Memento - finally saw it - ok, I get it... but WTF? SPOILER

[Anonymous]

Warning - if you have not seen Memento, you are about to enter SPOILER HELL.

DO NOT READ FURTHER
















Ok, this movie was a grand mystery with some truly inventive storytelling. I totally "got" the director's point of telling the movie in reverse - from each note's effect and then leaping back to the situation the note was written in. Complete edge of my seat until the bitter end, and that's grand.

However, I was really into the whole thing of finding out the "truth" of all the manipulation and such that was going on, and while I truly reveled in the confusion I was honestly looking for an ultimate resolution to the whole thing. However, the last 5 minutes of the movie opened up such a huge can of worms and never provided any sort of "ultimate truth" behind the thing. You're left to forever ponder if what Teddy said was real, who killed his wife, did HE fucking do it, is he Sammy? Oh my god.

Anybody got any ideas on what the "ultimate truth" probably is about that story?

[Anonymous]

oh, that was me, btw.

[Mark Asher]

I thought Sammy was a cop and he helped solve the original crime but then used Mr. Memory to his own purposes.

[Bub, Andrew]

Someone give Asher a cigar. That's what I thought too. Sammy used him as a weapon (most recently in the film to get a trunk full of cash). A weapon that ultimately blew up in his face.

[DavidCPA]

Mark is the astute movie viewer. The ending almost seems lame compared to the rest of the film. Tension is built with no big payoff. I still liked it though.

-DavidCPA

[Wholly Schmidt]

Wait what? Sammy a cop? How'd you make that leap of logic?

[Anonymous]

Leap of logic? The last 15 minutes of the movie he's walking around showing his badge and talking about being a cop, wanting to bust Jimmy, then the final revelation at the end. Dude, you totally missed the entire last 15 minutes of the film if you didn't catch the not-so-subtle "I'm a cop" thing. The real question, however, is WAS he a cop or not? And furthermore, who the hell was Dodd? It's quite possible that Dodd was the REAL cop and solving the drug case when Terry and Co. show up and inject themselves into the situation.

This movie has so many "what if?" places to attach potential truths, that you could go on forever thinking of them.

[Desslock]

>The last 15 minutes of the movie he's walking around showing his badge and talking about being a cop, wanting to bust Jimmy, then the final revelation at the end.

Uh, you guys mean Teddy, not Sammy (Jenkins), which is causing the confusion.

[Matthew Beaver]

Err, I think you mean Teddy. IIRC, Sammy was the guy with psychosomatic antereograde amnesia - the one who killed his wife with insulin injections. I took the question of whether or not the main character was Sammy as a red herring thrown out by Teddy to confuse the main character and save himself, once he saw that his little game was about to bite him in the ass. The film seems to have left it up to the viewer as a judgement call, though.

-Matthew

[Tom Chick]

The key to Memento is that everything Joey Pants explains at the end of the movie is true. With that in mind, I think it's pretty air tight.

e.g. Guy Pearce killed his own wife with insulin injections. She was raped, but not murdered. Sammy Jenkins was simply the name of someone with the same condition who Guy Pearce had investigated earlier in his career.

-Tom

[Anonymous]

Right Tom... and that's the basis of my question...

Do we actually believe Teddy or not? That could be utter bullshit TOO. The whole movie you're wondering "how the hell could it be this guy that did it?" and at the end, I *still* want to think that guy did it. Maybe it's true, maybe it ain't. However, Teddy never really BS'ed him. You always thought that he did, because of the "don't believe his lies" thing on the picture... but once you see how that got there... or, then again, it was a lie?

Nice mindfuck for sure.

ps - I never got Teddy and Sammy confused. I don't know where "sammy a cop?" came from in that reply. I re-read my post and didn't see where I said it, or confused that issue.

[wumpus]

Oh, this one is easy, Tom. Try explaining Donnie Darko.

timer starts.. now.

[Wholly Schmidt]

>The last 15 minutes of the movie he's walking around showing his badge and talking about being a cop, wanting to bust Jimmy, then the final revelation at the end.

