User reviews

Lea Seydoux stars as the titular servant who has to put up w/obnoxious & lascivious overseers as she tries to maintain her sanity in the most menial of careers. Consisting of furtive looks & moody zooms, Diary hearkens back to the films of the 70's that Bunuel or Truffaut may've made but the modernity of Seydoux's casting keeps things interesting when the plot & scenery start to falter towards the mundane. The plot does becomes problematic when the story ends abruptly leaving the viewer to guess what happens next but other than this narrative hiccup, a tale well told.

"Diary of a Chambermaid" (2015 release from France; 95 min.) brings the story of Celestine (played by Léa Seydoux). As the movie opens, she is offered a chambermaid position in the country side away from Paris ("dans les provinces"). The household comprises of the Mr. (who takes an immediately like to Celestine) and the Mrs. (who treats Celestine with contempt and disdain), as well as several other helpers, including the gardener Joseph (played by Vincent Lindon). It's not long before Celstine finds herself in all kinds of awkward situations. At this point we are not yet 15 minutes into the movie, but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is not the first time nor the second time that this (in)famous book has been brought to the big screen. In fact, let's just say it right now: both previous versions (1946, directed by film giant Jean Renoir, and 1964, directed by that other film giant Luis Buñuel) are MILES better than this latest adaptation, which is directed by Benoît Jacquot, not a slouch himself (best known perhaps for the excellent "Farewell, My Queen" from a few years ago, also starring Lea Seydoux). The script of this latest version seems incapable to make up its mind whether this is a sex comedy or whether it is a comedy of the classes, so it tries to be a little bit of both and ends up being neither. BEWARE: the role played by Joseph contains a strong and over the top anti-Semitism streak that I thought was shockingly blunt, and could've been handled very differently for the movie's immediate purposes without being so offensive and blatantly racist. As to the acting performances, I am a big fan of Lea Seydoux (Blue Is the Warmest Colour, and most recently in The Lobster and the latest James Bond, Spectre), but here she seems strangely absent, as if her mind is somewhere else. Vincent Lindon as the gardener tries to make the most of his material. Bottom line: when you take on a well-known novel that's been filmed before, the question of course is: what is the purpose of the remake? I really can't come up with any obvious answer to that, as the 2015 version doesn't seem to cover any new ground or provide any new insight.

"Diary of a Chambermaid" premiered at the 2016 Berlin Film Festival, yes, 18 months ago. Then, out of the blue, the movie opened at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati a week ago. The Thursday early evening screening where I saw this at turned out to be the last day, as the movie was gone the next day. The screening was not attended particularly well, and that didn't surprise me. I wouldn't call this latest adaptation a bad movie per se, although I was appalled at the over the top anti-Semitism in the movie. You may be interested to see this if you've seen the previous adaptations, just for comparison purposes.

The newest and to my mind the best of the three talkie versions of this perennial: vibrant and private, both. A parisienne maidservant moves to the country to work and live in a village estate. Everyone likes her except the woman she works for and the estate caretaker. Through her time there her memories of past appointments play out for us to share. This is the only "diary" in the movie. Eventually the caretaker comes around and the two of them lay plans. This is also the earthiest of the three versions: prostitution, rape, murder, abortions all figure into the story in this our frank age.

Lea Seydoux plays the chambermaid in this new version. The plot is different. In the Moreau film from the same book; she turns Joseph in for the murder and rape. Here Seydoux plans a robbery and getaway with Joseph. Moreau tries to catch Joseph, but he ends up owning a cafe in Cherbourg that he had planned with her. He's with a different woman smiling. Moreau marries the neighbor captain and is ordering him around. Seydoux states she has no power over her feelings for Joseph, and that she would do anything he wanted. This latest version has an antiquated take on the character. The father character is missing. The character of Claire is absent. We know of her murder when a round table of women discuss it. Moreau film shows Joseph going into the woods after Claire. Moreau knows and is fond of Claire. How can this screenplay cut Claire out? And the father? The husband is actively impregnating the cook, but he is not a murdering rapist. The flashback of Seydoux having sex with a young man dying of a pulmonary embolism at the moment of climax with her mouth filling with blood is a shocker. Another flashback shows her mistress's dildo in a locked red velvet jewel case that she unlocks and opens for authorities. These are two entirely different screenplays from the same book. Jeanne Moreau does no housework and presents a dignified well intentioned version of Celestine. Lea Seydoux works very hard doing everything, but her passion for Joseph controls her. Moreau is more cerebral. They are such entirely different films I think they stand apart and strong on their own different merits.

It makes me wonder how one can spoil a splendid story like this. Earlier adaptations have been able to show the misery, disgust, dreary situation and yet taken the audience with them, through to the end. Here a less than convincing Lea Seydoux is seemingly dragged through the plot. And the rest of the actors likewise act like having been left behind on the scene without much of an idea what they were actually supposed to do. The miserable, unloving, sordid state in that house is shown. Though, on top of this it is also boring. Bunuel - should we say: in a modern way? - gave the chamber maid the upper hand, resolve, determination, wit. A character and her development. In this movie nothing develops, the hero - so we learn in the beginning - already has a history of being rejected by her employers. While towards the end, she's still diddling with rejection of her behaviour.

Who the heck could have had the idea of doing this remake?

Poor and confusing version of the classic novel when compared to the excellent one - and definitive - prepared by master Louis Bunuel back in 1964. One should never ever try to match a classic.

Adapted from the book, it is a movie that keeps the spirit of the era alive. Impeccably good acting. Every movie of Léa Seydoux, where everyone falls in love with her beauty, should be watched.

The third version of Octave Mirbeau's novel and by far the weakest.Marion Cotillard was to play Célestine but she was eventually replaced by Léa Seydoux, whose inexpressive looks and listless acting do not help;and anyway she is no match for Jeanne Moreau ,the best Celestine ever,even though Luis Bunuel's story underwent some changes - when the master tackles a novel ,he integrates his obsessions ,and he makes it his own.

The movie suffers ,not only from Seydoux's monotonous portrayal,but also from a terribly desultory script (both Renoir's and Bunuel's efforts had firm screenplays.)

Let's put it straight:I did not expect much from a third version but I did watch it because Vincent Lindon is in it;unfortunately his part is reduced to a sex machine and he is not given a single chance to show his skills ;in Bunuel's version,Georges Géret made all his scenes count .

The cinematography is fine and the last pictures rather tasteful,but the movie will be quickly forgotten.