"Le journal d'une femme de chambre" or "Diary of a Chambermaid" is a co-production between France and Italy from 1964, so this film will have its 60th anniversary next year, but it got shown now already on the occasion of a film retrospective on Luis Buñuel that was surely unrelated to the upcoming anniversary for this film and also for Buñuel 2023 is not a special year, unless you consider 123 a specific number as he was born in the first year of the 20th century. Which also means that he is no longer with us and sadly this is also true for pretty much everybody else from this movie. The child actress who played Claire may be an exception, but not sure there. She would also be in her mid70s now too, but there is nothing known apparently what happened after she played in this film and some other more known Buñuel movie. But let's stay with the basics for now: This is a film in black-and-white, which is not a given for the 1960s, but still the more likely production choice. Color films in great quantity did not happen before the 1970s. At slightly under 100 minutes this is neither a particularly short nor long movie. It seems the common running time for Buñuel. His films never really were super close to 90 minutes, but also did not run for over 105 minutes. He is the director here and one of the three writers. The original novel was written by Octave Mirbeau and she was born half a century before Buñuel already and as he was already in his 60s when this got made, so far away from his early years of filmmaking, but also not too close to the final years, which means that Mirbeau had died a long time ago already without being able to see how many films were based on her literary work. Not just in terms of this one here, even if this was also not yet the first version of this story that got taken to the big screen. I am talking about the one from right after World War II, so almost 20 years before this one, but as I said there is so much more she wrote that got taken to the screen. Already back then.
And the second writer is Jean-Claude Carrière. This one is really one of the big stars from French Film history and hoes not need to hide behind Buñuel. Carriére scored his first Oscar nomination around that time, for a short film and he won right away too. He stayed a steady collaborator for Buñuel and these two managed two more Oscar nominations in the 1970s for their screenplays before achieving his final nod a decade before the new millennium when Buñuel was already gone. But yeah, Carrière, who only died in 2021, was more than 30 years younger than Buñuel. This film here is the first I saw from the Buñuel retrospective and more will follow, two already today probably. The title is very fitting. It summarizes perfectly what this film here depicts. We follow the (professional life) of a woman around the age of 30 who works for a new family at their house. Said protagonist is played by BAFTA winner Jeanne Moreau in this film here. I was just undecided really if she was attractive in this film or not attractive at all. There was something about her, but also the exact opposite I guess. But it is not too important anyway and let me say all the men in this film basically also took the decision from me as literally every single one was crazy about her, totally had the hots for her, no matter if we are talking the old man of the house, the husband, the neighbor, the bearded guy and there were more even. It did get a bit ridiculous, like come on this gorgeous Moreau was not here. But she liked toying with the men. I am also not sure to what extent this was a comedy. There were moments in here that made me smile or even laugh once or twice, but it is really not a dominant factor and honestly, I also felt as if I was almost the only person in the crowd that was laughing.
One example was when we have the husband of the house tell the chambermaid to get a piece of clothing and tells her in which room it is, namely his room, and she asks back, because she is still new, where to find his room and he then responds in a manner as if she asked him that because she has sleazy thought in her head. Okay, this does maybe not sound half as funny as I perceived it there, but you get it. Maybe also the guy's face expression helped. He then in the end cannot really score with the woman and is clearly not happy when he finds out that she will marry another man. The fact that he is married does not seem like a factor at all. I mean his wife even talks to a priest on one occasion that she cannot fulfill her man's sexual pleasure and that it is painful for her and too often and I think she said something like twice per week and the priest's reaction to that was funny that he was shocked because of the frequency and I am not entirely sure if he was just joking or if this was really considered such a high number back then. I almost feel like it is the latter, but who knows. In any way, the film took a for me pretty unexpected route in the second half when we have a young girl being raped and murdered outside. It was all very strange. I mean I guess it was a success in terms of the production because I was really curious what happened and who killed her, but it so came out of nowhere and it was the result why the chambermaid then also returned and stayed because she maybe wanted to know the truth as well. But it would have been more realistic if she had left and I am sure they could have done something with this approach too, in the sense of how she leaves the horror behind.
