Journal d'une femme de chambre (2015) Reviews

• It's been done before and better at that

  paul-allaer2016-09-16

  "Diary of a Chambermaid" (2015 release from France; 95 min.) brings the story of Celestine (played by Léa Seydoux). As the movie opens, she is offered a chambermaid position in the country side away from Paris ("dans les provinces"). The household comprises of the Mr. (who takes an immediately like to Celestine) and the Mrs. (who treats Celestine with contempt and disdain), as well as several other helpers, including the gardener Joseph (played by Vincent Lindon). It's not long before Celstine finds herself in all kinds of awkward situations. At this point we are not yet 15 minutes into the movie, but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out. Couple of comments: this is not the first time nor the second time that this (in)famous book has been brought to the big screen. In fact, let's just say it right now: both previous versions (1946, directed by film giant Jean Renoir, and 1964, directed by that other film giant Luis Buñuel) are MILES better than this latest adaptation, which is directed by Benoît Jacquot, not a slouch himself (best known perhaps for the excellent "Farewell, My Queen" from a few years ago, also starring Lea Seydoux). The script of this latest version seems incapable to make up its mind whether this is a sex comedy or whether it is a comedy of the classes, so it tries to be a little bit of both and ends up being neither. BEWARE: the role played by Joseph contains a strong and over the top anti-Semitism streak that I thought was shockingly blunt, and could've been handled very differently for the movie's immediate purposes without being so offensive and blatantly racist. As to the acting performances, I am a big fan of Lea Seydoux (Blue Is the Warmest Colour, and most recently in The Lobster and the latest James Bond, Spectre), but here she seems strangely absent, as if her mind is somewhere else. Vincent Lindon as the gardener tries to make the most of his material. Bottom line: when you take on a well-known novel that's been filmed before, the question of course is: what is the purpose of the remake? I really can't come up with any obvious answer to that, as the 2015 version doesn't seem to cover any new ground or provide any new insight. "Diary of a Chambermaid" premiered at the 2016 Berlin Film Festival, yes, 18 months ago. Then, out of the blue, the movie opened at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati a week ago. The Thursday early evening screening where I saw this at turned out to be the last day, as the movie was gone the next day. The screening was not attended particularly well, and that didn't surprise me. I wouldn't call this latest adaptation a bad movie per se, although I was appalled at the over the top anti-Semitism in the movie. You may be interested to see this if you've seen the previous adaptations, just for comparison purposes.

  More

• Good movie ruined by the script ending

  ajrg-17-3816392016-12-10

  This movie was very interesting and I truly believe this generation has no idea what it was to be a servant in 1890. The problem is the ending leaves the movie pointless. It is clever in the Jeanne Moreau version done in 1964, and sweet in 1948 version, hint each has a different ending, but this is just pointless and makes her look like an idiot and is the opposite of "liberated" and in fact feels like it was tacked on. The entire film is ruined and no one is interested. I guess the director thought it would be interesting to take a perverse S&M take on it but had no clever twist. As for the acting, I thought it was very good. The movie is beautiful also. Strangely enough the original ending of the book, she has no man in her life and becomes a bitch who runs a cafe is a much better ending than this.

  More

• I won't return to my chamber maid.

  dbdumonteil2016-04-20

  The third version of Octave Mirbeau's novel and by far the weakest.Marion Cotillard was to play Célestine but she was eventually replaced by Léa Seydoux, whose inexpressive looks and listless acting do not help;and anyway she is no match for Jeanne Moreau ,the best Celestine ever,even though Luis Bunuel's story underwent some changes - when the master tackles a novel ,he integrates his obsessions ,and he makes it his own. The movie suffers ,not only from Seydoux's monotonous portrayal,but also from a terribly desultory script (both Renoir's and Bunuel's efforts had firm screenplays.) Let's put it straight:I did not expect much from a third version but I did watch it because Vincent Lindon is in it;unfortunately his part is reduced to a sex machine and he is not given a single chance to show his skills ;in Bunuel's version,Georges Géret made all his scenes count . The cinematography is fine and the last pictures rather tasteful,but the movie will be quickly forgotten.

  More

• SHE MAY DO YOUR WINDOWS...!

  masonfisk2018-07-05

  Lea Seydoux stars as the titular servant who has to put up w/obnoxious & lascivious overseers as she tries to maintain her sanity in the most menial of careers. Consisting of furtive looks & moody zooms, Diary hearkens back to the films of the 70's that Bunuel or Truffaut may've made but the modernity of Seydoux's casting keeps things interesting when the plot & scenery start to falter towards the mundane. The plot does becomes problematic when the story ends abruptly leaving the viewer to guess what happens next but other than this narrative hiccup, a tale well told.

  More

• an impossible servant in 1900

  wvisser-leusden2015-11-13

  'Journal d'une femme de chambre' (= French for 'a room maid's tale') is situated in the French countryside of around 1900. Its story centers on a room maid who is able to put herself morally above the behavior of her master + mistress. Thus making some statement of dignity and independence. The film does not show much more than what is common knowledge about the lawless position of domestic servants back then. Being fully dependent on the whims and tastes of their masters, often leading to sexual assault in case of young women. In fact, I think that female lead Lea Seydoux performs an impossible role, by acting a 1900-servant who is not humble and dependent -- showing her prominent personality all the way down. Given this, Seydoux does well without being brilliant. The same goes for the rest of the film. It provides good entertainment, but does not give you anything to remember.

  More