. Pipolo, who went through the MoMA/Cinémathéque, Lo Duca, and Oslo prints exhaustively on a Steenbeck as well as the Krogh-assembled print on 35mm, [End Page 73] has noted every shot and intertitle difference.171 Pipolo discovered that although the Oslo print "essentially differs very little" from the Cinémathèque and MoMA copies, there are some important differences between the number of shots and intertitles.172 Drouzy's decoupage of the Oslo print tallies 1,343 shots and 174 intertitles, whereas Pipolo's shot analysis of the MoMA print totals 1,333 shots and 166 intertitles.173 One significant difference is the opening shot of a figure's movement toward a table and the opening of an old book (the transcript of the trial of Joan of Arc). The Oslo has the part where a person sets the book on the table, whereas the MoMA copies apparently do not.174 This is important, because it situates the film as a historical film and a document of the past. MoC printed a shot-by-shot comparison in its Blu-ray booklet comparing the Oslo print ("A Negative") and the Lo Duca version ("B Negative"). The frame illustrations reveal numerous differences in framing, composition, and performance. Furthermore, I want to add that there still may be a copy of the B Negative without any of Lo Duca's changes stored in a Milan film archive. The Italian filmmaker Francesco Pasinetti (1911-49) once owned a print that was believed to be the only copy of Passion in Europe during the 1940s.175 An illustrated book published in 1945 contains 118 frame enlargements from Pasinetti's print that reveal several identical shots to the B Negative. There are also some alternate takes when compared to the A Negative.176 The print appears not to have been censored, as it contains shots of the torture instruments and a doctor wrapping a tourniquet around Joan's arm. This is all likely confirmation that the Pasinetti copy is struck from Dreyer's work print. According to and the CriterionCast, Gaumont is reportedly working on a new digital restoration of Passion that is different from Criterion's and Eureka's.177 One anticipates that it may be the B Negative, which deserves to be seen by a wide audience in an untampered version. There is also the unresolved issue of a mysterious scene missing from all US prints, the Lo Duca version, and the A Negative. According to foreign film translator Herman G. Weinberg (1908-83), the scene in question is actually an extended version of the bloodletting. At the moment of incision by the physician of Joan's arm, an extreme close-up shows a priest's foot stepping (pressing) down into her cell. The camera pulls back to reveal who it is—Loyseleur, who pretends to befriend Joan. In the version Weinberg saw, the edit had the effect of making it seem as if the weight of Loyseleur was forcing the needle into Joan's arm.178 It would be important to know if the prints Gaumont works from contain this snippet or whether it is in a print held by a foreign archive. If it is found, in which version of the film does it appear? Because it does not appear that it was in any of the original theatrical prints, it might be an ideal inclusion as an extra on the DVD/Blu-ray.

In summary, the Oslo print has been the primary means of seeing Passion since [End Page 74] the mid-1980s. Furthermore, at least a handful of different shots from various prints of the film at the Bibliothèque, NFA, and private archives could be integrated into the original release version. The existence of an unedited B Negative still remains a mystery but should continue to be pursued.


This article has scrutinized the history of versions Passion has undergone in the pre-electronic and digital eras. The information in this article suggests a way forward to the remediation of classic film. The closing paragraph offers a description of it.

I propose that the British Film Institute, Criterion, or another video distributor takes the supplementary shots from the NFA print and inserts them into the Oslo print for what I call the extended cut (EC) of Passion. Criterion included three of these shots as playable clips on the DVD's version history of Passion, so they have the source to work with.179 According to notes left by NFA archivist "J.D.G.," the archive's 35mm print contains English credits and intertitles, but most of them appear in the wrong position.180 If the extra shots contain any accompanying intertitles, they need to be moved to their proper places for the EC. One indication that the NFA print is an "original version" is that the canisters contain eight reels, the same number from which the film was assembled.181 It would be advantageous to restorers if they were to create a spreadsheet with intertitle comparisons and potential suggestions for slotting the title cards. When the restoration is completed, the EC could be released on DVD/Blu-ray and streamed on digital platforms. [End Page 75]

Stephen Larson

Stephen Larson is a film and media studies scholar. His work has appeared in Senses of Cinema, Journal of Adaptation in Film and Performance, and Kosmorama. He has also presented work at the National Communication Association Conference.


