User reviews

Chambermaid Paulette Goddard (Celestine) and the feeble, irritating Irene Ryan (Louise) arrive at the stately home in which they are to serve. They first meet the rather unpleasant valet, Frances Lederer (Joseph) before being introduced to Reginald Owen (Captain Lanlaire) and his wife Judith Anderson (Madame Lanlaire), who have an ill son, Hurd Hatfield (George). It becomes clear that it is Goddard's role to make his life better. Can she succeed....?

Paulette Goddard, Frances Lederer and Judith Anderson carry the film in terms of having a good cast but I'm afraid that's it. The film suffers by having too many buffoons - virtually everybody else. While Reginald Owen is OK as a bumbling old man, one is enough for any film. Unfortunately, we are also given Burgess Meredith as an extremely annoying old codger of a neighbour - he must be the most annoying character EVER. He constantly jumps and bounces around just like all old people do - you get my drift? He is so unconvincing that it's embarrassing. He is meant to be a likable, cheeky chappy. He isn't. Frances Lederer has a great moment with him towards the end of the film. Marvelous!

Frances Lederer keeps the tension ticking and is very watchable as the valet with something sinister going on in his head. The plot is good and keeps us watching as to how things will pan out for Goddard. Time to check the silverware.

France's most famous director, Jean Renoir, had to go to America to make his film of French author Octave Mirbeau's novel "The Diary of a Chambermaid". It was adapted for the screen by the actor Burgess Meredith, mainly as a vehicle for his then wife Paulette Goddard who plays the chambermaid Celestine who uses her wiles on the various men in the household where she is employed. It's a lovely performance in a film full of good performances. Others in the cast include Meredith himself, Hurd Hatfield, Reginald Owen and Judith Andereson but it's Francis Lederer as the malevolent manservant Joseph who walks off with the movie.

It's really a film of two halves. The early farcial elements seem overworked, (I know it's a film about eccentrics but such broad strokes hardly suit Renoir). However, the darkness that overwhelms the second half of the picture is magnificently handled by the director and is actually quite shocking. This is a very different film from the one Bunuel made in 1964 and perhaps all the better for it.

This film is not to be confused with the film by the same name which was made in 1964 by the famed director Luis Buñuel. While the theme of a conniving maid who is using her wiles to get ahead is in both and they have the same name, otherwise the films are very dissimilar--mostly because the bizarreness of Buñuel's version is missing. No foot fetishes, no rape, no murder and no antisemitism in the 1946 film! Jean Renoir's vision for the story is light-years different from Buñuel's. Personally, I think both versions have their strengths and both have their flaws, but I think the latter version is a bit better.

Paulette Goddard plays the title role. She is a conniving woman who comes to her new home as a maid in order to marry a rich man. She's mostly interested in the master's son--but the young man is an indifferent suitor at best (Hurd Hatfield). There's also the old and VERY wacky neighbor (Burgess Meredith) and the valet--played in a very creepy manner by Francis Lederer. Who will she get by the end of the film? And, unfortunately, who care? My biggest problem with this film is Goddard. I have long wondered why she got so many plum roles as she was only a fair actress--and here she often overplays her part. Any sort of subtlety is missing from her portrayal--and the role really needed this, as the woman SHOULD have been played like a master manipulator. As far as the direction goes, it wasn't bad--and had the nice look Jean Renoir was noted for in his films. But he probably should have reigned in a few of the more florid portrayals (not just Goddard's)--though Lederer was BRILLIANT and the best thing about the film. Also, Goddard's character was a bit too sympathetic--she should have been much more amoral and manipulative in order to make the movie more enjoyable. Overall, I prefer the 1964 version a bit more--though I think this film could use yet another remake--one that is more subtle and without the weird 'extras' Luis Buñuel put in his film that tended to distract the viewer. Worth seeing but nothing more--and it should have been better. A great script idea that should have been even better--and juicier.

FYI--Burgess Meredith and Paulette Goddard were married while they were making this film. Seeing Meredith wearing so much makeup and playing a very old man was rather funny--as they are almost the same age.

