I have no idea if the story was meant to be understood; atleast that's what I felt. Too many overlaps and the ending, if it was really the end, was more confusing. I'm not sure if I can make the best out of the plot but I'll explain the way I understood it. One thing for sure is now I know why @notacinephile called this movie as an art; not all art is meant to be understood as they're never conventional but sometimes the best we can do is merely accepting them and care for them the way they are. More than meets the eye is very fitting if said about the film. You may think I'm going off the rail but this is how I interpreted it. Last Year In Marienbad (1961) is not only an art but an experience. Directed by Alain Resnais and screenplay by Alain Robbe-Grillet, Last Year in Marienbad is a French-Italian Left Bank film and the leading actors are Delphine Seyrig and Giorgio Albertazzi with Sacha Pitoëff as the supporting cast. Director Resnais has made sure it's a memorable one.

This is a very different approach but I'll start narrating without trying not to beat around the bush any longer. The characters don't have names here, I don't know if I should use any other moniker; I think I'll call them Lady (Delphine) and Fellow (Giorgio).

L'Année dernière à Marienbad (1961)

Two lost souls that met at a strange place, a palatial hotel where the time seems sometimes at a halt and sometimes moving at another direction. The narrator has described the hotel in such a way that it seemed so glorious yet so hollow inside; as if it was paramount and irrelevant at the same time. The corridors, the halls,  the windowless galleries, the empty rooms were the spectators of the tale of Lady and Fellow but the lack of voice made it irrelevant somewhat. The hotel and the people are just as much of a mystery as these two; but others mostly minding their own business, spending their time leisurely, often interacting with each other and occasionally their presence seemed meaningless like a prop. But the grandeur of the palace and our lead actors held the core to the story. Their story started a year ago and it appears as if a decade has gone by. They both disagree whether they have met before or not. Lady believes that they haven’t met at all and Fellow is unsure about the place of their encounter. At moments he thinks they met at Frederiksbad and other times he feels it’s Marienbad. Fellow is unable in revealing the accurate details about where but remembers every little details of their time together like it was yesterday. Lady thinks he’s bluffing or is she has perhaps forgotten him altogether. Regardless of whichever theory it was, Fellow is determined to make sure she remembers. There’s a mysterious man (Sacha) with whom Fellow plays Nim with cards and he loses; the man claimed he never lost in this game and he kept proving it over and over again. In the beginning this man’s identity was kept in the dark; he appeared as if he lived in this chateau, as if he belonged there.

Fellow started talking to Lady and describes that he first saw Lady in the gardens of Frederiksburg, she was standing by a balustrade, placing her hand on it, all by herself, lost in her own trail of thoughts; she didn’t see him coming and only realized his existence when he heard his footsteps. A tall stone statue over a pedestal seems to hold importance over their shared moments. The littlest details of the statue was meaningful; the statue of a man and woman in old fashioned clothing and seemed as they were representing something which he didn’t know, Fellow even said that the sculpture perhaps was speaking for them. It didn’t matter much what the statue was symbolizing; what Lady and Fellow thought of it is a part of their shared memories. To Fellow, every seconds of it has a key to open the box of the next moment. Even though Lady looked like she mingles well with the aristocratic crowd of the hotel but at times she realizes that no one gets her or understands her and she feels lost; she neither confirmed nor disregard this fact when he pointed it out. Nobody knows, hears or understands her better than Fellow. She often spaces out in her own trail of thoughts. They dance and he talks more about the things no one else has perceived; the fact that she doesn’t like walking, or she posed like a dancer when she took off her broken stiletto, or how she rest her hand delicately over her shoulder,  or that Fellow was already in love with her smile, or the fate kept bringing them together to meet again and again, or the very fact that even if she was close to him but she was still miles away. Lady remembers what happened but she is reluctant to acknowledge it; he’s aware of the chain that binds her. Fellow also talked about the last they saw each other; the last time they met, Lady asked him to give her a year and after that she will go away with him when they see each other.

Now I'm at a section where I myself found completely lost; there are three scenarios that were placed here. The mystery man is Lady's husband and Fellow is aware of this. First, it was shown that her husband killed her. In second you'll see Fellow accidentally falling off the balustrade and leaping to his death. Now third shows that Lady and Fellow left the palace together to start a new life. Now I accepted the third scenario but didn't disregard the first two. You remember I mentioned lost souls! So my perception is that Lady and Fellow both had died, although Fellow remembered everything but Lady didn't. The macabre was set for her to remember and that's why the chateau, the park and time itself seemed fluid. And in the end, the two lost souls found their way to each other. This was the most possible explanation I could think of about this film.

Not all stories have a fitting end, not all of them are supposed to be sensible but they're meant to be heard, felt and appreciated. My perception may not match with yours; it's not always supposed to. It was overwhelming that much is true. Two lost souls finding their way back together.