| Errors | Missing | Unverified | Supported |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 9 | 0 | 6 |
The most crucial action made by the lead character (conventionally referred to as X, the Narrator or Stranger) in Last Year at Marienbad is the successful act of convincing the Woman (A) to abandon her present life and leave the hotel with him, thereby definitively validating his subjective narrative that they had met and promised to leave together the previous year.
Specific Detail of the Action:
The crucial moment involves the successful completion of X's psychological campaign against A's denial. After multiple failed attempts and intense, recurring conversations—many of which take place in A's opulent, often locked, room—X finally breaks through her resistance.
The specific action that seals their fate is X taking her by the arm and leading her out of the hotel.
This action is defined by two key elements:
Who Helps Him Make It:
No one.
The success of X's crucial action is achieved entirely through his unwavering rhetorical persistence and force of will, which allows him to project his subjective reality onto the Woman (A).
The other characters in the film—specifically her powerful companion (M) and the recurring, ambiguous waiter/manager figures—either serve as obstacles or remain wholly passive spectators. They do not intervene to assist X in his goal of forcing A to remember or comply with his version of events. His success is fundamentally a solitary, internal, psychological triumph.
The summary treats the narrative as having a definitive outcome ('definitively validating,' 'triumph') when the film intentionally 'offers no definitive conclusion regarding what is real and what is imagined.' This is not a minor stylistic choice but the film's central artistic statement. Director Resnais stated the film has 'no meaning,' and he and screenwriter Robbe-Grillet gave contradictory answers about whether the characters actually met, fueling debate. The film's structure—including the ending being narrated in past tense by X—suggests the entire cycle could repeat 'ad infinitum.' Missing this ambiguity fundamentally misrepresents the film.
The summary references X 'physically forcing the memory' and 'the moment she submitted to him,' language that echoes Robbe-Grillet's screenplay which 'explicitly describes a rape.' However, it fails to note that Resnais replaced this scene with 'a series of repeated overexposed tracking shots moving towards the smiling woman'—a major creative difference that makes the filmed version far more ambiguous. This represents a significant divergence between the two creators' visions, with Resnais' visuals favoring 'the heroine's point of view' and giving her 'autonomy and independence of mind' contrary to Robbe-Grillet's objectifying approach.
Multiple sources note that the narrator (X) is potentially unreliable, that the ending is narrated by X 'in the past tense' (calling its reality into question), and that some critics interpret X as possibly a writer creating fictional characters. Roger Ebert suggests X might be 'the artist' creating A and M as characters. The summary presents X's narration as straightforward when the film constantly undermines narrative reliability through contradictions, repetitions, and temporal discontinuities.
Sources reveal that Resnais and Robbe-Grillet 'did not entirely share the same vision' of the film, with Robbe-Grillet later stating Resnais' filming was 'a betrayal' (though beautiful). Robbe-Grillet called it 'the story of a persuasion' offering the woman 'a past, a future, and freedom,' while Resnais' realization made 'things not nearly so simple.' Understanding these tensions enriches interpretation of whose perspective the film ultimately favors.
The game M repeatedly wins against X has specific mathematical properties: 'the one who plays second (M, in the film) can always force a win.' This functions as a metaphor for the power dynamics in the film, with M seemingly dominating X through superior knowledge or position, yet X ultimately 'wins' A. The summary mentions M and the games but doesn't explore this symbolic layer.
In Last Year at Marienbad (1961), the most crucial action attributed to the lead character X is convincing the woman A to leave the hotel with him by the film's end. However, this answer requires critical qualification: the film intentionally offers no definitive conclusion regarding what is real and what is imagined. Director Alain Resnais stated the film has 'no meaning,' and he and screenwriter Alain Robbe-Grillet gave contradictory answers about whether the characters actually met the previous year.
The 'action' consists of X's relentless rhetorical persuasion—through repeated conversations and assertions that they met last year (at Marienbad, or Karlstadt, or Baden-Salsa)—gradually wearing down A's denial until she agrees to depart with him. The ending shows A leaving with X while M (possibly her husband) watches from the staircase. Notably, this ending is narrated by X himself in the past tense, and the film's circular structure (identical midnight chimes at start and finish) suggests the entire cycle could repeat 'ad infinitum.'
Critical context: Robbe-Grillet's screenplay 'explicitly describes a rape' in the bedroom confrontation, but Resnais replaced this with 'a series of repeated overexposed tracking shots moving towards the smiling woman,' making it deliberately ambiguous. Resnais' filmed version favors 'the heroine's point of view' and gives her 'autonomy and independence of mind,' contrary to the screenplay's more coercive framing.
Who helps X? No one. X achieves his goal through solitary persistence. M serves as obstacle rather than helper, repeatedly defeating X at the game of Nim (though this game's mathematical structure means 'the one who plays second can always force a win'—yet X ultimately 'wins' A).
The film's fundamental achievement is maintaining radical ambiguity: we cannot know if X and A actually met before, if X is a reliable narrator (or even a writer creating fictional characters, as Roger Ebert suggests), or if the 'departure' represents objective reality, shared delusion, fantasy, or dream. The crucial action is not a definitive triumph but an ambiguous moment that the film refuses to clarify.