372 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 55, Number 4 • Winter 2016 • December

Theology in Film and Fiction

Joan as Jesus: A Feminist

Theological Analysis of Dreyer’s
The Passion of Joan of Arc 1
By Arnfrı́ður Guðmundsd óttir
Abstract: The aim of this article is to explore Carl Theodor Dreyer’s portrayal of Joan of Arc in his
film The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) as a female Christ-figure. At the same time I argue that the film
can serve as an important dialogue partner in ongoing christological discourse. The conclusion is that
Dreyer’s Joan provides a vivid image of Jesus Christ that challenges our fixation on Jesus’ maleness, and
helps us to understand better what we really mean when we claim that God, dressed in flesh, became
human, like us, female or male.

Key Terms: Joan of Arc, Christ-figure, feminist theology, theology of the cross, passion story, Christology

Joan of Arc destiny is set. The soldiers mock her and put a
crown on her head before she is sent to be burned.
Nailed to the stake, directly above her head, is
a sign bearing the words “idolater, heretic, and
The Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer presents
apostate.”
a powerful image of the medieval martyr Joan of
In his account of Joan’s trial and execution,
Arc in his 1928 classic silent film, The Passion of Joan
Dreyer draws a clear analogy between the passion
of Arc.2 Dreyer’s film is about Joan’s trial and execu-
of Joan of Arc and that of Jesus Christ, providing
tion exclusively, with no reference to her life prior
numerous reasons why Dreyer’s Joan should be con-
to that. The focal question of the trial is whether
sidered a Christ-figure. I suggest that Dreyer’s Joan
Joan’s revelations are true: is she really the daughter
offers a unique example of Christ, God incarnate:
of God she claims to be? Despite her young age,
the ultimate “gender-bender” who challenges our
Joan clearly poses a threat to spiritual and worldly
stereotypical ideas of what it means to be human
authorities, particularly when she doubts that the
and divine, female and male. My aim in this article
church has a monopoly on salvation. When she re-
is to explore Dreyer’s portrayal of Joan of Arc as
fuses to recant and stop dressing as a man (which
a female Christ-figure, while the underlying con-
she claims to do in obedience to God’s will), her
tention is to show how images of Jesus Christ in

Arnfrı́ður Guðmundsdóttir is Professor of Systematic Theology on the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Iceland.
She is author of Meeting God on the Cross: Christ, the Cross, and the Feminist Critique (Oxford University Press, 2010).


C 2016 Wiley Periodicals and Dialog, Inc.
 Joan as Jesus • Arnfrı́ður Guðmundsdóttir
film, here as a female Christ-figure, can “provide
helpful insights and observations for our ongoing
christological discourse.”3 Let me emphasize before
I go any further that Dreyer does not portray Joan
of Arc as a soldier or a political figure, nor does he
interpret her destiny as a political act. Instead, he
focuses on her as a young woman, showing how she
challenges a whole crowd of spiritual and worldly
powers of her time. This is key to my interpretation
of Dreyer’s Joan of Arc as a Christ-figure.
Christology in Film
It is my contention that images of Jesus in film not
only help us understand what people are think-
ing about Jesus but also provide helpful insights
and observations for our ongoing christological dis-
course. In this article, the focus is on biopic in-
terpretations of Jesus Christ in order to evaluate
their contributions to contemporary christological
debate. My aim is to show how theology can,
through the medium of film, engage contemporary
interpretations of Jesus’ person and work.
Dreyer’s Masterpiece
Carl Theodor Dreyer (1889-1968) already was a
renowned director when he was asked by French
producers to make a movie about Joan of Arc, who
recently had been recognized as a saint by the Ro-
man Catholic Church.4 To have a foreign director
(and a non-Catholic) portray the life of the newly
proclaimed saint created a serious controversy, both
before and after the film’s premiere. How could a
Danish Lutheran understand the character of Joan
of Arc? The French nationalists’ campaign against
the film resulted in a six-month delay of the offi-
cial French premiere. Church officials joined French
Nationalists in their protest, and, unable to stop the
production of the film, the Archbishop of Paris de-
manded that several scenes be cut entirely. Despite
these protests, the film premiered in Copenhagen
on April 21, 1928, and in Paris on October 25
373
of the same year. After its release, English censors
objected to what they saw as unacceptably negative
portrayals of the English forces. Less than a year
after its premiere, the original negative of the film
was destroyed. For decades, very few good copies of
the the film were available, until an original Danish
copy, complete and in good condition, was found
in the closet of a mental institution just outside
Oslo in 1981. From this copy the film has now
been restored to its original version, and has been
available in DVD form since 1999.5
Instead of using the script he was provided,
Dreyer ended up writing the screenplay himself.
