MovieChat Forums > Le journal d'une femme de chambre (1965) Discussion > So who actually killed Claire?

So who actually killed Claire?

posted 11 years ago by johnmuir76
15 replies | jump to latest

I watched this for the first time this weekend and got to the end and felt like I missed something somewhere, specifically, if Claire's killer was revealed - I missed it. I looked at the video insert to see if there was an explanation, and the interview with Bunuel seemed to refer to a "confession" from Joseph, but I don't actually recall there being one in the movie.

A blogger at Salon.com says the killer had to be the Parson. (http://open.salon.com/blog/jeanv999/2009/03/09/criterion_luis_bunuels_diary_of_a_chambermaid_as_a_murder_mystery)

Thoughts?

[–] rammstein268 11 years ago

I think it's pretty clear that Joseph killed Claire.

[–] craigbhill 10 years ago

You went out for popcorn during the scene when Joseph licked his chops and tore out into the forest after Claire??

I give this film a negative rating for what seems like a missing scene to me, when the new hubby tells his new bride Joseph was being released for lack of evidence, with a look of Uh-oh! on Jeanne's face, considering her role in planting false evidence leading to his arrest as the killer of the little girl---followed by the scene where Joseph has his own new wife and his cafe, screaming support for the French fascists. How did we get from the former to the latter?? It does seem like Bunuel ran out of time, money or interest. Hard to believe he and Carriere scripted it that way.

~ Native Angeleno

[–] dennis-karjala 10 years ago

I just watched this film on DVD last night. I too was puzzled by the final scene, but after thinking about the film I concluded that Claire's murderer was Monteil, that Joseph was innocent (of that crime), and that Celestine had made a big mistake in trying, essentially, to frame Joseph. All of Monteil's actions throughout the film show him to be a sexual beast. He hits on Celestine, basically rapes the foreign houseworker, and is killing animals nearly all the time he's not explicitly trying for sex. I have never been a fan of Bunuel and watched this one only because I admire Jeanne Moreau so much, but I think Bunuel was trying to say that a generally "bad" personality (Joseph) does not make a person guilty of every crime that occurs in his neighborhood, so we have to be careful in jumping to such conclusions. Bad as Joseph was, if he wasn't guilty of killing Claire, he should not be punished for it. For her "crime," Celestine is now stuck with the crazy neighbor for a husband.

Dennis

[–] vinidici 9 years ago

I think Bunuel was trying to say that a generally "bad" personality (Joseph) does not make a person guilty of every crime that occurs in his neighborhood, so we have to be careful in jumping to such conclusions. Bad as Joseph was, if he wasn't guilty of killing Claire, he should not be punished for it.

I think it's pretty clear Joseph is the killer. I'm watching it right now and am just a few minutes past the scene where Joseph encounters the little girl in the woods, pretends to part with her and move on, and then as soon as she's out of sight, abandons his horse and carriage to run back in the direction she was going. Next scene shows her corpse.

Celestine was second guessing herself when she began thinking Joseph was innocent after all. And it looks like the low life got away with his unspeakably evil deed and even Celestine thinks she'd been wrong to suspect him.

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] MarthaMyDear2 9 years ago

Thanks for clarifying that @vindici! I turned my head for a second while watching the film just now and missed that part with Joseph you mentioned! Not sure if I like the film or not. Will need to re-watch it tomorrow. :)

Martha
Austin, Texas

May the Force be with you!

[–] kenny-164 9 years ago

What is intriguing about this question is we have to remember that what we as the viewer see, and the conclusions we reach from what we see, are not necessarily what the characters in the film can be assumed to see and know. Even if we see or hear proof, or that which tends to prove, something about a character, we must also ask whether there has been some indication that another character, in this case Moreau's, had enough basis to reach a conclusion whether something in fact was the case.

In this case I think Celestine thinks it likely, in fact probable, that Josepth killed Claire. But I do not recall that we see her learning enough to conclude that as a matter of fact. She has something less than proof, in short, and while she attempts to get him in trouble with the law, she does not actually know to a certainty that Joseph is guilty.

[–] vinidici 9 years ago

RASHOMON, set during Japan's feudal era, is the best picture I've ever seen in the area of exploring the "all is not as it appears at first blush" theme.

Celestine's attempt to incriminate Joseph also reminds me of Orson Welles' "tough cop" character in TOUCH OF EVIL; Welles instinctively "knows" his suspect is guilty as sin (though we, the viewers don't, until the end) and actually frames the suspect with false evidence -- but it turned out that the suspect did, indeed, commit foul play.

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] zwot 9 years ago

Celestine thinks it likely, in fact probable, that Josepth killed Claire. But I do not recall that we see her learning enough to conclude that as a matter of fact. She has something less than proof, in short, and while she attempts to get him in trouble with the law, she does not actually know to a certainty that Joseph is guilty.

