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 Bu?uel
Writers:
Luis Bu?uel
Jean-Claude Carrière
based on the novel by Octave Mireau
Cinematography: Roger Fellous
Cast:
Jeanne Moreau
George Géret
Michel Piccoli
Fran?oise 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 Bu?uel, 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 Bu?uel’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 Bu?uel’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 Bu?uel 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, Bu?uel 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); Bu?uel’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).
比較粗糙的人性觀察
實在是乏善可陳
原來我看的是這一版而不是1964那版的……烏龍了
對不起吵得我有點頭痛 跟后來布紐爾版本相比 這也太通俗了
oh,la foule!
一般
上流社會的壓抑和底層小人物的勢利故事,雷諾阿的拿手。但是說起來,故事沒什么可吸引人的,過于乏味。兩星半。
雷諾阿的女仆日記是徹底的荒誕,如一臺飛速的舞臺劇,直白粗暴,即使最后像看似好萊塢式無聊美滿的愛情戲,也充滿著滑稽荒唐,控制狂母親、共和萬歲與貴族之死、正義裹挾在自私欲望里…美麗的寶蓮,野性欲望的美與角色十分契合,Hurd病弱高貴冷傲的喬治少爺太迷人了!
敘述太過順滑并沒有什么以往的宿命感,人物的曖昧性也不太夠。不得不佩服雷諾阿太會拍鄉(xiāng)下了,特別是故事后程被巧妙地拆解安插在村子里慶祝大革命的夜晚,并在村民的大游行中推向了高潮。
不敢相信是讓·雷諾阿拍攝的電影,因為其中幾乎沒有具有識別度的標志性元素。在美學構(gòu)成上是極為寫實的,甚至是過于寫實的。許多鏡頭和場景顯得格外粗糙,但畢竟呈現(xiàn)了現(xiàn)實生活的本來面目,雖然會令觀者感到些許不適與無奈。
節(jié)奏比較快。
侯麥有點尬吹了,高黛真好。情感是到位的,但故事真的一般
#HKcinefan IS# 一種偏童話版的改編。聽喬奕思映后分享才了解到原著中有反映出shidai的BG,和波蘭斯基的《我控訴》描述的是同一個時代。這一版比較幽默和happy ending,人物正邪比較鮮明。
臺詞密集,劇情一路狂飆,首尾呼應(yīng)的寫日記片段,介于童話與現(xiàn)實之間,另類的嫁得金龜婿的心想事成!劇中的每個重要角色,都沒有逃脫導(dǎo)演的諷刺,窮得一分錢都沒有的貴族,瘋了的喜歡砸領(lǐng)居家玻璃人老心不老的船長,還留戀貴族一切的為留住兒子不惜讓討厭的女仆色誘兒子最后為了不同意甚至可以犧牲女主人,野心勃勃鯊人越貨為達目的不折手段心狠手辣的男仆,本想著勾引有錢人被威脅最后收獲愛情的女仆!誰能想到一個女仆日記,居然還談了貴族留戀往昔等社會話題,導(dǎo)演很牛啊!
Compassionate portraiture constrained within a cruel frame, i.e., Renoir in Hollywood
B-
3.5/5.0 寫作需要用到的例片。感覺沒有侯麥講得那么好,不過男仆殺雞的那一幕足夠代表早期作者對于情境劃歸的典范嘗試。
荒誕幽默,感覺雷諾阿這是徹底對無產(chǎn)階級革命感到幻滅了。不過這個劇情還是很瑪麗蘇,混雜著宿命意味的瘋狂,非常古典的love story。孱弱的莊園男子真迷人
花房那場戲串戲到The Great Dictator了,女主就不能拿花盆往反派頭上砸嗎。四角關(guān)系、運動長鏡還是典型雷諾阿風格,就是沒太多情緒上觸動
需要中文字幕再看一遍。