Talk:Last Year at Marienbad/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment 1

I have the DVD in front of me and the film's English title is 'Last Year In Marienbad'

Only in the UK though, apparently. It's 'at' in US and Canada. Go figure. The Singing Badger 20:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have just reverted the intro to "L'Année dernière à Marienbad (translated as Last Year in Marienbad in the UK and Last Year at Marienbad in North America)" from "Last Year at Marienbad (French: L'Année dernière à Marienbad, and translated to Last Year in Marienbad in the UK)".

It is clearer this way and the North American title has no reason to be chosen over the UK title in the intro paragraph. So rather keep the French title, which at least is the original one. olivier (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The comments above were made when the article title was "Last Year at Marienbad". Here, "in" is correct and "at" is wrong. " Je suis à la Tour Eiffel" and Je suis à Paris" mean, respectively, "I am at the Eiffel Tower" and "I am in Paris". I have therefore changed the title and made consequential changes to the text. "Last Year at Marienbad" is now a redirect. See also (which I have also changed): List_of_works_with_different_titles_in_the_United_Kingdom_and_United_States#Film_and_television. I have changed some links in other articles from "at" to "in", but there are very many of them and I hope a bot will pick them up - although "at" could still be ok for a US context. --Wikiain (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This looks like original research to me. How do we know that "Last Year at Marienbad" was a mistranslation? Perhaps it was an intentional change to the title. After all, it is rather common for the same movie to be released under different names in other markets. Perhaps the distributors knew that a literal translation was "Last Year in Marienbad," but for promotional reasons felt that the movie required a slightly different title for the U.S. market. They came up with a slightly different title that, when translated, was "Last Year at Marienbad." If that is the case, then the use of "at" may well reflect an intentional change of the title and not a mistranslation. That may be the reason we continue to see the movie title with the word "at." The recent Criterion release is a contemporary example of the persistence of the "at" usage. I propose that any reference to a "mistranslation" must go beyond a translation by a Wiki editor/contributor and should be properly sourced in order to avoid the problem of original research. I suggest a return to the commonly used title of "Last Year at Marienbad" until such time as this issue can be properly resolved through the use of appropriate third-party sources. Dhalgren195 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The title is French and was not changed. "Last Year at Marienbad" is a mistranslation of it. That it is a mistranslation is an evident fact. "Last Year in Marienbad" is commonly used too. --Wikiain (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not quite as evident as you think. A previous poster referenced this article List_of_works_with_different_titles_in_the_United_Kingdom_and_United_States#Film_and_television where we learn that the "French title L'année dernière à Marienbad; "à" may be translated as "in" or "at"". Again, my concern is that we have contributors relying on their personal knowledge of French rather than referencing third-party sources. Dhalgren195 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The "previous poster" was me, so maybe I'm a repeat offender. I didn't change that article in that it counts the "in" and "at" versions as different titles - that seems to me to be correct, where the topic is the title(s) under which a film has been released anywhere.

But the topic here is the film whose title is "L'année dernière à Marienbad". The next question, I think, is how that title should be translated into English. The answer to that question surely does not depend on whether the film has ever been released under an English title. If it has not, then one can be the first translator. But, if it has, then one should refer to the English title(s) as historical facts. And then, if one of those is a correct translation - or, if more than one of them is arguably correct, but one of them is preferable to the others - it can be adopted as the WP translation.

For those reasons, I would now be inclined to rephrase the opening words thus:

L'Année dernière à Marienbad ("Last Year in Marienbad", released under that title in the UK but mistranslated for the USA as "Last Year at Marienbad")

Can we now find agreement?

There is a similar discussion within the article "All Quiet on the Western Front" as well as in its Talk. In this case the original German title, the military expression "Im Westen nichts Neues", was changed in translation since a literal translation, "Nothing New in the West", would have made little sense.

