Costume drama based on popular legend about a 9th century nun who disguised herself as a man and--after some rather innocent deception--became Cardinal in Rome and later Pope before her secret was discovered. Panned by professional critics in 1972, "Pope Joan" was re-edited by nervous executives resulting in a picture that nobody was happy with. Still, despite the mangling, the performances come through, most especially Liv Ullmann's, excellent in the complex leading role. Supporting cast also fine, including Maximilian Schell (very sexy as a randy monk), Olivia de Havilland, Lesley-Anne Down, Patrick Magee, Franco Nero and Trevor Howard. Adequately filmed in London substituting for Italy, and worth a look for the curious. **1/2 from ****
14 Reviews
Medieval maid-nun vs forbidden fruit; female preacher-cardinal-pope vs forbidden rights
marcin_kukuczka26 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
In the Middle Ages, there were a lot of legends and tales about people whose lives attracted the society. From today's perspective, we could call them a sort of "medieval sensations." One of such was promoted by Martin of Opava (also known as Martin the Pole) through his work "Chronicon Pontificum Et Imperatum". This allegedly inspired a legend about a simple girl named Joan born in Mainz who joined the abbey and desired only to be a faithful nun. However, her biggest problem was the lust she could not resist, lust towards men. When she found a way to fulfill her carnal pleasures, that did not suffice. Joan struggled for more...for power in church. Having got the education at Athens, she left for Rome disguised as a man where she preached the word of God and soon became a cardinal and, in 852, the head of the Holy See. This legend was never found true, some of the Church hierarchies considered it anti-papal satire, some ignored it. Yet, in 1972 Michael Anderson decided to make a movie.
As the theme could be quite interesting for the script, the film generally does not do a good job. Although its beginning is pretty interesting and involving constituting a nice presentation of Joan's childhood and her desire for knowledge, later, it spoils a lot. Some serious mistakes that concern introducing historical reality result in poor effects and disappointment. The Roman Catholic Church is showed in a negative manner: monks appear to be ruled only by flesh and rape Joan before she enters the convent; there is practically no chastity among clergy and nuns. Joan takes the forbidden fruit and, having seen that the man she likes makes love to another nun, goes to her room and masturbates. Papal Rome is corrupted and accepts cardinals whoever there is at hand. Those are seriously wrong aspects that supply the viewer with a manipulated vision of Catholics and Church history. But, among them, what made me most angry was the mention of St Thecla. She was, according to the legend, a martyr in Nero's Rome and, most probably, a companion of St Paul in his journeys. She did not have the power as it is mentioned in the film but she only served the Apostle the same way Mary Magdalene served the Apostles. It was a pure female service short of search for power or for satisfaction. And here, Joan justifies her deeds saying that St Thecla had the power as a female. So as for the execution of the story, I would rate this film as 1/10. But fortunately, I can also find something positive about the movie, too.
The strongest point of POPE JOAN are the cast. Liv Ullman fits very well to the lead. She not only expresses desire in a convincing way but also feelings sublime, feelings of faith. The best of her scenes is, I think, the moment Joan consoles the dying. Young Sharon Winter who plays Joan as a child also does a memorable job and the moment she reads the Bible to the elderly and is applauded is both involving and unforgettable. Franco Nero is perfect as Louis who has a taste for girlish women and powerful companions. There is also some little nice part of Lesley Anne Down who portrays innocent-looking nun Cecilia. But three great stars of cinema really rock: these are Trevor Howard, Maximilian Schell and Olivia De Havilland. Howard is marvelous as Pope Leo for whom the most horrific hell would be an eternal bath in cold water. Olivia De Havilland convincingly depicts Mother Superior in the convent. Maximilian Schell is terrific as Adrian, the painter who lets young maid-nun try the Forbidden Fruit and female preacher-cardinal-pope use Forbidden Rights.
