Title: The Diary of a Chambermaid
Year: 1946
Country: USA
Language: English
Genre: Drama, Romance
Director: Jean Renoir
Screenplay: Burgess Meredith
based on the play of André Heuzé, André de Lorde and Thielly Norès
adapted from the novel by Octave Mirbeau
Music: Michel Michelet
Cinematography: Lucien N, Andriot
Cast:
Paulette Goddard
Francis Lederer
Hurd Harfield
Burgess Meredith
Judith Anderson
Reginald Owen
Irene Ryan
Florence Bates
Almira Sessions
Sumner Getchell
Rating: 7.5/10
English Title: Diary of a Chambermaid
Original Title: Le journal d’une femme de chambre
Year: 1964
Country: France, Italy
Language: French
Genre: Crime, Drama
Director: Luis Buñuel
Writers:
Luis Buñuel
Jean-Claude Carrière
based on the novel by Octave Mireau
Cinematography: Roger Fellous
Cast:
Jeanne Moreau
George Géret
Michel Piccoli
Françoise Lugagne
Jean Ozenne
Daniel Ivernel
Gilbert Géniat
Muni
Jean-Claude Carrière
Dominique Sauvage
Bernard Musson
Rating: 7.9/10
A double-bill of two films transmuting Octave Mirbeau's source novel LE JOURNAL D’UNE FEMME DE CHAMBREonto the celluloid, made bytwo cinematic titans:Jean Renoir and Luis Buñuel, 18 years apart.
Renoir’s version is made in 1946 during his Hollywood spell, starring Paulette Goddard as our heroine Celestine, a Parisian girl arrives in the rural Lanlaire mansion to work as the chambermaid in 1885, barely alighting from the train, Celestine has already been rebuffed by the haughty valet Joseph (an excellently surly Lederer), and confides to the also newly arrived scullery maid Louise (a mousy and dowdy Irene Ryan) that she will do whatever in her power to advancing her social position and firmly proclaims that love is absolutely off limits, and the film uses the literal diary-writing sequences as a recurrent motif to trace Celestine’s inner thoughts.
The objects of her tease are Captain Lanlaire (Owen), the patriarch who has relinquished his monetary sovereignty to his wife (Judith Anderson, emanating a tangy air of gentility and callousness); and Captain Mauger (a comical Burgess Meredith, who also pens the screenplay off his own bat), the Lanlaire's goofy neighbor who has a florae-wolfing proclivity and is perennially at loggerheads with the former on grounds of the discrepancy in their political slants, both are caricatured as lecherous old geezers with the death of a pet squirrel prefiguring the less jaunty denouement.
In Renoir’s book, the story has a central belle-époque sickly romantic sophistication to sabotage Celestine’s materialistic pursuit, here her love interest is George (Hurd Hatfield), the infirm son of the Lanlaire family, a defeatist borne out of upper-crust comfort and has no self-assurance to hazard a courtship to the one he hankers after. Only when Joseph, a proletariat like Celestine, turns murderous and betrays his rapacious nature, and foists a hapless Celestine into going away with him, is George spurred into action, but he is physically no match of Joseph, only with the succor from the plebeianmob on the Bastille Day, Celestine is whisked out of harm’s way, the entire process is shrouded by a jocose and melodramatic state of exigency and Renoir makes ascertain that its impact is wholesome and wonderfully eye-pleasing.
In paralleled with Buñuel’s interpretation of the story, Renoir has his innate affinity towards the aristocracy (however ludicrous and enfeebled are those peopled) and its paraphernalia, the story is less lurid and occasionally gets off on a comedic bent through Goddard’s vibrant performance juggling between a social-climber and a damsel-in-distress.
The same adjective“comedic”,“vibrant” certainly doesn’t pertain to Buñuel’s version, here the time-line has been relocated to the mid-1930s, Celestine (played by Jeanne Moreau with toothsome reticence and ambivalence) more often than not, keeps her own counsel, we don’t even once see her writing on the titular diary, she works for Mr. and Mrs Monteil (Piccoli and Lugagne), who are childless but live with Madame’s father Mr. Rabour (Ozenne, decorous in his condescending aloofness), an aristo secretly revels in boots fetish in spite of his dotage. Here the bourgeois combo is composed of a frigid and niggardly wife, a sexed-up and henpecked husband (Mr. Piccoli makes for a particularly farcical womanizer, armed with the same pick-up line), a seemingly genteel but kinky father, and Captain Mauger (Ivernel), here is less cartoonish but no less uppity, objectionable and erratic; whereas Joseph (Géret), is a rightist, anti-Semitic groom whose perversion is to a great extent much more obscene (rape, mutilation and pedophilia are not for those fainted hearts).
