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.