Journal d'une femme de chambre

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.