But coming back to the content, one thing made me quite confused...even if the story would have some "history" (I now refer more to Martin of Opava), how is it possible that no one recognized a woman in Pater Johanes, Cardinal Johanes and finally the pope Johanes? The pope Leo was only suspicious about "his" lovely gentle hands... In the film, it is Louis (Franco Nero) who manages that and in the most shocking scene, he starts to make love to the female pope. However, historically, it's a total fairy tale. As for the Saracens, there is no such mention even in Martin's.
Good use is made of music in the film but much more the musical score than the Gregorian chants that we hear from time to time. The Gregorian chant was absolutely different those days, most of the melodies resemble much later Middle Ages than the 9th century period. Yet, there appears one of the most popular hymns of the Church attributed to Rabanus Maurus (776-856) "Veni, Creator Spiritus". Difficult to say if it had that melody but indeed beautiful sung till now at important moments. By the music, however, I mostly mean the background to the scenes: delicate, profound, nice to hear. Consequently, the soundtrack from the movie would be interesting to get.
All in all, this film in its content should be treated like some movies on important religious themes recently made - all is a fairy tale, just a resemblance of the director's imagination with serious historical flaws. Hope this movie will not be harmful for anyone... 4/10
As the theme could be quite interesting for the script, the film generally does not do a good job. Although its beginning is pretty interesting and involving constituting a nice presentation of Joan's childhood and her desire for knowledge, later, it spoils a lot. Some serious mistakes that concern introducing historical reality result in poor effects and disappointment. The Roman Catholic Church is showed in a negative manner: monks appear to be ruled only by flesh and rape Joan before she enters the convent; there is practically no chastity among clergy and nuns. Joan takes the forbidden fruit and, having seen that the man she likes makes love to another nun, goes to her room and masturbates. Papal Rome is corrupted and accepts cardinals whoever there is at hand. Those are seriously wrong aspects that supply the viewer with a manipulated vision of Catholics and Church history. But, among them, what made me most angry was the mention of St Thecla. She was, according to the legend, a martyr in Nero's Rome and, most probably, a companion of St Paul in his journeys. She did not have the power as it is mentioned in the film but she only served the Apostle the same way Mary Magdalene served the Apostles. It was a pure female service short of search for power or for satisfaction. And here, Joan justifies her deeds saying that St Thecla had the power as a female. So as for the execution of the story, I would rate this film as 1/10. But fortunately, I can also find something positive about the movie, too.
The strongest point of POPE JOAN are the cast. Liv Ullman fits very well to the lead. She not only expresses desire in a convincing way but also feelings sublime, feelings of faith. The best of her scenes is, I think, the moment Joan consoles the dying. Young Sharon Winter who plays Joan as a child also does a memorable job and the moment she reads the Bible to the elderly and is applauded is both involving and unforgettable. Franco Nero is perfect as Louis who has a taste for girlish women and powerful companions. There is also some little nice part of Lesley Anne Down who portrays innocent-looking nun Cecilia. But three great stars of cinema really rock: these are Trevor Howard, Maximilian Schell and Olivia De Havilland. Howard is marvelous as Pope Leo for whom the most horrific hell would be an eternal bath in cold water. Olivia De Havilland convincingly depicts Mother Superior in the convent. Maximilian Schell is terrific as Adrian, the painter who lets young maid-nun try the Forbidden Fruit and female preacher-cardinal-pope use Forbidden Rights.
But coming back to the content, one thing made me quite confused...even if the story would have some "history" (I now refer more to Martin of Opava), how is it possible that no one recognized a woman in Pater Johanes, Cardinal Johanes and finally the pope Johanes? The pope Leo was only suspicious about "his" lovely gentle hands... In the film, it is Louis (Franco Nero) who manages that and in the most shocking scene, he starts to make love to the female pope. However, historically, it's a total fairy tale. As for the Saracens, there is no such mention even in Martin's.
