CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.5/10
1.6 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaA chambermaid plots to climb the social ladder by marrying a wealthy man.A chambermaid plots to climb the social ladder by marrying a wealthy man.A chambermaid plots to climb the social ladder by marrying a wealthy man.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 1 premio ganado en total
Edward Astran
- Townsman
- (sin créditos)
Arthur Berkeley
- Townsman
- (sin créditos)
Chet Brandenburg
- Townsman
- (sin créditos)
Egon Brecher
- The Postman
- (sin créditos)
Jane Crowley
- Townswoman
- (sin créditos)
Sumner Getchell
- Pierre
- (sin créditos)
Jack Perry
- Townsman
- (sin créditos)
Joe Ploski
- Townsman
- (sin créditos)
Opiniones destacadas
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.
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.
"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?
"Plans can get you into trouble."
"We are not used to kissing in public.
"Where are you going?
"The more I'm beaten, the stronger I get."
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Be prepared to experience many conflicting feelings while viewing this film.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaIt is sometimes said that this was the only film Jean Renoir made entirely inside a studio.
- ErroresWhen the Captain (Meredith) is going to the July 14 celebration, the shadow of the boom and mic are visible.
- Citas
Georges Lanlaire: I never found the urge to live or die on a big scale.
- ConexionesReferenced in Tiovivo c. 1950 (2004)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is The Diary of a Chambermaid?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h 26min(86 min)
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta