Return to ALL ARTICLES

 With his second film, Alain Resnais worked to change the way in which stories are told, not only in film, but in a wider artistic context through a ‘minor revolution’ (Monaco, 1978: 53) in the film form and a method of narration directed by editing. Last Year at Marienbad (1961) uses flashbacks, flashforwards, manipulation of truth and lies, distorted perspectives and a departure from language to tell the story of man, X (Giorgio Albertazzi), trying to convince a woman, A (Delphine Seyrig), of a love affair they had last year at the hotel they occupy throughout the film, despite the fact she might be married to another man, M (Sacha Pitoëff). Resnais departs from the previously essential ‘decoupage classique’ (what Monaco calls the ‘established Hollywood style of construction’ (Monaco, 1978: 53)) which involved continuity, narrative clarity, objectivity, a clear differentiation between past and present etc. Instead, he took inspiration from Alain Robbe-Grillet, the film’s screenwriter, and the nouveau roman style of writing he had been so influential in developing in order to try and change storytelling tradition and present a truly visual representation of events, removing language as the main technique of conveying information.

This method of narration creates avenues for Resnais to experiment with the removal of tense in favour of what Robbe-Grillet described as a ‘presentness’ that can be constant throughout the narrative (Robbe-Grillet, 1961, as cited in Monaco, 1978). We also see the creation of a ‘mental realism’ – a visual representation of characters’ perception of events or a ‘kind of interior monologue’ (Monaco, 1978: 56). This suggests that the image presented by this film is closer to how we perceive reality than that portrayed by films that seek to show the world as accurately and objectively as possible. Resnais methods of visual representation also allow him to consider the act of storytelling in of itself as the manipulation of events reflect how stories become so different from truth.

In experimenting with these ideas, Resnais’ film and its narrative become distorted to the point that what happened last year at Marienbad becomes a mystery. However, the plot is not removed entirely and, in observing how these effects are produced with regards to formal techniques, one can formulate a number of possibilities and even consider which is most convincing.

Firstly, we must consider that the story repeated throughout the film by X of how he and A had a love affair is what happened last year in Marienbad. Many of the film’s techniques suggest this- most obvious is the use of narration that is almost entirely by X. This creative decision means that the story is framed and directed by this character. While this may suggest the opposite of truth, that X’s interpretation is false or edited and the ‘filtering through his persona’ (Monaco, 1978:57) contorts the narrative rather than provides clarity, it’s important to consider that in a ‘decoupage classique’ style this would not have occurred to the audience. Monaco suggests that Last Year at Marienbad should be considered in the same vein as more conventional films and ‘approached without preconceptions’ (Monaco, 1978: 57) as the method of filmmaking doesn’t aim to deceive or confuse the audience, rather simply provide a different form of representation. This is emphasised by the very conventional plot that wouldn’t be out of place in a Hollywood film of two men competing for the affections of a woman (Monaco, 1978).

The truth in X’s story is suggested by the fact that the first thing we hear is his monologue that introduces us to his perspective and simultaneously shows it. X describes the ‘enormous, luxurious, baroque, lugubrious hotel’ as corresponding images are displayed on the screen. The monologue is used not only to frame the film in X’s perspective from the beginning, setting the tone from the start, but also demonstrates how his narration so often materialises in front of us. The fact the images so often take shape as an illustration of X’s narration suggests a truth in in what the character says. Robbe-Grillet describes that it was the ‘presentness’ of film that drew him to the medium and that made the story of Last Year at Marienbad so perfect for this artform. This ‘presentness’ is formed through the fact that information and narrative is displayed ‘in the act of happening’ (Robbe-Gillet, 1961, as cited in Monaco, 1978), while in writing, for example, we get only an account of actions and events.

The relationship between narration and image in Last Year at Marienbad can hold a lot of truth. The prominent example of narration and image coinciding to suggest an accuracy to X’s story is the appearance of the picture he has of A that he had taken the previous year and is the only evidence of their previous meeting. Having no evidence of their previous meeting, the photograph is the first example of a clear and tangible interaction between X and A happening before.  Its significant, too that this evidence infiltrates the diegesis and is fully acknowledged by A, demonstrating a certain truth in X’s story. In this sense, too the picture represents the idea of ‘presentness’ that Robbe-Grillet believed in as previous to the photograph, all X had to convince A of their meetings were accounts, while the photograph is a realisation of these accounts- much like those the audience have been given throughout the film- and it’s a symbol that begins to legitimise X’s narrative. That is until the integrity of the photo and its symbolism is questioned later in the film when it multiplies in the drawer of A’s desk.