Uh, you guys mean Teddy, not Sammy (Jenkins), which is causing the confusion.Thanks, yes. I imagine that's what they meant and that's what I was questioning.

[Aszurom]

Ah, ok... I see it now. Asher went off on the "Sammy used him..." thing. I got self conscious about my comma splicing above and thought maybe I confused you guys... but it was really the professional writer at fault.

:-)

[Sparky]

Oh, this one is easy, Tom. Try explaining Donnie Darko.

Ooh -- and then do "Eraserhead"!

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Oh, this one is easy, Tom. Try explaining Donnie Darko.

timer starts.. now.

Don't even go there. I watched it once. Now I have to watch it again because I know I missed, oh, maybe 95% of it. :?

/me thinking taking 90 mins to watch an episode of 60 Minutes can't be all that bad. uhm, can it?

[Menzo]

I need to have a sit-down session with someone who understands Donnie Darko.

I thought I got it until the end. Then I realized just how little I understood.

What the hell did it all mean? I don't even have a guess.

[Tom Chick]

I haven't seen Donnie Darko since Sundance two years ago (I understand the theatrical release was tightened up a bit), but the point I got from it was that Donnie wakes up on the mountain overlooking his town and gets the chance to go back and replay what should have been the last days of his life. Something like that.

Looking at my notes, the only illumination I can offer is this: "Jake Gyllenhaal, who looks as much like Tobey Maguire as Leelee Sobieski looks like Helen Hunt, plays a high school kid haunted by a gruesome six-foot tall rabbit with a demonic voice. But what starts out as a great metaphor for teenage alienation becomes a convoluted time travel movie, a sort of limp attempt at Harvey meets Back to the Future meets Jacob's Ladder meets Lost Highway."

Personally, I prefer Final Destination. Although it's nice to see the rabbit from Sexy Beast is getting regular work.

-Tom

[DavidCPA]

Although it's nice to see the rabbit from Sexy Beast is getting regular work.

That was supposed to be a rabbit???

-DavidCPA

[wumpus]

BIG GIANT FUCKING SPOILER FOR DONNIE DARKO!!

If you want to read it, go here and paste it the rot13 text below (CTRL+C / CTRL+V), then hit TAB.

http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/usenet/rot13c.html

--- begin text ---

Vg'f n frys-crecrghngvat gvzr ybbc gung vf pbafgnagyl ercrngvat gur riragf bs Bpgbore 2aq guebhtu 31fg. Ba Bpgbore 31, gur ratvar snyyvat bss bs gur 747 cnffrf guebhtu n gvzr cbegny gb Bpgbore 2, penfuvat vagb Qbaavr'f orqebbz. Ba gur fnzr avtug, Senax, jrnevat gur qrzbavp ohaal fhvg, ehaf bire Tergpura, xvyyvat ure, naq vf fhofrdhragyl xvyyrq ol Qbaavr, jub fubbgf uvz va gur rlr. Senax tbrf onpx va gvzr naq yrnqf Qbaavr guebhtu gur riragf bs gur arkg 28 qnlf naq 6 ubhef, hc gb gur cbvag gung ur naq Tergpura ner xvyyrq, guhf perngvat gur gvzr ybbc. Qbaavr, guebhtu uvf pbairefngvbaf jvgu Qe. Zbaavgbss naq ol ernqvat Gur Cuvybfbcul bs Gvzr Geniry ernyvmrf gung ur vf npghnyyl va punetr bs uvf sngr, naq unf gur cbjre gb cerirag Tergpura'f qrngu. Ur svaqf n gvzr cbegny, geniryf onpx gb gur avtug bs gur nppvqrag, naq pubbfrf gb fgnl va uvf ebbz naq or xvyyrq engure guna crecrghngr gur gvzr ybbc gung yrnqf gb gur qrngu bs gjb vaabprag crbcyr.