He wanted to give the impression that his film was
based on the “real story,” hence the strong em-
phasis on the “original” transcripts of the trial in
the beginning of the film. With few exceptions,
the dialogue is based on the transcripts of Joan’s
trial. While there actually were twenty-two cross-
examinations combined with acts of torture, all of
which took place over several months, Dreyer com-
bined them into one long inquisition lasting for a
day and a half. The continuous appearance of the
transcript throughout the film is Dreyer’s way of
reiterating the real story-quality of his film. Much
later Dreyer himself would go so far as to catego-
rize the film as a documentary. Dreyer intended his
film for a wide popular audience, with a message
“for any open human mind.” It even has been sug-
gested that the presence of a crowd at the end of
the film represents the wider audience Dreyer envi-
sioned and hoped for. This is why Dreyer strongly
objected to the labelling of the film as avant-
garde; nevertheless, this was to become the film’s
destiny.6
The Human Face
There are several stylistic features distinctive to The
Passion of Joan of Arc, the most striking being the
continuous use of close-ups. Dreyer, who described
the human face as “a window on the content of
the soul,” was convinced the close-ups were crucial
for an authentic portrayal of the characters. His
intention also was to affect the audience, so that
they would feel in their own skin the sufferings
374 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 55, Number 4 • Winter 2016 • December
that Joan endured. For the sake of authenticity the
actors were not allowed to use make-up.7 This was
without precedent at the time, but was made pos-
sible by the recent introduction of panchromatic
film.8 Dreyer also experimented with light, shadow,
and camera angles. The shots of the cross-shaped
shadows of the window bars, which are then trans-
formed into a crucifix as the camera angle changes,
are one important example. Other stylistic features
worth mentioning are frequent camera movements
(the swinging camera makes buildings appear to be
moving), as well as unusual perspective shots (such
as the upside down and backward shot of English
soldiers toward the end of the film).
The film turned out to be extremely expensive,
due to the construction of one of the most elabo-
rate sets ever made at the time. The set consisted
of a complete miniature town. The set is never seen
in its entirety in the film, which infuriated the pro-
ducers, but it served Dreyer’s purpose of providing
his actors with a tangible sense of milieu.9 Dreyer
famously imposed serious demands on his actors.
He insisted on shooting the film in sequence, re-
quiring all the actors to stay on set for the entire six
months of filming. Because Dreyer wanted his ac-
tors to “live” their roles, they had to keep their hair
cut so that it never appeared to change.10 Dreyer
also refused to play music on the set, which was
customory in the time of silent movie-making, as
an inspiration for the players. To Dreyer, that was
artificial, and interfered with the actors’ genuine
involvement. By the same token, it was Dreyer’s
decision that the original version of the film was
shown without musical scores.11
The key to Dreyer’s success with The Passion of
Joan of Arc was its star, Renée Falconetti, who was
a well-known theater actress in Paris at the time.12
Falconetti’s performance has been called by many
one of cinema’s greatest. Dreyer himself expressed
his satisfaction with her performance in the fol-
lowing way: “ . . . in Falconetti . . . I found what
I might, with very bold expression, allow myself
to call ‘the martyr’s reincarnation.’”13 Falconetti
was probably the person who suffered the most for
Dreyer’s demanding style of directing. For example,
she begged Dreyer in vain not to shave her head
toward the end of the movie. He did, however,
agree to use a substitute in the blood-letting
scene!14
A Female Christ-figure
Before I turn to my analysis of Joan of Arc as
a represention of Christ, it is important to probe
the idea of a Christ-figure. To begin with, let me
note that there is no common agreement among
scholars about what constitutes a Christ-figure in
film. Most would agree that in order to qualify as
a Christ-figure, there must be no explicit reference
to Christ in the film. The actions and character
of the figure must yield a deeper meaning that al-
ludes to the person and work of Christ. In other
words, there are two levels of interpretation in
the film: the literal and the analogical or fig-
urative, which refers to the gospel of Jesus
Christ.15
While I find this satisfactory, I would like to add
two basic criteria for interpretation that need to be
developed further in the case of individual films.
First, I do not think a character has to be exactly
like Christ in all details to be called a Christ-figure.