Lastly, the idea that this film represents a ‘mental realism’ also suggests some truth in what X describes. This is not just in the idea that the story is real, but the perception of reality can in itself become a form of truth- an idea reflected in cinema itself (Deleuze, 1983). When considered in this sense, the ‘external, expanded material world’ is no different to ‘internal unextended material reality’ (Bogue, 2003: 32), i.e. there is no split between reality and perception. This idea frames the narration as truth and emphasises the notion that while the narration may not reflect objective reality, it’s the truth nonetheless, as shown in the fact that the images in the film continually support what the character describes. This ‘mental realism’, therefore, can be considered closer to reality than first thought.

Alternatively, X might not be telling the truth. The ‘presentness’ of the cinema that Robbe-Grillet describes means that we do not know what elements of the story are past, present or imagined, leading to questions of where the story actually exists. The only thing we can be sure of is the space it’s in, meaning the space takes more precedent than the time of the story (Monaco,1978). In this sense, the story X describes becomes more like a dream because it is only space that the viewer is able to grasp. The nature in which this space is presented emphasises this feeling that the characters are existing within a dream. The halls defy physics as people travel through the space in ways that are not logical. This is demonstrated in a long tracking shot that goes through a games room, starting with X and M playing cards, traveling through the room, showing all the other guests playing games and ending at the opposite side of the room with a medium shot of A watching the tension unfold while X, impossibly, approaches from the corridor behind her. This displays the characteristics of the labyrinth in which this story takes place and it is the nature of this space that reflects X’s attempts to craft the story and convince A of their love affair last year. The fact the setting mirrors ‘the perfect labyrinth of false trails, variants, failures and repetitions’ (Robbe-Grillet,1961, as cited in Monaco,1978: 69) of X’s story underlines the idea that the narrative is not one of truth, but one created out of the hero’s mind.

The nature of the story is stretched further because, while A never knows when to believe X, we never know when to believe Resnais and Robbe-Grillet. The presentation of X’s narrative is itself confusing and questionable. The way in which the A’s experience reflects that of the audience suggests the aims of the film and how the artists themselves prioritised what Monaco refers to as the “author- observer axis” (Monaco, 1978: 71). Because Resnais and Robbe-Grillet’s interest lay in the storytelling, this would suggest that something similar is taking place in the film’s diegesis, meaning no love affair occurred last year at Marienbad between X and A.

To push this idea further, one could consider how it is not just the act of storytelling that we are watching and simultaneously experiencing, but the act of persuasion. This persuasion relies on an idea of what Higgins calls ‘alibi’ – a motivated substitution of an image or narrative to replace and in some sense represent a different, virtual one elsewhere (Higgins, 1993). Here the ‘presentness’ of Last Year at Marienbad that means reference to a past event is not possible, while creating a story in the present is essential, means we receive ‘a story that excludes another story while inscribing it nonetheless’ (Higgins, 1993:308). This suggests that what happened last year is not being denied or covered up, rather replaced through a ‘presentness’ and inscribed by being ‘fragmented and scattered about the film in inconsequential details’ (Higgins, 1993: 308). The question, then, is what are we being persuaded of?

The persuasion of A to make her believe in a love affair would not require the filmmakers to incorporate the idea of an ‘alibi’- suggesting that something happened that X wants A to not remember- replacing it with the story of a love affair. Higgins suggests a rape occurred. Inscribed throughout, we see glimpses and fragments of the event. This is shown to us through snapshots of what happened, for example, when X describes entering A’s hotel room and we see the fear on her face in a number of reaction shots that then inexplicably change to expressions of joy (despite demonstrating the same event). This moment not only shows the fear A clearly felt towards X, but it demonstrates how the rape could be ‘reemplotted as persuasion’ (Higgins, 1993:309).  The fact that we see both the original moment of fear and a second, possibly fabricated moment of joy, existing side by side means we become ‘witnesses… to the construction of an alibi’. (Higgins, 1993: 310). Resnais also uses symbolism to point to the idea that a rape occurred, for example the motif of broken objects and themes of penetration, not to mention A’s continual objections to X’s advances and clear displays of fear of A.