1. On December 6, 1928, at UFA Studios, in early 1929 at a Gaumont lab, and in 1937 in either France or Italy.

2. Carl Theodor Dreyer, Fire Film: "Jeanne d'Arc," "Vampyr," "Vredens Dag," "Ordet," ed. Ole Storm (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1964). This volume of screenplays was later translated into English and published as Four Screenplays, ed. Ole Storm, trans. Oliver Stallybrass (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970). The script for Passion was originally titled Jehanne: La Passion et la Mort d'une Sainte.

3. Marguerite Engberg, "Historien om den Genfundne Jeanne d'Arc" [The story of the recovered Jeanne d'Arc], trans. Peter Schepelern [2014], Kosmora-ma 31, no. 171 (1985): 42.

4. Ibid.; Passion was banned in all Nazi-occupied countries from 1940 to 1944. Georges Sadoul, Dictionary of Films, ed. and trans. Peter Morris (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 276.

5. Engberg, "Historien," 42.

6. Ibid.

8. Giovanna Fossati, From Grain to Pixel: The Archival Life of Film in Transition (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009), 39-40.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid., 192.

11. Ebbe Neergaard, Carl Dreyer, a Film Director's Work, New Index Series 1, ed. Gavin Lambert, trans. Marianne Helweg (London: British Film Institute, 1950), 17; Lisbeth Richter Larsen, "Master of the House: Reception," Carl Th. Dreyer—The Man and His Work, June 3, 2010, para. 3,

12. This seems like a moderately high budget for a film in the 1920s, but it should come as no surprise, because the same studio supplied Abel Gance with more than twice that amount for his superproduction Napoleon (1927). Neergaard, Carl Dreyer, 19; "'Joan of Arc,' French Film Ready for Release," Film Daily, April 1, 1928, 2.

13. Joseph Delteil, Jeanne d'Arc (Paris: Grasset, 1925), trans. Malcolm Cowley as Joan of Arc (New York: Minton, Balch, 1926).

14. Nadia Margolis, "Trial by Passion: Philology, Film, and Ideology in the Portrayal of Joan of Arc (1900-1930)," Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 27, no. 3 (1997): 466.

15. David Bordwell, Filmguide to La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, Filmguide Series 1, no. 1, ed. Harry Geduld and Ronald Gottesman (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973), 14; Anthony Thomas Pipolo, "Carl Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc: A Comparison of Prints and a Formal Analysis," PhD diss., New York University, 1981, 15.

16. Wilhelmina Van Ness, "Joseph Delteil: The Passion of Joan of Arc," Literature Film Quarterly 3, no. 4 (1975): 292.

17. Alan Stanbrook, "Great Films of the Century—No. 12: The Passion of Joan of Arc," Films and Filming 8 (June 1961): 13.

18. Van Ness, "Joseph Delteil," 292. [End Page 76]

19. Margolis, "Trial by Passion," 467; Gail Orgelflnger, "Carl Dreyer's Passion Play in Jeanne d'Arc and Jesus, "Film and History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies (2003), CD-ROM, 8.

20. Ibid., 467, 471.

21. Jean Drum and Dale D. Drum, My Only Great Passion: The Life and Films of Carl Th. Dreyer, Filmmakers Series 68, ed. Anthony Slide (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 2000), 126; Orgelflnger, "Carl Dreyer's Passion Play," 5.

22. Margolis, "Trial by Passion," 470.

23. Ibid.

24. Orgelflnger, "Carl Dreyer's Passion Play," 20.

25. Ibid., 5.

26. Neergaard, Carl Dreyer, 21.

27. "French Film News," Variety, June 1, 1927, 12; Lisbeth Richter Larsen, "The Passion of Joan of Arc: Shoot," Carl Th. Dreyer—The Man and His Work, June 3, 2010, para. 3,

28. Larsen, "The Passion of Joan of Arc," paras. 4, 5.

29. Pipolo, "Carl Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 6.

30. Ibid., 42-43.

31. Engberg, "Historien," 40.

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid.; Lisbeth Richter Larsen, "The Passion of Joan of Arc: Reception," Carl Th. Dreyer—The Man and His Work, June 3, 2010, para. 4, It was also shown locally in May of that year at Park Teatret for seven days and at Odeon Teatret for five days.

34. Engberg, "Historien," 40.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid., 41.

39. Léon Moussinac, "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," in Panoramique du cinéma (Paris: Au sans reveil, 1929), n. 77, quoted in Pipolo, "Carl Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 2.

40. Eric Breitbart, "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc: A Classic Film Rises from the Ashes," Sightlines, Fall 1986, 27.

41. Ibid.; James Reid Paris, The Great French Films (Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1983), 28; Engberg, "Historien," 41.

42. Quoted in Engberg, "Historien," 41.

43. Drum and Drum, My Only Great Passion, 143. Jean-José Frappa wrote in January 1927 of Dreyer, "Whatever the talent of the director (and he has it) … he cannot give us a true Joan of Arc of the French tradition. … To let [the film] be made in France would be a scandalous abdication of responsibility." Quoted in "History and Production: Version History; The Many Incarnations of Joan," The Passion of Joan of Arc, dir. Carl Theodor Dreyer (1928; Irvington, N.Y.: Criterion Collection, 1999), DVD (NTSC).

44. Richard Abel, French Cinema: The First Wave, 1915-1929 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), 487. [End Page 77]

45. Herman G. Weinberg, "Dreyer's Joan," Sight and Sound, Summer 197S, 197. Krogh mistakenly informs Wilhelmina Van Ness in the quoted letter that the film was taken out of Dreyer's hands and cuts were made to the release print before Passion's global premiere in Copenhagen. The film was not trimmed until either the summer or early fall of 1928.

46. Breitbart, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, 27; Drum and Drum, My Only Great Passion, 143; Christopher Adcock and Dale Ann Stieber, "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc" Souvenir Program, Los Angeles International Film Exposition, Wadsworth Theatre, May 27, 1983, 4, University of California, Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive,

47. Breitbart, "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 27; Drum and Drum, My Only Great Passion, 143.

48. Moussinac, "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," n. 77, quoted in Pipolo, "Carl Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 2.

49. Ibid.

50. Paris, Great French Films, 28.

51. Antonin Artaud, "Interview for Cinémonde (1929)," in Antonin Artaud, Selected Writings, ed. Susan Sontag, trans. Helen Weaver (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1976), 184.

52. Carl Herring, "The Movies," London Mercury, August 1928, 424.

53. Mordaunt Hall, "Poignant French Film," New York Times, March 31, 1929, X7.

54. Engberg, "Historien," 41.

55. Ibid.

56. [Vossische Zeitung], "Joan of Arc Picture," New York Times, January 20, 1929, X7.

57. George Blaisdell, "Looking in on Just a Few New Ones," International Photographer, October 1931, 28-29.

58. Dreyer, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc [The Passion of Joan of Arc], 3Smm (British Film Institute, 1928).

59. Pipolo, "Carl Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 4. Pipolo learned this through a conversation with British film historian William K. Everson.

60. Paris, Great French Films, 28; Stanbrook, "Great Films of the Century," 11.

61. Casper Tybjerg, "Two Passions—One Film?," in The Passion of Joan of Arc Blu-ray Book, Masters of Cinema Series, Spine S0 (London: Eureka Entertainment, 2012), 67.

62. P. B. W., "New Joan of Arc Film in Berlin," Christian Science Monitor, December 24, 1928, Pacific edition, 8.

63. [Zeitung], "Joan of Arc Picture," X7.