At the same time, it is not enough that such re-
semblances are hinted at only slightly. Second, I
find it important that a Christ-figure have a cred-
ible allusion to the person of Christ and Christ’s
message. This means that the reference must be
fitting to the life and work of Christ as depicted
in the Gospel narratives, and not contrary to his
message. Furthermore, I argue that many different
genres of film can contain Christ-figures. It proba-
bly goes without saying that Christ-figures also can
differ in terms of age, sex, race, and class.16
One of the main questions within feminist chris-
tological discourse concerns Jesus’ maleness, not as
a historical fact, but rather in its soteriological rele-
vance. Hence, feminist theologians have questioned
the implications of God becoming incarnate as a
man and not as a woman, and how Jesus’ maleness
has been and still is being interpreted theologically.
Conclusions vary. Mary Daly’s legendary statement,
“If God is male, then the male is God,” draws a
logical connection between the maleness exclusively
 Joan as Jesus • Arnfrı́ður Guðmundsdóttir
assigned to God (because Jesus was male) and the
divinization of maleness in general.17
Those who have decided to stay within the
Christian tradition rather than follow Daly’s post-
Christian path have had to come to terms with the
patriarchal bias of the Christian tradition, and in
particular with the theological significance that is
ascribed to Jesus’ historical maleness. Clearly Jesus’
maleness has been privileged among the historical
particulars of the story of Jesus Christ. The most
obvious example is how women have been and still
are denied the full ability to represent Christ in
ordination, because they do not share the same sex
as Christ.18
The distinctive factor about female Christ-figures
in film is their potential to deepen our under-
standing of the radical message of God’s incarna-
tion in Christ. Female Christ-figures argue in a
powerfully visual form that it is Jesus’ humanity
and not his historical maleness that is central to
the christological discourse. They reveal how God,
“dressed” in flesh,19 identifies fully with all hu-
man beings in our diverse experiences of suffer-
ing and death. They therefore put a spotlight on
women’s specific experiences of suffering, and help
contemporary audiences to understand Jesus’ soli-
darity with suffering and oppressed women. With
this in mind, let us take a closer look at the sim-
ilarities between The Passion of Joan of Arc and the
New Testament accounts of the passion of Jesus
Christ.
Joan as a Christ-figure
In the beginning of his film Dreyer refers to the
record of Joan’s trial as “one of the most extraor-
dinary documents in the history of the world.” In
them, Dreyer argues, we encounter: “ . . . the real
Joan, not in armor, but simple and human, a young
woman who died for her country and we are wit-
ness to an amazing drama: a young pious woman
confronted by a group of orthodox theologians and
powerful judges.”20
The focus of the movie is not the historical
background of the trial, but the confrontation be-
375
tween Joan and the worldly and spiritual authori-
ties. As already noted, Dreyer compresses the two-
month span of twenty-two interrogations into one
trial that takes place all in one day, using what he
considered to be “only the most difficult segments,”
and removing everything he thought insignificant.21
In the opening scene, Dreyer presents a power-
ful picture of the trial, in which an illiterate 19-
year-old peasant woman is challenged by a large
group of learned theologians and church authori-
ties, surrounded by armed soldiers. Joan does not
seem to have much of a chance. But from early
on it is obvious that Joan is not going to be an
easy target. This is why her judges have to re-
consider their strategies and gradually step up the
pressure as the trial goes on. They resort to tricky
questions, a phony letter, and finally the torture
chamber.
The similarities between Joan’s trial and Christ’s
interactions with the worldly and spiritual authori-
ties of his time are striking. Joan’s way of silencing
her opponents through clever responses certainly
resembles Jesus’ conversations with his challengers.
An example is her response to the question: “Are
you in a state of grace?” Joan avoids a direct answer,
responding, “If I am, may God keep me there. If
I am not, may God grant it to me!” Dreyer makes
the similarity between Joan’s and Jesus’ relationships
to God quite evident, when she is asked “Just as Je-
sus is the son of God you claim to be the daughter
of God?” Joan responds positively, with a nod. A
little later the bishop shouts, “You are no daughter
of God, you are Satan’s creature!” and orders her
to the torture chamber.
Joan’s claim for truth and her strong emphasis
on a particular mission from God certainly point
back to the Gospels. One of the main accusations
against Joan is her assurance of her own salvation,
as she challenges the church’s monopoly on sal-
vation. Later in the film a priest says to Joan,
“The church opens its arms to you, but if you
reject it, the church will abandon you and you
will be alone—alone!” Joan responds, “Yes alone—
alone with God!” The mocking of the soldiers, the
slapping of the face, and the crown have strong re-
semblence to the passion narratives of the Gospels.