Amongst those anathemas, Celestine must put on her poker face, or sometimes even a bored face to be pliant (she even acquiesces to be called as Marie which Goddard thinks better of in Renoir’s movie), she is apparently stand-offish but covertly rebellious, and when a heinous crime occurs (a Red Riding Hood tale garnished with snails), she instinctively decides to seek justice and tries insinuating her way into a confession from the suspect through her corporeal submission, only the perpetrator is not a dolt either, unlike Renoir's Joseph, he knows what is at stakes and knows when to jettison his prey and start anew, that is a quite disturbing finale if one is not familiar with an ending where a murderer gets away with his grisly crime. But Buñuel cunningly precedes the ending with a close-up of a contemplating Celestine, after she finally earns her breakfast-in-bed privilege, it could suggest that what followed is derived from her fantasy, which can dodge the bullet if there must be.
Brandishing his implacable anti-bourgeoisie flag, Buñuel thoughtfully blunts his surrealistic abandon to give more room for dramaturgy and logical equilibrium, which commendably conjures up an astringentsatire laying into the depravity and inhumanity of the privileged but also doesn’t mince words in asserting that it doesn’t live and die with them, original sin is immanent, one just cannot be too watchful.
Last but definitely not the least, R.I.P. the one and only Ms. Moreau, who just passed away at the age of 89, and in this film she is a formidable heroine, brave, sultry and immune to all the mushy sentiments, whose fierce, inscrutable look is more than a reflection of her temperaments, but a riveting affidavit of a bygone era’s defining feature.
referential points: Renoir’s THE RIVER (1951, 7.1/10), FRENCH CANCAN (1955, 7.0/10), ELENA AND HER MEN (1956, 5.2/10) and THE RULES OF THE GAME (1939, 8.4/10); Buñuel’s SUSANA (1951, 6.9/10), EL (1953, 7.6/10), THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962, 7.9/10) and THE MILKY WAY (1969, 6.3/10).
布努埃尔放弃了荒诞的超现实主义现实,却让此片更加的晦涩。就是用现实主义的手法,在叙事上也不同于经典好莱坞叙事或者现代叙事,反倒很具有间离的感觉。女仆是个迷,她的正义以及为挤入这一阶层的不择手段。约瑟夫的释放、片尾的乌云是欧洲灾难的开始。布努埃尔的调度手法太过精妙!
女主人以冷漠无常的外在行动将丈夫的旺盛性欲隔绝于外,后者又因前者虚伪的禁欲而将自身内心的火热之情寄托于充满野蛮暴力特性的狩猎活动中,老父亲则以平和的态势掩盖自身下流的怪癖;上层是矛盾重重的,下层要么如管家那般粗俗邪恶要么如其她女仆保守羸弱。如此,俨然一副微型社会图景,邻居的冲突则体现这种“社会”在资产阶级的普遍存在。女主角以闯入者的身份打破各个孤立个体之间脆弱的平衡,各类人物因其丑态毕露。到最后女主成功跻身上流,而民族主义大张旗鼓挥舞旗帜大步走来,电闪雷鸣般的灾难即将降临欧洲。
#重看#女仆亦算一个「闯入者」,激起周遭阵阵涟漪,照见各阶层男性的各色嘴脸,基于现实的巨大荒谬不仅不显得荒唐,反而在辛辣嘲谑的外衣下,呈现出社会背景的真实与阶级差异的趣味;刻意的暧昧留白意味深长,野猪与兔子的隐喻不寒而栗;让·莫罗最适合此类复杂角色,嘴角一抹神秘嘲弄的微笑。
我看过最不布努艾尔的一片布努艾尔.照理说米尔博的最大名作遇上老布再遇上莫罗是挺天作之合的...但是电影传达出的文本力量并不如何强大,老布也在恭敬/谨慎中完全丧失了自己的优势----如果仅仅是搞女人小心思的东西,那他比夏布洛差远了.只有莫罗是超级美丽的...
看得出,没几个人看过这部片子.晦涩难以捉摸的人物,让我在案情刚开始产生的时候回家了.我想一定是有一个时代的大背景.因为最近我正在看<莎拉的钥匙>,有关在法国屠杀犹太人的故事.而片中无处不在的反犹言论,还有那些明暗不定的人物情绪.但刚看完女主角演的另一部戏,再看此部,颇有些滑稽.
