Medved Brothers Fifty Worst Films of All Time
Why did the Medved Brothers include Last Year at Marienbad in their Fifty Worst Films of All Time.
share^Because they're idiots! That's why!
Broadway doesn't go for boooooze and dope!
But what reasons did they give for putting it in their fifty worst films.
shareIt was reasonable, among other possibilities, for the "50 Worst Movies" book to conclude that this was a bad film. In fact I think Chicago's Music Box, in its current release (May '08) committed a sin of omission by not mentioning all the negative reviews cited in the Medved book. Actors' standing perfectly still while others step out to speak is a non-cinematic affectation, not really adding to motion picture art or craft, and pretty much exhausted by Eugene O'Neill in the Twenties. Aristocratic setting makes the work effete and personal. Fact that it reflects Hiroshima Mon Amour or other works in Resnais "oeuvre" not relevant to whether this film is good. I'm still open to discussion about the good qualities attributed to this movie, but also afraid it will take a lot of convincing.
By the way, the "50 Worst" book is not exactly by the Medved brothers: it was co-authored by Harry Medved and Randy Dreyfus. It does list Michael Medved as a contributor somewhere in its Acknowledgments.
I doubt that anyone could convince you to like it. Art either connects with us or it doesn’t, and both responses are always equally valid, no matter what any expert might say.
But I wonder about your complaint that the film’s stylized staging of Robbe-Grillet's dialogue fails to add to either "motion picture art or craft". This might be a convincing argument if the entire film were presented in a similarly antiquated and stagy manner – but it isn’t. Overall, Last Year at Marienbad is a forward-thinking and cinematic piece of work. Most of its strategies are formally experimental and couldn’t be easily achieved in any other medium. For instance, and while they may articulate quasi-literary thematic points, the endless, vertiginous shots of architectural detailing are an exercise in pure cinema. The same is true of the film’s use of repetition (visual, auditory, narrative) to induce a trace-like state in the viewer. Finally, over and over, Resnais uses the camera to establish, subvert and question point-of-view. All of these methods advance the art and craft of popular cinema.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean when you complain that the aristocratic setting makes the film "effete and personal". This is certainly true to some extent, but I’m not sure why we should see this characteristic as a fault. Last Year at Marienbad concerns desire, time and memory, and by concentrating on almost absurdly refined and circumspect characters who have no apparent worldly obligations, the film is able to eliminate everything that isn’t essential to its core themes.