 When considering how this juxtaposes the narrative X has been trying to convince her of, there’s strong reason to suggest that his story is false. The use of persuasion in an attempt (of X) to convince A and (of Resnais and Robbe-Grillet) to convince the audience could suggest simply that his story is false. The use of alibi, however, suggests something more sinister. The rapid alteration of his story (often informed by the present events) and the way in which images of sexual violence visually invade and juxtapose X’s narrative suggest that what actually happened was a sexual assault.

Lastly, the film could be seen not as a personal and genuine drama between X, A and M, but a performance- a visual interpretation of a story with a purpose to entertain hotel guests, who’s inclusion in the world of the narrative appears otherwise relatively needless. While the first shots of the film are introduced by an extra diegetic monologue, we are introduced to the narrative through a theatre performance. It’s here, too that we are first shown the strange people occupying the hotel in Marienbad. They’re sat eerily still through the show and throughout their applause afterwards they continually freeze. This first scene introduces us not to the three main characters, but the people who spend the remainder of the film observing their drama.

The other guests continue to freeze throughout the film in unnatural poses to the point where they become ‘materials of composition’ (Monaco, 1978: 64). As they stand and observe the unfolding drama of the three main characters, they become more dehumanised and withdrawn from our view, eventually we associate them not as a group of individuals, but one subject- just as one would describe an audience. Not only this, but their continual posing makes X look more naturalistic as he is the object of the narrative he is performing. Meanwhile A is portrayed in the opposite way as most of the poses are ‘lavished’ on to her (Monaco, 1978). This makes it clear that she is the object of the narrative. This references the traditional portrayal of men and women in classical Hollywood film as the characters fall into categories of the male subject and female object. Not only this, but the narrative of the performance as a whole can itself be thought of in a conventional sense as the story of two men in competition of the affections of a woman (Monaco, 1978). This would again suggest that the film is a portrayal of a simple story for an audience of bourgeois hotel guests- a portrayal that is critical of the traditional storytelling, for example of that employed by Hollywood.

This can be seen too in the lack of substance given to the characters- we know nothing about them past the situation we see them inhabit- and the way in which the actors have been directed, i.e. to act in a minimal way, emphasises this. This suggests that the drama at the centre of the story has little substance, highlighted by the fact it takes place in Marienbad – a place ‘interesting enough for itself to be a pure setting’ (Monaco, 1978: 61), reminiscent of Hollywood films in the 1950s that relied on spectacle over substance to bring in viewers.

The film, aiming to find a new way of portraying information and create a new visual language, uses as its subject a performance of a narrative that epitomises that of traditional cinema. This ironic use of the characteristics of traditional Hollywood entertainment directly juxtaposes the way in which Resnais chooses to present it- as a way of highlighting both. Not only this, but the fact that the story has no definite tenses also enforces the fact that this is a narrative made for performance. This is because this story could be performed many times, and therefore can not exist at one single moment.

In conclusion, Last Year at Marienbad uses film form in a way that finds a new method of presenting a narrative. In working towards a film that uses a purely visual method of portraying information, Resnais crafts a story that transcends time and objectivity to make a film without tense told in a way that demonstrates more accurate how we as people process events. In doing this, Resnais and his screenwriter Robbe-Gillet distort the narrative at heart to the extent that it become unidentifiable. It’s possible that the story told by the protagonist, X, is true, arguable in the fact that his story is often visualised on the screen to create a feeling of reality and ‘presentness’ in a world without past or future. Alternatively, you can also infer that X is simply telling a story and that they didn’t have a love affair or even meet last year. This is inferred in the films very nature in that it discards tense, its therefore impossible for us to tell which parts are from the past, present, future or what’s imagined, questioning if the story exists anywhere- this is especially emphasised in the way X constructs his story from events surrounding him as he speaks. I believe, however, that what Resnais is portraying is not a love affair, but a performance. The way in which the other guests are portrayed by Resnais, the spectacle of the setting and the continual ironic reference to Hollywood’s mode of story representation make the drama at the films core feel manufactured and ingenuine. Not only this, but the timeless element of the drama creates a narrative that doesn’t exist at any time but that, through repeated performance, exists in a constant state of retelling.

Return to ALL ARTICLES