As Paulette Goddard plies her "magic," things don't always go as planned. She is a gold digger and doesn't hesitate to settle for less attractive if there is money on the way. What happens is a series of abutments that hold up the process. For me the charm of he movie was the use of some great character actors. A young Burgess Meredith and Irene Ryan. It's one of those films that is ultimately forgettable but has some nice moments.

Octave Mirbeau's brilliant, chilling novel was written more than 100 years ago, but its sordid, sexy, near-surrealistic mood and story could not possibly be given a worthy treatment in 1946, and certainly not in an America still subject to the Hays code. This film takes only some of the incidents in the episodic novel and tries to make the story into an eccentric romantic comedy. But, minus the mood and ambiance of the novel, the result is awkward and odd. An important aspect of the novel, anti-semitism (the book was written when France was torn apart by the Dreyfus case) is completely left out, and, instead of perversion and cruelty, Celestine experiences, from her employers, only annoyance. The performances are lightweight, except for Francis Lederer (always good at gentlemanly brutes) as the sinister valet. The film's only moments of horror occur when he indulges his talent, and taste, for discreet violence.

Nothing the great Renoir directed is without interest, and this Diary certainly has moments of beauty and affectionate comedy. But a much more accurate adaptation was Bunuel's in 1964. He left in the anti- semitism, and his own sexy-sadistic-surrealistic mood was a perfect match for Mirbeau's. One moment in this story reminded me of a similar incident, one of my favourites in a Bunuel film. The family for whom the chambermaid works lives next to a peppery, eccentric old man who demonstrates his loathing for his neighbours by throwing rocks through the panes of their greenhouse. In The Exterminating Angel, the partygoers are frightened when a brick is thrown through the window. The host calms them with "It's nothing. Just a passing Jew." Priceless!

The Diary of a Chambermaid (1946) was directed by the great Jean Renoir. This is an U.S. film, although the action was set in France, and directed by a French director.

The movie is set in rural France in 1885. As the title suggests, a new chambermaid has arrived at a mansion of an eccentric couple. (Actually, almost everyone in the movie is eccentric to a greater or lesser degree.)

The person who's not eccentric, but totally evil, is the valet, Joseph. Francis Lederer portrayed Joseph, who is evil to the core. He looks like the villain that he is. (Actually, in one film. he played Count Dracula).

The reason to see is film is to watch Paulette Goddard at work. She was the classic Hollywood beauty of her time. And, 70 years later, she is still a classic Hollywood beauty. Better than that, she could act! Goddard plays Célestine, the chambermaid, whose only path out of lower-class drudgery is to marry a rich man. How this plays out is the plot of the film.

Renoir was possibly the greatest film director of the 20th Century. However, this movie is one of his minor films. Renoir does crowd scenes well, but he can't take his eyes off Goddard, and neither can we.

This movie has an anemic IMDB rating of 6.7. It's not a great film, but I think it's better than that. We saw it on DVD, and it worked well enough. Be sure to see it if you're a Renoir fan or a Goddard fan. Otherwise, I'd suggest Buñuel's 1964 version, with Jeanne Moreau.

Celestine, a headstrong, opinionated young chambermaid, lands a job at the home of the wealthy Lanlaire family. She is determined to improve her station in life and one day have her own estate. Her ambition becomes more reachable when she meets and befriends George, the Lanlaires' son.

A film with a fair amount of potential. The opportunity for a profound statement on social classes, the dynamics and the attitudes of people in one to people in another. Allied to this, a story of blind ambition.

There's hints of these themes but they all seem rather secondary to the soap-operaesque melodrama that is the life of Celestine. It's a bit more lively than a soap opera, fortunately, as there's a fair degree of comedy and a light-hearted tone to much of the proceedings.

The tone does become darker later and the plot becomes more interesting but the damage is done earlier on.

Overall, watchable but not brilliant.

I cannot pretend to explain all the allusions and metaphors Renoir intended to convey with this impressionistic comedy. Paulette Goddard, as the main character, is magnificent. She conveys her feelings and thoughts through her diary, but in a manner that is always blurry and full of confusion. And speaking of confusion, Hurd Hatfield is on hand as the scion of the odd home. Burgess Meredith, Francis Lederer, and Irene Ryan all add terrific seriocomic support in their roles.

Be prepared to experience many conflicting feelings while viewing this film.

The Diary of a Chambermaid is a transitional film in the development of Renoir's lesser known stylistic system. Braudy would later distinguish Renoir's two systems as being tied to theater and realism respectively (although there have been compelling arguments about these categories being either reductive or simply misnomers). Goddard is the focus of the story (much in the same way Renoir later uses Magnani, Arnoul and Bergman). The camera tracks her action, her closeups are one-shot, there are alternating shot scales in single scenes to emphasize her character's psychological reaction to events, studio exteriors help idealize the framing of her screen personality and high/low angle shots purvey her psychological perspective on group dynamics. Celestine (Goddard) has an ambiguity to her motivation that heightens psychological identification. It is unclear as to whether she sees the world divided into classes or sexes, or both. The ending is a happy one, and the politics is further subverted through jovial and emotionally-charged highly-individualized characters. Non-diegetic soundtrack is employed to increase distinctions in the emotional responses of different characters. Depth of field is at the service of Celestine's staging while obstructions in the mise-en-scene become incorporated into the plot. In this respect, the camera is not an unobtrusive one. There is an inconsistency in the use of stylistics, where on one hand reframing pans are fully at the service of psychological identification and privilege of the transcendental subject position while the long take mobile framing of the July 14th celebration reminisce on M.Lange, Illusion and Regle. Diary is a melodrama with comedic elements to take the edges off, but when the master of the house reads in the morning paper "another woman murdered in Paris, another woman cut to pieces" there is no doubt that Renoir is infusing a consideration for the plight of women in a misogynist society. This was very important to him and perhaps the dark undertones of this film have something to say about the repression he experienced working in Hollywood for the war. How Burgess Meredith factors into all that remains to be seen.

The first of the three talkie films of this story is based on the play Le journal d'une femme de Chambre, which is in turn based on the 1900 book of the same name. This is the only American version and my least favorite. Even so I like it. As dated as it is there is still plenty about this production that is absorbing. Paulette Goddard plays a gorgeous chambermaid who leaves Paris to work on an estate in small-village fin de siécle France. Everybody falls for her but her hard boss, the woman who owns the estate and runs it with an iron fist. She may not fall for the beauty, but she recognizes that her son probably will and uses her to try and keep him home. It doesn't work and instead Celestine, our darling heroine, destroys madame boss's world.

A double-bill of two films transmuting Octave Mirbeau's source novel LE JOURNAL D'UNE FEMME DE CHAMBRE onto the celluloid, made by two 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 plebeian mob 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 astringent satire 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.

I've watched the first half of this film, and doubt I'll watch more. Very off-putting to me are the over the top, cartoonish, one dimensional performances of Reginald Owen, Burgess Merideth, Fancis Lederer, and Irene Ryan. Also off-putting, the phony looking, soundstage-bound sets where the entire movie takes place.

I did enjoy Godard's performance, and think she did a credable job, something that's reviewers here disagree about.

Another big drawback my strong sense that the story is emasculated and compromised by what American movies could and could not contain in 1946. I don't know what was missing, other than sex, from the source material, but it's obvious that a lot is.

In my opinion Jean Renoir was uneasy in America, but despite an ending that seemed to have to conform this is not a film that conforms in any way very easily. Paulette Goddard is excellent as the chambermaid who wants to climb up the ladder to what the world calls success and a Valet played brilliantly by Francis Lederer sees her as being just like himself but to disastrous consequences. No spoilers only to say that the cast is perfect in depicting a corrupt and cruel French society and it did not worry me at all that everyone spoke English and that the film was set bound. Renoir loved the theatre of life in all its aspects, and although his view was often comedic human cruelty and sadness showed. Cut by the UK censors to get a certificate fortunately now it can be seen intact, and for the faint hearted there are scenes of killing, both to animal and man that could disturb. But I believe it is a great film, as dark as ' La Chienne ' and ' La Bete Humaine. ' and several other of his films. And yet it is all ' theatre ' and the curtain rises as it descends. Laughter underlines the tragedy of existence.