So I assume her relationship with the man she is even engaged to was only meant for her to find out more about him and if it was him who killed the girl. I did not even understand why she suspected him, but even if he is the one who did it, which seems to be the case as he denies being there when clearly he was, even if we do not see him attack the girl in this scene, only ask if she wants to come home with him, it was all a bit far-fetched how she pretty much but an item there near the crime scene which indicates that he was there and killed the girl. The cops showing up eventually and acting all friendly before changing to their investigative selves was also a bit clumsy. Not gonna lie. In the end then, we find out that the man is probably going to be acquitted due to lack of evidence and this did make sense for once from a realism perspective. Not even we can be sure if it was him. On the non-crime front, there's also a few other things happening: The sex-crazy man starts sleeping with another less attractive chambermaid, but at least he can let off steam I guess. We do not know if his wife knows or wants to know even, but she knew about her man's shenanigans in the past. The protagonist does not marry the crime suspect, but instead marries the much older neighbor. He proposed to her as well earlier (of course he did!), but this came so out of nowhere that we literally see the two at the altar there or at the church. Bizarre twist. Other than her not rejecting his proposal on the spot, there was no indicator of this to happen. And he was indeed much older unlike the guy she called old and ugly or so. I assume her simply staying single was not an option here. Before that, we also see how the woman of the house (who can't satisfy her man's sexual desires) said farewell already to the protagonist and the other man with dark hair and the mustache because the plan was for them to get married and she was quite nice and friendly there despite what happened earlier with the lamp. This was also a bit bizarre as they talked specifically about how this lamp must not be damaged and then it is damaged just a few moments later. Oh well, at least nobody got fired.
As for the old man, the father of the woman of the house, he also has his very own fetish it seems and the title character has to play along apparently if she wants to keep her job. This surely went beyond cleaning duties though. I mean the part where she is reading stuff to him is still totally okay, but it got more and more bizarre. You will know what I mean when you see it. The old man also died then a little after halfway into the movie I think. It was almost the same time when the girl got killed, but we do not really find out anything about the old man's death. The crimes were probably not connected. Just a coincidence that they happened at the exact same time almost. I guess this is pretty much it then. I would not say this film was a truly great start to the Buñuel retrospective for me, but it also was not bad by any means. I guess I enjoyed the watch overall and still hope for slight improvements with the upcoming seven Buñuel movies I have also on my list. "Diary of a Chambermaid" gets a thumbs-up and this film had some solid authenticity going for it all along. What was up with the thunderstorm or what it was at the very end? So random. Anyway, I also liked how the chambermaids kept sticking together apparently and told each other about what happened to them, how people treated them and behaved towards them, also what they said about other characters. It felt authentic. The difference in standing in society is clearly there and is not ignored by any means. I have a bit of a hard time what this film really is. It is barely a drama, especially not before the killing, not a comedy or family film either. Certainly no thriller. Maybe it is just a sort-of depiction of the state of events. There is no need anyway to give a name to everything and categorize it in a certain genre. What you must know is that you can give this film a chance, one of Buñuel's perhaps not most famous films, despite the inclusion of Moreau and Michel Piccoli for example who you will also find in every book about French film history. Seeing their film here once and on the small screen may be enough though. That is all. Oh and a little appetizer: Writer Carrière himself portrays the priest I mentioned earlier. Just one scene though.
And the second writer is Jean-Claude Carrière. This one is really one of the big stars from French Film history and hoes not need to hide behind Buñuel. Carriére scored his first Oscar nomination around that time, for a short film and he won right away too. He stayed a steady collaborator for Buñuel and these two managed two more Oscar nominations in the 1970s for their screenplays before achieving his final nod a decade before the new millennium when Buñuel was already gone. But yeah, Carrière, who only died in 2021, was more than 30 years younger than Buñuel. This film here is the first I saw from the Buñuel retrospective and more will follow, two already today probably. The title is very fitting. It summarizes perfectly what this film here depicts. We follow the (professional life) of a woman around the age of 30 who works for a new family at their house. Said protagonist is played by BAFTA winner Jeanne Moreau in this film here. I was just undecided really if she was attractive in this film or not attractive at all. There was something about her, but also the exact opposite I guess. But it is not too important anyway and let me say all the men in this film basically also took the decision from me as literally every single one was crazy about her, totally had the hots for her, no matter if we are talking the old man of the house, the husband, the neighbor, the bearded guy and there were more even. It did get a bit ridiculous, like come on this gorgeous Moreau was not here. But she liked toying with the men. I am also not sure to what extent this was a comedy. There were moments in here that made me smile or even laugh once or twice, but it is really not a dominant factor and honestly, I also felt as if I was almost the only person in the crowd that was laughing.