Good use is made of music in the film but much more the musical score than the Gregorian chants that we hear from time to time. The Gregorian chant was absolutely different those days, most of the melodies resemble much later Middle Ages than the 9th century period. Yet, there appears one of the most popular hymns of the Church attributed to Rabanus Maurus (776-856) "Veni, Creator Spiritus". Difficult to say if it had that melody but indeed beautiful sung till now at important moments. By the music, however, I mostly mean the background to the scenes: delicate, profound, nice to hear. Consequently, the soundtrack from the movie would be interesting to get.
All in all, this film in its content should be treated like some movies on important religious themes recently made - all is a fairy tale, just a resemblance of the director's imagination with serious historical flaws. Hope this movie will not be harmful for anyone... 4/10
Don't moan at Joan, moan at the post production
michael-115114 January 2008
The early 1970's was my favourite period in recent cinema history, classics such as Kubrick's Clockwork Orange, Skolimowsky's Deep End and Visconti's Death in Venice abound; but there are some, less than ringing endorsements of the era, this half-forgotten movie being one.
Liv Ullman, the embodiment of Scandinavian sang-froid, the epitome of ephemeral solemnity, plays Joan, a pious and youthful nun, who travels from a medieval convent, burnt down by Saxons, raping and pillaging, as if they misconstrued it for a set on a Ken Russell film, to Rome where disguised as a (rather attractive) young man, she wins her spurs, becomes a cardinal and eventually the first - and possibly last - female pope.
The trouble is, although Liv's performance is full of meaning and her fights against the alleged sin of lust, particularly enthralling, the editing, jumpiness and preposterousness of some scenes, leave an anxious viewer in need of redemption elsewhere.
True, it is interesting to see actors of the time - Lesley Anne Down, Maximillian Schell, Trevor Howard and Olivia de Havilland - giving robust performances, but a sandwich with an attractive filling is hardly worth eating if the bread is stale. And this is a stale mish mash, which ultimately fails to satisfy. It is a shame. The theme is interesting, whether the story is true or not. Given the current arguments amongst many religions on the role of women, it has significance for us in the 21st Century.
The scenery around Brasov, Romania, where it was filmed, which I visited post Ceausescu, is exemplary. Mind you, maybe the reason for the film's disjointed nature is just that - that the dictator, in his first flush of dictatorial youth, was in charge of production. There again, maybe Ceausescu was a woman. Now that would be a tale worth telling...
Liv Ullman, the embodiment of Scandinavian sang-froid, the epitome of ephemeral solemnity, plays Joan, a pious and youthful nun, who travels from a medieval convent, burnt down by Saxons, raping and pillaging, as if they misconstrued it for a set on a Ken Russell film, to Rome where disguised as a (rather attractive) young man, she wins her spurs, becomes a cardinal and eventually the first - and possibly last - female pope.
The trouble is, although Liv's performance is full of meaning and her fights against the alleged sin of lust, particularly enthralling, the editing, jumpiness and preposterousness of some scenes, leave an anxious viewer in need of redemption elsewhere.
True, it is interesting to see actors of the time - Lesley Anne Down, Maximillian Schell, Trevor Howard and Olivia de Havilland - giving robust performances, but a sandwich with an attractive filling is hardly worth eating if the bread is stale. And this is a stale mish mash, which ultimately fails to satisfy. It is a shame. The theme is interesting, whether the story is true or not. Given the current arguments amongst many religions on the role of women, it has significance for us in the 21st Century.
The scenery around Brasov, Romania, where it was filmed, which I visited post Ceausescu, is exemplary. Mind you, maybe the reason for the film's disjointed nature is just that - that the dictator, in his first flush of dictatorial youth, was in charge of production. There again, maybe Ceausescu was a woman. Now that would be a tale worth telling...
Not nearly as good as it could have been
loza-127 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Based on a supposedly true story of an Englishwoman who became pope for a short time and was lynched by a crowd after giving birth, this film could have been done much better, since the story on which it is based - true or not - is little more than a footnote in history.
