this movie is a powerhouse of intensity. and great insight. " death is much more simple, after a few months, it gets simpler. after a year, it becomes romantic" ( the corpse is gone and the vegetation blooms)
@@DieWitness Science too these days it seems. Especially concerning human behaviour. They want something to be true to serve a belief system so they order "studies" to provide proof. And of course the guys receiving the money "find" it.
Dustin Hoffman is one of the best actors of all times both film and stage. He is also very protean: This movie, Tootsie, Kramer vs. Kramer, Midnight Cowboy, Rain Man, Wag the Dog, Papillion, Little Big Man.. etc.
People saying he's the devil, really haven't bothered to watch the film, they just jumped on this video, knee-jerk reactions, with no prior knowledge of the historical figure or story.
The sword on the field, that was a sign! - No, that was a sword in a field - and don’t forget the inexplicable. Yet from a number of infinite possibilities you had to take this one: *Holy music with a sword flying down from heaven to a field* 😂 I always find this scene both clever and comical I don’t know why
@@gezzarandom funny, he mocking her talking about God sign, while the turth he also part of her imagination, cz there's no one can see him except Joanne
Prophets just interpret the work of god but never say God told u or made u or wanted u to do! You thought wished imagined a higher creator being making u guilt free of doing shit on your own! Na na u choose to justify the action u did by making u believe in a higher order plan justice! But never ever use the lord name in vain or to justify what u do! Cos all u can do is denying or seeing signs! 50/50 but even of the 50 u see Signs they are only there cos u want to see them! So even there u are just making shit up as it goes! Totally what god did! 😂😅👽😘
Milla Jovovavich did very well in this movie. But i think the writer just wanted an excuse to get to the Dustin Hoffman scenes where he just shits oscars out like he's ordering a pizza. What an acting powerhouse...
I think she did better than i remember ..but it seemed ...over the top in some parts of the movie ..partic in joan of arcs youth ...it seemed too much at the time ..but its been too long since i saw it.
This is the kind of thing that prevents me from being religious in current or old age. I fear I'll turn into this interpretation of Jeanne as life gets tougher and I cling to illogical beliefs for comfort.
EmptyMan000 Use that belief to question and ponder. Don't feel self threaten that you believe and identify being religious if you don't choose not to believe. Once you have thought about it, your feel better about your decision making and feel more complete as a person.
As I age and sink into anhedonia and realize my dreams will never come true and my abusers will never see justice, I find myself fantasizing about heaven and judgement.
Luc Besson has such a story telling range, from medieval heroics in this one to romantic drama in Leon and a space opera in the fifth element, no matter the source, Besson is a great film director.
A medieval Christian would reply that all of the explanations he gave would be God's doing. Since all that happens is within his control, all that happens is his will. _Deus Vult._
They wouldn't because kings were blessed by bishops who were messenger of god. That's why Deus Vult was spoken by a pope and that's why it became the word of god. Any king could claim to be righteous in their actions but no one could be above the king.
This is so educational scene! We sometimes like to see things and events in our very own ideal way and just go blind for the rest of the possibilities.
Conscience: "Heroine-turned-saint? or Saint-turned-to-heroin?" Joan of Arc: "Why are you trying to hurt me? Do you get pleasure hurting me?" Conscience: "Ah, pleasure. Where does the pain end and your pleasure begin...with that nee-dle in-your hand?"
@@buddyzen2020 Let me give you an example.A man walks into a store he steals a chocolate bar walks out and eats the chocolate bar on his way home.That night his turning in his sleep because his conscience is accusing and reminding him that what he did was wrong...ka pish?
3:33 - The moment where it clicks in her head that "Oh shit, I've been doing that all my life..." Now if only we could get others to realize this about religious "signs"
And yet her last words on earth, as the fire was about to burn her alive, were: "Hold the cross up high that I might see it through the flames." I think this scene merely demonstrates her humanity and her doubting herself and the visions she had. However, in the end, she chose not to recant anything she had said and went to the pyre to die for Christ.
If someone says Dustin Hoffman is playing the devil in this movie, they are completely missing the point. He is not an angel either. Its encapsulated in the phrase "you didnt see what was, jean, you saw what you wanted to see....." "That was a sword in a field...Yet from an infinite amount of possibilities you picked this one...." Whatever he is, he is a refutation of theism itself, of belief in the supernatural not just joan of arc's 'supernatural visions.' the scene is rivoting.
That's her conscience, he's trying to get her to come to terms she's no saint, just another murderer, murdering other people. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
A lot of people are saying this is outsmarting religion. Actually, it spoke to me in that it was rationally speaking to obsessive thinking. I suffer from OCD and this was describing exactly what I would see in things. If I saw a certain number of things in common happen during my day for some reason, I was so paranoid that I would interpret them as signs from God against me. In reality, much of my perception came from my fear and my obsession with signs. It didn’t destroy my faith in religion to see that realized, but rather reassured me that the signs from God are actually more noticeable and less subject to “pattern recognition.” You will know when God speaks to you.
«That was a sword, in a field.» Not gonna spit on that courageous lady who saved my nation, but gotta admit that he makes a point there. There's no signs, only things people choose to interpret as something sacred. Round here we call that zététique.
There will always be a 'rational' explanation for any phenomenon that might be perceived as meaningful. Both the 'rational' and the 'sacred' explanation are valid, and can be more or less helpful to an individual trying to interpret the world around them. Two people who are very well-suited to each other could encounter one another by chance, then either chalk up this encounter to a fortuitous coincidence or consider their meeting to be 'fate.' The difference in each interpretation depends on whether they choose to accept a more meaningful perception of existence, or a meaningless one.
It is always painful when a believer runs out of answers in their religion and is forced by their circumstances to apply rational thought, reason, and probability to examine their situation.
This part of the movie makes it confusing for who Joan really was and all we go through during the film... It's like, well she might be crazy after all... Didn't she find the sword on church grounds? And even the monks had no idea how it for there?
