女仆日记1964

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).

如果不了解法国上世纪二三十年代的社会政治状况，那么对于电影《女仆日记》中的情节安排或许会有太多的迷惑。

因为，影片的主体部分围绕着一个叫做克里斯蒂娜的女仆，讲述她在法国乡下的中产阶级家庭蒙泰伊一家服务。

她同时在四个男人之间周璇，吸引着这些男人的目光，并最终成为了其中一个男人的妻子，一个被别的女仆服侍的中产阶级贵妇。

然而与此同时，其中一个男人，蒙泰伊家的管家约瑟夫却经常组织“反犹太”运动，而且还在乡下的仆人圈子中倾泻自己对于犹太人和共和政府的不满。

甚至在影片的结尾，“反犹运动”的示威游行连同雷电一起成为某种危险的隐喻。

对于《女仆日记》的故事层面，我们可以在奥克塔维·米尔博的同名小说中找到依据，但是对于片中的政治社会环境，我们则需要在导演布努埃尔的生涯中发掘线索。

在从马德里的大学毕业之后，二十年代末期到三十年代中期，布努埃尔大多数时间都在法国的文艺圈子中混迹。在此期间，他经历了以前在西班牙几乎不曾耳闻的社会思潮——“反犹运动”。

尽管作为超现实主义的代表人物，布努埃尔从来都是和社会主流道德对着干，然而“反犹运动”却让他感到了极大的困惑和愤怒。

所以在创作《女仆日记》的改编电影时，他没有依照米尔博的原著小说，将故事的背景设定在所谓的“美好年代”（十九世纪末到一战期间）。

而是将整个故事搬到了二十年代，将一个有关情欲和女性抉择的故事和这段时期的法国历史相互关联，布努埃尔看中的显然不只是《女仆日记》这本小说中的情欲噱头。

在《女仆日记》中，由让娜·莫罗饰演的女仆克里斯蒂娜像是一个毫无道德感的美艳尤物。

至少在影片的前半段中，对于蒙泰伊家的男主人蒙泰伊老先生，她会在夜晚穿着高挑的皮靴，展露性感的小腿在房间中走动，满足他非正常的恋足癖。

而对于蒙泰伊先生的女婿，一个妻子不愿满足他的性欲，只要看到女人都会产生性冲动的中年男人，克里斯蒂娜虽然并不愿过早让他下手，但是也经常对他搔首弄姿。

至于管家约瑟夫，克里斯蒂娜更是在影片后半段和他纠缠不清。但是她最终的人生归属，却是嫁给了隔壁的退休中尉，得尝所愿地成为了中产阶级的一员。

她的确用自己的美貌和手段，从巴黎的大都市赶赴乡下，在四个男人的欲望目光中流转，走上了一个打工女孩跨越阶级鸿沟最快捷的途径。

然而这个覆盖着冰冷物质欲望的“励志上位记”，却在影片的中途产生了别样的意味。

一个叫做克莱尔的小女孩，在不久前被人在树林中残忍奸杀，克里斯蒂娜在蒙泰伊老先生去世后本来打算离开这个是非之地，但是在听闻这个消息之后，她决意重新回到蒙泰伊一家，打算找出真凶，将其绳之以法。

这个表面看来有些突兀，甚至和人物设定不符合的行动走向却让我们重新思考克里斯蒂娜的真实性格。

当我们认定她只不过是个为稻粱谋的风尘女子，她却瞬间展现了人性中富有温暖的一面。

这便是布努埃尔影片经常出现的一个主题：矛盾的人性。他总是会在影片中设定一些看似单薄的角色，但是这些或极端偏见、或极端虔诚的人，在遇到突发事件后，却开始做出与原先性格截然相悖的决定。

譬如在《少女》中，那个猥亵少女带有种族偏见的白人，却在最后帮助黑人踏上小艇离开；而在《纳萨林》里，原先有着虔诚信仰的牧师，却在遭遇不公的牢狱之灾后，对人性之善，也开始产生动摇。

布努埃尔总是会用瞬间的变化轰击稳固的常态，在所谓人性的恒常、信仰、誓言中找到裂痕，从而沿着这道裂痕不断深撕下去，直至触碰最为混沌的人性。

但是这位超现实主义者或许并不想将裂变化作温情的俗套。克里斯蒂娜的确为了被奸杀的克莱尔和管家约瑟夫暗送秋波，直到在床笫之欢中确认约瑟夫是凶手的事实。

她在获知真相后，也并不期待公正的查案，而是选择了最为直接的惩戒方式——捏造虚假证据，从而将约瑟夫直接送进牢房。

然而所谓的正义取得胜利了吗？布努埃尔依然不会拍板，在影片的最后，约瑟夫如同他先前和克里斯蒂娜许诺的那样，他在巴黎开了一间酒吧，不仅过上了安稳的城市商人的生活，而且还成为支持“反犹运动”的极端右翼分子。

民族主义分子用偏执和暴虐将法国推向了无底的深渊，而这个结果在布努埃尔的电影《女仆日记》中却有着各种微观因素的堆积。

蒙泰伊老先生异常的恋足癖；老先生女儿连丈夫正常的性欲都不让满足的自私冷酷；而那个退休中尉的邻居，不仅带有偏见地歧视蒙泰伊先生的女婿，而且为了迎娶克里斯蒂娜，不惜和自己结婚十二年的妻子离婚。

这些法国乡村的中产阶级只会在自己的欲望中穷尽一切，而完全不会顾及道德感，和一贯秉持的荣誉及信仰。

那作为下层的仆人呢？当蒙泰伊的女婿追求克里斯蒂娜失败之后，为了发泄性欲，他将目光投向了矮胖丑陋的女仆，而这位可怜的女仆在听到这位大人的要求后，不仅没有拒绝，还热泪盈眶地不知所措。

对她来说，这哪里是羞辱，分明就是宠幸！

正是这种道德感的败坏，让整个社会都沉浸在自私和偏执中。布努埃尔将自己年轻时期经历过的黑暗社会，用一种司空见惯都又细思恐极的方式加以披露，得到的结果就和那部反思宗教的杰作《维莉蒂安娜》一样，令人绝望，但又只能袖手旁观。

尽管在对布努埃尔的采访录中，他经常否认其影像中所出现的画面有着某种确切的能指，然而对于《女仆日记》来说，那段小女孩被奸杀后的场面，确乎和法国那时的“反犹运动”有着某种关联。

兽性的野猪对柔弱兔子的攻击，不仅是在暗喻约瑟夫对小女孩的奸杀，更为宏大的表意或许是：整个欧洲那时对于犹太人近乎疯狂地歧视和残害。