Finally: I don't see a reason to count knowledge of another modern language as needing a third-party source. As to correction, there is no originality in correcting what anybody with the requisite expertise would recognise as error. First translation is a more difficult case, but on that I would be guided by practicality. That is, if first translation had to be referenced to a third-party source there could never be a first translation in WP, even of a WP article. Then all WP articles that are translated (into English or whatever) would have to condemned. I have discussed this further in Talk:The_Brabançonne. --Wikiain (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Found this in the Wiki guidance titled "No original research": "... Where English translations of non-English material are unavailable, editors may supply their own, subject to consensus, with the original posted alongside or in a footnote. Copyright restrictions permitting, translations published by reliable sources are preferred to those provided by Wikipedians. ..." If "at" is truly a mistranslation -- a mistranslation that dates back to 1961 and has been mistakenly repeated in various official film and video releases for the past half century -- then surely this information can be attributed to reliable sources rather than a Wikipedian. My initial review of reliable sources indicates that "Last Year at Marienbad" is a reliable translation. This is the title used in the 1962 Grove Press edition of "LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD - text by Alain Robbe-Grillet for the film by Alain Resnais." The translator is listed as Richard Howard, who is described in a Wikipedia bio/article as "a distinguished American poet, literary critic, essayist, teacher, and translator.... He was awarded the PEN Translation Prize in 1976 for his translation of E. M. Cioran's A Short History of Decay and the American Book Award for his 1983 translation of Baudelaire's Les Fleurs du Mal. ...In 1982, Howard was named a Chevalier of L'Ordre National du Mérite by the government of France."Dhalgren195 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, good source. I'm not going to argue with Richard Howard, though "in" certainly isn't wrong. See also Foundation. I hope you like the change I have now made. --Wikiain (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! Now we need to resolve the article title. I propose use of the "at" version. This appears to be the most common version, at least on my quick check of the web. I did a Google Books search for both versions. The "in" version generated 1,300 results; the "at" version generated 7,890 results. Clearly "at" is the more common usage. Dhalgren195 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at the book in a library today and see whether Howard made any comment on the options. --Wikiain (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I have looked at the book and the two of us have agreement on what to do - and perhaps will also have agreement on the reasons. I don't agree that citation numbers should be decisive. At least in this case, that would probably reflect people citing what happens to be available to them rather than making choices. But I have a new and more special reason.

The book Last Year at Marienbad is translated by Richard Howard from Robbe-Grillet's screenplay, together with an essay by Robbe-Grillet on his collaboration with Resnais. The translator makes no comment on the translation.

In the screenplay, the stranger "X" tells the woman "A" that they met "last year ... in the gardens at Frederiksbad" (pp 51, 60-61). After a while she says "I tell you it's impossible. I've never even been to Frederiksbad." (p 67). X replies: "Well, then it was somewhere else, maybe ... at Karlstadt, at Marienbad, or at Baden-Salsa - or even here, in this salon. You have followed me here so that I can show you this picture." (p 67). Then A, "And where was it this time?" and X, "Where was it ... that doesn't matter." (pp 73-74). Much later, there is a photograph that might have been taken in any place, possibly Frederiksbad (p 132). The film ends with packing and travelling - after all, it takes place in a hotel. Direction: "A is sitting on the edge of a couch. She looks as if she were waiting in the dentist's office or were at a railroad station between two trains." (p 160).

So it seems that they might not be in Marienbad, but it is never made clear where they are. And those who recognise the settings will see that the film was shot in different places. Nor are their names ever revealed.

By this point, I have got to the view that "à Marienbad" may be legitimately and perhaps better rendered as "at Marienbad" in the sense in which a rail guide might advise "Descendez à Marienbad" ("Get off at Marienbad"). Perhaps this is "original research", although I am only looking at the work to which the article is devoted; but, if so, I don't have a problem with that where it informs a choice that has to be made.

So I'll wait a day or so to give anyone else a chance to contribute to this discussion and if there is no objection "move" the page back to "Last Year at Marienbad". Thank you for an interesting discussion. I'll think about a suggestion to the MOS. --Wikiain (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I like it! Yes, it may be "original research" -- but interesting and valuable research. In fact, I would urge you to consider writing an essay on the subject of "at" versus "in." You could make a good case that the "in" of the UK version is actually a "misguided" translation -- technically accurate, but it ignores the context of the greater work. Thanks for sharing it. Dhalgren195 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Following this good discussion, I have "moved" the article title back to "Last Year at Marienbad". Thank you, Dhalgren. --Wikiain (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment 2