Paulette Goddard comes to a small town in France to e a chambermaid in Reginald Owens' house -- although with Judith Anderson as his wife, we all know whose house it really is. Miss Goddard realizes she is tired of putting up with rich women, and obnoxious upper servants like Francis Lederer. She makes friends with Irene Ryan, a beaten-down scullery maid and retired captain Burgess Meredith (her husband in real life at the time). She's so full of conflicting emotions that she doesn't understand how she feels about Hurd Hatfield, the house's returned, tubercular son, for whom her mistress has suddenly bought Parisian uniforms and made her do up her hair.

Jean Renoir's last American film must have been frustrating for him. True, he had a chance to slang both aristocrats and parvenus, but the Production Code made him go around Robin Hood's barn to make his points about sexuality. True, it was clear to intelligent adults, but it feels like he was fighting with one hand tied behind his back, and a sudden and unbelievable happy ending dragged out of the whole thing. Still, there are some fine performances, including Lederer and Miss Ryan, but the whole thing feels a bit incoherent. Bunuel would do it much better.

Some slapstick is afoot as sexy maid Celestine (Paulette Goddard) comes to work for a rich couple in the French countryside. I've never read the novel on which "The Diary of a Chambermaid" is based, nor seen the later movie version of it, but Jean Renoir's version is a treat. The movie starts out presenting itself as though Celestine is going to spend the whole time seducing men, but it turns out that she's got something else in store. And so does her neighbor (Burgess Meredith).

It's not any kind of masterpiece, but still a fun look at the French class system of the 1880s, as well as topics such as womanizing. The only other Renoir movie that I've seen is "The Grand Illusion", but these two have convinced me that he was one fine director.

The rest of the cast includes Judith Anderson (Mrs. Danvers in "Rebecca") and Irene Ryan (Granny on "The Beverly Hillbillies").

The black comedy with sinister undertones does not give a pleasant aftertaste, although the comedy elements try to do their best to overwhelm the film, but ultimately the laughter goes down your throat. It's an excellent production, Jean Renoir is the master of French dark humour and sordid intrigue, and actually the sordidness becomes dominating here, in spite of many hilarious moments. The actors are all splendid, Paulette Goddard at her best, Burgess Meredith in his top form, Judith Anderson as formidable as ever, and all the others, but the story is simply terrible. Paulette Goddard enters her new position as a chambermaid in an old family of an impressing château, she thinks it will be her chance in life to get ahead socially, but the family is bizarre to say the least. Judith Anderson is the mistress of the chateau, her husband is an old doting fool, and she lives only for her spoiled son, who is constantly coughing, giving the impression of being mortally sick, but that's not the worst of it. The family has a valet who for ten years has been planning to settle some scores with the family, and he has an alarming agenda. He actually thinks he could get away with his crimes and get Paulette Goddard to follow him with all the stolen family fortune, but as usual nothing works out as planned. Burgess Meredith is the funniest part of the film, his eccentrics really give the film a major comical interest, while he becomes the only victim. Luis Bunuel's version 18 years later, totally different, is even darker in its sinister bleakness, while here at least you have some great fun before it ends. Jean Renoir is always a master, there is a lot of "La règle du jeu" here, while Luis Bunuel's films never brought something nice to think of afterwards.

"Life is life. From now on I'm going to fight, and I'm going to fight hard, and I don't care who gets hurt, just so as it's not me."

"Don't be afraid of me. You and I are alike, maybe not in looks, but underneath we are the same."

"How does it feel to be in love?

• It changes all the time."

"Plans can get you into trouble."

"We are not used to kissing in public.

• Not in public. Are you ashamed? You shouldn't be ashamed of love. You should be proud. Take him in your arms, hold him, kiss him, embrace him!"

"Where are you going?

• Flying to the moon." 😂

"The more I'm beaten, the stronger I get."