Even the burning itself has a number of similarities:
376 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 55, Number 4 • Winter 2016 • December
the women crying over Joan’s fate; the drink she is
given on her way to the stake; the words written
over her head at the stake; and finally the outcry,
“You have burned a saint!” echoing the words of
the centurion, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”
(Mk 15:39).
Joan’ s Cross-Dressing
Joan’s dressing as a man plays a significant role in
the movie. Her adversaries try to get her to dress as
a woman, but Joan refuses, claiming it is God’s will
that she dress as a man. But what is the possible
relevance of Joan’s cross-dressing to her role as a
Christ-figure? First of all, it is not clear why Joan
chose male attire. It often has been argued that it
was her way of protecting herself from rape. While
there are some sources testifying to Joan suffering
attempted rapes and other abuse, it is not clear
whether a rape ever took place. It is interesting
that Dreyer does not mention the danger of sexual
harrassment, nor do the soldiers pose a sexual threat
to Joan in the film.
Still, Dreyer does not try to explain why Joan
chose to wear men’s clothing, beyond linking the
act to her mission. When Joan is asked why she
dresses as she does, she responds simply, “When
the mission that God has entrusted to me is over,
I will again dress as a woman.” Because she is
following God’s command, Joan believes that God
will, in due time, grant her the salvation of her
soul. Whatever the main reason for Joan’s dress-
habits, it is clear that her dressing as a man
played a significant role in her trial. Therefore, it
is all the more interesting that after being can-
onized as a saint, “her male garb became a sym-
bol of divine vocation.”22 In that sense her cross-
dressing has been acknowledged as a symbol of her
Christ-like life.
The idea of Joan as a female Christ-figure, a
woman dressed as a man, brings to light the idea
of Christ as a cross-dresser, which has been sug-
gested to emphasize the fact that the man Jesus, as
we know him from the Gospel stories, is very dif-
ferent from the stereotypical male nourished by pa-
triarchy. This, then, raises the question of whether
the notion of Jesus as a transvestite, or a gender-
bender, could help loosen the stranglehold that Je-
sus’ masculinity has had on our understanding of
Christ. Here I am following Eleanor McLaughlin,
who has suggested the idea of Jesus as a transvestite
or cross-dresser in order to open new dimensions
of discussion about the person and work of Jesus
Christ, especially with regard to the significance of
his historical sex.
In introducing the concept of a transvestite,
McLaughlin neither suggests that Jesus is feminine,
nor that he was an androgynous man. Rather, she
hopes to indicate that the man Jesus, as we know
him from the Gospel stories, is very different from
the stereotypical understanding of a male reared
on patriarchy.23 In other words, McLaughlin’s no-
tion of Jesus as a transvestite, a gender-bender, is
meant to challenge the very masculine understand-
ing of Jesus Christ within the Christian tradition.
The practical implications of her argument relate
specifically to the theological significance attributed
to Jesus’ maleness, an issue that has played a cen-
tral role in discussions about women’s ordination.
McLaughlin insists that while Jesus was a man,
he was not a traditional man, and therefore, it is
important that we break up the gender categories
within our christological discourse. McLaughlin
writes:
Jesus is the Trickster who peels us open
to new depths of humanity, divinity, fe-
maleness, and maleness. There might be no
telling what boundaries and categories could
be dis-mantled as male gender hegemony is
disrobed. That is what the Gospel is about,
the piercing of categories in the womb/by
the dart of Love. A merely male Jesus has
been and continues to be a violation of
the scandal and transgression which is the
Gospel.24
McLaughlin hopes that Jesus’ role as a Trickster
will help us identify new dimensions of our fixed
understandings of what it means to be human, di-
vine, female, and male. Adhering to a merely male
Jesus limits, in McLaughlin’s view, the richness of
the good news, and is not faithful to the gospel
message.
