Last Year At Marienbad is one of the most perplexing films I’ve ever seen. The film is confusing not because of its plot (for what little is developed is fairly easy to digest), but because of how director Alain Resnais chooses to present the plot. Its style is clearly connected to Surrealism as it disregards continuity of time and space and presents a narrative that is so abstract one can’t help but think that what we are seeing is without a doubt a man’s never-ending nightmare.
One thing that absolutely blew me away about this film was how much Resnais focused on its form. It seems like so much importance was put on how the narrative should be presented to us in order to make us feel a particular way.That being said, the film has absolutely no coherent structure or form. It is entirely representative of a dream-like or subconscious state. It’s as if we’re not simply following the protagonist through the story, watching events unfold logically. Rather we’re wandering with no restriction, much like the character himself, through various locations and times. The film is almost told from the point of view of the main protagonist’s uncertain mind, and as a result of this we feel the incoherence.
This feeling of circular wandering is established in the very first shots of the film. Last Year At Marienbad begins with various dolly and tracking shots which all move at the same slow speed, showing the large and extravagant setting of an expensive hotel. The fluid camera slowly moves through rooms and corridors, establishing the setting of the film. More so than simply establishing space (For Resnais could have began the film with a static long shot of the entire hotel), these series of shots establish an almost eerie mood and perfectly evoke this feeling of aimless wandering. A very unique voice over accompanies this series of shots as well. One of the first things we notice about the film that seems to be “off” is the fact that the voiceover is being repeated. It’s as if a poem is being read and then re-read multiple times. This adds to the feeling of wandering in circles. We are forced to listen to this haunting repetition of words that, along with the images, feels like a nightmare that we cannot awaken from. Tying everything together is the carnival-like music which, while being somewhat annoying, perfectly accompanies dialogue and image by adding another level of tension to the scene.
As the film progresses we realize that a man, who in the film is unnamed but in the screenplay is known as “X”, has come to this hotel to meet a woman, “A”, that he believes spent time with him in this very location one year ago. “A” repeatedly denies that they ever had a relationship which drives “X” mad for he appears to be certain about their time together. While this is going on a mysterious man named “M” who could be the husband of “A” repeatedly beats people in a game of numbers. As far as what I could recall (and I would like to watch the film again), by the end of the film nothing more is resolved and the characters appear to be forever trapped in this dream.
Now, with all that being said, I have a hard time believing that any of this is real. At no point does the film allow us to connect with any of the characters in a coherent way. Every scene is distorted and disconnected, never providing us with closure. Resnais often includes groups of people talking without any audible dialogue. Then, after a few seconds, we are able to hear the words they are saying only to have the audio get cut off again in the middle of their conversation. Characters could be talking to each other in one location and then switch to a different location in the same scene and even though this sudden change in space occurs the conversation remains unbroken. In one of my favorite sequences of the film, Resnais repeatedly cuts from “X” and “A” sitting in the hotel’s dimly lit bar to a brightly lit bedroom where “A” looks at her broken shoe. This is one of my favorite moments of the film not only because of the beautiful cinematography but because of the way the contrast between the dark and light scenes as well as the hard cuts back and forth create tension and mystery. It’s one of the boldest and most impressive parts of the film.
All of the techniques and narrative choices point to what Resnais appears to be focusing on the most. Rather than establishing a narrative and concentrating on a memorable plot and characters, Resnais focuses on putting viewers into the film, creating a memorable experience.
We discussed in class this idea of solipsism and how the film was connected to the philosophy of Descartes. I’m not going to pretend like I know what I’m talking about in terms of philosophy, but I do think that if you look at Last Year At Marienbad with these concepts in mind you can somewhat grasp what Resnais could’ve possibly been going for.
Solipsism is the idea that oneself is the only thing that we can know is real. Because we cannot prove that everyone around us actually exists, we can never be certain that we are not alone in our existence. Last Year At Marienbad can be looked at as an exploration of this concept. The entire film captures the thought process of a man that is constantly rethinking what happened to him, challenging not only his memory but the existence of people in his past.
One of the most interesting things that I found in the reading’s interpretation of the film was that “X” is the only person’s view we are permitted to see. The reading states, “All we ever have to go on is what X tells us, and what he conveys is uncertainty about alleged facts as much as a report of these facts. What is important is that all the above questions are in principle unanswerable. The film never provides the viewer with the means to tell what is real and what is fictitious.” Because “X” is uncertain throughout the entire film, it made me think of the unreliable narrator and how Resnais uses this narrative voice to the extreme. The film brings together so many elements to create this feeling of uncertainty and disorientation that it in many ways forces us, much like the main character, to look at the world in a solipsistic way.
Just to add some final thoughts that are in no way connected to the rest of this post, I would like to say that this movie is just incredible to me. I can’t believe that the man who made this film is still alive today, continuing to make movies. Last Year At Marienbad just seems like it’s in a completely different league than the majority of films that are currently being released (I do think that there are still exceptions). This film, to me, is clearly a masterpiece and if it came out today it would blow everyone away with its craft and originality. I think that too many movies today (especially Hollywood films) focus entirely on plot and character and not enough on the overall vision and form of the piece. Being a fan of narrative film I think that there is a balance that filmmakers can achieve. I guess I just wish that there were more films coming out today, especially American films, that are as stunning and original as Last Year At Marienbad.
One thing that absolutely blew me away about this film was how much Resnais focused on its form. It seems like so much importance was put on how the narrative should be presented to us in order to make us feel a particular way.That being said, the film has absolutely no coherent structure or form. It is entirely representative of a dream-like or subconscious state. It’s as if we’re not simply following the protagonist through the story, watching events unfold logically. Rather we’re wandering with no restriction, much like the character himself, through various locations and times. The film is almost told from the point of view of the main protagonist’s uncertain mind, and as a result of this we feel the incoherence.
This feeling of circular wandering is established in the very first shots of the film. Last Year At Marienbad begins with various dolly and tracking shots which all move at the same slow speed, showing the large and extravagant setting of an expensive hotel. The fluid camera slowly moves through rooms and corridors, establishing the setting of the film. More so than simply establishing space (For Resnais could have began the film with a static long shot of the entire hotel), these series of shots establish an almost eerie mood and perfectly evoke this feeling of aimless wandering. A very unique voice over accompanies this series of shots as well. One of the first things we notice about the film that seems to be “off” is the fact that the voiceover is being repeated. It’s as if a poem is being read and then re-read multiple times. This adds to the feeling of wandering in circles. We are forced to listen to this haunting repetition of words that, along with the images, feels like a nightmare that we cannot awaken from. Tying everything together is the carnival-like music which, while being somewhat annoying, perfectly accompanies dialogue and image by adding another level of tension to the scene.
As the film progresses we realize that a man, who in the film is unnamed but in the screenplay is known as “X”, has come to this hotel to meet a woman, “A”, that he believes spent time with him in this very location one year ago. “A” repeatedly denies that they ever had a relationship which drives “X” mad for he appears to be certain about their time together. While this is going on a mysterious man named “M” who could be the husband of “A” repeatedly beats people in a game of numbers. As far as what I could recall (and I would like to watch the film again), by the end of the film nothing more is resolved and the characters appear to be forever trapped in this dream.
Now, with all that being said, I have a hard time believing that any of this is real. At no point does the film allow us to connect with any of the characters in a coherent way. Every scene is distorted and disconnected, never providing us with closure. Resnais often includes groups of people talking without any audible dialogue. Then, after a few seconds, we are able to hear the words they are saying only to have the audio get cut off again in the middle of their conversation. Characters could be talking to each other in one location and then switch to a different location in the same scene and even though this sudden change in space occurs the conversation remains unbroken. In one of my favorite sequences of the film, Resnais repeatedly cuts from “X” and “A” sitting in the hotel’s dimly lit bar to a brightly lit bedroom where “A” looks at her broken shoe. This is one of my favorite moments of the film not only because of the beautiful cinematography but because of the way the contrast between the dark and light scenes as well as the hard cuts back and forth create tension and mystery. It’s one of the boldest and most impressive parts of the film.
All of the techniques and narrative choices point to what Resnais appears to be focusing on the most. Rather than establishing a narrative and concentrating on a memorable plot and characters, Resnais focuses on putting viewers into the film, creating a memorable experience.
We discussed in class this idea of solipsism and how the film was connected to the philosophy of Descartes. I’m not going to pretend like I know what I’m talking about in terms of philosophy, but I do think that if you look at Last Year At Marienbad with these concepts in mind you can somewhat grasp what Resnais could’ve possibly been going for.
Solipsism is the idea that oneself is the only thing that we can know is real. Because we cannot prove that everyone around us actually exists, we can never be certain that we are not alone in our existence. Last Year At Marienbad can be looked at as an exploration of this concept. The entire film captures the thought process of a man that is constantly rethinking what happened to him, challenging not only his memory but the existence of people in his past.
One of the most interesting things that I found in the reading’s interpretation of the film was that “X” is the only person’s view we are permitted to see. The reading states, “All we ever have to go on is what X tells us, and what he conveys is uncertainty about alleged facts as much as a report of these facts. What is important is that all the above questions are in principle unanswerable. The film never provides the viewer with the means to tell what is real and what is fictitious.” Because “X” is uncertain throughout the entire film, it made me think of the unreliable narrator and how Resnais uses this narrative voice to the extreme. The film brings together so many elements to create this feeling of uncertainty and disorientation that it in many ways forces us, much like the main character, to look at the world in a solipsistic way.
Just to add some final thoughts that are in no way connected to the rest of this post, I would like to say that this movie is just incredible to me. I can’t believe that the man who made this film is still alive today, continuing to make movies. Last Year At Marienbad just seems like it’s in a completely different league than the majority of films that are currently being released (I do think that there are still exceptions). This film, to me, is clearly a masterpiece and if it came out today it would blow everyone away with its craft and originality. I think that too many movies today (especially Hollywood films) focus entirely on plot and character and not enough on the overall vision and form of the piece. Being a fan of narrative film I think that there is a balance that filmmakers can achieve. I guess I just wish that there were more films coming out today, especially American films, that are as stunning and original as Last Year At Marienbad.
I feel like the feeling of circling around and around as if in a bad nightmare really rubbed off on the audience. The movie became hard to watch at times because it was so redundant and incoherent, and yet we couldn't figure out what was going on and had to keep watching and trying.
ReplyDeleteI like that you discussed X's POV being the only one we as viewers experience. It's interesting because usually in stories even if we are presented with an unreliable protagonist, we can look to the other characters or the situation to clarify what's actually going on. The fact that this film is different, and in the end we're still wondering what the heck just happened, is discomforting.
This movie is definitely SO different from your typical Hollywood flick, and it made me realize how used to 'regular' plots I am. In the end, X and A got to leave the hotel together-- what you would think is the perfect ending. But there's something wrong and melancholy about this ending-- the characters don't seem happy and the narration and scene suggest X will be just as trapped as before. It's very cool how this movie pulled that off.
Really good blog-- good job!
Again u do a great job at getting to the big points in the movie and relating them well to the reading.
ReplyDeleteYour focus on the form of film brings me to the question which i wanted to and forgot to ask when we watched the movie. This is a narrative film class, why is this film a part of the curriculum? Is it the dis-focus of the film on the narrative? Is it the non-linear storytelling techniques? Or is it a film with the illusion of narrative to display all the fancy camera tricks?
Awesome job hitting the main points especially the fact that we're only getting this from X's point of view. I really enjoy reading your blogs because you fill in some background and connect ideas, the readings, and the film with each other very well. Great job!
ReplyDeleteMan, this is some good stuff, I really enjoyed reading about how you also had trouble connecting to the characters ,because the film denies you that chance to ever really connect with them. This then tied in greatly with the fact that you have trouble believing this is even real.
ReplyDeleteThis just helped me feed into the whole dream aspect of the film...and judging on the content of it, I guess this could also be a nightmare.
Your final thoughts were also a nice touch because it gave some nice insight on the creator of the film. For example I had no idea that this man was still alive today making films, so nice one.
If you like the Resnais/Robbe-Grillet style, I think you'd really like La Belle Captive. It's a little hard to find, but well worth it. Surreal like this, but also very lush and beautiful. As dreamlike, but much more colorful.
ReplyDeleteYou touch on so much in this entry--the curiosity of an unreliable narrator whose perspective is nonetheless the only one we're allowed, the way his unreliability casts doubts on the reality of our own viewing experience (given that movies are entirely artificial anyway, this one really just only calls attention to that), disconnect with the characters, etc. Very nicely pulled together.
I'm not sure why you describe it initially as 'formless' though. Plotless I'll definitely grant, and there's no narrative progression to speak of. But cinematically, it's pretty much nothing but form, from the rigid geometry of the garden to the mathematics of the game to the ritualistic and lifeless (and often inaudible) conversations of the hotel guests. And yeah, it's odd how we're pulled in but distanced at the same time--in kind of a visual labyrinthine trap sort of thing. It really is a fascinating movie--almost more fun to talk about than it is to watch.