Last Year at MarienbadA story is like a diamond, capable of refracting light with an infinite number of possibilities, all dependent upon perspective. So, too, is Last Year at Marienbad, a story that defies conventional narration and enlists the audience to become complicit in the construction of the tale by exploiting that intrinsic need to fill in the blanks with our own interpretation of the story. In Last Year at Marienbad, there are no absolutes, there are no truths, save what we choose to endow with that facet. Our conscription as authors into this account is a level of sorcery conjured by Alain Resnais, and his arcane artistry makes every viewing a unique experience.
|
|
Last Year at Marienbad's narration is delivered by one of our unnamed characters--the man played by the handsome Giorgio Albertazzi, indicated by the screenplay as "X"--in the "second person". In this, it might appear that he were speaking to the audience itself--perhaps that would be Resnais, though--but X is speaking to the woman, "A", played by the elegant, yet aloof Delphine Seyrig, as he recounts--or invents--a story of their previous encounter last year...perhaps in Fredericksburg, or Marienbad, or Baden-Salsa. X delivers his narration/testimony with a great deal of repetition, like the mesmerizing lure of a hypnotist, continuously delivering the message. And whether it is his attempt to rekindle her memory, or to instill the illusion in A's mind that she had forgotten their encounter--regardless of if it never existed--remain but two possibilities. X ostensibly implores A to run away with him, to be his and escape their life of endless corridors and salons in resorts for the upper crust, the rich who stand motionless as the statues that occupy the terraces, and the shrubs in the garden that invoke the works of Seurat. A is reluctant at first, but gradually appears to wear down, and either recalls the tale...or plays along with the seduction. And that is at the heart of Last Year at Marienbad: seduction. X exerts great effort to seduce A into not only falling in love with him, but to indulge his narration, his story, and pull her into the tale. But A is not completely exorcised of her own desires and needs, though she appears--there's that word again--to refuse to yield at first. I've always enjoyed the idea that while X begins the seduction via narration, she dances the dance on her own terms, even going so far as to take the lead in their waltz while defying his interpretation of the events that never happened. At one climactic episode, X seems to lose his endurance in the storytelling act of luring her into a tryst, and A is forced to continue in his absence via her own onscreen actions directly opposed to X's narration--a naughty metaphor filled with innuendo.
Another interpretation I enjoy is that Last Year at Marienbad begins with a play being performed for the elite resort-goers. While we have little insight as to the context of the play, it at least deals with a man who is attempting to convince a woman of something, set amid a locale similar to that of the film itself. The attendees watch the play as we watch the movie, making the "play" something of a stripped-bare pantomime for the film to follow. And in that capacity, perhaps X decides to enact the play in "real life", and convince A in a similar fashion to the play at the onset, projecting his fantasies onto her. Another interpretation is that with a film as austere and formal, where time is almost impossible to clearly define, that the characters exist in a kind of purgatory--literal or figurative--and that X's fantasy or quest is to "liberate" A in a fashion similar to the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. In a way, the gaunt "husband/acquaintance/???" of A--the "second man" known as "M", played by Sacha Pitoëff--is something of an underworld keeper, a Hades or devil-type figure--a sphinx, even--who lures his prisoners with a tempting game adapted from Nim. M's game of Nim is also a keen metaphor for the film itself--so many other characters proclaim that there is a trick to it, some special way to understand and win the game, others even become frustrated and give up...but though he loses repeatedly, X remains determined to attempt the challenge again and again, understanding more about himself by losing rather than winning without any real effort. And Last Year at Marienbad is filled with technical marvels so subtle that they may be lost on some audiences. For instance, often an individual conversation can take place while using several different sets, with A and X donning varied outfits, suggesting that this conversation has taken place several times before, and perhaps A did forget, or perhaps X is constantly trying to convince her, or perhaps some of these scenes are imagined and some are real...maybe all of them are imagined, if this all exists in the imagination of X...or even all in the mind of A, who can say? Even for the same viewer, even for myself, I find each viewing different, each experience new and unfettered by the confines of a story that is immutable. Last Year at Marienbad is a film as rich as its background characters, as multifaceted as the predominance of mirrors in the salons, and like M's game, the entertainment lies within the riddle itself.
Recommended for: Fans of intelligent filmmaking, which cut against the traditional grain of story and presentation, opening wide the doors of our imagination to project our own interpretations of the story onto the film.
Another interpretation I enjoy is that Last Year at Marienbad begins with a play being performed for the elite resort-goers. While we have little insight as to the context of the play, it at least deals with a man who is attempting to convince a woman of something, set amid a locale similar to that of the film itself. The attendees watch the play as we watch the movie, making the "play" something of a stripped-bare pantomime for the film to follow. And in that capacity, perhaps X decides to enact the play in "real life", and convince A in a similar fashion to the play at the onset, projecting his fantasies onto her. Another interpretation is that with a film as austere and formal, where time is almost impossible to clearly define, that the characters exist in a kind of purgatory--literal or figurative--and that X's fantasy or quest is to "liberate" A in a fashion similar to the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. In a way, the gaunt "husband/acquaintance/???" of A--the "second man" known as "M", played by Sacha Pitoëff--is something of an underworld keeper, a Hades or devil-type figure--a sphinx, even--who lures his prisoners with a tempting game adapted from Nim. M's game of Nim is also a keen metaphor for the film itself--so many other characters proclaim that there is a trick to it, some special way to understand and win the game, others even become frustrated and give up...but though he loses repeatedly, X remains determined to attempt the challenge again and again, understanding more about himself by losing rather than winning without any real effort. And Last Year at Marienbad is filled with technical marvels so subtle that they may be lost on some audiences. For instance, often an individual conversation can take place while using several different sets, with A and X donning varied outfits, suggesting that this conversation has taken place several times before, and perhaps A did forget, or perhaps X is constantly trying to convince her, or perhaps some of these scenes are imagined and some are real...maybe all of them are imagined, if this all exists in the imagination of X...or even all in the mind of A, who can say? Even for the same viewer, even for myself, I find each viewing different, each experience new and unfettered by the confines of a story that is immutable. Last Year at Marienbad is a film as rich as its background characters, as multifaceted as the predominance of mirrors in the salons, and like M's game, the entertainment lies within the riddle itself.
Recommended for: Fans of intelligent filmmaking, which cut against the traditional grain of story and presentation, opening wide the doors of our imagination to project our own interpretations of the story onto the film.