Just watched this (spoilers)

[deleted]

"Most of the actors seemed to sleepwalk through their roles".

It was the characters (if they can be called such) who essentially sleepwalked through the film, not the actors playing them. There´s a big difference.


"In 1960 this must have been quite different film".

Trust me, it´s always been the same film with same implications.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

"Has anyone else felt the same after first viewing? Does this film get better with a second viewing?"

I'd say that at least a second viewing is crucial. And yes, I would say it does definitely does 'get better' on repeated viewings. I'm not going to pretend that I now fully understand what it's about, and nor do I feel the need to - but becoming more accustomed to the style of the film has given it more emotional and psychological resonance for me.

"Almost every shot had the Woman looking off into space and most of the actors seemed to sleepwalk through their roles."

As someone else pointed out, the actors (or rather, characters) appearing to sleepwalk through their roles is definitely deliberate. I don't think that most of the characters in the hotel (aside from the main characters) are even meant to be seen as real people, as at times they seem to behave more like mannequins. I don't feel the need for a single interpretation of the film, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that the main character has already died and is struggling to reconstruct his past in a way that makes sense or is acceptable but is unable to do so.

I just watched it myself and can easily admire it as a mesmerizing work of art but I can also see how some people could find it dull or pretentious. I tend to like otherwordly and mind bending cinema and I also like film where architecture is part of the cast (e.g. The Fall, Carnival of Souls, The Shining). I watched it while tired and somewhat sleep deprvied. As a result, I fell asleep 3 times and had to turn it off to doze a bit and continue it when I was more rested. I believe it is easy to sleep while watching this film as it is somewhat emotionless and the people somewhat vacuous despite an occasional raised voice or small scream. I admired it as a beautiful work of art and a unique film to experience. While it may have been slow, detached, or cold...conceptually and visually it was still interesting enough for me to come to this board and read and write about it. So I can say that I really liked the film but I can't say I absolutely loved it.

"in 1960 this must of been quite a different film"

must HAVE. "must of" means nothing, it's a misinterpretation of people saying "must've".

when i first watched this film, i was absolutely fascinated by it. however, everyone i got to watch it with me didn't feel the same way. it seems to be a rather polarizing film.

im not sure if youre familiar with the inspiration behind the film. there's a scifi novel called "the invetion of morel" by adolfo casares. (im going to spoil the ending for you, and i hope you dont mind that.) its about a fugitive who hides out on an island and he sees all this wealthy people in party dresses and tuxes. he watches from afar and eventually falls in love with a woman. however, everyone seems so distant. they also appear to just be going through the same motions every few days. he eventually discovers that they were living inside a time loop. an inventor named morel had developed a machine that worked as a film/audio recorder that could make real-as-life holograms. the inventor then charged wealthy people who wanted to live forever in some fashion to be videotaped on the island. however, the radiation from the machine killed them all. when the fugitive discovers this, he decides to study the woman's actions and then record himself into the loop, participating with her...

both the writer and the director of the film cited the novel as being an influence on the story, and having already read the book, i had a better appreciation for the film.

the events seem to be looping around in the film, but i think the story takes a more metaphysical direction than its inspiration.

i think each time the loop is repeated, we see the same scene from a different character's perspective, which means that we see the loop the way they REMEMBERED it...for example, the man may have recalled having a particular conversation on the stairs, while she remembers the same discussion on the patio. he remembers her in a white dress, while she remembers being in a black dress. he remembers her being a willing lover, she remembers being reluctant. etc. etc. etc.

memories are a major theme in most of alain resnais' movies-- having already been familiar with the director also made it easier for me to gasp the film that aspect of the story.

"Last Year at Marienbad" is everything that anyone who has seen it ever accused it of being: pretentious, fascinating, boring, mesmerizing, infuriating, haunting, illogical, puzzling, nonsensical, cerebral. All true. Very few films are as polarizing as "Marienbad". Almost fifty years later, it remains one of the finest examples of cinematic art ever created. Art provokes. Films that don't provoke aren't art.