MovieChat Forums > Le journal d'une femme de chambre (1965) Discussion > Societal Issues and Evil

Societal Issues and Evil

posted 19 years ago by SurrenderToto
13 replies | jump to latest

A couple of mysteries. Celestine, the Chambermaid, comes from Paris to work at an estate in a rural area (read: hicktown or backcountry). Why has she left Paris for an obviously inferior job? And when she leaves (or intends to), why and for what reason? It seems a ruse by the director who really wants to touch lightly on class distinctions, bureaucratic idiocy, clerical ineffectiveness and the general "disorder" of society. One of the more poignant scenes is when M. Monteil, the master of the house, virtually requires the lowliest, least attractive maid to have sex with him. Also a sign of desparation by this fairly demasculinized man.

My other greater concern is with the director's use of the character of George (the "evil" guy) as a dumping ground for everything he finds nasty in this world -- Neanderthal thug; child rapist/murderer; fascist; pimp; bourgeois shop owner. I'll object to the child molester aspect. More likely a general societal prejudice, and just too much for one character.

Celestine is the observer, the free one, the morally superior one. Yet she also marries for money. For security I suppose, but then she gets right down to playing the mistress (Hand me that towel. No the other one.). In the original book, set at the beginning of the 20th c., the marrying up makes some sense, but does it still apply in 1930's France, and for a woman with some intelligence and education like Celestine? Perhaps we can blame it on casting Jeanne Moreau as the maid. Who really believes her as a maid, and not a movie star playing one?

7/10

Better to walk in ditch and muddy shoes than get hit by speeding truck.

[–] schula_b 19 years ago

I know what you mean about George, the lst scene really didnt do it for me.

[–] hamedottawa 17 years ago

Good and useful points. Just that "evil" guy was Joseph I guess.

[–] artistathome 15 years ago

it's Joseph not George.

[–] Sulalee 14 years ago

Surrender has pointed out the reasons why I didn't care for this ridiculous movie.

I threw that sh-- before I walked into the room!

[–] nutsberryfarm 12 years ago

she's playing innocent like the horse cab guy said.

“Can't go wrong with taupe."- Wynn Duffy

[–] sim7396 12 years ago

Why has she left Paris for an obviously inferior job?

Your statement makes no sense. Life in the big cities is not easy; it makes sense for a young woman to be a maid at a large estate in the countryside, than to earn a living as a factory worker or overworked waitress in Paris.

And when she leaves (or intends to), why and for what reason?

She had not been at the house for long, and it was clear that she hated it. She probably found the old man's shoe fetish entertaining and quite harmless. Once he died, she saw no reason to stay and decided to leave.

My other greater concern is with the director's use of the character of George (the "evil" guy) as a dumping ground for everything he finds nasty in this world -- Neanderthal thug; child rapist/murderer; fascist; pimp; bourgeois shop owner. I'll object to the child molester aspect. More likely a general societal prejudice, and just too much for one character.

I agree with you on this one. But keep in mind Buñuel's life and circumstances. He couldn't work in his native Spain because the fascists were in power. His close friend Federico García Lorca had been murdered by them, etc. Not surprisingly, bad guy Joseph is not only a fascist, he's a rapist, murderer, potential pimp, etc.

Celestine is the observer, the free one, the morally superior one.

Observer, yes, but morally superior one? That's your reading of the story. Non-Hollywood films seldom have all-superior "good" characters.

Yet she also marries for money. For security I suppose

So, you agree she's not the morally superior one. She's just human, as the movie portrays her.

does it still apply in 1930's France, and for a woman with some intelligence and education like Celestine?

I missed the first few minutes, was her education somehow described in the movie? What education are you talking about? She looks more like a single 32-year old from the big city, looking for a chambermaid job in the countryside. Beautiful, yes, with big city clothes, perfume, and manners, but I don't see where the "education" you speak of comes from.

[–] rachaelov 11 years ago

I agree with your questioning of Celistine's moral superiority. In the end, she had turned into the person she disliked at the beginning of the film, for somewhat cynical motives. And she wasn't really free - she seemed just as trapped as everyone else - at the beginning, by lack of money; and then after her sham of a marriage, self inflicted. I suppose she was at her free-est when men were chasing her, or getting her to act out fantasies. She had some power then. But in the end, she seemed to act out the same patterns as others.

We never really learn why she came from Paris to the countryside. Maybe she was trying to escape from something? Its a bit mysterious, purposely so, I would imagine.

[–] craigbhill 10 years ago

Bunuel is merely pulling back the curtains on several aspects of 1930s society, the chambermaid's financial and societal situation included. She never was a paragon of virtue regarding money. She didn't want to be a maid forever. She had the opportunity to marry up, with an old and relatively wealthy goat who would die before her and leave her comfortable. Bunuel is nothing without being realistic.

Your expectations the main character would be for some reason above feathering her nest at age 32 has been Hollywoodized. Come on. Reality is whatchacall real.

~ Native Angeleno

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Charlot47 10 years ago

Poor misguided Buñuel! He should have stayed in Spain and enjoyed the healthy liberating influence of fascism, with all the great art it produced. Franco would have showered riches and honours on him, I’m sure.

[–] Steamboy 9 years ago

Célestine is definitely NOT morally superior. If anything, the movie is trying to tell us that she is pretty much like everyone else, conflicted, with good and bad in her. The only one who is different, in a sick way, is Joseph.

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

[–] oknar1977 9 years ago

I agree, evil is the word. The first part of the movie was hard to watch because I had more less serving jobs and people who feel superior by degrading people who service them is evil. He done great job representing this kind of evil in human behaviour.

Also the characters were real, I can't remember Hollywood movies from that era showed people behaving like that, without courtesy and rough to people below them. He also done that in "Cela s'appelle l'aurore" but I find this movie more watchable and interesting.

[–] kenny-164 8 years ago

Films that portray characters in shades of gray I find appealing, since in real life rarely are people all good or all bad. This film's characters arguably might have been shaded a bit too far to the darker side, but it worked. I saw it again after giving it a 9 initially, and I think as great as it is a 9 is appropriate. The narrative is not perfect (an abrupt ending), and some characterizations are a bit tendentious (but... Bunuel is entitled to his pov in that regard, so...).

Please see it if you have not.