tmm's classic films club - Last Year At Marienbad

..and why not?
User avatar
the masked man
Schadenfreude
Posts: 27074
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 12:29
Location: Peterborough

tmm's classic films club - Last Year At Marienbad

Postby the masked man » 28 Aug 2006, 11:55

Image

"Last Year At Marienbad" is depending on your viewpoint, either a breathtaking landmark in modernist cinema or a typically pretentious piece of French nonsense.

At heart, it actually has a simple narrative idea. At a central European resort a male hotel guest corners a female guest and tries to persuade her they had an affair on holiday the previous year. Time and again, she rebuffs him by denying this. However, the script, by experimental novelist Alain Robbe-Grillet, clouds the issue by placing suggestions about what really happened in our minds, whilst also stressing that these suggestions are fundamantally unreliable. Meanwhile, director Alain Resnais plays games with chronology - within individual scenes, past, present and, possibly, future are merged to bewildering effect.

What the film is trying to do is to represent how the mind processes thoughts and emotions, and to point out how unreliable memory is, particularly when it is fogged by desire. As a result, it is highly difficult to come to any clear conclusion as to what really happened the previous year. I've been discussing the film in PMs with TRSP, and we discussed the suggestions that the female character is repressing memories due to a traumatic event, but our interpretations of who was responsible for this differed completely. Neither of us is necessarily 'right' or 'wrong' - indeed this even echoes the fact that Resnais and Robbe-Grillet disagreed as to whether the affair existed in the first place.

Yet, I must admit that I find the film highly pleasurable - for one thing, the crisp black-an-white cinematography is stunning, highlighting what is a highly poetic film. And furthermore, the intellectualism is tempered with a certain playfulness. There is a running joke concerning a game played with matchsticks; no matter what, the man who introduces the game to the guests always wins. As a result of this film, this game even became fashionable in French intellectual circles.

For all its narrative vagueness, I think "Marienbad" is a remarkable achievement - it is, on an aesthetic level, tightly composed to avoid longueurs. Oddly enough, given how us Brits have a reputation for distrusting French intelectualism, the film has had a notable impact on British cinema - it is a favourite film of both Nicolas Roeg and Peter Greenaway, and its influence can clearly be seen on both directors. But there is ultimately nothing quite like this film, and for its sheer originality it deserves its place in my personal canon of classic films.

User avatar
Jimbly
Posts: 21957
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Postby Jimbly » 28 Aug 2006, 12:10

I have always wanted to see this film, but as of yet never have.

Maybe one day
So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 24007
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 28 Aug 2006, 18:02

Jeemo wrote:I have always wanted to see this film, but as of yet never have.

Maybe one day


Me too.
“Remember I have said good things about benevolent despots before.” - Jimbo

Image

User avatar
The Write Profile
2017 BCB Cup Champ
Posts: 14755
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 10:55
Location: Today, Tomorrow, Timaru
Contact:

Postby The Write Profile » 14 Nov 2006, 07:49

Just thinking about this film the other day and the thing that really sticks out about this film isn't just the fact there's absolutely no final resolution, but the fact that the characters almost seem resigned to the fact that there's no resolution.

the masked man wrote:What the film is trying to do is to represent how the mind processes thoughts and emotions, and to point out how unreliable memory is, particularly when it is fogged by desire. As a result, it is highly difficult to come to any clear conclusion as to what really happened the previous year. I've been discussing the film in PMs with TRSP, and we discussed the suggestions that the female character is repressing memories due to a traumatic event, but our interpretations of who was responsible for this differed completely. Neither of us is necessarily 'right' or 'wrong' - indeed this even echoes the fact that Resnais and Robbe-Grillet disagreed as to whether the affair existed in the first place.


Indeed, I remember this coversation and somehow never got around to replying to it on the board, but the confusion stems not only to the viewers but the actual makers. Bear in mind that Resnais was adamant that the meeting between the two people must have taken place, whereas Grillet argued to the complete contrary. In fact, the script at times is eerily similar to Grillet's novella Jealousy, in which a man thinks he witnesses his wife having an affair and slowly goes mad as a result, though- eventually the reader discovers that the narrator has been going over and over the same area of the house, it's just that his perspective (and mindset) has become increasingly tormented. For all we know, his wife could be having an affair

The other point is that even the narration is ludicrously fragmented. The opening voiceover blandly describes the architecture and design of the villa, but gives information utterly incongruous to what we see on screen (for instance, he describes the "stone slabs" as the camera pans down the empty hallway, where there are none).

At its heart, I think there is a brutal, coldly unfeeling and possibly misogynist subtext to the whole thing- in fact I'd go so far as to suggest that "X" rapes "A"- or at least thrusts himself (and his viewpoint) so strongly onto the character that she's forced to repress it. Yet at other points even he seems to deny the incident.

the masked man wrote:There is a running joke concerning a game played with matchsticks; no matter what, the man who introduces the game to the guests always wins. As a result of this film, this game even became fashionable in French intellectual circles.


I've never played the game and can't find an accurate layout of the matches on the net (perhaps the masked man can do this for me), but I'm sure there must be a trick to it- namely, that the film's lying. I've wanted to set it up with someone just to prove that it's wrong, but maybe that's the point.

