It was 1999. Cinema was undergoing a massive shift. While everyone was busy staring at the green code of The Matrix, Luc Besson—the French stylistic powerhouse behind Léon: The Professional—decided to tackle the most sacred figure in French history. He released The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc. It wasn't just a movie; it was a loud, bloody, polarizing explosion of sound and fury that left historians clutching their pearls and film critics scratching their heads.
People still argue about it. Honestly, if you mention the story of Joan of Arc movie in a room full of history buffs, you're going to get a very heated debate. Some see it as a gritty, realistic masterpiece. Others think it’s a total character assassination of a saint.
The film stars Milla Jovovich as the Maid of Orléans. She doesn't play her as a stoic, holy icon. Instead, we get a wide-eyed, screaming, traumatized teenager who might be hearing the voice of God—or might just be losing her mind. It’s a bold choice. It’s also a choice that defined how a whole generation views the 15th-century martyr.
The Brutal Reality of 1429
Most Joan of Arc movies feel like Sunday school lessons. They’re clean. They’re pious. Besson’s version? It’s covered in mud and horse guts. The Hundred Years' War was a nightmare, and the film leans into that. We see the English and the French hacking at each other with a visceral intensity that makes Braveheart look tame by comparison.
Joan's journey starts with trauma. In the film, she witnesses the brutal murder and rape of her sister by English soldiers. This is a massive "what if" moment. Historians like Pernoud and Clin point out that while Joan’s village of Domrémy was attacked, the specific rape/murder subplot was a narrative invention to give Joan a "revenge" motive. It complicates the story. It makes her human, but it also risks stripping away her genuine religious conviction in favor of psychological scarring.
She heads to Chinon. She finds the Dauphin, Charles VII, played with a slithering, cowardly brilliance by John Malkovich. This is where the story of Joan of Arc movie really finds its footing. The contrast between Milla’s frantic energy and Malkovich’s detached cynicism is gold.
💡 You might also like: Why This Is How We Roll FGL Is Still The Song That Defines Modern Country
Dustin Hoffman and the Voice of Doubt
The back half of the movie changes gears completely. Once Joan is captured by the Burgundians and sold to the English, the action stops. We move into the Trial of Condemnation. This is where Dustin Hoffman shows up as "The Grand Inquisitor" or "The Conscience."
He isn't a "real" person in the historical sense. He’s a projection of Joan's own mind. Or maybe he’s God. Or the Devil. He wears a dark cloak and systematically dismantles every "sign" Joan thought she received.
- Did you see the sword in the field? It was just a sword someone dropped.
- Did the wind change for you? The wind always changes.
- Were the bells ringing for you? Bells ring for everyone.
It is a brutal, psychological deconstruction. For many viewers, this is the best part of the movie. It forces you to ask: Does it matter if the voices were "real" if the result was the liberation of France? The film doesn't give you a straight answer. It leaves Joan—and the audience—in a state of agonizing uncertainty.
Where the Movie Hits and Misses the History
If you're looking for 100% accuracy, you’re in the wrong place. But if you want the vibe of the era, Besson gets surprisingly close in weird ways.
The armor looks heavy. The siege engines—those massive wooden towers and catapults—are built to scale. You feel the weight of the medieval world. However, the film takes massive liberties with Joan's personality. The real Joan of Arc, based on the actual court transcripts from 1431, was incredibly sharp. She was witty. She trapped her judges in logical loops.
📖 Related: The Real Story Behind I Can Do Bad All by Myself: From Stage to Screen
In the story of Joan of Arc movie, Milla’s Joan is often portrayed as being on the verge of a breakdown. She’s impulsive. She’s loud. The real Joan was a disciplined commander who took her "King of Heaven" orders with a terrifyingly calm resolve.
Also, let's talk about the hair. The "Joan of Arc bob" became a fashion statement after this movie. In reality, Joan cut her hair short to fit in with soldiers and for protection, but Milla’s version looks a bit more "Paris runway" than "15th-century peasant."
The Casting Gamble
Milla Jovovich was Besson’s muse at the time. They had just finished The Fifth Element. Casting her as a saint was a huge risk. She brings a raw, frantic energy that is genuinely uncomfortable to watch at times. She pants, she screams, she cries. It’s a physical performance.
Then you have the supporting cast. Faye Dunaway plays Yolande of Aragon. She’s the power behind the throne, the one pulling the strings while Charles VII hides behind his mother-in-law's skirts. Dunaway plays it with a cold, calculating grace that perfectly balances the chaos of the battlefield scenes.
And the English? They’re portrayed as the ultimate villains, but with a sense of weary professionalism. They just want the girl gone so they can go home.
👉 See also: Love Island UK Who Is Still Together: The Reality of Romance After the Villa
Why We Are Still Talking About This Film
Despite a lukewarm reception at the box office and some scathing reviews (the New York Times wasn't a fan), the film has endured. Why? Because it’s one of the few historical epics that dares to be cynical.
Most biopics try to make their subject a hero. Besson tries to make Joan a question mark. By the time she’s being tied to the stake in Rouen, you don’t feel like you’re watching a triumph of faith. You feel like you’re watching a tragedy of a girl who was used by the state, used by the church, and then discarded when she became inconvenient.
The fire at the end is horrific. It’s long. It’s painful. It reminds the viewer that the "glory" of war and the "purity" of martyrdom have a very real, very ugly cost.
Practical Takeaways for Your Next Watch
If you’re going to sit down and watch the story of Joan of Arc movie tonight, keep a few things in mind to get the most out of it:
- Watch for the Cinematography: Thierry Arbogast did the camera work. The use of color is deliberate—vibrant blues for the French royalty, muddy browns for the peasants, and stark, cold greys for the English.
- Don't Expect a Sunday School Lesson: This is a psychological thriller disguised as a war movie. Pay attention to the scenes with Dustin Hoffman; they are the key to the whole film’s philosophy.
- Listen to the Score: Eric Serra’s music is haunting. It mixes orchestral swells with modern, almost electronic tension. It shouldn't work for a medieval piece, but it does.
- Read the Transcripts After: If the movie sparks an interest in the real Joan, look up the 1431 trial records. They are some of the most detailed documents we have from the Middle Ages. You’ll see just how different—and how similar—the movie version really is.
The story of Joan of Arc movie remains a fascinating relic of late-90s filmmaking. It’s over-the-top, it’s messy, and it’s deeply human. It refuses to let Joan be just a statue in a cathedral. Instead, it makes her a person—flawed, terrified, and ultimately, unforgettable.
To truly understand the impact of this film, compare it to the 1928 silent classic The Passion of Joan of Arc by Carl Theodor Dreyer. While Dreyer focuses on the face and the soul, Besson focuses on the blood and the doubt. Both are essential, but Besson’s version is the one that forces us to look at the grime beneath the fingernails of history.
Check the digital platforms like Amazon or specialized film archives to find the director's cut if possible. The pacing in the extended versions often allows the psychological "Conscience" scenes to breathe, making Joan's internal conflict feel much more earned than in the theatrical edit. Reading the historical accounts of the Battle of Patay beforehand will also help you appreciate the tactical chaos Besson tries to capture on screen.