Being set among cardinals and clergy, there was a marked lack of intrigue. The clandestine affair from which pope Joan's child was conceived is a sordid, grotty scene, totally lacking any passion. The final scene, where the crowd lynch their pope, was little more than a playground brawl.
Because this film was such a disaster, I do not see any film maker daring to touch this subject again. So we can therefore regard this film as an opportunity well and truly wasted.
Being set among cardinals and clergy, there was a marked lack of intrigue. The clandestine affair from which pope Joan's child was conceived is a sordid, grotty scene, totally lacking any passion. The final scene, where the crowd lynch their pope, was little more than a playground brawl.
Because this film was such a disaster, I do not see any film maker daring to touch this subject again. So we can therefore regard this film as an opportunity well and truly wasted.
Very good film although flawed
madcardinal27 January 2007
I found the film version of the Pope Joan story compelling viewing because it conveyed the force and importance of Joan's spiritual calling yet portrayed her as an breathing human being (this may be somewhat ironic since it is possible she is only a legend). Here is a woman who hears God's voice and the voice of carnal longing. She is neither the lowly whore nor the ethereal virgin. Also, it is refreshing to see films where spirituality and belief in God are taken seriously.
I found the performances to be excellent, especially those of Liv Ullman and Trevor Howard. Ullman is very good at portraying the vertical pull of spirituality and the wrenching ambiguity of living in the material world. Trevor Howard's performance was utterly convincing. Also, Susan Winter had a quiet presence about her in her brief performance as the young Joan, which impressed me. What a tenuous thing to be a young girl in the Medieval age - what a microcosm she is of all human existence.
This film has its flaws, most notably the disjointed editing and jarred pacing. I do not quibble, however, with the less than ideal sound quality of the dialog or the occasional white lines which momentarily appear on the screen now and again because when I watch a film, I accept the film on its own terms; I do not wish it was something it isn't - a film made on a modest budget in 1972 should not be expected to look and sound like a mega-budget blockbuster filmed in 2006. On the whole, this movie is a success.
Cautionary note: not a movie for kids.
I found the performances to be excellent, especially those of Liv Ullman and Trevor Howard. Ullman is very good at portraying the vertical pull of spirituality and the wrenching ambiguity of living in the material world. Trevor Howard's performance was utterly convincing. Also, Susan Winter had a quiet presence about her in her brief performance as the young Joan, which impressed me. What a tenuous thing to be a young girl in the Medieval age - what a microcosm she is of all human existence.
This film has its flaws, most notably the disjointed editing and jarred pacing. I do not quibble, however, with the less than ideal sound quality of the dialog or the occasional white lines which momentarily appear on the screen now and again because when I watch a film, I accept the film on its own terms; I do not wish it was something it isn't - a film made on a modest budget in 1972 should not be expected to look and sound like a mega-budget blockbuster filmed in 2006. On the whole, this movie is a success.
Cautionary note: not a movie for kids.
Mercifully, never received wide distribution in USA...
Doylenf6 April 2001
There is not much one can say about 'Pope Joan' except that it was a huge failure with critics and the public, opening in New York for a brief run of nine days before being yanked into oblivion. This is another of those all-star films popular in the '70s, totally wasting a talented cast--and again, you have to wonder if anyone really read the script before agreeing to do the film. Look at the cast...Liv Ullmann, Trevor Howard, Maximilian Schell, Keir Dullea, Olivia de Havilland, Lesley-Anne Down. The color photography is great and the choral music in the background score is impressive--but the notion that a credible story could be made based on an unfounded legend of a woman who briefly became Pope Joan in the 9th century, is one that would have defeated even the best screenwriter. Given limited release in Europe and only a few showings in the USA, let's hope this is one film that never gets a restoration. No one is seen to advantage--an embarrassment for all concerned. As noted by Tony Thomas in his book, "Films of Olivia de Havilland": "It is a pity to see so many fine actors wallowing in medieval mire."
Why bother?
colcol-4164326 November 2020
Interesting, moving, historical
deborahpercy124 October 2005
I saw the film on TV, quite by chance. I found the film gripping: the story, the atmosphere and the historical detail.
I have no religious interest, but it made me curious to find out more about 'pope Joan'. The film is a work of fiction based on a legend, with very little factual basis.
Nevertheless, one could really get a sense of life in those times (9th century Europe). Poverty, illiteracy, corruption. The place of women. The violence, that life was worth very little.
Sadly, I think much of the world is just like that today, so perhaps it is a little window on humanity.
I have no religious interest, but it made me curious to find out more about 'pope Joan'. The film is a work of fiction based on a legend, with very little factual basis.
Nevertheless, one could really get a sense of life in those times (9th century Europe). Poverty, illiteracy, corruption. The place of women. The violence, that life was worth very little.
Sadly, I think much of the world is just like that today, so perhaps it is a little window on humanity.
a most enjoyable film...full marks!!
sallyfisher-fisher12 March 2009
SHE
WHO WOULD BE POPE
I really enjoyed this film as a real aficionado of historical faction and legends. Movie buffs who yearn for renowned actors whose sex appeal and charisma fill up the screen, as soon as they appear without uttering a word, would also find this motion picture enthralling.
Franco Nero as Prince Louis, with blazing blue eyes brimming over in sensuality , becomes Emperor, conquering both Infidels and the Vatican. Although Jeremy Kemp, has a small role, whose pockmarked face, as handsome as it is rugged and scarred with life, makes him so credible as Joan's bible thumping father. Maximilian Schell, in his part as Brother Adrian is yet another from this large cast of famous faces who are a pleasure to watch as they captivate and capture the audience as they embrace their characters. The beautiful Lesley-Ann Downe although very young, is not as innocent or virtuous as she looks. No less are any of the remarkable cast such as the enchanting hero/heroine Liv Ullman, whose transformation from a nun to a priest is seamless, that makes the two hours of SHE..WHO WOULD BE POPE such compelling viewing.
Although the setting is in the Dark Ages, there is a lightness in the way the unpleasant events are portrayed that make the reality of the harshness of life in that time, acceptable to all, from rape, pillage, murder and forbidden love.
The Evangelicals haven't changed their book or mantras and the flowing robes and costumes of the clergy have all remained the same in authentically reproduced settings and lavish scenery. This story had to be retold in its original uncut form, sliding in and out of millennia, to fully understand how the world has turned despite that we, as individuals remain the same. The psychologist analysing a woman claiming a former life as Pope, ensures a multifaceted film that would appeal to a wide audience. SF
I really enjoyed this film as a real aficionado of historical faction and legends. Movie buffs who yearn for renowned actors whose sex appeal and charisma fill up the screen, as soon as they appear without uttering a word, would also find this motion picture enthralling.
Franco Nero as Prince Louis, with blazing blue eyes brimming over in sensuality , becomes Emperor, conquering both Infidels and the Vatican. Although Jeremy Kemp, has a small role, whose pockmarked face, as handsome as it is rugged and scarred with life, makes him so credible as Joan's bible thumping father. Maximilian Schell, in his part as Brother Adrian is yet another from this large cast of famous faces who are a pleasure to watch as they captivate and capture the audience as they embrace their characters. The beautiful Lesley-Ann Downe although very young, is not as innocent or virtuous as she looks. No less are any of the remarkable cast such as the enchanting hero/heroine Liv Ullman, whose transformation from a nun to a priest is seamless, that makes the two hours of SHE..WHO WOULD BE POPE such compelling viewing.
Although the setting is in the Dark Ages, there is a lightness in the way the unpleasant events are portrayed that make the reality of the harshness of life in that time, acceptable to all, from rape, pillage, murder and forbidden love.
