Last night I dreamed I went to Marienbad again…

Still from L'année dernière à Marienbad; in th...

Still from L’année dernière à Marienbad; in this surreal image, the couples cast long shadows but the trees do not (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Last Year at Marienbad

Last Year at Marienbad (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Intensely fascinating or tedious twaddle.  Given my propensity for enigmatic French nouveaux romans and their cinematic equivalents you can  guess which side I come down on.

 

Visually it is stunning, in a chilly way.  The ornate mirrors and labyrinthine corridors, that extraordinary garden, the statues, Delphine Seyrig herself.   The music is intense and overpowering, the acting stylised and static.  The setting is a hotel, or a spa, possibly, but not certainly, in Marienbad.  They – X and A –  met here last year, or have never met before.

 

Alain Robbe Grillet, who wrote the screen play, describes the film thus:

 

The whole film … is the story of a persuading: it deals with a reality which the hero creates out of his own vision, out of his own words. And if his persistence, his secret conviction, finally prevail, they do so among a perfect labyrinth of false trains, variants, failures and repetitions. … In this sealed, stifling world, men and things alike seem victims of some spell, as in the kind of dreams where one feels guided by some fatal inevitability, where it would be as futile to try to change the slightest detail as to run away.  (Introduction to the screenplay, p. 9)

 

This is very much in keeping with the Robbe-Grillet manifesto.  For him the text is the world, not a description of the world.  The notion of a novel or a film having ‘something to say’ is profoundly boring:

 

When a novelist has ‘something to say’ they mean a message.  It has political connotations, or a religious message, or a moral prescription. … They are saying that the writer has a world view, a sort of truth that he wishes to communicate, and that his writing has an ulterior significance.  I am against this’.  (Paris Review, spring 86, no. 99, interview with Shusha Guppy)

 

However, the director of the film is Alain Resnais, whose films have plenty to say.   In Night and Fog he worked with the poet Jean Cayrol, whose powerful closing words, a call to awareness,  would seem to be the antithesis of Robbe-Grillet’s approach.  He fuses memory and imagination, and in the labyrinth of barbed wire, searches for and confronts the Minotaur, the monster, hiding in its heart.   Hiroshima mon amour deals with the viewer’s reaction – ‘some of us see nothing in Hiroshima.  Nothing.  Others see everythingEverything.  That is the point’.  A whole sequence of films deal with trauma and memory and whilst others may seem more directly to address political or ethical concerns, Last Year at Marienbad does see ‘some of the concerns and tropes of Resnais’ earlier engagements with trauma, pain and death return … in various transposed forms.’ (Emma Wilson, Alain Resnais, p. 85).

 

Perhaps the tension between the two Alains is at the heart of Marienbad’s enigmatic power.    The viewer is invited by Robbe-Grillet to let themselves be carried along by the extraordinary images, the voices of the actors, the soundtrack, the music, the rhythm of the cutting, the passion of the characters, and describes it as a film ‘addressed exclusively to his sensibility’ rather than turning to ‘clumsy systems of interpretation which machine-made fiction or films grind out for him ad nauseam’ (Robbe-Grillet, p. 13).   However, whilst it is certainly possible to be swept along by the the film in the way he recommends, it is almost impossible not to start trying to solve the puzzle.  After all, a repeated motif in the film is that of games, and the winning of games, and the game of interpretation is too tempting to resist.  And Resnais himself summarises the film with a question – ‘qui a raison?’.  For Resnais, the protagonists in his films are real beings.  They have their own lives, ‘latent, mysterious’ (Kline, p. 86).  But realism doesn’t exclude ambiguity – what Deleuze calls a cinema of undecidability.

 

It’s difficult, knowing how far apart the writer and director were in their conception of the film (despite some of Robbe-Grillet’s statements on the subject), not to read the film in the light of this.   When the images on screen often contradict the usually authoritative sounding voice-over, perhaps what we are seeing is Resnais asserting his vision of the film against the screenplay, which was so minutely detailed as to seemingly leave Resnais little room  to manoeuvre, intruding on his territory with instructions on camera movement, lighting, etc.    Robbe-Grillet describes the film as ‘in fact the story of a communication between two people … one making a suggestion, the other resisting, and the two finally united , as if that was how it had always been.’  However, Resnais has introduced into that narrative ambiguity that would seem to undermine that clear resolution.   We do not see X and A leave the hotel at all, let alone together.  They seem to meet, at the appointed hour, without speaking to each other, barely looking at each other, and walk very slowly and stiffly away from the lobby and out of view.  Neither has any luggage though the voice-over has told us previously that she ‘packed a few things’.   And if they do leave the hotel, it is only to get lost, forever, in the garden, alone or together.

 

The two Alains did not work, strictly speaking, together (ARG wrote the screenplay with minimal intervention from AR, and AR did the filming without intervention from ARG), and do not see the film in the same way.  One intriguing sidelight on this is that AR used a recording of ARG reading his screenplay to guide the male actors.   But not Delphine Seyrig.  ARG himself has said that Resnais is A (Seyrig’s character).  Certainly, there would seem to be a link between A and Elle (the woman in Hiroshima mon amour), both appearing to be traumatised, repressing memories.

