I'm a big Werner Herzog fan. He's right on the edge of my top dozen all-time greatest filmmakers. So when I heard that he had worked in theater and opera as well as cinema, I'd always wanted to explore that facet of his art. Finally, with "Giovanni d'Arco", a 1989 filmed opera, I was given a chance to do just that.I must say that, as much as I love it, I'm very much a novice when it comes to opera. For that reason, I won't go too far into analyzing the operatic aspects of the film. I've read other reviewers stating that the film's biggest flaw was the Italian libretto, written by Temistocle Solera. I thought the libretto was solid enough, but again, I don't really know up from down when it comes to opera. The only other filmed opera I've seen prior to this was Ingmar Bergman's 1975 film, "The Magic Flute" (Herzog also put on a production of "The Magic Flute", in 1999). I think Bergman's film is superior to Herzog's, but "Giovanna d'Arco" was an impressive effort nonetheless.The "Giovanna d'Arco" opera, by the famous Giuseppe Verdi, is beautiful. In spite of my limited knowledge of opera, I thought the singers were excellent. The baritone especially, Renato Bruson, was fantastic. Susan Dunn, in the title role, and Vincenzo La Scola, the male lead, also impress. Overall, I thought all three felt a bit flat in the acting department, but the singing was simply gorgeous."Giovanna d'Arco" was directed for the stage by Herzog and Henning Von Gierke, and was directed for video by Herzog and Keith Cheetham. It was broadcast on television in 1989. The set design is stunning, and Herzog and Cheetham's method for filming the opera was quite effective. They don't take us inside the world on the stage as much as Bergman did in "The Magic Flute"; instead, they keep their distance, making us feel like a member of the live audience in the opera house (which, by the way, is itself incredibly beautiful — I was instantly reminded of the opening segment in "Fitzcarraldo", or Visconti's "Senso"). The Joan of Arc story has been done so many times that one can imagine Herzog must have been somewhat reluctant to attempt to bring it back to life. Obviously, the first thing that is likely to come to mind is Dreyer's masterpiece, the 1928 film "The Passion of Joan of Arc". Even Georges Méliès's short film from the year 1900 was an amazing piece of early cinema. Later there was Bresson's "The Trial of Joan of Arc" — a quality film, though not one of Bresson's best. I still haven't seen Victor Fleming's 1948 version of the story, starring Ingrid Bergman, which I've read mixed reviews about. I did, however, see another Joan or Arc film starring Ingrid Bergman — a 1954 exercise in filmed theater by Roberto Rossellini called "Joan at the Stake", which was disappointing. More recently, of course, we have films like Luc Besson's "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc", which was simply awful.As common as the Joan of Arc legend is in cinema, though, this operatic adaptation provides a completely different angle on it, and one can only imagine how powerfully Joan of Arc's story must have appealed to Herzog. It shares so many of his career-long themes. Herzog has always been a highly spiritual filmmaker, obsessed with stories about characters who accept gargantuan spiritual undertakings, not out of faith, but out of compulsion — an outcry against a cold and unsympathetic universe. These characters are often on the fringes of sanity (or beyond them), such as the protagonists of "Signs of Life", "Aguirre, the Wrath of God", "The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser", "Heart of Glass", "Stroszek", "Woyzeck", or "Cobra Verde". Joan of Arc, with all her visions and apparitions, is right up Herzog's alley.Herzog's films nearly always see his characters taking on tasks that are far too great for them, such as Fitzcarraldo trying to lug a steamship over a mountain. Herzog's protagonists, pulled apart internally by entropy and the inherent absurdity of existence, rebel against a meaningless universe. They act out in assertion of their tormented existence. This is what spirituality means in a Herzog film, and Joan of Arc fits nicely into this modus operandi of his. Like so many Herzogian heroes, she is spiritually compelled to undertake a colossal challenge that can only destroy her.I know cinema quite well, but not opera at all, so I really have to judge "Giovanna d'Arco" as a film, not as an opera. Yet, if this were a traditional, non-operatic exercise in filmmaking, I would say it was a mediocre film, neither good nor bad. I would say that the story was engaging enough to hold your attention, but not much more. I would say that the film wasn't nearly as thematically profound as it could have been. My reaction would be very lukewarm. As a result, the opera really was the core of "Giovanna d'Arco" for me. The beauty of the music is what elevates this film from decent to legitimately good.I'd love to hear someone truly knowledgeable in opera discuss how good "Giovanna d'Arco" is (or is not), strictly as an opera. I can't offer any input there, except to say that it impressed me as a novice. As a film, however, I'd say that it is good, but not great. For fans of Herzog, it's more of a curio than anything else. There really isn't much here to be recognized as Herzog, beyond the themes I mentioned earlier. All in all, however, I would recommend this film to anyone. It is a unique type of viewing experience that is far too scarcely seen by today's filmgoers. It was wonderful to have the opera brought into my home the way Herzog did here.RATING: 7.00 out of 10 stars