The Evangelicals haven't changed their book or mantras and the flowing robes and costumes of the clergy have all remained the same in authentically reproduced settings and lavish scenery. This story had to be retold in its original uncut form, sliding in and out of millennia, to fully understand how the world has turned despite that we, as individuals remain the same. The psychologist analysing a woman claiming a former life as Pope, ensures a multifaceted film that would appeal to a wide audience. SF
a wonderful film
vika-evdokimenko10 August 2009
"What a surprise! Not only the story, but what a cast! Liv Ullmann, Trevor Howard, Olivia de Havilland, Maximilian Schell, Franco Nero, Leslie Ann Down! And the texture of the movie - the crude medieval villages, the halls of the ancient Vatican, the incredible 10th Century nunnery, the countryside of Saxon Germany, in peace and war, scene after scene that could never have been shot in Hollywood. But the greatest discovery is the performance of Liv Ullmann. If anything ever deserved an Academy Award. She creates more passion and sexual desire with her eyes and the movement of a hand than the whole pantheon of current sex goddesses could with all their bodies and a ravishing musical score behind them. And when it comes to tragedy and fear those same eyes dig so deeply into the soul they leave a mark that haunts you for weeks. This is a wonderful, wonderful picture."
Underrated
MrDeWinter20 December 2021
Beautifully shot and excellently acted. Love the cinematography and design. Great sound track by Maurice Jarre. The uneven pace and editing is merely the result of heavy cuts in order to remove some flashbacks and length of the movie. Hoping for the unediting version to be released, if possible.
A 'must see' film
lfnachman10 August 2009
SHE...WHO WOULD BE POPE
A must-see film. Franco Nero is so gorgeous in period dress (remember CAMELOT) he should never be seen in anything but costume drama. When he appears on screen you can feel his charisma... He's the love interest, and you can't help but envy the actresses who worked with him, but it's a woman's story and it is Liv Ullmann as the woman who would be - and probably was - the Pope, who carries the picture. As an actress she can do almost anything and in this picture does it most eloquently. She's touchingly vulnerable as a young girl, imperious as the Pope, heart-breaking as a desperate woman facing an impossible end. It contains all the best ingredients of a film. A fabulous movie, not to be missed!!
A must-see film. Franco Nero is so gorgeous in period dress (remember CAMELOT) he should never be seen in anything but costume drama. When he appears on screen you can feel his charisma... He's the love interest, and you can't help but envy the actresses who worked with him, but it's a woman's story and it is Liv Ullmann as the woman who would be - and probably was - the Pope, who carries the picture. As an actress she can do almost anything and in this picture does it most eloquently. She's touchingly vulnerable as a young girl, imperious as the Pope, heart-breaking as a desperate woman facing an impossible end. It contains all the best ingredients of a film. A fabulous movie, not to be missed!!
Is this movie good or bad now...
chuffhooya31 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I briefly, upon commencing my commentary, read all the not so many other comments here.
One could say they contradict each other, some love it, more others tend to see the cast wasted and the whole experience of watching this movie degraded.
Maybe some rich Hollywood producers just engaged a well-known actor crew.
Especially Schell and the old actor, playing the old pope and looking to me like Sir Laurence Olivier, really seem a high-leveled cast - of course, maybe it's not an important chapter of history, maybe, as always in normal first-view cinema cuts, the whole work of art has been re-cut over and over , but Liv Ullman is great, and Schell plays wonderfully spicily.
I would say that it is excellent and very satisfying that we got such a lot of critically conscious minds here at the IMDb commentary corner of this movie, even if there are only eight comments, nine now.
But please: Laudate correctum et accusate correctum, mihi filii et filiae ["Praise the right and accuse the right, my sons and daughters" - it's just a phrase in Latin I made up :-) ].
Bad is the production unit of the movie, that would be for example departments like editing, management (including casting: the resulting cast choice was superb, but only motivated by the intention of taking well-known stars to make the movie a success - still the actors shine and rise above all that business and greed), but then also the direction, governed by the script.
