117 Diary of a Chambermaid

Message

Martha · #1 Post by **Martha** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:33 am

Diary of a Chambermaid

[img]http://criterion_production.s3.amazonaws.com/release_images/692/117_box_348x490_w128.jpg[/img]

This wicked adaptation of the Octave Mirbeau novel is classic Luis Bunuel. Jeanne Moreau is Celestine, a beautiful Parisian domestic who, upon arrival at her new job at an estate in provincial 1930s France, entrenches herself in sexual hypocrisy and scandal with her philandering employer (Bunuel regular Michel Piccoli). Filmed in luxurious black-and-white Franscope, Diary of a Chambermaid is a raw-edged tangle of fetishism and murderâ€”and a scathing look at the burgeoning French fascism of the era.

Special Features

-Spectacular new widescreen transfer, with digitally restored image and sound and enhanced for 16×9 televisions
-Video interview with screenwriter and longtime Buñuel collaborator Jean-Claude Carrière
-Transcript of a late 1970s interview with director Luis Bunuel
-Original theatrical trailer, narrated by Jeanne Moreau
-New and improved English subtitle translation
-Optimal image quality: RSDL dual-layer edition

Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled

swingo · #2 Post by **swingo** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:19 pm

I absolutely love this movie, but I'm curious about one thing... what's up with the Franscope thing?
in what difference consisted as to other ways of filming?

thanks in advance,

Axel.

#3 Post by **cdnchris** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:25 pm

swingo wrote:I absolutely love this movie, but I'm curious about one thing... what's up with the Franscope thing?
in what difference consisted as to other ways of filming?

Isn't that just the French name for 2.35:1? Like Shaw-o-Scope (or whatever it was called?) for those kung-fu movies?

swingo · #4 Post by **swingo** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:00 pm

thanks, appreciated...

Axel.

Michael Kerpan · #5 Post by **Michael Kerpan** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:29 pm

The bottom of this page lists a dizzying array of x-scope formats.

skuhn8 · #6 Post by **skuhn8** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:37 pm

Just finished watching this again. I viewed this on my projector and noticed something that I didn't notice the last time I watched on a TV: the lens used created a pretty interesting distorting effect, especially during a pan. Not quite fish-eye but slightly approaching a similar effect. Could this be something inherent to Franscope? Something that set it apart? In any case, it worked for me.

I love this film. To be honest, I'm not a fan of Discreet Charm or Obscure object...at all really, as they lack the subtlety of his earlier dark satire, and the one Mexican film I saw was powerful but I'm content with a single viewing. But Diary and Belle Du Jour are just wonderful. Diary I can watch again and again. Everything just flows so perfectly, and with such resonating imagery...snails on Claire's legs, Jeanne's wry little smile (ok, she's got that with her in every film), and details like the swarm of ants on the greenhouse glass when the second time trash is being thrown at it ( which I only noticed projected). Heck, the opening and closing titles are wonderful.

Can anyone recommend some good literature on this film? The first couple times I watched it I just went for the ride, but this time I put my thinking cap on and tried to really figure these characters out, and decipher the innuendo's (i.e., the old soldier: "I can't eat esparagus because Rose doesn't like it"--if I recall it was pretty well known even back then that our long green veggie results in funky spunk--or am I reading too much into it?).

swingo · #7 Post by **swingo** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 2:55 am

The rape sequence reminded me of the 'M' sequence...

I've read somewhere about that slightly effect of a fish eye...

Axel.

bunuelian · #8 Post by **bunuelian** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:05 pm

I looked through my "library" last night to see if I had any literature on this film. Of the three books I have on Bunuel's films (not counting "My Last Sigh," a book of screenplays and the weak Baxter biography) the only piece addressing Diary of a Chambermaid is Tom Milne's "The Two Chambermaids," a comparison of the films by Bunuel and Renoir, appearing in "The World of Luis Bunuel" (ed. Joan Mellen). It is fairly critical of Bunuel's film, especially the unexplained ambiguity of Celestine's character. I recall seeing fairly similar criticisms from one of the members here in one of the previous incarnations of this board.

A truncated version of this piece also appears in Aranda's "Luis Bunuel: A critical biography." Aranda prefaces the exerpt by saying that such a comparison is "almost irrelevant" given the radical differences in style between the filmmakers.

In general I highly recommend both of these books to Bunuel fans. The third book on my shelf, Gywnne Edwards' "The Discreet Art of Luis Bunuel", is something of a distillation of the first two books, filled out with additional material, especially the symbolism of his films (her piece on Viridiana is especially enlightening). Edwards' book is not as meaty as Aranda or Mellen. Reading any of these books will give you a greater appreciation of this movie, even if they don't address it at great length.

BWilson · #9 Post by **BWilson** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:45 pm

skuhn8 wrote: the lens used created a pretty interesting distorting effect, especially during a pan. Not quite fish-eye but slightly approaching a similar effect. Could this be something inherent to Franscope? Something that set it apart? In any case, it worked for me.

Baush and Lomb manufactured and popularized the anamorphic Cinemascope lens around 1953-54. Early 'scope films suffered from what are referred to as "mumps". Mumps are distortion caused by the anamorphic stretching process and are particularly apparent in very tight close-ups of faces and when the camera pans distant objects horizontally. Early scope films (1954 and 1955 mostly) exhibit more mumps than later films, owing, I assume, to improved craftsmanship of the lenses as time went on. (Take a look at 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea to see a good example of early anamorphic mumps.)