64. Tybjerg, "Two Passions," 67.

65. See Roger Smither and Catherine A. Surowiec, eds., "A Calendar of Film Fires," in This Film Is Dangerous: A Celebration of Nitrate Film (Brussels, Belgium: International Federation of Film Archives, 2002), 429-S3.

66. Klaus Kreimeier, The UFA Story: A History of Germany's Greatest Film Company, 1918-1945, trans. Robert Kimber and Rita Kimber (New York: Hill and Wang, 1996). [End Page 78]

67. "Many Incarnations of Joan."

68. Pipolo, "The Spectre of Joan of Arc: Textual Variations in the Key Prints of Carl Dreyer's Film," Film History: An International Journal 2, no. 4 (1988): 303.

69. Breitbart, "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 27.

70. Pipolo, "Spectre of Joan of Arc," 303.

71. Paul Read and Mark-Paul Meyer, eds., Restoration of Motion Picture Film, Series in Conservation and Museology (Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 2000), 62.

72. Breitbart, "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 27.

73. Harry Alan Potamkin, "The Passion of Jean [sic] D'Arc," National Board of Review Magazine, January 1929, 9.

74. Comte de la Roziere, "Trial of Joan of Arc," New York Times, April 1, 1928, X5.

75. "The Passion of Joan of Arc," Film Daily, April 14, 1929, 12.

76. Sime Silverman, "Passion of Joan of Arc," Variety, April 10, 1929, 25.

77. Tybjerg, 2:14 into his "Audio Essay," The Passion of Joan of Arc, dir. Carl Theodor Dreyer (1928; Irvington, N.Y.: Criterion Collection, 1999), DVD (NTSC).

78. See "French Story First of Year on Little Bill," Washington Post, September 8, 1929, A2; W. W. Whitney, "Little Theater," Washington Post, September 9, 1929, 14; "'Joan of Arc' Film Entering Second Week," Washington Post, September 15, 1929, A2; Elena Boland, "Contrasts Feature at Filmarte," Los Angeles Times, September 16, 1929, A7; Mae Tinée, "Trial, Burning of Joan of Arc Put on Screen," Chicago Daily Tribune, January 14, 1930, 31; "'The Passion of Joan of Arc' at Fine Arts," Daily Boston Globe, March 29, 1930, 5.

79. Pipolo, "Spectre of Joan of Arc," 305.

80. Ibid., 305-6.

81. "The Passion of Joan of Arc," Film Daily, September 9, 1933, 4.

82. William Boehnel, "Sound Film Greatly Aids Joan of Arc," New York World Telegram, September 15, 1933.

83. Ibid.

84. "Passion of Joan of Arc,"

85. Charles S. Aaronson, "The Passion of Joan of Ar [sic]," Motion Picture Herald [New York], September 16, 1933, 39.

86. Ibid.

87. Ibid.

88. Circa 1930, an ecclesiastical community pressured exhibitors to withdraw Passion in Chicago, but film critics Carol Frink's and Clark Rodenbach's acclaim of the film helped prevent any canceled showings. Charles Teitel, "Chicago Boasts Top Film Critics, Part of Solid Tradition," Daily Variety, January 21, 1983, 53.

89. This version is owned by Carson-Newman University's (Tenn.) Stephens-Burnett Library; Gustavus Adolphus College's (Minn.) Folke Bernadotte Memorial Library; the University of Alaska Fairbanks's Elmer E. Rasmuson Library (which has two copies of the print); the University of California, Riverside Library (which houses two film reels); and Onondaga Community College's (N.Y.) Coulter Library. See catalog record of Carl Theodor Dreyer [End Page 79] (dir.), Sherman S. Krellberg (prod./dist.), The Passion of Joan of Arc, 16mm and 8mm (New York: Film Classic Exchange, 1933),

90. Read and Meyer, Restoration of Motion Picture Film, 69.

91. Societe Generale de Films, "A Super Production from France: The Passion of Joan of Arc," Motion Picture News, February 11, 1928, 414.