In another way, the film is a conact. As David Sterrit has suggested, really it's no more than a high-toned version of that old pickup line "Have we met before?" and the idea that if you're forcible enough in your approach that you can put enough doubt into the other's mind as to suggest you have. The other is the completely closed, pristine nature of the design- it really does look gorgeous, but oddly sculpted- the characters move like chess pieces, and the structure seems at once mathematical and at times, rather arbitrary. Perhaps it's closer to a computer or roleplaying game in that regard, in that there are multiple possibilities but only one realm in which they can exist.

Indeed, I'm absolutely certain that the Simpsons have referenced it. There's an episode where we see Mr Burns's playroom- in which a play goes on continuously and the plot seems to be utterly convoluted and nonsensical- that bears more than a passing resemblance to the "play" that bookends Last Year in Marienbad. Maybe the similarity is unintentional, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone within the Simpsons office had seen that film.

Ultimately, it's a film that brings out the pseud in you, for better or worse. An intellectual piece? For sure, but a baffling, tormenting and ultimately beguiling one. You can get lost in it, much like the two characters at the end.
It's before my time but I've been told, he never came back from Karangahape Road.

The Modernist

Postby The Modernist » 14 Nov 2006, 08:14

Davey The Fat Boy wrote:
Jeemo wrote:I have always wanted to see this film, but as of yet never have.

Maybe one day


Me too.


er..and me. It's one of those films you feel slightly guilty about not seeing. It had a huge reputation in its day, but seems to have fallen out of favour in recent times.

User avatar
James R
the grocer of despair
Posts: 9914
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 03:53
Location: seated sultanically among the moons of Saturn
Contact:

Postby James R » 16 Nov 2006, 06:26

Corporal Moddie! wrote:
Davey The Fat Boy wrote:
Jeemo wrote:I have always wanted to see this film, but as of yet never have.

Maybe one day


Me too.


er..and me. It's one of those films you feel slightly guilty about not seeing. It had a huge reputation in its day, but seems to have fallen out of favour in recent times.


It's one of these things that happens over the course of time. Someone makes a film, it's hailed as one of the greats, and held up as an example of Great Cinema. However, in the meantime, people are still making films, some of which also get hailed as examples of Great Cinema and push some of those older examples into the background. I've read a few different film histories and similar books of varying vintages (the oldest one I have is Roger Manvell's Film, 1946 edition), and I'm fascinated by the way the representative examples of cinema these books choose change with the years. There seem to be some immortal classics that always get a look-in, but then there are others that have frankly vanished from consideration.

As for Marienbad, I've never seen it either. Of all Resnais' oeuvre I think I've only ever seen Night and Fog and Providence. I'm sure I should check out more of his work, but I've been disappointed by so many of the acknowledged great arthouse masters of that period that I'm afraid to...
pcqgod wrote:I like how Liebling progresses from a rotting, animated corpse living in his parents' basement to a slightly more life-affirming walking corpse by the end of the movie.

Goat Boy wrote:I recall a midget with large tits dancing.

Sneelock

Postby Sneelock » 01 Feb 2007, 00:55

it's a one of a kind sort of thing. it's hard to talk about it. it strikes me as being a film that's sort of aimed more at your subconcious mind. it's a puzzle box of a movie and I know many feel they've solved the puzzle and can explain it to you. I'm not sure I agree. I think it's a wonderful and singular film but it's really gonna hinge on your taste.

you know that Bunuel film. "the Exterminating Angel"? I think if you like that you have a leg up. it's point isn't as obvious, not to me but they seem aimed at a similar part of the brain. renais traffics in the visual more than Bunuel. it really is pretty breathtaking. it's the sort of film I like to fall asleep watching. maybe my subconcious mind enjoys it even more than I do. easy to endorse if you like Cocteu and that sort of stuff.

marios

Postby marios » 01 Feb 2007, 01:17

I saw most of this film as a child and i remember being extremely confused. I've been meaning to watch it properly now that i'm old enough to appreciate it, but haven't managed to do that yet. I almost bought it the other day, but the fact i kind of hated Resnais' Hiroshima Mon Amour seems to be stopping me from taking the plunge.

Sneelock

Postby Sneelock » 01 Feb 2007, 01:20

good call!
it has a very similar feel!
and, even though I like it, I'll admit I can't really make heads or tales of it.

'hiroshima' is much more staight forward to my way of thinking and I'm not sure I make heads or tails of that!

marios

Postby marios » 01 Feb 2007, 01:46

Sneelock wrote:good call!
it has a very similar feel!
and, even though I like it, I'll admit I can't really make heads or tales of it.

'hiroshima' is much more staight forward to my way of thinking and I'm not sure I make heads or tails of that!


The main reason i want to see Marienbad is because its faded memory feels like i had a weird dream years ago and i have the chance to revisit it and see what i make of it now.

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 29992
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Postby toomanyhatz » 01 Feb 2007, 01:54

I loved H,MA and liked LYAM. I agree they're both movies for the subconscious, and I think they're both more enjoyable when not trying to "get" them. That said, the repetitiveness of Marienbad got a bit boring after a while. Quite a visual feast, though- I love the triangular trees and the people that look like little models. All his movies do that, right? Have those surreal little bits where you're not sure if you're looking at reality, irreality, or some stylized version of one or the other?

P.S. I'm a big Bunuel fan. I see the similarities, but also the differences. I think Resnais forces you to question your perception, wheras Bunuel treats everything more as an absurd joke. Or, put another way- Resnais is a lot more serious.
Footy wrote:
The Who / Jimi Hendrix Experience Saville Theatre, London Jan '67
. Got Jimi's autograph after the show and went on to see him several times that year


1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017* 2018 2020!! 2023?


Return to “Screenadelica”