The Couples Cast Shadows and The Trees Don't

In one of the more famous shots of the film, and the one used here on Mubi for the films page, there is an image with some couples walking and they cast shadows, but the trees don’t. I haven’t watched this movie in about 3 years and don’t have access to it currently, though i figure it’s one i should probably just go out and buy.

anyways i was wondering if anyone had any thoughts as to the significance of the couples casting shadows, but nothing else.

here is the shot i’m referring to:

ps i tried to wikipedia it, and it had that exact image and the tagline: Still from L’année dernière à Marienbad; in this surreal image, the couples cast long shadows but the trees do not

…thanks for nothing Wikipedia

EDIT: Technically all the people cast shadows, not just the couples, but i’m still wondering what/if any significance it may have, or what some of you have interpreted.

Just one of many examples of clumsy-assed symbolism that made me laugh my way through this film.

People have a duplicitous dark side and nature is as it is?

I’ve visited that garden and those trees actually don’t cast shadows. It’s a rare species of trees which only grow in the Czech Republic. No symbolism at all.

Those are not real shadows. They are painted on. Just one clue that Marienbad exists purely within a particular character’s mind. You can figure out which one, no doubt.

It’s not symbolic of anthing.

And the only mind in which “Marienbad” exists is that of Alain Robbe-Grillet.

But Jerry, the movie can be seen as, at least on some very basic level, a comedy, so I’m not sure laughter isn’t a perfectly reasonable response.

^ Marienbad a comedy? Um. That’s a weird interpretation. There are weird “funny” parts but it’s not like pee in your pants hilarious.

I think it was more about the staticness and contradictoriness of memory. They’re trying to remember the details of an affair they only have vague recollections of, and are finding the basic facts they are sure of contradict the basic facts other people are sure of.

Well, I’d suggest that “pee in your pants hilarious” isn’t really the best way to determine the worth of a comedy any more than copious tears are necessarily the best measure of a drama, and that part of the problem lies more in the way “art” movies are approached than anything else. Antonioni’s movies can also be pretty damn amusing is one can get beyond thinking one has to respond to them with some sort of awe over their deepness or whatever.

The basic narrative premise of Last Year at Marienbad comes from one of the oldest and hoariest cliches in the book: A guy at a party walks up to a young lady and says’ “Pardon me miss, haven’t we met somewhere before?” The movie then plays with that notion as something of a “joke”, by investing the premise behind it with a sort of cosmic force, where the world of the film itself is, in a way, playing along with it.

A “comedy” isn’t a lesser thing than a drama, in fact it is often the more profound response to the world and our place in it as magnified by our foolishness. This has little to do with any idea of laugh out loud funny, although I did indeed express a sort of verbal delight with the movie on quite a few occasions, but that is something different than sustained laughter, which is often a much less valuable currency.

^ Greg, I was just joking around! :)

Sorry I tend to use extreme language a lot. However I really don’t judge movies based on extreme reactions to them (which would include pants wetting or the inability to stop crying).

Your points above are well taken.

And I certainly am not the type of person to be in awe of anything. And I mean anything.

Although I absolutely love Marienbad, and in that sense I love it more for its experimental nature and its visuals than anything else. Even today, I find it radical in its approach to telling the story it tells.

That’s cool Odilon, I was undoubtedly overreacting as well since I’ve often felt that there is both a tendency to treat “art” in too purely an academic manner where “symbols” have to be read with some sort of dire seriousness and that people on the site often seem to have a different sort of expectations for “comedies” than “dramas” when many of the best films aren’t able to be easily parsed as being strictly one or the other. I know you also seem to believe that there can be a sort of joy in art that doesn’t really fit the sort of serious attitudes too many seem to have when watching or thinking about it. The sheer pleasure of expression can in itself create a kind of pleasure that one would associate more with emotional lightness than something heavy. It’s through that where the full weight of the work can sometimes create the greatest impression when the full impact is considered, at least to me.

^ Yes.

People seem to miss the “joy” part because they are so intent on understanding. I guess I don’t care as much about understanding, lol! But seriously, I’m very patient in that way. And ultimately, it’s not the end of the world if you can’t “get” a film. One moves on… :)

I also don’t understand my recent addiction to, what is it called, the caret symbol? I need to get over that.

^ Agreed.

Believe me, I know how the “interpreting thing” can really get a person caught up in a work, but that can only go so far and it is often pretty limited as artists don’t actually have some secret store of knowledge that other people don’t have, so rationally interpreting the work for deep insight isn’t really going to tell you much you don’t already know, especially given that the limits of interpretation are set by the one doing the interpreting as much as anything else. The more profound pleasure or “meaning” of art is the non-rational response to it, or as was being discussed in another high falutin’ thread, the non-discursive nature of art is what makes it so significant.

LOL, House, I send you carets of joy!!!

The more profound pleasure or “meaning” of art is the non-rational response to it, or as was being discussed in another high falutin’ thread, the non-discursive nature of art is what makes it so significant.

I’m ALL about that way of approaching art, Greg. :D

^ Also agreed.

Carets of joy? Reminds me of that youtube video I posted on STL! last night…

Does anyone remember the thread where someone discussed the “rape analysis” of this movie? I don’t remember all of the details, but I do remember that the theory enhanced my love of this film from a beautiful work of elusive art to a beautiful work of elusive art masking an incredibly powerful story.

@House — HA! :D

Drew never saw that thread but that’s an interesting interpretation and makes a lot of sense to me.

“Un fantôme n’a pas une ombre”

After some Googling it appears that’s a very common interpretation, so it seems I was giving one Mubier way too much credit. :)

But seriously viewing the film as A’s suppressed memory of being raped by X makes the film even more fascinating in its theme of memory.

The scene where the camera zooms in on the woman at an increasingly rapid pace with increasingly rapid cuts as her arms go from spreading invitingly to spreading out in fear and her face goes from welcoming to terrified while the man’s voice over yells, “NO! NO! I DIDN’T! THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN!” is quite easily interpretable as a rape scene.

I only noticed it the third time I watched, which made me feel pretty foolish, ‘cause now to me it’s the dominant scene of the movie. And makes the movie decidedly un-funny.

Though I do like what Greg X is saying.

And “decidedly un-funny” isn’t a criticism. It’s still a great movie. Just not a funny great movie.

—PolarisDiB

Yes, that scene is unforgettable, terrifying.

(EDIT — got rid of that stupid caret! :) )

The sheer pleasure of expression can in itself create a kind of pleasure that one would associate more with emotional lightness than something heavy…….. The more profound pleasure or “meaning” of art is the non-rational response to it.

Thank you, Greg X, for expressing my film viewing philosophy so much more eloquently than I could have!! It can be really frustrating to watch a film with my roommate, who insists on “interpreting” every movie, and will not be satisfied by a movie if he doesn’t “get” it. Needless to say, he pretty much hated Marienbad, a film that, IMO, is constructed to resist most types of interpretation more specific than a general kind of “Resnais is interested in exploring memory.”

So, in response to the OP:

“Accept the mystery!”

DFFOO — and indeed the still above is a mystery to me because I don’t who the hell that is or what it’s about but hey, I’ll accept the mystery! :D

Odi – lol! It’s from A Serious Man, but I like your interpretation better!

Seriously??? lol