As a fan of Verdi and also someone interested in Herzog's style, I found this Giovanna D'Arco quite interesting. The opera is not the best of Verdi, there's nothing wrong with the characters or the music, the music is brilliant especially, it's just that apart from an excellent final scene there are moments when the libretto is static.Herzog's direction is ambitious and really quite exemplary, as are the orchestra and conducting. I for one loved the visuals, while it is a very Germanic style perhaps more reminiscent of Wagner rather than Verdi, they did look great. The cinematography is excellent throughout, and the settings and costumes exquisite.The acting and singing are fine in general. Susan Dunn is captivating in the title role, her superb singing is better than her acting, though I personally do think her acting is more than stand-and-deliver. The final scene is absolutely thrilling and Dunn gives her all in that scene. Renato Bruson is a superb singing-actor, and with his velvety voice and sincere acting he is a perfect Giacomo. If there was anybody I wasn't entirely impressed with, it was Vincenzo La Scola as Carlo, he is a wonderful singer but I do agree he is not much of an actor.All in all, interesting and definitely worth watching, not just from an opera-fan point of view, but also from a movie-fan point of view. 8/10 Bethany Cox

As far as the opera, which was new to me, goes, I loved the music, as I typically do with Verdi, as it's very much in his distinctive alternately bouncy and dark style, but it's the epitome of bad libretti (Temistocle Solfera) to the extent that Giacomo D'Arco does the play-by-play of his daughter's battles, which we never see (which doesn't work for exactly the same reason Violetta telling us about Alfredo and Douphol's duel does), and rather than being burned (which one especially expects, since she wears the underwear-looking garb that Brunnhilde wears after the armor comes off to the finale of the Ring cycle where she burns) she is killed in action, but of course, she wakes up long enough to sing a final aria. It's pretty static, but it gets better as it goes along. The story is not what we would really expect it to be, although we have Giovanna and her voices, and we have her father Giacomo who is convinced that he voices are evil, much of what appears on stage is Charles V trying to romance Giovanna, and when that fails, still singing her praises as a warrior and the greatest hero of France.It kind of surprises me that the quote on the box credits Werner Herzog for the "success" of this production. It's only a couple of steps above Jonathan Miller's Clemenza di Tito for being static and uneventful, and for all Werner Herzog's criticisms about "inadequate images" in our society (of which an Egg McMuffin advertisement seems to be his favorite example), strong images are few and far between, though the very last one is indeed amazing. Herzog comes out for the curtain call, but evidently he didn't really want people to see him, since it cuts away to a long shot as soon as he emerges, but I know well what he looks like and recognized him instantly. I think it's actually Susan Dunn as Giovanna who carries the production,--she always seems to be in her situation, while Vincenzo de Scola as Charles V is all about his glorious voice and isn't much of an actor.The costuming has the chorus in tall and colorful masks full of pageantry but looking rather druidic, except for a whole mass of choristers in yellow masks and green who look like homages to Iron Fist, a lesser-known Marvel superhero. Although the removal of armor is an important image in the opera, we never see Giovanna put on or take off any armor, and she wears the nightgown-like costume and socks throughout, and the armor involves other characters.Herzog first involved opera in his films with _Fitzcarraldo_ (which is about a guy who goes into the rubber business to build an opera house in the Amazon and try to attract Caruso to it), and there he hired a supposed expert to stage the opera at the beginning, and it is more over the top than any opera I've ever seen either live or on video (maybe because that's how they performed them in 1906, but he cast a man in drag as Sarah Bernhardt and has characters complaining that she is an actor not a singer cast in the opera for commercial reasons, even though according to the credits, we're hearing actual recordings of her singing, which sounds fine to me). I've been told that the Met wrote a speaking part for Bea Arthur in _Daughter of the Regiment_ for commercial reasons, by the way. I wouldn't think she would be that big a draw, but whatever. Perhaps this paragraph is too much of a digression, but Herzog fans may well be disappointed. While it doesn't look ridiculous the way the operas at the beginning and end of _Fitzcarraldo_ look, aside from a few frissons, particularly at the end, and the stage littered with corpses even in romantic moments (one blinks, while some look sculptural), there is little here that Herzog fans will find particularly interesting. Indeed, _Invincible_ is more characteristically Herzog than this.The worst part of all is that I was constantly taken out of it by the LPCM stereo, which is not in sync with the visuals--a Hollywood musical with a canned soundtrack has better lip sync than this stage production (and I watched Brigadoon last week, so I have a recent comparison--I also saw the TV version of Gypsy 2 weeks ago and it looked and sounded like the singing was done live on set). This is also a problem on the Met's Ring Cycle DVD (particularly ludicrous at the beginning of Siegfried when Mime hits the anvil and the sound is completely dissociated), but that gives you a Dolby alternative that is in sync with the visuals. With this one, you're stuck with it. I'm going to post on my film lists to see if that's an equipment issue.Despite the interest of Herzog as director, I think I'm going to go with an audio-only recording next time I want to experience this opera. While it seems to have potential for exciting staging (though given Giacomo's big aria in Act III it might be somewhat redundant based on the text), Herzog was probably just too new to opera (indeed, he co-directed both the stage production and the video) to really contribute as much to it as he may have liked, or at least as much as his fans would have liked.