I find this scene so powerful, it gives off the same vibes as 1984 when winston is being told to say how many fingers he sees. It shows a horrific distopian view where you are forced under the threat of death to deny the things that you yourself know, through personal experience, and fact to be true. It's so heartbreaking and tragic because... the fact truly is. Joan, despite her honest convinction, IS WRONG. The guy here is RIGHT. There IS NO SIGN FROM GOD. IT IS JUST A SWORD IN A FIELD. To me, when I watch this scene, I think of every conspiracy theorist and cult member who is trapped in their ideology that they hold with the firmest of convinction. When faced with the cold hard fact that they are, in fact, wrong, they feel incredibly persecuted, and I think this scene puts you in the mindset of that person really well. You have sympathy for Joan despite the fact that her beliefs are false, you feel sympathy because due to random happenstance and chance, you know, that despite the priest here being 100% right, Joan will never truly give up her beliefs, and anyone who would try to convince her to see the light of reason is bassicly going to appear as evil and satanic as this priest looks like right here.
@@khepresh I didn't. I know that the point of the scene was to make it so that Joan questions herself, I even saw some comments pointing to the idea that the priest was her subconscious and her doubt. There's also the idea that the priest is actually the devil trying to deceive her. What I'm saying is that watching this scene from an outsider perspective makes you see the fear on the faces of the ideologically possessed when faced with reality and how anyone who forces them to face that reality is going to look like an inquisitioner. From the perspective of Joan this type of interrogation is basically the same kind of thing that Winston experiences in 1984, from the outside we can see that Joan is actually in the wrong, and thus it's different from Winston in 1984, but we also know that Joan can't see that. Scenes in movies are obviously given context from the rest of the film they are a part of but watching this scene in isolation gives you the ability to gain a unique view into the thing I am talking about. I say that knowing that that was in no way the actual intent of the scene, but that doesn't stop me and potentially other people from seeing that anyway.
this is a critique to the conscience not an exult. Magnus maria is the inscription that just shattles the arguments of the conscience scene. So or luc besson totally contradiced himself or he is criticizing the power atributted to post long reflections of an event with logic anwsers cause facts are just missed out with time.
- Joan of Arc is a heroine known to the four corners of the world. This young girl fought and she has sacrificed her life for a cause that she believed to be just. She has shown exemplary bravery, an iron will and fidelity to her faith, the King and her land. His intrepid fight and his tragic end touch all the hearts. One can only bow to this figure at the symbol noble and legendary. His story should inspire every human being whatever his skin color or religion, his social level or his place of life. Joan of Arc is an icon and a Saint for the eternity. She will be perhaps recognized and considered in the future as a universal heritage. (Google Translation from French to English)
@@khepresh A paranoid schieophrenic girl who inspired thousand of people to fight against a colonial force who rape kill and steal a foreigner country.
The end of the scene is the most terrifying thing. Joan realizing ".. I'm now going to die for.. What? What the fuck am I gonna die for now??" We can only hope, for her sake, real life Joan wasn't visited by Dustin Hoffman.
Yes, there could be infinite possiblities but let's be honest; a 16 year old girl, no exeprience in warfare whatsoever, just a pucelle as she was called and end up a war that lasted for so, so long, won the war, and found her king in a crowd dressed up like a common man even if in those ages people didn't knew their own king (no social media then) it's quite odd and remarkable...the story of the sword (digg in9 it's a little more starnge than hoffman says, and a little more hard to find explanation to. I say she had a mission and she did it.
@gambleor. Actually the logical answer is that he is a manifestation of her scizophrenia seeing as schizophrenia is more rational then the holy spirit coming to guide her. First of all the holy spirit is an undefined term that christians throw out there but your response is exactly what this scene is supposed to represent. She honestly thinks finding a sword in a field was a sign of god when in reality there were infinite possibilities and she chose the one she wanted to see. Just like you've done with seeing Dustin Hoffman's character as a visage of god. Since Joan of Arc lived in a time where people had no knowledge of schizophrenia people naturally jumped to the conclusions their delusions were god. But WE know better then that. You're a modern representation of this fallacious form of thinking and seeing what you want to see. Or maybe not it is a film based on the actual events but still just a film, however still schizophrenia is the favorite to win over a manifestation from god nearly 99.999*% of the time making it a 99.999*:1 favorite against manifestation.
@@thotslayer9914 A little bit yeah . I believe in a god of sorts and I'm less rigid and logical. I still think she likely had schizophrenia though. The god I believe in is more of a leave them to their own devices sort of God. No interference, it's up to us to follow the natural order or else the chaos we invoke is on us. I believe in an afterlife too. I believe we reincarnate the same life over and over till we get it right. We are also tiny pieces that make up god. Part of an eleven dimensional super being that creates then destroys itself in an endless loop. Each living creature is just part of a six dimensional construct. If I moved six dimensionally I could become someone else. Basically I'm a big fan of string theory. The eleven dimensions are a hyperobject . That object may or may not be god .
@@thotslayer9914 They just don't allow for that which is unprovable. I get around that by accepting my world view is just my "shot in the dark". I don't know if I'm right or wrong. It's just my guess on the way shit is. If I'm wrong so bloody be it. If I'm right then cool beans. I'm probably partially right and partially wrong simultaneously. That usually turns out to be fairly common actually. I'm still more "naturalist" as you put it. For example I still laugh at the idea of a Christian god and see it as the obvious corrupted concept as it is. But aside from that my beliefs are just my interpretation of what I've read about the many world's interpretation. I suspect string theory is correct but the rest is just me taking a stab at it .
@@thotslayer9914 I know how you feel. I see it as just inevitably something WILL be. Let's say there's only one universe for the sake of the argument. Then over an infinite time scale all atoms in that universe will take on all possible combinations including every version of your life. Seems wasteful to have all those infinite yourselves and you just get one shot at it. Why one shot? When there are infinite ways particles can interact. Especially via quantum mechanics. If you add extra dimensions in you add extra ways shit can happen and if we're living in a type 4 multiverse then literally all possible mathematical abstractions can and are happening. It's too wasteful to suggest that we only get to live one life out of all that. Maybe so but the idea is laughable to me.
They are both right. It was a sign as interpreted by her most inner convictions, god, soul or what ever we call it. It awakened her destiny, subconsciously. What she had evolved or been pre-ordained to do in that moment. Thus it matters not if it came from heaven or if a man tossed it to the ground. A sign from "God" it was non the less.
I showed this to an evangelical Christian. He usually has a lot of things to say...... He wasn't overly talkative about this scene. But instead flipped it round.. Those that haven't found Jesus see what they want to see
That inversion doesn't work in this situation: the point is that thinking that one has "found Jesus" is subjective, that is if one WANTS to believe in such a thing, their mind will accept it as true. This is not a judgement on whether or not it is objectively true (i.e. that Jesus has saved them, etc), but a fact of psychology. Maybe they have "found Jesus," and received all the accompanying blessings. Regardless, the mind has already accepted it as true, and their perception of themselves and of the world accords with this.
The question then should of been asked "how do you tell the difference between thinking you have found Jesus to actually knowing you have found Jesus" I would not know where to begin to tell the difference, because both are convinced lol
@@djoxxxa88 still consists of many who were false prophets, granted they have held impact many others would consider great things, its still wacc to hear
I know the heavenly sword drop is still the least likely but people chucking away or leaving such a high quality sword when their worth quite a bit of money is still pretty unlikely
It was 1431. Pretty sure they didn't think about the value in a sword in a monetary way. Swords like that were made all the time back then. They melted down all types of metal back then to make weapons. They needed implements of war. I highly doubt that the soldiers cared about the cost of things
@@seanwinter5360 while they were cheaper here than in earlier century's an average quality sword was still worth a quite a bit for the average worker and things were monetised and this sword is of good quality so it would definitely be sold or held onto unless they had a good reason to get rid of it
No, Hoffman is not playing the Devil. He is playing her conscience, here depicted as a monk, because her doubts are moraly guided by the church. She could easily just see her self, but as an authority religious figure it perfectly fits the narrative she lives in.
i guess you all didn t get it. when someone sees something transcendental the times and the most logical anwsers come around. with time. But the fact is that the sword is no ordinary sword so there is no sword in a field. The sword has an very much important inscription on the front.
Propably my favourite personification of God....very based and most likely if the all present entity of pure energy had any actual need to low itself down to material state for any reason....but honestly that sounds very unlikely....i doubt such infinite entity would ever bother to care about such trivial matters while basicly orchestrating in motion everything in infinite universes including ours....
@@dedeferreira98 you validate budibausto point further, this scene could be interputed in many different ways and to that end "you also saw what you wanted to see"
That is not an anti-religion scene. In this scene, the Spirit of truth is giving her a life review to show her sins before judgement. Practically, an NDE...
not anti religion. this is actually what examination of your conscience does to you when you want to filter out which acts are yours and which acts are you think are from God, which actions you have done if they are only driven by your selfishness or are they influenced by God. You can actually use this template to examine the kind of feelings you have when you are in a relationship or if you are trying to solve a case or investigate on intentions and motives of people.
for me here is shown doubt. maybe the movie want to show something different, the clever guy with the hood, the cleverness of "rationality" over faith/ godreality. .... but i see it different as doubt. before i saw this scene i saw the scene where is shown, she rides alone with her horse to the english army on the battlefield. she speaks to them. with a message from god. told them to go home. and it happened. the scene on the battlefield shows: god is by our side, by her side at the moment! god does not need us, but IS by our side! this is a huge, powerful (and peace-ful) truth. so what the "clever" MAN with the hood tells with " god does not need you." is wrong, because it was about: god is by your side. so the director does not know, what is true for him/ does not know, what he want.
Sometimes I find myself believing even when it's not convenient that I do (for example, the anxiety that I sometimes go through in specific situations, moral dilemmas etc.). No, I don't think it has much to do with want. I just do. Not saying it makes me any better. But so what if I see things in this particular perspective?
Historians have pointed out that this entire movie was an absurd distortion of history, in fact almost entirely fictional. This section at the end with Dustin Hoffman's character is one of the most fictional of all - not only the character itself appearing suddenly in her cell, but the movie's version of her visions and other experiences bear no resemblance to what Joan actually described at her trial nor what the many eyewitnesses described. The scriptwriter, Andrew Birkin, said he wrote it in a way that would dismiss Joan's mission as a fraud because he personally believes that the Bible allegedly says that God would never support even defensive war, even if your country is invaded and subjected (as France was) to repeated scorched earth campaigns. Some people seem to think the movie promotes atheism, but it actually promotes Birkin's version of Christianity in which God would never help soldiers. So he wrote a version of these events in which Joan is led only by her own revenge fantasies (with a motive provided by an entirely fictitious rape and murder of Joan's sister Catherine to give her a reason to hate the English), and the unexplainable occurrences described by so many eyewitnesses are replaced by mundane things like wind or a sword in a field; and the visions described by Joan are replaced by bizarre, confused sequences rather than physical manifestations of saints and angels which Joan said she and other people could simultaneously see. The reason so many soldiers and nobles followed her despite the odds is because they said they couldn't explain how Joan could accurately predict the future or how the war suddenly shifted in their favor as soon as Joan was there, and so on. This doesn't suit Birkin's agenda, so he replaced the eyewitness accounts with his own alternate history in an attempt to discredit her mission. He also inexplicably, despite his anti-war views, made her into a fighter - punching an armored English soldier with her bare fists and other absurd scenes - in spite of the fact that she said bluntly at her trial that she didn't fight (she said she carried her banner and stayed out of the fighting).
The reason why a scepter is used as a symbol of power, his vision is based on the church, which has promoted the idea of hell but hell was not Christianity and has connection to the Vikings just like the purgatory comes from the Muslim. Neither is Satan ever mentioned, why would he if his name was Lucifer.
@@actadiurna6733 To understand history you must know history. History is written by the victor. That's why you must search for many sources before you can claim anything to be true. This is how the church see her. Not how the libertarian see her or the romantic is romancing her. This is how she was seen at the time in history.
@@robertagren9360 I was summarizing the views of secular historians, not the Church; and secular historians have pointed out that English government records show that the English government manipulated her trial and chose the tribunal from a group of clergy who had supported them, which is also proven by dozens of eyewitnesses who gave details of how she was convicted on deliberately false charges by pro-English clergy. Historians have also pointed out that the judge (Pierre Cauchon) was lying when he claimed "the Church" as a whole viewed her as a heretic because numerous other clergy had approved her in April 1429 including the Chief Inquisitor for Southern France (Pierre Turelure), the Archbishop of Rheims, etc, and she was additionally supported by the Archbishop of Embrun, and the prominent theologian Jehan Gerson, and so on. Only pro-English clergy and a handful of others opposed her.
@@actadiurna6733 Yes you are correct on that point. Their organization is based on power from the government. First by ascending the king into the messenger of god, only the church could prove that power. With governments, the church had less to say on whom was to be the king but the status quo remained. No matter what we think, the church never promoted wars, or political agendas but when government and the church is under one roof the church always lose the battle. It has either been some few who wished to speak in political manner and others who hide behind a cloak and daggers. So no matter how you look at it, we are always responsible for our actions and that's why there is no anti-propaganda. If you heretic someone for an action it is what you propagate. Any priest who did not what the church wanted was either executed along with the accused or banished so it wasn't like they really had a chance.
Yeah clever, but my response would be: So who the f are you? And why am I talking to you? Since I'm just a stupid human who thought it was in contact with the supranatural.
Joan was a full illuminated being, read the reports of the trial and you will see how she was brilliant for her very young age and social condition. Witnesses said that his body did not burn.
@ i have a master degree in heritage preservation i am not confusing anything. Please educate yourself instead of believing the bullshits of common peoples on the medieval era. This was not a dark age at all.
@@CyrilNarayan Master degree in Heritage Preservation... sure. Witnesses said that her body didn't burn? Really? Strange. Last time I studied about Joan D'Arc, I clearly remember her body being burned 3 times in a row (Pyre fire wasn't as efficient, as Crematorium sealed fire room), then turned on the sides multiple times, until it completely collapsed and then in 1867, her possible burned remains have been found. Pieces of burnt gown and bones/tissues that belong to a female. Middle Ages are called "Dark Ages" due the deterioration of historic monuments, lack of literature and VERY limited medical advancements, due religious persecutions as any herbalist/alchemist was seen as a Witch/Sorcerer and burned or hanged for their "crimes against God". Were people stupid back then? No. There were great innovations during that period of time. Hell, siege equipment like Trebuchet was an amazing display of engineering and that was just the tip of an iceberg. Science didn't stop back then, but it was very messy time due huge religious fanaticism and can't compete with scientific surge that Renaissance was.
As brief as it is, this may be my favorite Dustin Hoffman performance of all of his.
This is absolutely flawless.
this movie is a powerhouse of intensity. and great insight. " death is much more simple, after a few months, it gets simpler. after a year, it becomes romantic" ( the corpse is gone and the vegetation blooms)
Just perfect!! "You didn't see what was, you saw what you wanted to see"
all Religions
@@DieWitness Science too these days it seems. Especially concerning human behaviour. They want something to be true to serve a belief system so they order "studies" to provide proof. And of course the guys receiving the money "find" it.
Islam
Who are you to question God
It's all true. Ask God.
What this guy does with his voice is incredible!
Andra: Hoffman is just THE BEST!!! People forget RAINMAN.God I still cry his abilities.Too much for our eyes.
The best part, that's his real voice
Dustin Hoffman is one of the best actors of all times both film and stage. He is also very protean: This movie, Tootsie, Kramer vs. Kramer, Midnight Cowboy, Rain Man, Wag the Dog, Papillion, Little Big Man.. etc.
@@Catinkontti give him his flowers before he is gone
For me - that is the best Dustin Hoffman performance ever.
The part where that guy throws away his sword for no apparent reason, is fuckin' hilarious!
Always thought it was just a guy deserting after being tired from the war.
To all the people arguing as to who Hoffman's character is supposed to be, he is Jeanne's conscience. It says this right in the credits.
So he wasn’t Satan?
@@GaryHField Nooooo, that's a guy in black robes.
People saying he's the devil, really haven't bothered to watch the film, they just jumped on this video, knee-jerk reactions, with no prior knowledge of the historical figure or story.
Cause people burn shit down when you put god in films....even Mel Gibson had to cut a god character in passion for safety reasons
But could her conscience be God?
The sword on the field, that was a sign!
- No, that was a sword in a field
- and don’t forget the inexplicable. Yet from a number of infinite possibilities you had to take this one:
*Holy music with a sword flying down from heaven to a field*
😂
I always find this scene both clever and comical I don’t know why
I repeat this scene in my head when I go through life
Genius
He’s basically mocking her by showing her how absurd that scenario was.
@@gezzarandom funny, he mocking her talking about God sign, while the turth he also part of her imagination, cz there's no one can see him except Joanne
Dustin Hoffman's cameo was AWESOMELY dark, quiet and moody.
I've watched this scene at least a dozen times and it keeps getting better :)
... Cameo?
I love how, in the last explanation, the guy just tosses the sword into the field
A deserter maybe, someone tired of fighting.
Watch futurama bender meets Dog GOD
Prophets just interpret the work of god but never say
God told u or made u or wanted u to do! You thought wished imagined a higher creator being making u guilt free of doing shit on your own! Na na u choose to justify the action u did by making u believe in a higher order plan justice! But never ever use the lord name in vain or to justify what u do! Cos all u can do is denying or seeing signs! 50/50 but even of the 50 u see
Signs they are only there cos u want to see them! So even there u are just making shit up as it goes! Totally what god did! 😂😅👽😘
Classic matter anti matter Big Bang shit I love ❤️ u parallel multiverse God!!
I just watched this and I fucked love u guys too!!!
Hahahahahhahahaa. The one where the guy throws the sword right into the field was the best! Lol
Milla Jovovavich did very well in this movie. But i think the writer just wanted an excuse to get to the Dustin Hoffman scenes where he just shits oscars out like he's ordering a pizza.
What an acting powerhouse...
I think she did better than i remember ..but it seemed ...over the top in some parts of the movie ..partic in joan of arcs youth ...it seemed too much at the time ..but its been too long since i saw it.
A very powerful scene. Hoffman is the bomb.
cold brutal truth that we try to hide from
i love the scene!! its so perfect !
Best scene in this movie
You beat me to the punch
I see this as Joan doubting herself and her role in life. I have these kind of conversations all the time.
NO, that was a sword... in a field
This is the kind of thing that prevents me from being religious in current or old age. I fear I'll turn into this interpretation of Jeanne as life gets tougher and I cling to illogical beliefs for comfort.
lol... strange things
EmptyMan000 Use that belief to question and ponder. Don't feel self threaten that you believe and identify being religious if you don't choose not to believe. Once you have thought about it, your feel better about your decision making and feel more complete as a person.
As I age and sink into anhedonia and realize my dreams will never come true and my abusers will never see justice, I find myself fantasizing about heaven and judgement.
*tips fedora*
She actually saw, touched and heard the angels talking to her, and the voice from god it wasn’t just random signs
Luc Besson has such a story telling range, from medieval heroics in this one to romantic drama in Leon and a space opera in the fifth element, no matter the source, Besson is a great film director.
RockedThe/CrapOut his writing has dwindled recently
A medieval Christian would reply that all of the explanations he gave would be God's doing. Since all that happens is within his control, all that happens is his will. _Deus Vult._
They wouldn't because kings were blessed by bishops who were messenger of god. That's why Deus Vult was spoken by a pope and that's why it became the word of god. Any king could claim to be righteous in their actions but no one could be above the king.
This is so educational scene! We sometimes like to see things and events in our very own ideal way and just go blind for the rest of the possibilities.
Conscience: "Heroine-turned-saint? or Saint-turned-to-heroin?"
Joan of Arc: "Why are you trying to hurt me? Do you get pleasure hurting me?"
Conscience: "Ah, pleasure. Where does the pain end and your pleasure begin...with that nee-dle in-your hand?"
The dramatic sword coming down from the clouds to mock her is always so funny
Realistically he represents her rational thinking more than the Devil.
This must be a bad situation to be in when your own conscience work against you.
How can our conscience work against us?
@@buddyzen2020 Let me give you an example.A man walks into a store he steals a chocolate bar walks out and eats the chocolate bar on his way home.That night his turning in his sleep because his conscience is accusing and reminding him that what he did was wrong...ka pish?
Oh, Dustin Hoffman. How I wish you were still around to crush people's hopes and dreams...
He is still around you dolt.
He's not dead.
@@tallsmile28 no but his career is after me2
3:33 - The moment where it clicks in her head that "Oh shit, I've been doing that all my life..." Now if only we could get others to realize this about religious "signs"
And yet her last words on earth, as the fire was about to burn her alive, were: "Hold the cross up high that I might see it through the flames." I think this scene merely demonstrates her humanity and her doubting herself and the visions she had. However, in the end, she chose not to recant anything she had said and went to the pyre to die for Christ.
But her conscience is God
@@JA-nl9el Her conscience is her conscience. Not God. Not the Devil. Just her doubts and regrets.
@@JA-nl9el Out of infinite possiblilities, you chose this one *High pitched chorus*.
If someone says Dustin Hoffman is playing the devil in this movie, they are completely missing the point. He is not an angel either. Its encapsulated in the phrase "you didnt see what was, jean, you saw what you wanted to see....." "That was a sword in a field...Yet from an infinite amount of possibilities you picked this one...." Whatever he is, he is a refutation of theism itself, of belief in the supernatural not just joan of arc's 'supernatural visions.' the scene is rivoting.
He represents her thought process while incarcerated and her rational thinking process.
That's her conscience, he's trying to get her to come to terms she's no saint, just another murderer, murdering other people. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
"You saw what you wanted."
Sums up Western Media.
Sums up life.
@@heriksalvadorianreacts6646 I wish.
A lot of people are saying this is outsmarting religion. Actually, it spoke to me in that it was rationally speaking to obsessive thinking. I suffer from OCD and this was describing exactly what I would see in things. If I saw a certain number of things in common happen during my day for some reason, I was so paranoid that I would interpret them as signs from God against me. In reality, much of my perception came from my fear and my obsession with signs. It didn’t destroy my faith in religion to see that realized, but rather reassured me that the signs from God are actually more noticeable and less subject to “pattern recognition.” You will know when God speaks to you.
"Hi Joan,I'm your conscience.....nice to meet you!!! 😁😁😁
Sorry we meet so late but i was in holydays."🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thats dustin hoffman? He looks great in a beard.
«That was a sword, in a field.»
Not gonna spit on that courageous lady who saved my nation, but gotta admit that he makes a point there. There's no signs, only things people choose to interpret as something sacred. Round here we call that zététique.
There will always be a 'rational' explanation for any phenomenon that might be perceived as meaningful. Both the 'rational' and the 'sacred' explanation are valid, and can be more or less helpful to an individual trying to interpret the world around them. Two people who are very well-suited to each other could encounter one another by chance, then either chalk up this encounter to a fortuitous coincidence or consider their meeting to be 'fate.' The difference in each interpretation depends on whether they choose to accept a more meaningful perception of existence, or a meaningless one.
@@theairinthebranches then the question is : which is the truth?
I always found this scene hilarious. xD
Best anti Mandela Effect scene ever.
What?
Masterful scene.
he took her confession and she became a martyr do u really think hes the devil?
It is always painful when a believer runs out of answers in their religion and is forced by their circumstances to apply rational thought, reason, and probability to examine their situation.
Dustin Hoffman is master class
Argh, can't find this clip online.. Someone upload it again!
This part of the movie makes it confusing for who Joan really was and all we go through during the film... It's like, well she might be crazy after all...
Didn't she find the sword on church grounds? And even the monks had no idea how it for there?
And this is the reason why there have been no "miracles" documented in the last couple hundred years.
You know and the fact that God's are made up
The miracle of Fatima is well documented
JAJAJAJA Me meo de risa cuando sale la espada del cielo.
I find this scene so powerful, it gives off the same vibes as 1984 when winston is being told to say how many fingers he sees. It shows a horrific distopian view where you are forced under the threat of death to deny the things that you yourself know, through personal experience, and fact to be true.
It's so heartbreaking and tragic because... the fact truly is. Joan, despite her honest convinction, IS WRONG. The guy here is RIGHT. There IS NO SIGN FROM GOD. IT IS JUST A SWORD IN A FIELD.
To me, when I watch this scene, I think of every conspiracy theorist and cult member who is trapped in their ideology that they hold with the firmest of convinction. When faced with the cold hard fact that they are, in fact, wrong, they feel incredibly persecuted, and I think this scene puts you in the mindset of that person really well. You have sympathy for Joan despite the fact that her beliefs are false, you feel sympathy because due to random happenstance and chance, you know, that despite the priest here being 100% right, Joan will never truly give up her beliefs, and anyone who would try to convince her to see the light of reason is bassicly going to appear as evil and satanic as this priest looks like right here.
You missed the point completely.
@@khepresh I didn't. I know that the point of the scene was to make it so that Joan questions herself, I even saw some comments pointing to the idea that the priest was her subconscious and her doubt. There's also the idea that the priest is actually the devil trying to deceive her.
What I'm saying is that watching this scene from an outsider perspective makes you see the fear on the faces of the ideologically possessed when faced with reality and how anyone who forces them to face that reality is going to look like an inquisitioner. From the perspective of Joan this type of interrogation is basically the same kind of thing that Winston experiences in 1984, from the outside we can see that Joan is actually in the wrong, and thus it's different from Winston in 1984, but we also know that Joan can't see that.
Scenes in movies are obviously given context from the rest of the film they are a part of but watching this scene in isolation gives you the ability to gain a unique view into the thing I am talking about. I say that knowing that that was in no way the actual intent of the scene, but that doesn't stop me and potentially other people from seeing that anyway.
@@jhonjacson798 That is so delightfuly ironic...
WOW😮 thats some heavy shit right there!!! .....exuse me while I rethink my life.
What a brilliant scene!!!
what music is playing at 3:14 please?
What blade is that.?
this is a critique to the conscience not an exult. Magnus maria is the inscription that just shattles the arguments of the conscience scene. So or luc besson totally contradiced himself or he is criticizing the power atributted to post long reflections of an event with logic anwsers cause facts are just missed out with time.
I hope you've recovered from your stroke.
- Joan of Arc is a heroine known to the four corners of the world. This young girl fought and she has sacrificed her life for a cause that she believed to be just. She has shown exemplary bravery, an iron will and fidelity to her faith, the King and her land. His intrepid fight and his tragic end touch all the hearts. One can only bow to this figure at the symbol noble and legendary. His story should inspire every human being whatever his skin color or religion, his social level or his place of life. Joan of Arc is an icon and a Saint for the eternity. She will be perhaps recognized and considered in the future as a universal heritage. (Google Translation from French to English)
No. She will be perhaps recognized and considered in the future as a paranoid schizophrenic.
@@khepresh A paranoid schieophrenic girl who inspired thousand of people to fight against a colonial force who rape kill and steal a foreigner country.
Ah, schizophrenia...
lmao....
lol
Schizophrenia wouldn’t produce such reasonable speeches
@Christina Reynolds
I'm sure schizophrenia, like everything else, exists on a spectrum from "barely detectable" to "catatonic fugue".
@Christina Reynolds
... after demonstrating genius equal to Joan of Arc's. He invented a whole new field of mathematics.
I was LAUGHING in the cinema!
The end of the scene is the most terrifying thing. Joan realizing ".. I'm now going to die for.. What? What the fuck am I gonna die for now??"
We can only hope, for her sake, real life Joan wasn't visited by Dustin Hoffman.
interesting top comment... seeing as Dustin Hoffman is still alive
Angel of Death visits. What are the other possibility for the natures wind?
This scene.
This the best movie. My favorite. Over kingkong even.
Yes, there could be infinite possiblities but let's be honest; a 16 year old girl, no exeprience in warfare whatsoever, just a pucelle as she was called and end up a war that lasted for so, so long, won the war, and found her king in a crowd dressed up like a common man even if in those ages people didn't knew their own king (no social media then) it's quite odd and remarkable...the story of the sword (digg in9 it's a little more starnge than hoffman says, and a little more hard to find explanation to. I say she had a mission and she did it.
We see God as we see fit
She didn't win the war herself and she had no other mission than the one she chose to take. Stop being so delusional.
@gambleor. Actually the logical answer is that he is a manifestation of her scizophrenia seeing as schizophrenia is more rational then the holy spirit coming to guide her. First of all the holy spirit is an undefined term that christians throw out there but your response is exactly what this scene is supposed to represent. She honestly thinks finding a sword in a field was a sign of god when in reality there were infinite possibilities and she chose the one she wanted to see. Just like you've done with seeing Dustin Hoffman's character as a visage of god. Since Joan of Arc lived in a time where people had no knowledge of schizophrenia people naturally jumped to the conclusions their delusions were god. But WE know better then that. You're a modern representation of this fallacious form of thinking and seeing what you want to see. Or maybe not it is a film based on the actual events but still just a film, however still schizophrenia is the favorite to win over a manifestation from god nearly 99.999*% of the time making it a 99.999*:1 favorite against manifestation.
@@thotslayer9914 my type? You don't know me and that comment is out of date by 8 years. I've changed since then
@@thotslayer9914 A little bit yeah . I believe in a god of sorts and I'm less rigid and logical. I still think she likely had schizophrenia though. The god I believe in is more of a leave them to their own devices sort of God. No interference, it's up to us to follow the natural order or else the chaos we invoke is on us. I believe in an afterlife too. I believe we reincarnate the same life over and over till we get it right. We are also tiny pieces that make up god. Part of an eleven dimensional super being that creates then destroys itself in an endless loop. Each living creature is just part of a six dimensional construct. If I moved six dimensionally I could become someone else. Basically I'm a big fan of string theory. The eleven dimensions are a hyperobject . That object may or may not be god .
@@thotslayer9914 They just don't allow for that which is unprovable. I get around that by accepting my world view is just my "shot in the dark". I don't know if I'm right or wrong. It's just my guess on the way shit is. If I'm wrong so bloody be it. If I'm right then cool beans. I'm probably partially right and partially wrong simultaneously. That usually turns out to be fairly common actually. I'm still more "naturalist" as you put it. For example I still laugh at the idea of a Christian god and see it as the obvious corrupted concept as it is. But aside from that my beliefs are just my interpretation of what I've read about the many world's interpretation. I suspect string theory is correct but the rest is just me taking a stab at it .
@@thotslayer9914 I know how you feel. I see it as just inevitably something WILL be. Let's say there's only one universe for the sake of the argument. Then over an infinite time scale all atoms in that universe will take on all possible combinations including every version of your life. Seems wasteful to have all those infinite yourselves and you just get one shot at it. Why one shot? When there are infinite ways particles can interact. Especially via quantum mechanics. If you add extra dimensions in you add extra ways shit can happen and if we're living in a type 4 multiverse then literally all possible mathematical abstractions can and are happening. It's too wasteful to suggest that we only get to live one life out of all that. Maybe so but the idea is laughable to me.
@@thotslayer9914 At a certain point science and spiritual cross streams though both are often loathe to admit it
I love this scene!
cant stop laughing
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner...
You didn't see, what was, Stella. You saw what you wanted to see.
They are both right. It was a sign as interpreted by her most inner convictions, god, soul or what ever we call it. It awakened her destiny, subconsciously. What she had evolved or been pre-ordained to do in that moment. Thus it matters not if it came from heaven or if a man tossed it to the ground. A sign from "God" it was non the less.
The mental gymnastics you just performed to come up with that is amazing.
I showed this to an evangelical Christian. He usually has a lot of things to say...... He wasn't overly talkative about this scene. But instead flipped it round.. Those that haven't found Jesus see what they want to see
That inversion doesn't work in this situation: the point is that
thinking that one has "found Jesus" is subjective, that is if one WANTS
to believe in such a thing, their mind will accept it as true. This is
not a judgement on whether or not it is objectively true (i.e. that
Jesus has saved them, etc), but a fact of psychology. Maybe they have
"found Jesus," and received all the accompanying blessings. Regardless,
the mind has already accepted it as true, and their perception of
themselves and of the world accords with this.
Those "true believers" aren't capable of rational thought.
The question then should of been asked "how do you tell the difference between thinking you have found Jesus to actually knowing you have found Jesus" I would not know where to begin to tell the difference, because both are convinced lol
You know you're in trouble when your hallucinations are more rational then you are
This scene sums up so much of religious craziness in a nutshell.
Not even close
@@djoxxxa88 pretty much, religion is filled with crazies all from coincidences
@@cypherhorizon0043 not so much, you have crazy ppl everywhere. Not all religious people are crazy like you guys are presenting...
@@djoxxxa88 still consists of many who were false prophets, granted they have held impact many others would consider great things, its still wacc to hear
@@cypherhorizon0043 going in circle here boy... most crazy lunatics nowadays are opposite of any religion
I know the heavenly sword drop is still the least likely but people chucking away or leaving such a high quality sword when their worth quite a bit of money is still pretty unlikely
It was 1431. Pretty sure they didn't think about the value in a sword in a monetary way. Swords like that were made all the time back then. They melted down all types of metal back then to make weapons. They needed implements of war. I highly doubt that the soldiers cared about the cost of things
@@seanwinter5360 while they were cheaper here than in earlier century's an average quality sword was still worth a quite a bit for the average worker and things were monetised and this sword is of good quality so it would definitely be sold or held onto unless they had a good reason to get rid of it
It’s Joan’s Ego
No, Hoffman is not playing the Devil. He is playing her conscience, here depicted as a monk, because her doubts are moraly guided by the church. She could easily just see her self, but as an authority religious figure it perfectly fits the narrative she lives in.
This movie and a documentary I saw about the possible scientific explanation of the 10 Plagues of Egypt it what made me a a nonbeliever when I was 10
You were lucky, it took me until I was 25 and a few episodes of the Athiest Experience to become a nonbeliever
Sometimes there are 😄 miracles
i guess you all didn t get it. when someone sees something transcendental the times and the most logical anwsers come around. with time. But the fact is that the sword is no ordinary sword so there is no sword in a field. The sword has an very much important inscription on the front.
Dusty plays the Lord of Kings, their lordship
why do you think that?
Propably my favourite personification of God....very based and most likely if the all present entity of pure energy had any actual need to low itself down to material state for any reason....but honestly that sounds very unlikely....i doubt such infinite entity would ever bother to care about such trivial matters while basicly orchestrating in motion everything in infinite universes including ours....
1:16 an honest question pointed at faith
Hard with the military disruption
One of the best scenes ever, Religion in a nutshell
this is actually the devil trying to mislead her from God..
Its actually more supporting religion
@@dedeferreira98 you validate budibausto point further, this scene could be interputed in many different ways and to that end "you also saw what you wanted to see"
No, not religion in a nutshell, just one of the best scenes ever.
Yet you only saw what you wanted to see.
Ahhh! I saw what I wanted to see ahhh!
The funny thing is, she was waiting her visions to come, It was death was her vision all along.
Is the black hoodie guy supposed to be the devil let me know
No he's a manifestation of her rational thought. She is reconsidering her life in her confinement. Brilliant scene
How hard is this????
That's what she said.
Once. The religious circles of Japan (Buddhism, Christianity, Shintoism) were also exposed to God's rebellion and were thoroughly disposed of
The Devil is the rational thinking my friend...
@1984pawn -Go and see "Tootsie", "Rainman" and "Hook".. and then... u probably can t decide... :->
i love this part xD hilarious
Best anti religion scene ever!!
And yet he does not deny the existence of God. (or A god)
Just the idiotic in religion.
And yes, I am an atheist.
That is not an anti-religion scene. In this scene, the Spirit of truth is giving her a life review to show her sins before judgement. Practically, an NDE...
not anti religion. this is actually what examination of your conscience does to you when you want to filter out which acts are yours and which acts are you think are from God, which actions you have done if they are only driven by your selfishness or are they influenced by God. You can actually use this template to examine the kind of feelings you have when you are in a relationship or if you are trying to solve a case or investigate on intentions and motives of people.
Steven Mabee
In fact this guy rappresent god and come to say to him they are not a saint and don't talk for god.
Anyone here watched the last kingdom?
for me here is shown doubt. maybe the movie want to show something different, the clever guy with the hood, the cleverness of "rationality" over faith/ godreality. .... but i see it different as doubt. before i saw this scene i saw the scene where is shown, she rides alone with her horse to the english army on the battlefield. she speaks to them. with a message from god. told them to go home. and it happened. the scene on the battlefield shows: god is by our side, by her side at the moment! god does not need us, but IS by our side! this is a huge, powerful (and peace-ful) truth. so what the "clever" MAN with the hood tells with " god does not need you." is wrong, because it was about: god is by your side. so the director does not know, what is true for him/ does not know, what he want.
no less of a miracle had it been the other ways. God works in mysterious ways. I believe so anyways.
You are seeing what you want to see.