92. See advertisement by Societe Generale de Films, "Announcing to the Screens of America an Unusual Cinematographic Achievement, 'The Passion of Joan of Arc'; a Carl Dreyer Production of Societe Generale De Films; Paris, France," The Film Daily, February 9, 1928, 3; advertisement, Societe Generale de Films, "Societe Generale de Films of Paris, France Invite the Attention of Critical America to an Unusual Motion Picture, 'The Passion of Joan of Arc,' a Carl Dreyer Production; a Cinematographic Inspiration," Motion Picture News, February 18, 1928, 490.

93. Societe Generale de Films, "A Cinematographic Inspiration," 490.

94. Societe Generale de Films, "Announcing to the Screens of America,"

95. Edwin Schallert, ed., "The Tragic Ending of Jeane [sic] d'Arc," Los Angeles Times, February 24, 1929, I8.

96. Ibid.

97. Lenin Imports, "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc (1928)," film poster, Silent Film Renée Maria Falconetti: Biography and Gallery, July 9, 2013,

98. Ibid.

99. "'The Passion of Joan of Arc' Sherman S. Krellberg Distributor Materials," 1933, n.p., University of California, Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive,

100. "The Passion of Joan of Arc" Exhibitor Manual, Capital Film Exchange, 1933, n.p., University of California, Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive,

101. "Krellberg Distributor Materials."

102. In an introduction to a screening of Passion at the Danish Film Museum in 19S0, Dreyer stated, "My film about Jeanne d'Arc has incorrectly been called an avant-garde film, which it absolutely is not. It is not a film aimed at film theoreticians but at all humankind. It is intended for the broad masses, and it has something to give to every open human mind." Quoted in David Bordwell, The Films of Carl-Theodor Dreyer (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 234n12.

103. Iris Barry, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Series III, Program 7, The Film in Germany and the Film in France: Transition to Sound (New York: Museum of Modern Art Film Library, 1940), para. 6, University of California, Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive,; Pipolo learned from film historian Jay Leyda that the prints Barry referred to possibly originate from Dreyer's work prints. Pipolo, "Carl Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," S.

104. Engberg, "Historien," 42.

105. Ibid.

106. Pipolo, "Spectre of Joan of Arc," 9.

107. Breitbart, "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 27. [End Page 80]

108. Read and Meyer, Restoration of Motion Picture Film, 69.

109. Chace Audio, "Variable Area," Audio Post Production Knowledge Base, TriggerTone, n.d.,

110. For a detailed analysis of the effects cropping has on the image, see Pipolo, "Spectre of Joan of Arc," 309-10.

111. Margolis, Joan of Arc in History, Literature, and Film: A Select, Annotated Bibliography, Reference Library of the Humanities 1224 (New York: Garland, 1990), 396.

112. Bordwell, Filmguide to La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, 15; Drum and Drum, My Only Great Passion, 139.

113. Dreyer quoted by Tybjerg, 2:21 into his "Audio Essay."

114. Quoted from translation in Breitbart, "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 28.

115. A production still reveals that it is Massieu holding the Bible. Only Massieu's hands are shown in the film. See Edvin Kau, Dreyers filmkunst (Copenhagen: Akademisk, 1989), 154.

116. Bordwell, Films of Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 68.

117. Ibid., 81.

118. Paul Schrader, Transcendental Style in Film: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 123.

119. Neergaard, Carl Dreyer, 23.

120. Carl Theodor Dreyer, "Photography in Danish Film (1940)," in Dreyer in Double Reflection: Translation of Carl Th. Dreyer's Writings about the Film (Om Filmen), ed. Donald Skoller (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1973), 117-18.

121. The chief financier to SGF was the German-based consortium Westi, an international production firm founded by the German industrialist Vladimir Wengeroff (1891-1946) and the Russian émigré Hugo Stinnes (1870-1924). Bordwell, Films of Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 18.