Vg'f frrzf gb or nobhg cerqrfgvangvba if. serr jvyy. Qbaavr, orvat gur bayl bar gb frr gur jubyr cvpgher, vf noyr gb pubbfr uvf cngu, ohg gur cngu gung yrnqf gb gur zbfg tbbq vf gur cerqrfgvarq bar (juvpu Qbaavr ersref gb nf "pubbfvat Tbq'f punaary" va uvf pbairefngvba jvgu Qe. Zbaavgbss). Guhf, gubhtu ur vf noyr gb pubbfr jurgure gb sbyybjrq uvf cerqrfgvarq cngu, gb abg sbyybj vg bayl znxrf guvatf jbefr.

Vf Qbaavr n Puevfg svther? Ur vf na vaabprag jub xabjf gur shgher, rkcbfrf n snyfr cebcurg, (Wvz Phaavatunz), naq zhfg pubbfr gb fnpevsvpr uvzfrys gb fnir gur yvirf bs vaabpragf jub, orpnhfr gurl pnaabg frr nf ur qbrf, pnaabg fnir gurzfryirf.

--- end text ---

And for my next trick, I'll explain to Tom Chick why Wet Hot American Summer is funny.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

BIG GIANT FUCKING SPOILER FOR DONNIE DARKO!!



ah, thank you Dear Boy - cuz NO WAY IN HELL was I going to sit through that again. Now that I've read the spoiler, 50% of the 95% I missed, makes sense.

All I gotta do now is figure out who the hell was in the bunny suit :D

[Lurker]

[STILL SPOILERS - SO WATCH OUT]

I still don't get it, although I could do with watching it again. How does Donnie just "find a time portal"? And did Frank really go back in time to lead Donnie through August?! I thought he was just, like, a ghost or something supernatural related. When he took the mask off, he was a woman, wasn't he? Oh shit, I'm just getting messed up worse.

[Ben Sones]

The key to Memento is that everything Joey Pants explains at the end of the movie is true. With that in mind, I think it's pretty air tight.

The key to Memento is that you aren't supposed to figure it out. I can think of several arguments for why all that stuff is wrong, Tom... or at least I could right after seeing the film. I'd have to watch it again to get back into it.

People are perfectly willing to accept the backwards storytelling as a method of conveying what it must be like to live with Leonard's condition. The connection that they fail to make, in my opinion, is that the ending of the film is just an extension of that. Leonard can never really have the closure that he's looking for--his condition won't allow it--and so Christopher Nolan denies it to the audience as well, while at the same time providing just enough tantalizing clues to keep you looking... just like Leonard. I thought it was rather clever.

[Tom Chick]

The key to Memento is that you aren't supposed to figure it out. I can think of several arguments for why all that stuff is wrong, Tom... or at least I could right after seeing the film. I'd have to watch it again to get back into it.


Well then let me know when you've seen it again. As someone who's pretty sure he's figured Memento out, I'd love to hear what your arguments are for saying it's a movie I'm not supposed to figure out. :)

-Tom

[Desslock]

>again. As someone who's pretty sure he's figured Memento out, I'd love to hear what your arguments are for saying it's a movie I'm not supposed to figure out.

I agree with Tom - the last speech of Teddy's explains almost everything pretty well, if you assume it's all true. There's still some intentionally conflicting scenes, or scenes you can't rationalize (like Guy sitting with his wife and having an "I did it" tatoo"), but it works pretty well.

It's actually kinda cool to watch it in chronological order, using the DVD.

Stefan

[Ron Dulin]

Add a third vote for Teddy's veracity.

Memento is not so much about Leonard avenging his wife's death as it is about Leonard being set up to kill Teddy. The big questions are: 1) Who is setting him up? and 2) Is Teddy the right guy?

For me, the answer to the first question is the most enjoyable revelation of the film: He sets himself up. "Everyone needs a John G., and you'll be mine." Or something to that effect. The answer to the second question is "no," but presumably Leonard will think it's "yes" and be at peace.

Memento is a more interesting film if Teddy is telling the truth, and I think we are meant to assume that he is. Teddy has no motivation to lie to Leonard at that point. He does have reason to tell the truth, though, because Leonard will just forget everything. And the subjective memory scenes - the strange vision of the "I did it" tattoo mentioned by Stefan above, the quick flash of Leonard's face over Sammy's, the pinch scene replaced with the needle scene - all seem to confirm Teddy's story.