Sometimes I find myself believing even when it's not convenient that I do (for example, the anxiety that I sometimes go through in specific situations, moral dilemmas etc.). No, I don't think it has much to do with want. I just do. Not saying it makes me any better. But so what if I see things in this particular perspective?
ok
***** ok
it is hilarious!
Historians have pointed out that this entire movie was an absurd distortion of history, in fact almost entirely fictional. This section at the end with Dustin Hoffman's character is one of the most fictional of all - not only the character itself appearing suddenly in her cell, but the movie's version of her visions and other experiences bear no resemblance to what Joan actually described at her trial nor what the many eyewitnesses described. The scriptwriter, Andrew Birkin, said he wrote it in a way that would dismiss Joan's mission as a fraud because he personally believes that the Bible allegedly says that God would never support even defensive war, even if your country is invaded and subjected (as France was) to repeated scorched earth campaigns. Some people seem to think the movie promotes atheism, but it actually promotes Birkin's version of Christianity in which God would never help soldiers. So he wrote a version of these events in which Joan is led only by her own revenge fantasies (with a motive provided by an entirely fictitious rape and murder of Joan's sister Catherine to give her a reason to hate the English), and the unexplainable occurrences described by so many eyewitnesses are replaced by mundane things like wind or a sword in a field; and the visions described by Joan are replaced by bizarre, confused sequences rather than physical manifestations of saints and angels which Joan said she and other people could simultaneously see. The reason so many soldiers and nobles followed her despite the odds is because they said they couldn't explain how Joan could accurately predict the future or how the war suddenly shifted in their favor as soon as Joan was there, and so on. This doesn't suit Birkin's agenda, so he replaced the eyewitness accounts with his own alternate history in an attempt to discredit her mission. He also inexplicably, despite his anti-war views, made her into a fighter - punching an armored English soldier with her bare fists and other absurd scenes - in spite of the fact that she said bluntly at her trial that she didn't fight (she said she carried her banner and stayed out of the fighting).
The reason why a scepter is used as a symbol of power, his vision is based on the church, which has promoted the idea of hell but hell was not Christianity and has connection to the Vikings just like the purgatory comes from the Muslim. Neither is Satan ever mentioned, why would he if his name was Lucifer.
@@robertagren9360 That response doesn't address anything I mentioned, and in fact doesn't make much sense.
@@actadiurna6733
To understand history you must know history. History is written by the victor. That's why you must search for many sources before you can claim anything to be true. This is how the church see her. Not how the libertarian see her or the romantic is romancing her. This is how she was seen at the time in history.
@@robertagren9360 I was summarizing the views of secular historians, not the Church; and secular historians have pointed out that English government records show that the English government manipulated her trial and chose the tribunal from a group of clergy who had supported them, which is also proven by dozens of eyewitnesses who gave details of how she was convicted on deliberately false charges by pro-English clergy. Historians have also pointed out that the judge (Pierre Cauchon) was lying when he claimed "the Church" as a whole viewed her as a heretic because numerous other clergy had approved her in April 1429 including the Chief Inquisitor for Southern France (Pierre Turelure), the Archbishop of Rheims, etc, and she was additionally supported by the Archbishop of Embrun, and the prominent theologian Jehan Gerson, and so on. Only pro-English clergy and a handful of others opposed her.
@@actadiurna6733
Yes you are correct on that point. Their organization is based on power from the government. First by ascending the king into the messenger of god, only the church could prove that power. With governments, the church had less to say on whom was to be the king but the status quo remained. No matter what we think, the church never promoted wars, or political agendas but when government and the church is under one roof the church always lose the battle. It has either been some few who wished to speak in political manner and others who hide behind a cloak and daggers. So no matter how you look at it, we are always responsible for our actions and that's why there is no anti-propaganda. If you heretic someone for an action it is what you propagate. Any priest who did not what the church wanted was either executed along with the accused or banished so it wasn't like they really had a chance.
Lord sith
Yeah clever, but my response would be: So who the f are you? And why am I talking to you? Since I'm just a stupid human who thought it was in contact with the supranatural.
Bingo. Its Satan and hes deceiving her at her worst lowest moments
Must've been very tough for her to realize her whole entire life was a lie :(
Joan was a full illuminated being, read the reports of the trial and you will see how she was brilliant for her very young age and social condition. Witnesses said that his body did not burn.
@ loooooool. Medieval era is one of the best time for innovation, science and wisdom, don't think people were idiots.
@ i have a master degree in heritage preservation i am not confusing anything. Please educate yourself instead of believing the bullshits of common peoples on the medieval era. This was not a dark age at all.
@@CyrilNarayan Master degree in Heritage Preservation... sure. Witnesses said that her body didn't burn? Really? Strange. Last time I studied about Joan D'Arc, I clearly remember her body being burned 3 times in a row (Pyre fire wasn't as efficient, as Crematorium sealed fire room), then turned on the sides multiple times, until it completely collapsed and then in 1867, her possible burned remains have been found. Pieces of burnt gown and bones/tissues that belong to a female.
Middle Ages are called "Dark Ages" due the deterioration of historic monuments, lack of literature and VERY limited medical advancements, due religious persecutions as any herbalist/alchemist was seen as a Witch/Sorcerer and burned or hanged for their "crimes against God". Were people stupid back then? No. There were great innovations during that period of time. Hell, siege equipment like Trebuchet was an amazing display of engineering and that was just the tip of an iceberg. Science didn't stop back then, but it was very messy time due huge religious fanaticism and can't compete with scientific surge that Renaissance was.
@@TheMadAsylum lack of litterature ??? the fuck ??
Forgive us oh forgive them... Why?
I thought he was "truth"
Gotta love Milla Jovovich!
God why did you leave me and my family. God come back now
Hoffman is simply fucking amazing as Satan here...My 2nd favorite Satan role after Al Pacino's in The Devil's Advocate cause hard to top that..
+Fotonio22 Wrong.He is not Satan.His is her conscience.
+MultiEvil85 then why does her conscience look like a stranger not someone she knows...??
+MultiEvil85 then why does her conscience look like a stranger not someone she knows...??
+TheGava4 because a conscience is foreign to murderers who use God as the excuse
In the end, she's honest ... to herself.
And she forgives... herself.
He is also listed as Conscience in the end credits.