Film: "Last Year at Marienbad"

[Bob Pr.]

Tonight, at our monthly "Great Films @ the Cathedral" series we viewed a Criterion Collection DVD edition of "Last Year at Mariendbad" (French, B&W, 1962, 94 min., Alain Resnais, Director). This film currently ranks 7.9/10 on IMDb's scale and, while it's not among IMDb's 250 all-time greatest, Roger Ebert lists it among his greatest films.

"Marienbad" is an example of the French "New Wave" movement of film making which was most active in the period 1958-64 (and somewhat through 1973); it was influential in altering or opening up new ways of approaching a story and has continually affected the style of film making in many other countries -- Wikipedia lists "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"(great film!) as a very recent example.

French "New Wave" cinema rebelled against the previous tight narratives with only a single interpretation to the story. To my way of thinking (I've never heard anyone else say this), they affected the film making world very much as Picasso, Braque, and other Cubist artists affected the visual Art world -- breaking, say, the single representational image of a person into multiple pieces each with a consistent (yet inconsistent) view of the parts of the whole: IMO, French "New Wave" is to single narrative films as Cubism is to representational art.

It's probably best to not strain hard to fit all the pieces into a unified whole but rather to appreciate the various "looks."

Wikipedia lists two nearly similar but distinct parties of French New Age cinema directors and movies associated with their style:
-- the "Right Bank" includes Chabrol, Truffaut, Godard, e.g., ("Le Beau Serge," "The 400 Blows," and "Breathless" ).
-- Left Bank directors include Resnais, Marker, Varda, e.g., ("....Marienbad," "Hiroshima Mon Amour," "La Jettée," "Trans-Europ-Express").

From Roger Ebert's review:

"How clearly I recall standing in the rain outside the Co-Ed Theater near the campus of the University of Illinois, waiting to see ``Last Year at Marienbad.'' On those lonely sidewalks, in that endless night, how long did we wait there? And was it the first time we waited in that line, to enter the old theater with its columns, its aisles, its rows of seats--or did we see the same film here last year? ....

"....I hadn't seen "Marienbad'' in years, and when I saw the new digitized video disc edition in a video store, I reached out automatically: I wanted to see it again, to see if it was silly or profound, and perhaps even to recapture an earlier self--a 19-year-old who hoped Truth could be found in Art. Viewing the film again, I expected to have a cerebral experience, to see a film more fun to talk about than to watch. What I was not prepared for was the voluptuous quality of "Marienbad,'' its command of tone and mood, its hypnotic way of drawing us into its puzzle, its austere visual beauty. Yes, it involves a story that remains a mystery, even to the characters themselves. But one would not want to know the answer to this mystery. Storybooks with happy endings are for children. Adults know that stories keep on unfolding, repeating, turning back on themselves, on and on until that
end that no story can evade...."

IF you see this film, I suggest you see it within the company of at least 4-5 other people so that you reap the harvest of discussion after viewing it. The various takes on it are bound to be as interesting as the film.

Tonight the comment that made the most sense to me is that, as humans, we're "wired" to think in 'cause and effect' terms, to create a consistent, single narrative out of what we view or experience.

THIS film capitalizes on that by fracturing the evidence presented -- did this actually happen? -- is it wishful thinking? -- is it an attempt to seduce?

Discussing it with others after seeing it is almost certainly more fun than just the viewing experience.

[dweck]

I've seen this. Or maybe I haven't. Yes, a year ago. I wanted to buy it on DVD, but it wasn't available a year ago. So I came back a year hence to purchase it. Purchase what? It was never promised to be for sale! Yes it was -- here's an ad. Still. Non.

Despite Ebert's (inexplicable) love of this, it was also included in the "Fifty Worst Films of All Time and How they Got That Way."

I, for one, would endure it again only if the projectionist promised to put his fingers in front of the beam and entertain us with bunny-shadow pictures. Pretentious 60s claptrap.

[Bob Pr.]

We choose movies to show in the Great Film series -- not because they appeal to us but because they're listed among the greatest 250 on IMDb OR on Roger Ebert's list. And because they represent different types of movies.

"Marienbad" is not my favorite film, either, and certainly not one -- such as "On Being John Malkovitch" or "The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" -- that I want to see a second time to appreciate and understand it. But it is significant and representative of the French "New Wave" that's had a lot of influence on film making since.

There are many lists of the 50 (or 100) worst movies of all time and, as far as I can tell from Googling many, "Marienbad" is only on the list of that 1984 book by the Medveds.

That's really quite reassuring to me.

I've always disliked Michael Medved's reviews more than any other movie reviewer I've seen on TV. That he would have a hand in including "Marienbad" while Ebert, plus the 1,000s of viewers of films who vote for ratings on IMDb, and so many others consider it a great, worthwhile, or significant film -- that only serves to justify my impression of his prejudiced opinions.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[dweck]

that only serves to justify my impression of his prejudiced opinions.

Aren't all opinions prejudiced?
And don't all film critics/commentators/lovers have opinions?

I don't understand you putting so much creedence in one critic while offhandedly dismissing another....

Or are you too caught up in Medved's politics to appreciate his movie reviews?

[Bob Pr.]

Aren't all opinions prejudiced?

From Merriam-Webster Online:
predjudice
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Does that mean ALL of yours are prejudiced? No doubt a few of mine are, but I hope most are not.

And don't all film critics/commentators/lovers have opinions?

I think they do, otherwise there's little point in listening to them.

I don't understand you putting so much creedence in one critic while offhandedly dismissing another....

Or are you too caught up in Medved's politics to appreciate his movie reviews?

IIRC, I find most other film critics usually have something worthwhile to say. I consistently found Michael Medved much too caught up in his own too obvious politics, biases and prejudices to be worthwhile listening to.

But that's my judgment formed from listening to him a number of times.

But since you and I enjoy such consistently different tastes, politics, etc., in so many areas, it's probably not surprising that you put 'creedence' (sic) in MM's opinions and I do not.