personal reflections on Marienbad


Marienbad is often described as "New Wave" but in my opinion this is a miscategorization. It is true that it made its debut during that era, and it is equally true that Resnais was one of the "Left Bank" group of artists who socialized and encouraged each other at that time. If you watch Agnes Varda's charming "Beaches of Agnes" she mentions him many times as part of the clique. But if the New Wave can be defined by its style, it was broadly speaking irreverent, free-form, fresh, fluid informal, and strongly plot-driven. M. Resnais' work does not belong in this group. It is more formal and formalistic, more conceptual, less narrative-dependent, more disciplined, more structured, more measured, less ebullient ... Marienbad in particular. Those who say it owes a lot to Proust perhaps have not actually read Proust. The only trait it shares is that of presenting the same situation from differing and sometimes contradictory perspectives. I first saw it in 1961 in London and have been intrigued by it ever since. I even had the honor of meeting M. Resnais once, in 1972 in Toronto and was struck by his sense of focus, purpose, and careful thoughtfulness. I asked him about the symbolism in Marienbad (what an inane question, but I was awestruck) He said there was none. After years of thinking about that I think I see what he meant, viz: no conscious symbolism. "This" did not directly represent "that", nor did "A" represent "B" in the director's mind. Like free association he laid out all the pathways and possibilities as his own creative mind processes shaped them, and honed them elegantly into a "Rorshchach-blot" masterpiece from which we must derive our own experience. That might well produce a work of "self-indulgence" (as Ms. Kael called it) or even chaos in less skillful hands, but under M. Resnais' masterful and measured control, it brought forth a structure of complex beauty and lasting fascination. That's my view, anyway.

reply

The film is an enigma of sorts. I like what you wrote about free association because that's what makes this movie an enigma. There's no right answer, if there is even one. Is it about filmmaking? Cinema? Art in general? Is it about the human mind? Recollection? Memory? Love? At the same time that is all about these things, it manages not to be and that's what's so interesting and puzzling about it for me, but in a good way.

For me, I see it as stream of consciousness filmmaking, which goes along perfectly with the themes of recollection. I can picture Resnais meditating with these visuals appearing in his mind and then projecting those visions onto a screen. It feels that free.

And I think that's important to an appreciation of this film, at least my own. It doesn't feel terribly premeditated, just of the moment. Of course, with gorgeous black and white cinematography like that, the imagery is obviously well thought out, but it's the way in which those visions are pieced together that make it feel so of the moment.

reply