One example was when we have the husband of the house tell the chambermaid to get a piece of clothing and tells her in which room it is, namely his room, and she asks back, because she is still new, where to find his room and he then responds in a manner as if she asked him that because she has sleazy thought in her head. Okay, this does maybe not sound half as funny as I perceived it there, but you get it. Maybe also the guy's face expression helped. He then in the end cannot really score with the woman and is clearly not happy when he finds out that she will marry another man. The fact that he is married does not seem like a factor at all. I mean his wife even talks to a priest on one occasion that she cannot fulfill her man's sexual pleasure and that it is painful for her and too often and I think she said something like twice per week and the priest's reaction to that was funny that he was shocked because of the frequency and I am not entirely sure if he was just joking or if this was really considered such a high number back then. I almost feel like it is the latter, but who knows. In any way, the film took a for me pretty unexpected route in the second half when we have a young girl being raped and murdered outside. It was all very strange. I mean I guess it was a success in terms of the production because I was really curious what happened and who killed her, but it so came out of nowhere and it was the result why the chambermaid then also returned and stayed because she maybe wanted to know the truth as well. But it would have been more realistic if she had left and I am sure they could have done something with this approach too, in the sense of how she leaves the horror behind.
So I assume her relationship with the man she is even engaged to was only meant for her to find out more about him and if it was him who killed the girl. I did not even understand why she suspected him, but even if he is the one who did it, which seems to be the case as he denies being there when clearly he was, even if we do not see him attack the girl in this scene, only ask if she wants to come home with him, it was all a bit far-fetched how she pretty much but an item there near the crime scene which indicates that he was there and killed the girl. The cops showing up eventually and acting all friendly before changing to their investigative selves was also a bit clumsy. Not gonna lie. In the end then, we find out that the man is probably going to be acquitted due to lack of evidence and this did make sense for once from a realism perspective. Not even we can be sure if it was him. On the non-crime front, there's also a few other things happening: The sex-crazy man starts sleeping with another less attractive chambermaid, but at least he can let off steam I guess. We do not know if his wife knows or wants to know even, but she knew about her man's shenanigans in the past. The protagonist does not marry the crime suspect, but instead marries the much older neighbor. He proposed to her as well earlier (of course he did!), but this came so out of nowhere that we literally see the two at the altar there or at the church. Bizarre twist. Other than her not rejecting his proposal on the spot, there was no indicator of this to happen. And he was indeed much older unlike the guy she called old and ugly or so. I assume her simply staying single was not an option here. Before that, we also see how the woman of the house (who can't satisfy her man's sexual desires) said farewell already to the protagonist and the other man with dark hair and the mustache because the plan was for them to get married and she was quite nice and friendly there despite what happened earlier with the lamp. This was also a bit bizarre as they talked specifically about how this lamp must not be damaged and then it is damaged just a few moments later. Oh well, at least nobody got fired.
As for the old man, the father of the woman of the house, he also has his very own fetish it seems and the title character has to play along apparently if she wants to keep her job. This surely went beyond cleaning duties though. I mean the part where she is reading stuff to him is still totally okay, but it got more and more bizarre. You will know what I mean when you see it. The old man also died then a little after halfway into the movie I think. It was almost the same time when the girl got killed, but we do not really find out anything about the old man's death. The crimes were probably not connected. Just a coincidence that they happened at the exact same time almost. I guess this is pretty much it then. I would not say this film was a truly great start to the Buñuel retrospective for me, but it also was not bad by any means. I guess I enjoyed the watch overall and still hope for slight improvements with the upcoming seven Buñuel movies I have also on my list. "Diary of a Chambermaid" gets a thumbs-up and this film had some solid authenticity going for it all along. What was up with the thunderstorm or what it was at the very end? So random. Anyway, I also liked how the chambermaids kept sticking together apparently and told each other about what happened to them, how people treated them and behaved towards them, also what they said about other characters. It felt authentic. The difference in standing in society is clearly there and is not ignored by any means. I have a bit of a hard time what this film really is. It is barely a drama, especially not before the killing, not a comedy or family film either. Certainly no thriller. Maybe it is just a sort-of depiction of the state of events. There is no need anyway to give a name to everything and categorize it in a certain genre. What you must know is that you can give this film a chance, one of Buñuel's perhaps not most famous films, despite the inclusion of Moreau and Michel Piccoli for example who you will also find in every book about French film history. Seeing their film here once and on the small screen may be enough though. That is all. Oh and a little appetizer: Writer Carrière himself portrays the priest I mentioned earlier. Just one scene though.