 Joan as Jesus • Arnfrı́ður Guðmundsdóttir 377

A Powerful Victim the literal meaning, Dreyer’s film has a strong

reference to the story of the passion of Jesus
Christ, and that this most likely was the director’s
Given what I already have said, it is obvious that
intention. The film serves as an important dialogue
Dreyer’s Joan of Arc has many characteristics I con-
partner in ongoing christological discourse. As a
sider important in a Christ-figure, particularly a
female Christ-figure, Dreyer’s Joan of Arc provides
female one. I would like to mention one more,
a vivid image of Jesus Christ that challenges
namely her agency. What is key here is that Joan
our fixation on Jesus’ maleness, and helps us to
is able to follow her convictions, regardless of the
understand better what we really mean when we
consequences. She certainly is a victim of the un-
claim that God, dressed in flesh, became human,
just power systems she faces, but nevertheless she
like us, female or male.
remains a powerful victim.
Dreyer’s presentation of Joan’s passion-story also
Joan’s agency makes her different from the char-
raises challenging questions about our understand-
acter of Bess in Lars von Trier’s film, Breaking the
ings of power, as well as important christological
Waves. In von Trier’s film, Bess remains absolutely
issues like agency and resistance. As we watch the
powerless against the forces of evil. I introduce Bess
unequal contention between Joan and her worldly
in this context for more than one reason. First,
and churchly adversaries, all the important ques-
von Trier is another Danish film director, and was
tions regarding power, so prevalent within femi-
strongly influenced by Dreyer’s work in general and
nist literature, come vividly to mind: what kind of
The Passion of Joan of Arc in particular. Second, Bess
power is depicted here, and who has the real power?
is one of the characters most often referred to as
I suggest that Dreyer’s film can be seen as a classic
an example of a female Christ-figure in film. Last
example of power as control versus the power of the
but not least, I have serious questions about the
cross (or life-giving power).26 This is why I think
categorization of Bess as a Christ-figure, largely be-
Joan as Christ-figure is relevant when it comes to
cause of this issue of agency. In my opinion, von
the feminist critique of abusive interpretations of
Trier’s Breaking the Waves exemplifies what has been
the cross. A feminist retrieval of a theology of the
labelled justly an abuse of the cross, that is, when
cross points out how the cross itself launches the
the cross of Christ has been used to justify the
harshest criticism of any abuse of power, as violent
suffering of the powerless, so many of whom are
control, based on the reversal effect of the cross,
women. It is my conclusion that Bess is “utterly a
where the life-giving power, revealed in the cross,
victim of the powerful, of those who take control
is hidden under the opposite.27
of her life. She is a powerless woman in a society
An important prerequisite to any attempt to
controlled by men, and even more in which man’s
present a feminist version of a theology of the cross
salvation is secured by the perfect sacrifice of the
is the critique of the danger of abusive interpreta-
woman.”25
tions of the passion and the cross of Christ, where
a glorification of suffering usually plays a significant
role. In my comparison of Dreyer’s Joan and von
The Triumph of the Soul Trier’s Bess I emphasize the importance of agency,
which I consider key to Joan’s role as a female
Christ-figure. Despite the fact that Joan is a victim
Without a doubt, Dreyer’s film, The Passion of Joan of the powerful, her choice gives her a particular
of Arc, has a compelling message independent of power (even if a limited one), which is why she is
its reference to Christ. Dreyer himself described an agent, despite her victimization. Her suffering
the film as “a hymn to the triumph of the soul is voluntary, an outcome of her active resistence to
over life.” The film certainly is a celebration of the the injustice she faces. Thus her suffering does not
courage to follow one’s convictions, regardless of present a goal in itself, and therefore does not fall
the consequences. Moreover, I argue that beneath prey to the danger of the glorification of suffering.
378 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 55, Number 4 • Winter 2016 • December
In like manner, I argue that Jesus was in no way
a passive victim. According to the Gospel stories he
also challenged authorities, objected to expected so-
cial roles, and fought against injustice in his society.
Hence, his cross was the result of the kind of life
he lived, a life he chose and was ready to pay for
with his death. His cross too often has been pre-
sented within the Christian tradition as a symbol of
passive victimization, which cannot continue if the
cross of Christ is to become a meaningful symbol,
particularly for women who have suffered in abu-
sive situations. On the contrary, it has to become
a sign of hope that encourages women to stand
up and resist, even if resistance might cause them
suffering.
Thus, if Bonhoeffer was right, if “only a suf-
fering God can help,” it has to be kept in mind
that this suffering God is not a powerless God
who is suffering helplessly because she cannot do
otherwise. Only a suffering God who out of love
chooses to suffer with suffering people brings hope
for those who suffer. “To keep in mind this double
edge, the passive (in the form of solidarity) and
the active (in the form of empowerment) role of
the cross is a key to any meaningful reclaiming,
recovering, and reappropriation of the cross.”28
Endnotes
1. I would like to extend my gratitude to Anna Carter Florence,
Ph.D., Peter Marshall Professor of Preaching at Columbia Theological
Seminary in Decatur, Georgia, for her helpful editorial comments and
critique.
