structure, repetition, ritual etc.

Structuring the undefined (edited)

The first half of the film is fairly well defined : a very literary text by Robbe-Grillet ebbs and flows, resurfacing every now and then above the narcotic organ music, to trap the characters and viewers inside "this hotel, these deep corridors etc.", as in concentric circles, ripples preventing their growth / their escape beyond these confines. When the couple manage to outlive the recurring couplets of the establishing (in more ways than one) litany, they will be able to impose a outward dash that constitutes their way out of this plush prison.

Repetition. Now, repetition may play several parts. Most people will find it boring..., it may become irritating after a while..., it may also be narcotic..., it finally can be reassuring : comforting. The characters in "Marienbad" obviously spend their time vacationing, part of an elite that sojourns in prestigious hotels, where they are waited upon and play games, watch plays, and listen to concerts. Not exactly back-breaking ! They also already know each other, and chat about non essential subjects. This is the world which statu quo the intruder threatens, this is the trance from which he wants to take her away. One can understand her resistance. After all, where exactly does he promise to take her ? It is never said. What happens at the end ? It is not shown. There will only be one setting : the castle. In a totally different context (but nevertheless charming), "The Graduate"'s Dustin Hoffman pries Katharine Ross away from her WASP groom, only to find themselves in a bus... where they suddenly realise they haven't got a clue as to where they're headed.
One is also reminded of "Jack" trapped inside the Overlord Hotel of "The Shining" "for ever and ever".




Dialogue.
The dialogue uttered by the characters / extras at the start of the film, as the camera ruthlessly pans and scans the setting like a photocopier, is worth noting. These are mere fragments of sentences, portions of conversations that are, every time, cut off before coming to their point. These are literally pointless, as in deprived of their reference(s). These conversations are worthless, if you want. We are in a surreal world, where nothing precisely matters. The extras' dialogue, in "Marienbad", is so voluntarily aimless that it even boasts a nonexistent proverb, half-stated twice ! (Or if it does, this writer has never ever heard it.) The couple mention Mariennad, ...but they're not even sure it was the place where they met; nothing is for sure.

A quick word about Seyrig's diction : it is peculiar, unnatural, like the one of an automat. As many an iconic female figure, she was soon portrayed / caricatured by female impersonators : cf. Truffaut's "Domicile conjugal" ...in which of course she stars. (The film includes a full-on fantasy fulfilling scene, in which she turns up at Léaud's bedroom -gulp.)







Figures hiératiques. Bear in mind that he and she don't even bear a name. She could be any woman, he could be any man; or rather, she can be seen as the archetypal wife and he can be presented as the stereotypical lover, with Sacha Pitoeff as the husband figure. In other words, the classic trio. Their story can be read as what happens to any (repressed but well-off, sleepwalking but yet able to react) married woman suddenly confronted with a tempting seducer.

But I must also point out another, generally neglected, character. There is another woman character, with lines too, who pops up every now and then. Not only that, but she wears a white dress -as Delphine Seyrig does at times, in the flashbacks narrating her infidelity the previous year. Aha ! What can this mean ? Could this indicate an echo / un prolongement : the classic temptation affecting the main protagonist can equally apply to other women.

Watch the other actors closely, these rigid living dolls : apart from only one who loses his self-control once, nobody even/ever blinks.

(...) etc.
A classic (term for once deserved)!