Last Year At Marienbad

Last Year At Marienbad (1961), is  the follow up film of Alain Resnais’ ground breaking and experimental film Hiroshima Mon Amour. Written by Alain Robbe-Grillet and starring Delphine Seyrig and Giorgio Albertazzi, it is as divisive 52 years after its release as it was at its debut. The film can be be aptly summarized in a synopsis, but it would be nowhere near a conclusive and accurate portrayal of the events that are depicted. The audience follows A (La Femme) and X (L’Homme), in the spa hotel Marienbad. X continuously hounds A with events and memories that happened last year at Marienbad, when the two were apparently lovers.  A man named M who could be a lover, husband, or guardian, but is never made clear, keeps watch and is wary of the two while the events take place. However A is unsure and unaware of these assertions and memories. Thus begins a surrealist and existentialist trip within the memory and existence of these two individuals. 

 A convention previously found in existentialist material that is ubiquitous within this film is the persistent sense of a singular location.  Like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead and No Exit, the events are situated in primarily one single area. In No Exit it is the one hotel room, in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead the events that take place are mostly in the castle. Within Marienbad all the events happen in the titular Marienbad hotel. Events outside the hotel could be mentioned or discussed but they are never seen. Only repeated shots of the ornate and opulent walls, the immaculate grounds that surround the hotel, and various rooms are shown to the viewer. Another existentialist trope that is found in this piece of cinema is the idea of ambiguity and how it helps to develop the themes of the story. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern the ambiguity between the two characters and how they continuously are unaware of their own names adds a comedic element. In Marienbad we aren’t even given the luxury of these characters' names, we are only introduced to a singular letter and the hope that this placates our demands for exposition.  

Even minor expositional details such as how they got to the hotel, why they are there, and what the previous professions of A and X were, are not explored in the most simple and basic forms.  The film doesn’t even address the question of whether they were previous lovers. like the fate of Garcin in No Exit and his decision to leave the room or not, we are unaware of X and A’s previous relationship, if they were lovers or if they ever had any sort of previous contact. Lastly, the time span of the film is ambiguous and how long X spends convincing A is not known. Days blend into each other and the audience is unsure when one scene begins and another ends. Additionally the technique of repetition and visual metaphor, such as the coin flip in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and the repeated mention of mirrors in No Exit is employed in this film.  We are introduced to various repeated shots of X in the same position within the same time span. Furthermore a parlor trick game is repeated throughout the movie as an omnipresent theme. X even repeats the same voice over that explains the walls and halls of Marienbad visually. However, the strongest element of existentialist criteria found in this film lies within its absurdity.  Like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and No Exit, the film relishes in the eccentric and experimental. In some scenes the characters’ dialogue does not match their lips and at times characters seemingly stop moving at all. This character movement or lack thereof is expanded further with fourth wall breaking techniques; they sometimes look at the camera or even address the audience in subtle ways.

The film's narrative stream and storytelling does not follow a generic format.  It is an ephemeral loose stream of consciousness told in non linear editing, where the viewer is unsure of what they are seeing or where it takes place.  It could be a categorized as a very dreamlike manner of expressing the story, but rather it feels as a loose stream of consciousness within the memories of an individual. Even though X is trying throughout the film to prove to A that they where lovers, the way he speaks does not seem to try to woo or convince A, but rather to justify his own actions and his own doubts. The absurdity plays off this idea of the film being X’s memories rather than a real life events depicted as they happen. In one instance his memory seems to fail him and thus it appears that he tries to fill it with what he thinks happens.  This happens in an incredibly subtle but known way. The film uses traditional acting technique and the delivery from X and A so it seems organic and natural. Although,  in one scene when A tells her husband she is going to dinner but does not express with whom (X), the acting and movements change.  In most, of scenes if not all, the film happens in X’s vicinity or the situations revolve around him, thus the memories are known and can be remembered. Within this scene, he is not and is slightly away in the foreground.  A’s delivery unexpectedly becomes robotic, curt, and falsely saccharine to her husband. Her movement is stilted and unnatural. She turns in clock wise positions which are completely out of the normality of how human body movement works. This small scene works if X doesn’t know what happens between A and her husband, but rather fills in the gap with his imagination.  The secondary characters who do not move in certain parts of the script add to the idea that this all the memory of X. They only move around the two protagonists and their actions only have effect when they revolve around X.  They are seemingly waiting for the story to begin and whatever happened previously or during the events are unimportant if they do not involve X and A. Hence why, the first time we see them, they are standing silently as X describes tableaus.  Most of the scene is forgotten in the memories of X and so only the most important elements remain. Consequently, these secondary characters' dialogue comes off as absurd and unimportant, talking about “A Frosty Winter” or “A Great Scandal” that happened a year before but never explained.. The film relies on the voice over of X and his own reminders of what the hotel was like. The characters around him are becoming less and less known, even his lover is forgetting him. The only thing he clings onto is the inanimate tangible walls, rooms, and grounds of the hotel. X has lost human contact and rather delving back into his memory to a fairer time, but even that is becoming lost to him. Even the minor elements within the film help set up the absurdity. The laughter the secondary characters exhibit at an unknown joke or event becomes sardonic, harsh, and mocking.  This laughter even comes after the repeated phrase of “No Escape”. It slowly morphs until the viewing audience feels these are the memories laughing at X, insulting him for his attempts to crawl back to Marienbad, at his attempts to control and keep the memories of a past life that is no longer there. All these minor components (singular location, absurdity, and ambiguity) help advance the movie's frustrating but unique elements. Most importantly,  it helps to create a successfully crafted experimental piece of cinema, where the viewer is unaware of what is happening and caught questioning not only how the audience views the memories and relationship of X  and A , but rather their own memories and relationships. Additionally, all of these parts cultivate into the idea of Bad Faith/Authenticity and how it thematically ties into the character arc and development; in particular X’s.