2. The original title in French is La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc. Dreyer’s
original Danish title is Jeanne d’Arcs Lidelse og Dod (The Suffering and
Death of Joan of Arc).
3. Arnfrı́ður Guðmundsdóttir, “Christ in the Limelight: Contempo-
rary Films and Christological Discourse,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 53,
no. 1 (Spring 2014): 42.
4. Joan was beatified in 1909 and canonized in 1920.
5. See The Criterion Collection online at https://www.criterion.
com/films/228-the-passion-of-joan-of-arc (accessed September 9, 2016).
6. See Casper Tyberg, “Audio Essay,” online at https://www.
criterion.com/films/228-the-passion-of-joan-of-arc (accessed September 9,
2016).
7. Roger Ebert, “The Passion of the Joan of Arc (1928),” online
at http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-passion-of-joan-of-
arc-1928 (accessed September 9, 2016).
8. Dreyer even included no credits to begin with, in order to
increase the viewer’s belief in the story. Given Dreyer’s obsession
with authenticity, one only can wonder what was his intention in
including a scene with an actor wearing twentieth-century eye-
glasses. See Gary Morris, “Denounced, Cut, and Burned—
but Triumphant: The Passion on Joan of Arc on DVD,” on-
line at http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue08/reviews/joanofarc/ (accessed
September 9, 2016).
9. Dreyer’s model is exhibited at the Danish Film Museum
in Copenhagen, Denmark. See Morris, “Denounced, Cut, and
Burned.”
10. Casper Tyberg, “Audio Essay.”
11. As was customary when silent movies were shown, The Passion
of Joan of Arc was presented with live musical accompaniment. There is
no indication that Dreyer ever selected a definitive score for his film.
Richard Einhorn’s Voices of Light, an original opera/oratorio inspired by
the film, is available as musical score on the Criterion edition from
1999.
12. When he first saw Renée Falconetti, Dreyer said he saw, “behind
a thick make-up, a woman of suffering. Falconetti was at that time the
number one actress in Paris.” Interview with Helene Falconetti, the daugh-
ter of Renée Falconetti, online at https://www.criterion.com/films/228-the-
passion-of-joan-of-arc) (accessed September 9, 2016).
13. A quote from the cover of the Criterion edition, on-
line at https://www.criterion.com/films/228-the-passion-of-joan-of-arc (ac-
cessed September 9, 2016).
14. Casper Tyberg, “Audio Essay.”
15. Lloyd Baugh, Imaging the Divine: Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film
(Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1997), 109. W. Barnes Tatum makes a
distinction between “explicit” and “implicit” films about Christ-figures,
depending on how the director uses the story of Jesus Christ in her or
his film. See Tatum, Jesus at the Movies: A Guide to the First Hundred Years
(California: Polebridge Press, 1997), 209-213.
16. Arnfrı́ður Guðmundsdóttir, “Female Christ-figures in Films: A
Feminist Critical Analysis of Breaking the Waves and Dead Man Walk-
ing,” Studia Theologica: Scandinavian Journal of Theology 56, no. 1 (2002):
29.
17. Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of
Women’s Liberation. New paperback edition. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985),
19.
18. Arnfrı́ður Guðmundsdóttir, “Female Christ-figures in Films,” 29.
19. Eleanor McLaughlin, “Feminist Christologies: Re-Dressing the
Tradition,” in Reconstructing the Christ Symbol: Essays in Feminist Christology,
ed. Maryanne Stevens (New York: Paulist Press, 1993), 144.
20. A quotation from the movie.
21. Casper Tyberg, “Audio Essay.”
22. McLaughlin, “Feminist Christologies,” 138.
23. Ibid., 141-142.
24. Ibid., 142.
25. Arnfrı́ður Guðmundsdóttir, “Female Christ-figures in Films,” 35.
26. These are concepts borrowed from Sally Purvis’s book The
Power of the Cross: Foundations for a Christian Feminist Ethic of Community
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1993).
27. Arnfrı́ður Guðmundsdóttir, Meeting God on the Cross: Christ, the
Cross, and the Feminist Critique (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010),
139-149.
28. Ibid., 155.