But I think that the subject of a Pope Joan is a well-chosen one, it fits into my medieval fascination about Robin of Sherwood (which is NO children's series AT ALL!!!), Catweazle (also not only good for kids), Excalibur, King Arthur and so on, and of course, Lord of the Rings.
The one saying this would not lead to any remake was CLEARLY wrong.
A remake would be superb, if not done like all those many really wasted movies from 2000 on:
I would HATE it if it looked like "Ghost Ship" (One Samuel Jackson or similar, all others teens, unwatchable from the start) or "Troy", where this stupid Pitt is playing an ancient Greek homosexual warlord in a rather ridiculous fashion, totally unconvincing. Also the camera-shots here are important. Over 30 minutes pass by and you're only watching the boys have fun. Well' I'm a hetero, and freely admit I like peppered video content. But if I go watch a movie, it should be what's written on the label. I don't wanna see Superman if I go to "Batman" either. Watching "Troy", you're worse off - you don't get Superman, you get a jerk that flirts around all the time with his favorite "boyfriend" and then shortly bashes some "evil" Trojans down.
Modern cinema. Disgusting. No offense meant to ANY gay guy.
It's clear that this movie (Troy) presents long overthrown clichés along with a badly acted and cut script and scenery.
What's also clear is, that most modern remakes are done in EXACTLY that fashion. Because people don't care anymore, people mostly don't have culture and style, meaning autonomy and criticalness of thought, anymore.
Or take "Titanic". Basically you can take all and remake it so that there is a budget of approx. some 100 Million Dollars, but the movie itself is either too FX-overloaded, or the acting is so bad that its unwatchable if you got SOME tiny brains, I really LAUGH OUT LOUD here.
Lord of the Rings is different there, as we all agree, cuz Jackson's not only interested in money, but also in fame which is much more important, and I mean that! I enjoyed watching Pope Joan, but also enjoyed a lot the critical atmosphere here, even if too critical.
All actors got screwed and betrayed by their directors and producers in their early times.
I enjoyed Pope Joan for its acting performances - as an intellectual, I loathe for example the institution of the church, and as a pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist, alternative, but traditional Jew, I am very much in opposition towards the state of Israel and its current deed or crime of attacking the Lebanon. Already in the Sixties, the Israelis destroyed Beirut, they bombed it to the ground. But please, let us commit neither antisemitism, nor, as I said, too much blindness towards the sins of the state of Israel.
It is the source of many wars, but nevertheless fascinating and a REAL imagination of Zion or "Paradise" or "Heaven", that all continental religions, except maybe the pagan, partially Nordic culture, have a strong feeling of connection towards Jersalem. I say "Next in Jerusalem" and I mean peace and understanding by that, which implies critical reflection and the struggle against many inhumane acts of both state, institutions and the individual.
I cut away any too emotional pseudo-religious meaning of the movie in its every second in my mind and there we go: As stated by others here, ONLY THE FINEST ACTING.
Those re-cutters and money-givers did NOT succeed in wasting those actors Ullman and Schell, I think, it's very unjust that the movie got so little attention in 72.
One could say they contradict each other, some love it, more others tend to see the cast wasted and the whole experience of watching this movie degraded.
Maybe some rich Hollywood producers just engaged a well-known actor crew.
Especially Schell and the old actor, playing the old pope and looking to me like Sir Laurence Olivier, really seem a high-leveled cast - of course, maybe it's not an important chapter of history, maybe, as always in normal first-view cinema cuts, the whole work of art has been re-cut over and over , but Liv Ullman is great, and Schell plays wonderfully spicily.
I would say that it is excellent and very satisfying that we got such a lot of critically conscious minds here at the IMDb commentary corner of this movie, even if there are only eight comments, nine now.
But please: Laudate correctum et accusate correctum, mihi filii et filiae ["Praise the right and accuse the right, my sons and daughters" - it's just a phrase in Latin I made up :-) ].