  Throughout the film, X’s speech is riddled with temerity and he does not seem to doubt his past relationship with A. These voice overs do not talk about how great their love is, or how intimate. Rather, the voice overs are detached and focused on himself, uninterested in her opinion. However, as the film evolves, he devolves and slowly starts questioning himself. This climaxes into a finally accepting X’s statements and position as a lover. But this acceptance is garish and unnatural; the memory of X is acting in bad faith and is inauthentic. When this realization hits, X’s dialogue becomes unsure, angry, and hostile. The camera moves with sharp, stabbing motions, into the hands of A. She is finally opening up into an intimate position but this is unnatural. Her face is twisted in a perverse, unloving, garish pose. This intimacy does not appear to be consensual and the audience questions whether the relationship was every willing or did something more sinister happen. Before this scene, she wears a combination of black and white clothing, a symbol of innocence and purity, her clothing is mostly black after this revelatory embrace signifying the dark and disturbing act. X had acted true to himself originally perhaps and he is trying to rewrite his memory, thus becoming inauthentic and acting in bad faith. He attempts to rewrite his memories and his love for A being a mutual relationship. His denial of the past and forging a new memory goes against his own freedom and his own actions, and thus he becomes unnatural like the act he has committed against A.

Even the repeated parlor trick game that is mentioned earlier is pivotal in the development of the existentialist themes. M seems to win against X every time, regardless of who goes first or whatever strategy is employed.  This piece of entertainment expresses the theme of the story, M playing the ever-watchful hawk of memory and dissuading or stopping X from ever rewriting the past. He ensures that the attempted accounts of X to change the past is not successful that he does not act in bad faith and ultimately does not become inauthentic. This torments M and unsettles him; the game which he thought he could win like A foreshadows the ultimate climax of the film. This game happens repeatedly and before a resolution with A takes place.

In the end, Last Year at Marienbad is a film that is not only an existentialist piece that questions the state of man, but an independent piece of cinema that questions the art form as a whole. It not only deconstructs and question X as a man and his actions but rather the entire conventions and formats that we are comfortable with as an audience. Like A who insults X, it insults the genres and tropes we find comfortable in cinema. It deconstructs everything that up until that point was sacred just like A’s virtue. It relishes in the ambiguity and absurd; with nonlinear story editing, a plot that seemingly leads to nowhere, and events and set pieces made to infuriate the audience.  It is not a film that attempts to solve or define anything but rather give more interpretations then answers;  Last Year at Marienbad is a film that cannot be solved but only admired from afar. From the beautiful cinematography, to the confident and ever-present direction and haunting voice-overs, it is a film that is iconic within cinematic history and deserves every infuriating piece of analysis and dissection that has been hurled its way.  It is a film that is awe inspiring and demanding of attention even after more than half a century after its release. If I decided to watch it for a fourth time, my analysis and understanding of it will probably change, but that is for another time, where I can act in bad faith.