MovieChat Forums > Le journal d'une femme de chambre (1965) Discussion > Why is everyone accusing Joseph? Who kil...

Why is everyone accusing Joseph? Who killed the little girl?

posted 10 years ago by iheartnormi
9 replies | jump to latest

There is a scene in the staff kitchen where the little girl is talking to Joseph it goes something like: Joseph says how is your aunt? He asks the the little girl why he likes her, and she replies that he sees himself when he looks at her. So naturally when I saw that scene I thought that either the girl was Joseph's daughter or niece...idk if anyone else remembers that scene. But it stood out to me. I personally think it was Monteil because she was raped and killed, but then again he doesn't seem like the type. I guess for some reason the writer of the film didn't think it was relevant, not sure why not.

[–] zwot 9 years ago

There shouldn't be any doubt that Joseph killed Claire. The scene in the forest made it very clear. The only way it could be more certain would be if they showed the crime itself. But the rape and murder of a little girl would be too graphic even for a film of today, let alone one shot in 1964. So instead we saw Joseph look each way for witnesses before chasing after the girl, then a quick cut to a boar metaphorically bearing down on a rabbit in the woods, then a cut to the girl's lifeless, bloodied body. There can be no doubt.

The scene you mentioned actually supports Joseph's guilt. He asked Claire what did she see when she looked into his eyes? Claire said she saw herself. Joseph said it proves he likes her -- that she's always on his mind. That suggests he had an unhealthy attraction towards her.

[–] Steamboy 9 years ago

Exactly like zwot said. "There can be no doubt."

__________________________
www.1up-games.com Last watched: imdb.to/K4tvL9

[–] Balibari 8 years ago

It's not true to say the only way it could be clearer is if we saw him do it. Or that there's no way to show enough to remove doubt because it would be too graphic.

Most of what we know about Joseph suggests he wouldn't do something like that. Most of what we know about Monteil suggests he would. The characters are designed like that for a reason.

And there are hundreds of ways Bunuel could have made it clear it was Joseph, if that's what he wanted to do, it doesn't have to be graphic at all. Simply show a shot of Joseph's boots walking away and then pan round to an item of Claire's bloody clothing strewn on the forest floor. It would be less graphic than what we actually saw and make it clear. There's no shot like that, presumably because we're not meant to be completely sure.

[–] zwot 8 years ago

There's no shot like that, presumably because we're not meant to be completely sure.

There's no shot like that because such a shot is unnecessary. In fact, a pedestrian shot like you've suggested would only diminish the artfulness of the boar and rabbit shot. Even if such a shot had been scripted, a good director would have cut it during editing.

The old cliché that "the director purposely left it ambiguous and open to interpretation" is so ingrained that people are sometimes afraid to believe what they think. Don't be. The scene makes it clear that Joseph killed Claire, and our knowledge of that fact is important because it adds to the drama of Céléstine's later actions. Her doubt becomes more poignant for the viewer, because we have no such doubt.

[–] sim7396 9 years ago

The movie makes abundantly clear that Joseph is the murderer. He looks at the little girl, tells her to watch out for "wolves," then looks to his left, looks to his right, makes sure no one is watching, parks his carriage (or whatever his horse-led car is called) and then runs after the girl. Immediately after, we see a wild boar-like animal and a small rabbit; these images are supposed to mean that we have left civilization and are in the wilderness, and also these animals represent Joseph and Claire, respectively. And the very next scene shows the girl unconscious on the floor, her clothes torn. There's no doubt of what happened.

Remember, before movies became dumbed down with explicit violence and gore, that's how these type of crimes were portrayed.

[–] oknar1977 9 years ago

I think Monteil did it,

but when I think about it, the policeman did say about another murder that happened previously and Joseph admits he was also in the woods that time... also he never mentioned to police that he encountered Claire before murder.

[–] kenny-164 8 years ago

I recently saw this film again, and am reasonably convinced Joseph did it. Yes there is the element where Bunuel also portrayed all the characters as flawed, and the accusations against him were not based on complete knowledge.

But given his personality he had motive (as sick as it was/is), proximity meaning ability (he was in the area, and had the time), there were no other suspects who were more likely to have done it, he had no alibi, and his behavior after the fact was not contrary to his being guilty.

[–] franzkabuki 8 years ago

"Also he never mentioned to police that he encountered Claire before murder".

And he also never denied being the murderer when Celestine directly asked him (that happened more than once).

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] jrhpax 7 years ago

No one has mentioned that Celestine saw Joseph kill a goose sadistically with a knife before he killed Claire in a similar way.