Sorry to have been away when this thread exploded with activity. Some catch-up thoughts...
Once inside, the visual allusions to Dreyer and particularly Cocteau really connected with me and made the convent real in the sense that it helped me believe in what was happening.
I expected to be reminded of Dreyer and Bergman, but the one film I kept thinking of while watching (especially early on) was Jean Epstein's version of
The Fall of the House of Usher. There might be nothing to this reference — I honestly don't remember Epstein's film much at all — but many, many elements in
Mother Joan triggered that connection in the back of my mind somewhere. Has anyone seen
The Fall of the House of Usher recently? Is there anything to my free association?
It's also interesting that you called it a realist film and to an extent I agree. The film is more firmly assured in the reality of the world it creates and stays as far away from non-camera/non-lighting effects as it can.
I want to say it's realism by way of impressionism, but I'm not sure if that's true, if it even means anything, or if it just sounds sort of cool.
This is masterful in what I think is the second best scene in the film (and what has gone unmentioned thus far): the confrontation between Joseph and the Rabbi, with Mieczyslaw Voit playing both characters. Audacious and darkly funny (dark humor being a Polish specialty) considering the conclusion of the scene.
I've been meaning to post about that scene because, on one viewing, it's the one scene in the movie that didn't quite work for me. Partly I was just distracted in trying to determine whether it was the same actor in both roles. The technical difficulty in filming one actor in both roles really enhanced the disjointed nature of the scene — but I felt like it went too far in that, having so little rhythm that it just felt sloppy. Also, the shift in aesthetics in the scene didn't sit well with me either; it felt very stagy in a nonrealistic way, something reflected in the dialogue that, in the context of the rest of the film, seemed overwritten.
All that said, in watching the scene, I felt like it'd all work perfectly for me on a second viewing ... maybe just because the filmmakers had earned my trust by that point.
I'm frankly surprised you didn't have the same love for the ending that I did.
If you think the film is atheist, then Joseph's actions are either very funny or very, very sick and disturbing, but I don't think they can be seen as heroic.
Hmm ... trying to remember how I read the ending. I think I read it as tragic more than anything else ... perpetuating a cycle of good and evil that these isolated characters seem powerless to break. Or maybe I just made that up. Also, I didn't notice any signifiers that film was atheistic. I want to say that the film concerned itself with the limitations of religion but not the limitations of faith (if that's a distinction you accept) ... but, again, I could just be making that up.
To clarify — since this has been the most wishy-washy post ever — I really liked this movie and can't wait to watch it again.
pixote