Definitely worth a second (and third) viewing.

-Ron

[Kross]

Memento is not so much about Leonard avenging his wife's death as it is about Leonard being set up to kill Teddy. The big questions are: 1) Who is setting him up? and 2) Is Teddy the right guy?
. . .
The answer to the second question is "no," but presumably Leonard will think it's "yes" and be at peace.

I thought the answer to the second question was yes, because Leonard realized that Teddy was using him and set himself up to kill Teddy, though the reason he thought he was killing him at the time he did it was not the reason he set himself up to do it.

That last sentence should probably be taken out and shot, but I don't know how to say it any better.

[Jason McCullough]

Did anyone else notice that in the scene where he talks about Sammy in the mental hospital, for about the half second between an orderly blocking the frame and the scene switching, it shows Leonard, not Sammy, sitting in the chair?

[Desslock]

>Did anyone else notice that in the scene where he talks about Sammy in the mental hospital

Yep. That's the scene Ron was referencing in his post.

[Ben Sones]

(must... rent.... movie... again)

I have trouble taking Teddy's speech at face value. Certainly some of the things that he reveals at the end are true. Are all of them? There are plenty of reasons to suspect that Teddy is lying. Consider this:

Teddy is a habitual liar. He lies many times throughout the movie. He lies about not knowing Natalie when he and Leonard are in Dodd's motel room. He lies (or tries to) about Leonard's car (in fact, he is VERY interested in the car throughout the film--he hides in it, tries to convince Leonard that it's his, etc... remember that there is $200K in the trunk). He may even be lying about being friends with Leonard; if that's true, then why doesn't Leonard already have a photo of him? He carries photos of every other significant person that he meets, but he doesn't take a photo of Teddy until they meet in the lobby. If they really have been travelling around together for over a year, don't you think he'd have a Polaroid of the guy, so he'd remember who the hell he is?

His most interesting lie is this:

Teddy says that he was the cop assigned to investigate Leonard's wife's death, because he was the only cop that believed Leonard's story of a second assailant. He later says that Sammy Jenkis isn't real, or rather that he is real, but the events that Leonard remembers of Sammy's dilemma actually happened to Leonard. According to Teddy, Leonard's wife survived the attack, and Leonard later killed her with an insulin overdose.

Both of these statements cannot be true. Leonard's dilemma is based on the idea that the police refused to believe his story of a second assailant. But if his wife survived the attack, they wouldn't have to believe him, because she was an eyewitness. What's more, if Leonard's wife died as Teddy suggests--from an accidental insulin overdose--then the police would not have assigned him to the murder case, because there was never a murder case to be assigned to.

Furthermore, Teddy wants us to believe that Leonard's wife was only raped--not killed--and that together with Leonard they hunted down the assailant and killed him. But if Leonard's wife survived the attack, why does Leonard's tattoo say "John G. raped and murdered my wife?" Shouldn't it just say "John G. raped my wife?" And why would a cop be working with a man who can't remember anything, anyway? Wouldn't he be better off working with Leonard's wife, who saw (and presumably remembers) what her assailant looks like?

If you think about it, it's already a pretty big coincidence that Teddy's name happens to be John G. When Leonard takes his picture, Teddy asks him not to write "Officer Gammel" on it. He says it's because he is undercover. But Teddy lies.

I'm just not convinced that Teddy's story is legit. Too many parts of it make absolutely zero sense, and more than a few things that he says in his big speech at the end are obviously incorrect.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

arrrrrrrghhhhhhhh, my poor virgin brain. Will you guys STOP please? There's NO way I'm watching that again. As it is, I'm probably better off remaining confused! :lol:

[Tom Chick]

Ben,

I could easily go through your post and explain the bits and parts, but I think the most relevant section is this:


(must... rent.... movie... again)


It's well worth watching a second time and I'd heartily recommend that you do, because I think you missed the central fact of Memento: a man decides to trick himself to create his own destiny rather than let someone else trick him.

The key to the movie is a) everything Teddy explains in the final reel is true, and b) the fact that even though Lenny knows it's all true, he still turns over the Polaroid and writes "Don't believe his lies".

Stefan, as for the flash with the "I've done it" tattoo, I think it's clearly an instance of Lenny picturing the way it should have been: he would avenge the rape, get the final tattoo, and live his life out. Unfortunately, his wife can't live with his condition, dies of an insulin overdose, and robs Lenny of ever being satisfied. IIRC, there are some nice lines as he closes his eyes for a moment and ponders whether he can dismiss the world by closing his eyes. He concludes that he can't and pulls over to get the tattoo that sets the final chain of events in motion by implicating Teddy as the latest John G.

As I've said before, I think Memento is an airtight script and a brilliant experiment in narrative that leaves no ambiguity.

-Tom

[TimElhajj]

I watched it again last night with my wife. It was her first time through. The best part of the movie is the part where you discuss it after the credits roll. That's how I felt after the first viewing, that's still how I feel.

There are great lines sprnkled throughout the film, but especially at the begining. The stuff he says about memories, facts, and how feelings and memory intersets. Cool stuff just tossed out there and the story keeps on moving.

But it does gets tedious. I even knew what was coming and I found it hard to sit through the last 15 or 20 minutes--same thing the first time though. It's just a draining show.

Your assesment of Lenny being in control of his own destiny surpises me, Tom. Lenny takes advantage of his condition (just like Natilie and Teddy) but I don't think he's ever in control of anything.

I have a hard time believing everything Teddy says at the end, mainly because he's lied so much throughout the movie. But I love the relationship between Teddy and Lenny. How peculiar!

[TimElhajj]

How long has it been since the rape incident where Lenny loses his short term memory?

Originally I thought it was a year or so... I am not even sure why. But then I noticed that he seemed to get those two scars on his face the night of the incident when the rapist bangs his face into the mirror. If that's so and, they still haven't healed, then that would mean the time line was really like a few weeks or months.

Thoughts?

[Brad Grenz]

Teddy says he was the cop investigating the rape, not the murder.

[Tom Chick]

The scratches on his face are from struggling with Jimmy Grants, the drug dealer Teddy sets up as the latest John G. We see Lenny getting scratched while he's strangling Jimmy.

As for the longterm timeline, Lenny confesses he doesn't know how long it's been since the rape/murder. But I'm pretty sure Teddy mentions it's been a year since they killed the original John G.


Your assesment of Lenny being in control of his own destiny surpises me, Tom.

I didn't use the words 'in control'. I said he tricks himself to create his own destiny.

But I don't mean to make it an issue of semantics. The fact of the matter is he makes the decision to trick himself into believing Teddy is the real John G. He writes 'don't believe his lies' on the Polaroid, notes Teddy's license plate number, and gets it tattooed on his arm as Fact #6. He knows full well this will lead to him murdering Teddy and presumably ending the cycle.

-Tom

[Ben Sones]

It's well worth watching a second time and I'd heartily recommend that you do, because I think you missed the central fact of Memento: a man decides to trick himself to create his own destiny rather than let someone else trick him.

I agree with this. I'm not arguing that this isn't one of the movie's central themes. However...


The key to the movie is a) everything Teddy explains in the final reel is true

As I explained, several things that Teddy says in the final reel are self-contradictory, so if it's all supposed to be true, then the script is not as airtight as you think. Personally, I don't think it's supposed to be true, or to be more precise, I don't think it matters whether it's true or not. It really makes no difference with regard to the theme that you mention above, because Leonard is never going to know whether he has unconvered the truth or not, and he is never going to find the closure that he's looking for in his quest for vengeance. The first and last thing he will always remember is the fact that "John G. raped and murdered my wife." It doesn't matter whether Teddy is telling the truth or not--Leonard has no way of knowing, either way--even with his "system." In the end he realizes this, and chooses to set his own destiny in motion rather than to allow himself to be manipulate by others.


As I've said before, I think Memento is an airtight script and a brilliant experiment in narrative that leaves no ambiguity.

It leaves lots of ambiguity, intentionally. Unless you can shed light on some of the contradictions I brought up in my last post...

[Lurker]

As I've said before, I think Memento is an airtight script and a brilliant experiment in narrative that leaves no ambiguity.

I think Ben's points deserve responding to if you're so sure it's airtight. I'm also almost certain that the interview on the Memento DVD itself has Nolan concurring that he leaves several issues up to the viewer's interpretation and not everything is answered neatly by the end of the film.

[Kross]

How long has it been since the rape incident where Lenny loses his short term memory?

According to the movie website at www.otnemom.com (momento spelled backwards), the rape occurred in February 1997, Leonard is admitted to a mental institution in January 1998 and stays there until September 1998, when he escapes. Teddy is writing notes to him by November 1997, and the notes continue during Leonard's stay at the mental institution.

An inference from the website is that the wife died as a result of the rape, but it doesn't clearly say this. Certainly, this is the theory that Teddy pushes in his notes to Leonard.

[TimElhajj]

LOL, I guess www.otnemem.com was taken?

[Kross]

I agree that Teddy's speech at the end is mostly true, but I don't agree that the plot is "airtight" and don't agree that his story is entirely true.

The big uncertainty is whether Leonard killed his wife with an insulin overdose. We see one flashback in which he injects her, followed by another flashback in which he merely pinches her, and these two flashbacks naturally lead to conflicting inferences. I can't see any reason for the director Nolan to put these conflicting flashbacks in succession, except to illustrate the uncertain and unreliable nature of memory. He purposefully left the truth on this point ambiguous.

One of the psychiatric reports on the website says that Leonard is obsessed with the idea that the police have overlooked a second participant in the rape, and the report states that the writer turned this information over to the police. As Ben points out in a related context, if Leonard's wife had survived the attack, then she would have answered the question whether there was a second assailant. There would have been no need to turn over any information to the police. Also, if Leonard's memory of the period before the rape is good, then why doesn't he remember that she was a diabetic? And, if his memory after the rape is shot, then why does he remember the alleged insulin injection?

As I say, I think the movie deliberately does not answer the question of how Leonard's wife died. The few clues that we have, however, point to a conclusion that the insulin overdose story is fabricated. The only reason to reach the opposite conclusion is the argument that, since most of the rest of Teddy's speech is likely true, this part is also likely true. I don't see any reason to draw this conclusion, since the movie shows in many other contexts that Teddy is a liar.

[Tom Chick]

Since Lurker and Ben asked me to address some of the questions Ben had, here goes:


Teddy is a habitual liar. He lies many times throughout the movie. He lies about not knowing Natalie when he and Leonard are in Dodd's motel room. He lies (or tries to) about Leonard's car (in fact, he is VERY interested in the car throughout the film--he hides in it, tries to convince Leonard that it's his, etc... remember that there is $200K in the trunk).

Part of the puzzle of the movie is figuring out when and why Teddy is lying. There is ample evidence to support that the lies he does tell are designed to get Leonard out of town, presumably for Loenard's own safety, so they can divide the money, or so they can move on to the next John G.


He may even be lying about being friends with Leonard; if that's true, then why doesn't Leonard already have a photo of him? He carries photos of every other significant person that he meets, but he doesn't take a photo of Teddy until they meet in the lobby. If they really have been travelling around together for over a year, don't you think he'd have a Polaroid of the guy, so he'd remember who the hell he is?

Good point. I'm guessing they have to start over each time in each new town. Or maybe Leonard does one of his ritual burnings after killing each John G. It's worth noting that Teddy does bristle a little when Leonard wants to take a photo of him. I suspect Teddy likes being in control of what role he plays from town to town.


Teddy says that he was the cop assigned to investigate Leonard's wife's death,

Nope. He says he was assigned to his wife's "case".


He later says that Sammy Jenkis isn't real, or rather that he is real, but the events that Leonard remembers of Sammy's dilemma actually happened to Leonard.