很难评分,作为电影算是成熟、滴水不漏,但是非常现实主义,除了中间一段女孩腿上的蜗牛以及狼在森林里追逐兔子,其他都不太“布努埃尔”。批判意味相当明显,几乎每一个出场的人都有罪,而唯一无辜的女孩已死。无处不在的排犹、法国革命风暴。莫罗的女仆是一个高雅、甘堕凡尘的正义女神。
8。一群虚伪的人构成的一部片,连老女仆,被主人勾引了,都泪流满面。。
布努埃尔第一部也是唯一一部变形宽银幕格式电影。用女仆的视角批判资产阶级社会,同时将时代背景从原著的19世纪移到20世纪20年代后期,凸显一战和二战之间在法国的反犹反布尔什维思潮。情节安排上把前后两任雇主合并为一家,从而创造出两起死亡发生在一天的巧合:偏执恋物癖暴毙的色老头,遭受恋童癖戕害的小女孩。结尾更改了小说里女仆选择的结婚对象,没有和极端右翼的猎户约瑟夫“继续犯罪”,而是嫁给隔壁的退伍军官富人。新到的女仆被庄园里所有男人爱上,如同《苏珊娜》的再度演绎。决定离开的时刻被死亡事件触动,再次回到家中,和《维莉蒂安娜》转折安排一致。右翼分子最后喊得那句Vive Chiappe“恰普万岁”,让·恰普(Jean Chiappe)于1930年作为巴黎警察局长,禁止放映布努埃尔的电影《黄金时代》。
阶级属性明显,故事走向成谜。所有男性角色都恶臭得千姿百态,女主深思熟虑的利用男性达成目的,但又带着尚未泯灭的正义感。结局挺有意思的——若得山花插满头,莫问奴归处?
23/9/2007 6:30pm Space Museum
我表示,对于布努埃尔,无论是超现实主义的他还是现实主义的他,我都不能理解。
女仆的性格转变是个谜,不过可以理解为她是个见风使舵的人,由于管家杀了人而上尉又对她有好感,选择上尉倒是明智之举;跟管家上床也只是逢场作戏罢了,真正的目的是获得女主人一样的地位。树林奸杀穿插的野猪追逐野兔;房间戏中多处场面调度;女仆面对男主人骚扰也能欲拒还迎般羞涩一笑,全片亮点
应该是布努埃尔最通俗的片子了吧,还是没大明白,得细琢磨。【电影学院】
一面是资产阶级的腐朽与变态,另一面是无产阶级结合民族主义者的蛮荒与暴力,冷眼旁观的女仆被仆人指责「你和我的灵魂是一样的」,最后命案、情感、各自阶级的矛盾都汇入「法兰西万岁」的滚滚人流中。
7.5/10。①1930s:巴黎女主来法国乡村做家庭女仆期间通过牺牲(部分)色相周旋于四个变态男人间获取利益,以及她有好感的犹太小女孩死后她通过牺牲(部分)色相成功抓获凶手(然而却因证据不足而被释放)。②各种教科书般的场面调度/运镜的丝滑优美感很契合角色们精致的气质(女主是高贵而风情的气质,其他人是资产阶级气质)。③女主的心理曲线太模糊甚至连大致脉络都难以猜到;故事支线太多(想通过刻画各种资产阶级人物来探讨资产阶级与反犹主义/法西斯崛起的联系)却展开地不深入透彻,导致影片表达的点较浅较散。
1.体会不到布努埃尔的魅力;2.女主角转变的太快,难解。
每个细节都能掐出水分,处处丰盈;但Celestine的心理转变刻画有所欠缺——重结构,轻表演,这是也是布努艾尔作品的一贯缺点了。
一部走势奇怪的布鲁艾尔电影。刚开始洋馆的奇怪氛围,让人感觉似乎是部90年代日本H卡通的黑白版;杀人案出现之后,又变成悬疑侦探片;女主角的态度莫名暧昧;结局也似乎像个《沙漠中的西蒙》似的半成品。隐线加入的历史政治背景和明线的资产阶级讽刺,使得这部片的情绪表达和剧情呈现别扭的对立和统一
难以解读的文本。由初始的隔空打穴到结尾的电闪雷鸣,对阶级的讽刺不痛不痒。女主角的动机也较为含混。文本中有少些难以捕捉的超现实影子,但不具有代表性。
布努艾尔的调度真强...