MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411265304 · doi:10.29173/jjs316s

Last Year at Marienbad: A scenarist, a director and a protagonist walk into some archetypes

2025· article· en· W4411265304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew McWhirter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Jungian Scholarly Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchetypeArtPsychoanalysisHistoryPsychologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the 65th anniversary of the modernist masterpiece L’année Dernière À Marienbad (Last Year at Marienbad) (1961) approaches, we are reminded that this film demands a straightforward retelling. Because, in fact, nothing about this film is straightforward. The director, Alain Resnais (cited in Wilson, 2006:70), explains, ‘In an international palace, a stranger meets a young woman and tells her the love story they lived the previous year. The woman denies this, the man confirms it and persists. Who is right?’. The film sees three characters inextricably linked together in a love triangle, nameless but for the knowledge of the script that describes them as A (Delphine Seyrig), the woman, M (Sacha Pitoëff), perhaps her husband or lover or guardian, and X (Giorgio Albertazzi), the man who is trying to win A for himself (Van Wert, 1977). The film remains one of the most talked about, owning to its many formal and narrative uncertainties. What actually did happen? What is the film even about? Because the audiovisual essay is now an established form of scholarship (McWhirter, 2015), perhaps this form of analysis afforded by the digital age can shed fresh light on a complex piece of cinema history. This audiovisual essay pieces together the evidence to demonstrate that the film can be seen as a swim of images in the conscious and unconscious mind of the protagonist, X. These take place only in the pro-filmic time as the film unfolds. X has suffered some great tragedy – perhaps the death of the real A – but inhabits a stasis or purgatory and a physical space the spectator does not see. In what the audience does see, various archetypes adopt image representations (Anima as A; Trickster as guests; Shadow as M) with the purpose of having X heal and resolve his part in the tragedy and to move on with his life. The work is a battle between the memories and repressions of a conscious psyche versus the power of the unconscious seeking wholeness and unification. Who will win? References Last Year at Marienbad (1961) Directed by Alain Resnais. [Feature film]. France/Italy: Conicor. McWhirter, Andrew (2015) ‘Film criticism, film scholarship and the video essay’, Screen, Volume 56, Issue 3, Autumn, pp. 369-377, https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/hjv044 Van Wert, William F. (1977) The Film Career of Alain Robbe-Grillet, London: George Prior Publishers. Wilson, Emma (2006) Alain Resnais, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Jungian Scholarly StudiesSame topicMiddle East and Rwanda ConflictsFrench-language works237,207