You're absolutely right. In fact, Celestine's uncertainty is so great that she goes so far as to seduce the man she despises in an effort to elicit a confession that would confirm her suspicions. Yet her failure to get this confirmation does not stop her from planting evidence that she hopes will see him convicted of the crime.

I love what Bunuel's done here. He sets up Celestine as the heroine for, at first, trying to protect Claire then, later, get justice for her. But Celestine is no more noble than the neighbor who tried to enlist her cooperation in a scheme to pin the murder on Monteil. The neighbor plotted to give false testimony against Monteil simply because he hated Monteil, apparently because Monteil was a Jew. That was enough to convince him Monteil must have committed the crime, and he was willing to leverage his good reputation to nail Monteil. Similarly, Celestine's suspicions are based on little more than her hatred for Joseph, even if her suspicions happen to be correct.

We are rightfully repulsed when the neighbor proposes a plan to frame Monteil. So what are we to think of Celestine when she plants false evidence against Joseph? I suppose this question is answered when Celestine marries the neighbor: they deserve each other. There are no heroes in Bunuel's world.

[–] przgzr 8 years ago

Great explanation, getting better and better to the excellent final point - they deserve each other. There is only one thing missing: neighbor and Monteil became friends, they also discovered they have plenty of mutual interests and attitudes (from being fond of killing - Monteil is a passionate hunter and neighbor is so proud of his military career where he was killing people - to their behaving towards women), so this "they deserve each other" can be applied to them as well.

[–] Steamboy 9 years ago

*SPOILERS*

Of course Joseph killed Claire, there's no question about it. And Célestine doesn't have any uncertainty, she knows as much as we do that Joseph did it. But Célestine is an ambiguous character. Like pretty much everyone in this film she has a good and a bad side. Only Joseph has nothing but evil in him, he's a child murderer and rapist and yet at the end he's successful. That speaks volumes.

As for Célestine, she's genuinely drawn to Joseph. She likes his boorish manners, his crudeness, it's distasteful but that's what she likes, even Joseph feels it ("Toi et moi on est pareil / You and I are alike"). But she also liked Claire and wants to avenge her, so she's torn. At the end, when Célestine is sitting on the bed, you can see she's anxious but you don't know about what. Maybe she's upset because Joseph will soon go free, maybe she's upset because she'd rather be with Joseph than with her new husband, probably both. It's the cohabitation of good and bad in people's soul, both side wants something that is sometimes contradictory.

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

[–] Balibari 8 years ago

I don't agree at all that it's obviously Joseph. I think the only thing we can say with certainty is that the film is ultimately designed to be ambiguous on the point (albeit after initially serving up Joseph as the obvious suspect). There are numerous contradictory factors deliberately built in: for starters Joseph is a god-fearing rule follower with the self control to turn down the woman he adores... and there's a sex crazed rapist wandering about the woods (Monteil)!

Monteil's casual (seemingly pointless) comment that he can't go hunting because he has no ammunition would be a very Bunuelian way of suggesting he may have gone hunting for something that doesn't require it.

I'm not saying it wasn't Joseph, there's no doubt that's what we're meant to assume initially. But, as with so much Bunuel, we should be wary of jumping to the obvious conclusion, particularly when there are contradictory little clues scattered about.

[–] oknar1977 9 years ago

I agree with dennis-k,
I think Monteil was murderer.
He is sexual predator, brutal butterfly shot at the start was symbol for destiny of child later.

[–] jrhpax 7 years ago

Joseph killed Claire. No question about it in my mind.

Celestine realizes he killed Claire in part because of the sadistic way he killed a goose earlier in the movie.

[–] nanton-35268 7 years ago

There is no evidence that he killed Claire.
Yes, we as the audience see him running into the forest. We see him denying that he went through the forest and seeing Claire and yes he is a rightwing sadistic guy. But we do not have evidence and that is why he was not even judged. Like monsieur Monteil did not have evidence that his neighbour is constantly throwing trash over the fence, just the audience knows.
It might have been the monks, it might have been monsieur Monteil but there is no evidence. Like there is no evidence that jews are the evil doers of the world.
I think this movie is a masterpiece of fooling around with suggestions, presumptions and prejudice. Either political or racial or whatever.
The movie even kinda points out in my opinion, that if you do not have evidence you are a instinct driven animal like monsieur Monteil and you should think before you act or speak.
The whole family except for madmoiselle Monteil and Celestine are low life. Those two women are the only beings in the movie thinking and doing what has to be done. Thats why she married the capitaine because he also thinks before acting. And Celestine is realizing in the last scene, that framing Joseph wasnt very well thought out and in fact none of her business and becoming a "better" person.
The movie ends with Jospeh screaming smth like "hang them" and blurring out with clouds and a thunderstrike. Meaning that ironically the person the audience claims to know Joseph being the murderer of Claire and screaming smth like that but in fact the audience wants him being sentenced but not having evidence is hypocritical and how easy it is being seduced by prejudice. Good one Bunuel!

[–] [deleted] a year ago

joseph.