122. Neergaard, Carl Dreyer, 23.

123. Ibid., 22; Drum and Drum, My Only Great Passion, 134.

124. Drum and Drum, My Only Great Passion, 134; Neergaard, Carl Dreyer, 22-23.

125. Dreyer, "Dreyer's Reply (in BT)—about Playacting: On the Occasion of the Jannings Film (1936)," in Dreyer in Double Reflection, 69-70.

126. Bordwell, Filmguide to La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, 59.

127. For a detailed analysis of the opening scene, see Appendix A of Pipolo, "Carl Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 232-39.

128. Bordwell, Films of Carl-Theodor Dreyer, xi, 90.

129. Dreyer, "The Passion of Joan of Arc Intertitles," ed. Vincent Pinel, trans. Maurice Drouzy, Cinémathèque Française, 1985, 4, University of California, Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive,

130. "Reissues Pay Off in Paris Houses," Variety, March 12, 1952, 11.

131. Quoted in James Card, "Visit with Carl Th. Dreyer," Image 2, no. 9 (1953): 61.

132. "The Associated Students of Occidental College Present La Passion de Jeanne D'arc and Vivre sa vie," January 13, 1967, para. 3, University of California, Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, [End Page 81]

133. Bordwell, Filmguide to La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, 20.

134. "Paris," Variety, July 5, 1978, 28.

135. Copyright holder status provided by Michael Mashon, head of the Moving Image Section at the Library of Congress. See Nicolas Rapold, "Even Good Films May Go to Purgatory," New York Times, February 16, 2014, AR16.

136. Gaumont was also obliged to pay Gunni Dreyer thirty thousand dollars in damages and 40 percent of future receipts. See "Gaumont Will Withdraw Its Sound Version of Dreyer's 'Joan of Arc,'" Variety, June 28, 1989, 10.

137. Pipolo, "Carl Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 41, 48.

138. Breitbart, "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 27.

139. Tammy Kinsey, "The Mysterious History and Restoration of Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc," The Moving Image 1, no. 1 (2001): 100.

140. Nicholas de Jongh, "Dreyer's La Passion Found in Cellar," Guardian Weekly (London), May 5, 1985, 20.

141. Kinsey, "Mysterious History and Restoration," 100.

142. Quoted in Ib Monty, "Life with Nitrate," in This Film Is Dangerous: A Celebration of Nitrate Film, ed. Roger Smither and Catherine A. Surowiec (Brussels, Belgium: International Federation of Film Archives, 2002), 9. Pedersen learned that the 35mm print of Passion was 200 meters (656 feet) longer than the copy the NFI had in its collection. Pedersen sent the film to Stantens Filmsentral-Laboratoriet in Oslo on February 21, 1984, for lab work. Kinsey, "Mysterious History and Restoration," 101.

143. Kinsey, "Mysterious History and Restoration," 101; Monty, "Life with Nitrate," 9.

144. Monty, "Life with Nitrate," 9.

145. Engberg, "Historien," 42; Gary Crowdus, "Providing a Film Archive for the Home Viewer: An Interview with Peter Becker of The Criterion Collection," Cineaste 25, no. 1 (1999): 49.

146. Engberg, "Historien," 42.

147. Ibid.

148. Ibid., 41. Engberg reports that the film was shown in Sweden, but not until May 7, 1932, under the title A Woman's Martyrdom. The Swedish censor trimmed 57 meters (187 feet) off the already abridged (2,167 meters or 7,109 feet) version of the film. The censor made cuts to the following: the display of torture instruments, close-ups of the bloodletting, close-ups of Joan's face at the stake, and some brutal scenes involving the soldiers. When the film finally passed, children under the age of fifteen were restricted from seeing it.

149. Kinsey, "Mysterious History and Restoration," 100-101.

150. Breitbart, "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 28.

151. Kinsey, "Mysterious History and Restoration," 101.

152. "International Sound Track: Rome," Variety, December 5, 1984, 98; "SRO Attendance at Odense Fest," Variety, August 14, 1985, 6, 22.