Bad is the production unit of the movie, that would be for example departments like editing, management (including casting: the resulting cast choice was superb, but only motivated by the intention of taking well-known stars to make the movie a success - still the actors shine and rise above all that business and greed), but then also the direction, governed by the script.
But I think that the subject of a Pope Joan is a well-chosen one, it fits into my medieval fascination about Robin of Sherwood (which is NO children's series AT ALL!!!), Catweazle (also not only good for kids), Excalibur, King Arthur and so on, and of course, Lord of the Rings.
The one saying this would not lead to any remake was CLEARLY wrong.
A remake would be superb, if not done like all those many really wasted movies from 2000 on:
I would HATE it if it looked like "Ghost Ship" (One Samuel Jackson or similar, all others teens, unwatchable from the start) or "Troy", where this stupid Pitt is playing an ancient Greek homosexual warlord in a rather ridiculous fashion, totally unconvincing. Also the camera-shots here are important. Over 30 minutes pass by and you're only watching the boys have fun. Well' I'm a hetero, and freely admit I like peppered video content. But if I go watch a movie, it should be what's written on the label. I don't wanna see Superman if I go to "Batman" either. Watching "Troy", you're worse off - you don't get Superman, you get a jerk that flirts around all the time with his favorite "boyfriend" and then shortly bashes some "evil" Trojans down.
Modern cinema. Disgusting. No offense meant to ANY gay guy.
It's clear that this movie (Troy) presents long overthrown clichés along with a badly acted and cut script and scenery.
What's also clear is, that most modern remakes are done in EXACTLY that fashion. Because people don't care anymore, people mostly don't have culture and style, meaning autonomy and criticalness of thought, anymore.
Or take "Titanic". Basically you can take all and remake it so that there is a budget of approx. some 100 Million Dollars, but the movie itself is either too FX-overloaded, or the acting is so bad that its unwatchable if you got SOME tiny brains, I really LAUGH OUT LOUD here.
Lord of the Rings is different there, as we all agree, cuz Jackson's not only interested in money, but also in fame which is much more important, and I mean that! I enjoyed watching Pope Joan, but also enjoyed a lot the critical atmosphere here, even if too critical.
All actors got screwed and betrayed by their directors and producers in their early times.
I enjoyed Pope Joan for its acting performances - as an intellectual, I loathe for example the institution of the church, and as a pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist, alternative, but traditional Jew, I am very much in opposition towards the state of Israel and its current deed or crime of attacking the Lebanon. Already in the Sixties, the Israelis destroyed Beirut, they bombed it to the ground. But please, let us commit neither antisemitism, nor, as I said, too much blindness towards the sins of the state of Israel.
It is the source of many wars, but nevertheless fascinating and a REAL imagination of Zion or "Paradise" or "Heaven", that all continental religions, except maybe the pagan, partially Nordic culture, have a strong feeling of connection towards Jersalem. I say "Next in Jerusalem" and I mean peace and understanding by that, which implies critical reflection and the struggle against many inhumane acts of both state, institutions and the individual.
I cut away any too emotional pseudo-religious meaning of the movie in its every second in my mind and there we go: As stated by others here, ONLY THE FINEST ACTING.
Those re-cutters and money-givers did NOT succeed in wasting those actors Ullman and Schell, I think, it's very unjust that the movie got so little attention in 72.
and the writer?
aghialos18 June 2010
There is a novel (Pope Joan/ I Papissa Iwanna) by Greek writer Emmanouil Roidis (1836-1904). It's written at the language of those times. Papissa means a woman Pope. Only now there are women in churches. Writer lived at Syros (Ermoupolis). There were many Catholics in that Greek island. This novel was not loved by church... And the writer was a blasphemy for the church exactly for this reason. The film's story is relative to this novel? John Briley knew Roidis' novel? IMDb's review don't say anything about this. If someone knows about it, please write... You can see about the novel and the writer in internet. There 're many relative sites. I 'm waiting for any answers about this. Thank you!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
