欢迎安装高清版[一起看]电影APP
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).
oh,la foule!
上流社会的压抑和底层小人物的势利故事,雷诺阿的拿手。但是说起来,故事没什么可吸引人的,过于乏味。两星半。
B-
#HKcinefan IS# 一种偏童话版的改编。听乔奕思映后分享才了解到原著中有反映出shidai的BG,和波兰斯基的《我控诉》描述的是同一个时代。这一版比较幽默和happy ending,人物正邪比较鲜明。
对不起吵得我有点头痛 跟后来布纽尔版本相比 这也太通俗了
台词密集,剧情一路狂飙,首尾呼应的写日记片段,介于童话与现实之间,另类的嫁得金龟婿的心想事成!剧中的每个重要角色,都没有逃脱导演的讽刺,穷得一分钱都没有的贵族,疯了的喜欢砸领居家玻璃人老心不老的船长,还留恋贵族一切的为留住儿子不惜让讨厌的女仆色诱儿子最后为了不同意甚至可以牺牲女主人,野心勃勃鲨人越货为达目的不折手段心狠手辣的男仆,本想着勾引有钱人被威胁最后收获爱情的女仆!谁能想到一个女仆日记,居然还谈了贵族留恋往昔等社会话题,导演很牛啊!
荒诞幽默,感觉雷诺阿这是彻底对无产阶级革命感到幻灭了。不过这个剧情还是很玛丽苏,混杂着宿命意味的疯狂,非常古典的love story。孱弱的庄园男子真迷人
叙述太过顺滑并没有什么以往的宿命感,人物的暧昧性也不太够。不得不佩服雷诺阿太会拍乡下了,特别是故事后程被巧妙地拆解安插在村子里庆祝大革命的夜晚,并在村民的大游行中推向了高潮。
节奏比较快。
一般
需要中文字幕再看一遍。
3.5/5.0 写作需要用到的例片。感觉没有侯麦讲得那么好,不过男仆杀鸡的那一幕足够代表早期作者对于情境划归的典范尝试。
比较粗糙的人性观察
Compassionate portraiture constrained within a cruel frame, i.e., Renoir in Hollywood
实在是乏善可陈
原来我看的是这一版而不是1964那版的……乌龙了
花房那场戏串戏到The Great Dictator了,女主就不能拿花盆往反派头上砸吗。四角关系、运动长镜还是典型雷诺阿风格,就是没太多情绪上触动
不敢相信是让·雷诺阿拍摄的电影,因为其中几乎没有具有识别度的标志性元素。在美学构成上是极为写实的,甚至是过于写实的。许多镜头和场景显得格外粗糙,但毕竟呈现了现实生活的本来面目,虽然会令观者感到些许不适与无奈。
侯麦有点尬吹了,高黛真好。情感是到位的,但故事真的一般
雷诺阿的女仆日记是彻底的荒诞,如一台飞速的舞台剧,直白粗暴,即使最后像看似好莱坞式无聊美满的爱情戏,也充满着滑稽荒唐,控制狂母亲、共和万岁与贵族之死、正义裹挟在自私欲望里…美丽的宝莲,野性欲望的美与角色十分契合,Hurd病弱高贵冷傲的乔治少爷太迷人了!