153. "International Sound Track: Copenhagen," Variety, November 28, 1984, 82.

154. Toronto International Film Festival, "The Open Vault: Le Passion de Jeanne D'Arc," program notes, TIFF, September 1985, n.p., University of California, [End Page 82] Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive,

155. Mark Nash, "Joan Complete: A Dreyer Discovery," Sight and Sound 54, no. 3 (1985): 158.

156. Dave Kehr, "Northern Lights," Film Comment 21, no. 6 (1985): 74-75.

157. Ibid., 74; Thomas C. Christensen, e-mail correspondence with the author, "Questions about JEANNE D'ARC Prints," January 6, 2015.

158. Dreyer, "The Passion of Joan of Arc Intertitles," 1.

159. Ibid., 2.

160. Pipolo, "Spectre of Joan of Arc," 306.

161. Bordwell displays four frame grabs of them in his book on Dreyer, Films of Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 79.

162. Pipolo, "Spectre of Joan of Arc," 323n43.

163. Dreyer, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc [The Passion of Joan of Arc], 35mm (British Film Institute, 1947).

164. Pipolo, "Spectre of Joan of Arc," 323n43. The censored NFA print is missing about 190 shots and more than a dozen intertitles measured against both the MoMA print and the Oslo print. Ibid., 310.

165. "Many Incarnations of Joan."

166. Bordwell, Films of Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 235n4.

167. Ibid.

168. Dreyer wrote a glowing tribute to Neergaard in a short introduction to the latter's study of Danish film history. Dreyer recalled that the two of them spent long evenings in Paris discussing Passion and Falconetti's performance at the time Dreyer was filming Vampyr. See Dreyer, preface to The Story of Danish Film, by Ebbe Neergaard, trans. Elsa Gress (Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Information about Denmark and Cultural Cooperation with Other Nations, 1963), 3-5.

169. Drum and Drum, My Only Great Passion, 136.

170. Bordwell, Films of Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 235n4. I do not want to imply that Dreyer always slavishly followed a critic's wishes, but other reviewers beside Neergaard made similar observations. For example, Evelyn Gerstein noted the succession of close-ups and that Joan was shown in full profile only three times. See Gerstein, "Joan of Arc," New Republic, April 10, 1929, 228. Werner Klinger believed that Dreyer should have shown more group shots of the priests to accentuate and contrast their collective psychological differences to Joan's. See Klinger, "Analytical Treatise on the Dreyer Film, 'The Passion of Joan of Arc' with Appendix of a Constructive Critique," trans. Christel Gang, Experimental Cinema 1, no. 1 (1930): 10. Arthur L. Gale thought that the presence of medium or long shots would have given the film's production design a more distinctive fifteenth-century appearance. See Gale, "Critical Focusing," Movie Makers 4, no. 4 (1929): 253.

171. Pipolo, "Carl Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc," 33; Pipolo, "Spectre of Joan of Arc," 306.

172. Pipolo, "Spectre of Joan of Arc," 301.

173. Ibid., 314.

174. Kinsey, "Mysterious History and Restoration," 102.

175. Guido Guerrasio, ed., La passione di Giovanna d'Arco, di Carl Theodor [End Page 83] Dreyer, 1st ed., Cineteca Domus 2 (Milan: Editoriale Domus, 1945), xvi, author's translation.

176. Guerrasio, La passione di Giovanna d'Arco.

177. "Gaumont Secures Funding to Restore Classic Films," News, March 23, 2012,; Joshua Brunsting, "Gaumont Announces First 25 Blu-ray Restorations as Studio Canal and Lionsgate Re-Up Distribution Deal," CriterionCast, May 24, 2012, In addition, the pending announcement was leaked to me through private correspondence with Dr. Svet Atanasov, a reviewer.

178. Herman G. Weinberg, Saint Cinema: Writings on Film, 1929-1970, 2nd ed. (New York: Dover, 1973), 228.

179. "Many Incarnations of Joan. "

180. Dreyer, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, 1947.

181. Ibid. [End Page 84]