The Franscope process was just a rip-off of Baush and Lomb's Cinemascope concept. The mumps are more apparent, again I assume, because of faulty craftsmanship of the lenses.

duane hall · #10 Post by **duane hall** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:52 pm

i watched this for the first time last week, and (to my surprise) it may actually be my favorite Bunuel. although, seeing a good print of Exterminating Angel might change that.

the ambiguity of Celestine's character is perhaps the strongest aspect of the film, for me. the other characters are also vividly, affectionately drawn. even the boot-fetishist patriarch seems more curious and harmless than perverse. (though, don't get me wrong, the moral corruptness of Joseph and the moral ambiguity of Celestine are essential to the film's effectiveness)

heh. and Piccoli had me laughing out loud throughout.

colinr0380 · #11 Post by **colinr0380** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:33 am

An interesting reaction to the film from the Shadowplay blog.

HerrSchreck · #12 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:15 am

BWilson wrote:
skuhn8 wrote: the lens used created a pretty interesting distorting effect, especially during a pan. Not quite fish-eye but slightly approaching a similar effect. Could this be something inherent to Franscope? Something that set it apart? In any case, it worked for me.
Baush and Lomb manufactured and popularized the anamorphic Cinemascope lens around 1953-54. Early 'scope films suffered from what are referred to as "mumps". Mumps are distortion caused by the anamorphic stretching process and are particularly apparent in very tight close-ups of faces and when the camera pans distant objects horizontally. Early scope films (1954 and 1955 mostly) exhibit more mumps than later films, owing, I assume, to improved craftsmanship of the lenses as time went on. (Take a look at 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea to see a good example of early anamorphic mumps.)

The Franscope process was just a rip-off of Baush and Lomb's Cinemascope concept. The mumps are more apparent, again I assume, because of faulty craftsmanship of the lenses.

Major mumpsing noticed in Kobayashi Masakis SeppuKu/Harakiri, which I saw on the screen today for the first time (after having it on vid for years).. and as indicated above the distorting was especially visible during horizontal pans.

Person · #13 Post by **Person** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:52 pm

Dyaliscope and Franscope didn't use Bausch and Lomb lenses. They utilised the lenses developed by Professor Ernst Abbe, who developed the early widescreen system, "Cinepanoramic". I assume that this Abbe is the son of 19th Cebtury German physicist, Ernst Abbe who is often cited as being the inventor of the anamorphic lens and who introduced the 8-hour day to Europe around 1900 at Carl Zeiss' facilities in Jena.

But, yes, the French anamorphic lenses of the 50s and 60s weren't of high quality.

Props55 · #14 Post by **Props55** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:13 am

Dyaliscope and Franscope are indeed separate design and patents from the Bausch and Lomb Cinemascope process although the basic physics applies to all systems. However I've heard and read anecdotal references to Fox palming off the initial inferior Scope lens to various indie producers and camera rental facilities where they were used to shoot a multitude of various low-budget European co-productions until the early '60s when they (a) literally fell apart and/or (b) were superseded by Techniscope and lira-saving processes. Explains the often piss-poor quality (impossible to focus/fish eye closeups) of many sword & sandal, western, giallo, horror and spy films of the period.

Fox didn't just dump these overseas though. Take a look at the MGM DVD of DeToth's THE INDIAN FIGHTER from 1955. The concave distortion on the horizontal pans and the bloated closeups indicate that UA and Kirk Douglas' Bryna company got rooked on the rental of their Scope lenses. To be fair I suppose the print used for the DVD could have been an inferior or botched copy from the initial print run which wound up as a vault keeper. It's a good (or bad?) example of what can happen when using early Scope lenses especially on low or mid budget films shot on location without benefit of on site (i.e. studio backlot) lens technicians.

dad1153 · #15 Post by **dad1153** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:34 am

Saw it on IFC Channel for the first time last weekend (DVR). There's a subversive streak of dark humor in this movie that's often overlooked (or not perceived to be funny at all) because of the duality of its first half being a dramatic peek at a clash of cultures, then making a 180 turn at the halfway mark into murder mystery thriller territory... sort of. Between Jean Ozenne's shoe fetishes, Monsieur Monteil's clumsy sexual passes/lustings (Michel Piccoli = the 1920's French Fredo), the calculated coldness of Françoise Lugagne's Madame Monteil, Georges Géret's barely-contained contempt for the world and Capt. Mauger's next-door hijinks there are tons of loose plots hanging up in the air. Then Buñuel literally re-enacts "Little Red Riding Hood" getting 'lost' in the woods (with Joseph as the big bad wolf) and the movie begins tying everything together into entirely unexpected and unforeseen (by me) ways. At the center of it all Jeanne Moreau's Céléstine shows signs of humanity that give way at the end to a selfishness that is neither heroic or boorish but a healthy mix of both. The 'thundering' animation at the end seems like a reverse interpretation of the 'old man shakes fist at sky' motif but with Buñuel letting us figure out who the Gods are angry at in his fairytale of human misbehavior (by both the bourgeoisie and common man alike).

stereo · #16 Post by **stereo** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:37 am

I keep waiting for a proper release of Renoir's version. There apparently was an oop euro DVD, but oh well....

HistoryProf · #17 Post by **HistoryProf** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:24 pm

Out of Print as of June 30, 2010.

Site Menu