I moved the following sentence here because, as written, it is impossible to tell whether it means that the film was influenced by this novel or influenced this novel, and since I have no idea, I moved the sentence here till someone who knows can correct it: "The plot has a great influence of Adolfo Bioy Casares' novel Plan de evasión." Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The Invention of Morel

I have attempted to improve the importance of the article by adding material about "The Invention of Morel." Balance2214 21:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently the material about "The Invention of Morel" has been relegated to a (fairly long) footnote. Is there a reason it can't be in the full text of the article? Somewhere I have a copy of an English translation of "The Invention of Morel" that repeatedly refers to its influence on the film (as well as the influence of prior films on the book), so this can't be a rare, unimportant, or difficult-to-source fact. KASchmidt (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Last year marienbad.jpg

Image:Last year marienbad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical divergence

Last Year In Marienbad is the only film to appear in lists of the top hundred *and* bottom hundred films of all time. I don't have a source for this but people might be interested.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. Cop 663 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is cited in The Fifty Worst Films of All Time, which I feel is worth mentioning, so I mentioned it. 24.201.152.109 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that should be included as it is surely unusual and interesting.Vertovian (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I restored the negative part of "Reception". If need be, I'll dig up my copy of the book and print specific quotes from critics showing that there was indeed some negative response to Marienbad. Other films don't get such selective positive-only treatment, why should this one? 132.205.45.241 (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Influences

Peter Greenaway has described it as "the only really intelligent movie that has ever existed"... (bottom of the page here: http://www.sfweekly.com/1997-06-04/film/the-text-the-film-the-director-and-his-talk/2/ ) ... perhaps worth mentioning in the article?

In my humble opinion, it is not an intelligent comment, so I wouldn't add it. --Wikiain (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Marienbad was an Austrian Health Spa

Marienbad was a world famous health spa in Austria. Czechoslovakia was created by taking Austrian territory in 1919 and Marienbad became part of Czech territory. The resort was renamed to Mariánské Lázně after WW II when Czechoslovakia's 3 million Germans (Austrians) were ethnically cleansed and forced to flee to Germany or Austria. Its amazing to me that in such a long winded review of what is apparently considered a great film, it doesn't even mention where the movie is supposed to be taking place (at least I assume that is why the word Marienbad is in the title). Why is wikipedia deliberately keeping this information from the review of he film?Pgg804 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The article explains: "No filming was done in the Czech spa town of Marienbad - and the film does not allow the viewer to know with certainty which, if any, scenes are supposed to be located there." In the dialogue of the film, Marienbad is mentioned once alongside Frederiksbad, Karlstadt, and Baden-Salsa as possible locations for possible memories. More than that we don't know. The background information about Marienbad is best found in the article on Marienbad. Lampernist (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This may be bordering original research, but most of the place names given seem to point towards Bohemia aka what is mostly the Czech Republic today. There's not only Marienbad: Friedrichsbad was a spa built in 1935 in Lądek-Zdrój (prior to WWII, Czechoslovakia was still bi- or tri-lingual), and Karlstadt may be a (misheard?) reference to either Karlsbad (German name of Karlovy Vary, which is what the German subtitles to a French making-of documentary on a recent German DVD edition make out of it), or potentially Karlštejn (Beroun District) or Karlstein an der Thaya close to what is now the Czech border.

Baden-Salsa is a tough one, admittedly. On the one hand, it could be a pun relating to German Badesalz (German for "bath salt", as the German words for "spa" and "bath" are identical), on the other, it could be a garbled reference to Salsach (which if pronounced by a French person could very well sound just like Salsa), a district of Deutsch Goritz (which just like the aforementioned placenames was part of the cisleithanian aka "Austrian" part of Austria-Hungary up until 1918), only (accidentally?) mixed up with the similarly-named Bad Salzuflen (again, Bad is German for "spa").

I'd say, Bohemia also wouldn't be the worst reference for a movie like this, as the region was known for its whimsical, even surreal legends and fairy tales for centuries, an influence still found in modern literature (see Franz Kafka, for example) and film (see Karel Zeman, Jan Švankmajer, and many other Czech or Czechoslovakian directors). --37.80.58.0 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)