 

X speaks in imperatives – Come here.  Come closer.  Follow me.  Listen to me.  Remember.  I’ve come to take you away.  You know …. that we are going to leave.  A pleads, denies  – No,  it’s impossible.  No, I don’t want to.  No, I don’t know what happened then.  No!  You’re making it up.  I don’t know you.  No, it’s too far…  Please.  Let me alone… please…  For pity’s sake!   He is insistent – possibly to the point of rape.  She seems traumatised, fearful.  Her pose is characteristically with one arm across her body, her hand on her shoulder – a defensive posture, which at moments is almost cowering.

He asserts his memories, but increasingly doubts them, questions his own recollection – ‘no, that can’t be right’.

 

Robbe-Grillet’s screenplay calls for a scene where A is raped by X.  Resnais refused to film this.   The rape is suggested in X’s voice over – ‘I took you, half by force’, and then denied – ‘Probably it wasn’t by force’, but without complete conviction.   He is trying to persuade himself as much as her here, that he did not use force.   The question hangs in the air.    Certainly he is forceful and she is afraid.  She keeps her distance, ‘as if on the threshold, as if at the entrance to a place that was too dark, or too strange …’  She seems to show the classic symptoms of trauma, the continual reliving of the wounding experience.

 

So, how do we interpret this strange film?  Are they all in fact dead, and the hotel is a sort of ante-room to the afterlife?  Is the hotel peopled by automata, and X alone has autonomy, memory, and perspective?  Does he have to seize the moment when the automata are able to move, to betwitch A into life, identifying/creating a past for her?  Or is X aware of his status as a character in a film, imprisoned in the screenplay?  Thus he starts to direct A, rather than merely describing things to her.  He rejects one scenario (where she is shot) as ‘not the right ending’.  Paradoxically, as Luc Lagier says in his documentary, we have a film that is closed in upon itself, but open to a seemingly infinite number of interpretations.

 

My own particular interests focus on trauma and memory, on the labyrinth which is such a powerful motif in the films and novels of the postwar period (Resnais’s labyrinths of barbed wire in Night & Fog, or the corridors of the Bibliotheque Nationale in Toute la memoire du monde; Robbe-Grillet’s In the Labyrinth amongst other works, and of course Michel Butor’s L’Emploi du temps…), and on W G Sebald’s engagement with the film, and the place, in Austerlitz, and in his poetry.   In ‘The Year Before Last’ he writes:

The match game

was meant to decide everything.

The gleaming parquet floor

stretched before us.  All round us

were mirrors, guests, motionless –

and in the middle you

in your feather boa.  Hadn’t

we met once before?

In a taxus maze?

On a stage? The perspectival

prospect, pruned hedges,

little round trees and balustrades,

the palace in the background?

So, having been tinkering with this blog post for months already, I am pretty certain I’m not yet in a position to leave Marienbad.  Bleston, all over again.

 

 

 

Tess Jaray, A ‘Mystery and a Confession’, Irish Pages, 1,  2  (Autumn/Winter, 2002/3), 137-9

T Jefferson Kline, Screening the Text (Johns Hopkins UP, 1992)

Luc Lagier, ‘Dans le labyrinthe de Marienbad’ (documentary featured on Marienbad DVD)

Alain Robbe-Grillet, interviewed by Shusha Guppy, Paris Review, 99 (spring 1986)

Alain Robbe-Grillet, trans. Richard Howard,  Last Year at Marienbad: a cine novel (London: John Calder, 1962)

W. G. Sebald and Michael Hamburger, ‘A Final Poem: Marienbad Elegy’, Irish Pages, 1, 2 (Autumn-Winter, 2002/3), 125-32

Freddy Sweet, The Film Narratives of Alain Resnais (UMI Research Press, 1981)

Emma Williams, Alain Resnais (Manchester UP, 2006)

http://conversationalreading.com/sebald-at-marienbad/

http://sebald.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/undiscoverd-country-3/

http://bibliomanic.com/tag/last-year-at-marienbad/

 

 

, , , , ,

  1. #1 by Helen Finch on June 6, 2013 - 6:17 pm

    I think, said Austerlitz, I tried to explain that something or other unknown wrenched at my heart here in Marienbad, something very obvious like an ordinary name or a term which one cannot remember for the sake of anyone or anything in the world. I do not now recall in detail how we spent those few days in Marienbad, said Austerlitz. I know that I often lay for hours in the bubbling mineral baths and the rest rooms, which did me good in one way but in another may have weakened the resistance I had put up for so many years against the emergence of memory.

    Like

    • #2 by cathannabel on June 6, 2013 - 6:36 pm

      Thank you – there’s a lot in that short quote which warrants further close reading and thinking about! And I’m still intrigued by the fact that Austerlitz’s companion in Marienbad was Marie de Verneuil, Balzac’s heroine from Les Chouans…

      Like

  2. #3 by Guy Savage on June 16, 2013 - 5:12 pm

    I’m a Resnais fan. Mon Oncle d’Amérique influenced my way of thinking.

    Like

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: