Pope Joan (1972)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Better Late Then Never

How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

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!

"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."

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

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.