Correct. Sammy Jenkis was a con man who faked the condition and was debunked by Leonard. Sammy was never even married. Leonard has conditioned himself to remember his own events as having happened to Sammy, hence the three 'did he pinch her or give her a shot?' sequences as he's trying to refute what Teddy's telling him. He's trying to condition himself to remember it as a pinch rather than an insulin shot, but he fails and the final image is of the insulin shot. This is when he believes Teddy and goes outside to write down his license plate number.


Leonard's dilemma is based on the idea that the police refused to believe his story of a second assailant. But if his wife survived the attack, they wouldn't have to believe him, because she was an eyewitness.

Another good question. However, she was wrapped in a wet shower curtain, so I think the implication is she was waylaid while taking a shower and wasn't clear on what happened. Furthermore, in the flashback, the second assailant is hiding when Leonard bursts into the bathroom.


Furthermore, Teddy wants us to believe that Leonard's wife was only raped--not killed--and that together with Leonard they hunted down the assailant and killed him. But if Leonard's wife survived the attack, why does Leonard's tattoo say "John G. raped and murdered my wife?" Shouldn't it just say "John G. raped my wife?"

We can assume that the tattoos are part of the fiction Lenny has created for himself, just as the missing pages and crossed out entries in the police report are part of his self-created fiction. The crucial tattoo with Teddy's license plate number is the last bit of false information he creates.


And why would a cop be working with a man who can't remember anything, anyway?

I know it's a stretch, but Teddy explains that he was the only cop who believed him, so he decided to help him out. It also seems that Teddy's in it for his own purposes (getting the money). Also, I think it's clear from the performance that Teddy genuinely likes Leonard.


Wouldn't he be better off working with Leonard's wife, who saw (and presumably remembers) what her assailant looks like?

We don't know where in the chronology of events Teddy comes in. Did the revenge quest start after Leonard's wife died, fueled by his self-created fiction that she was murdered? Or did it begin while she was still alive?


If you think about it, it's already a pretty big coincidence that Teddy's name happens to be John G. When Leonard takes his picture, Teddy asks him not to write "Officer Gammel" on it.

I think that's the point: there are all sorts of possibilities and coincidences with a name as general as John G. Teddy throws in that even his own name is John G as an afterthought.


I'm just not convinced that Teddy's story is legit. Too many parts of it make absolutely zero sense, and more than a few things that he says in his big speech at the end are obviously incorrect.

I see nothing in his speech that makes "zero sense" or is "obviously incorrect". I'll certainly concede there's some ambiguity in incidentals like 'how long have they been looking for John G?', 'why didn't the police believe his wife?', and 'why doesn't Leonard already have a picture of Teddy?' But I believe the overall puzzle is cleanly solved by the time the credits roll and the key to this is the veracity of Teddy's confession at the end of the movie (and the beginning of the chronology).

-Tom

[TimElhajj]

Bully for you both. Ben came up with some excellent questions and Tom answers back with equally good explanations.

Now can either of you explain why Leonard can remember he has a condition?

[Tom Chick]

Now can either of you explain why Leonard can remember he has a condition?

The movie makes it clear that Leonard can make himself remember things through repetition and conditioning (the implication is that this capability is unique to him because of his drive to avenge his wife). I think that's the significance of the 'remember Sammy Jenkis' thing, i.e. 'remember your condition'.

-Tom

[TimElhajj]

Ah, yes. I remember now. The electrified shapes test.

"Test this, you Quack."

[Kross]

But I believe the overall puzzle is cleanly solved by the time the credits roll and the key to this is the veracity of Teddy's confession at the end of the movie (and the beginning of the chronology).
The alternative hypothesis is that Sammy and his problem are real, Leonard's wife dies as a result of the burglary/rape, Teddy lies on these points during his final "confession," and Teddy told the truth earlier when, to motivate Leonard to do what he wanted, he said that Leonard's wife was murdered. On either your hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis, however, Teddy is a liar in one respect or another.

Your theory is plausible about which of Teddy's statements are lies, but I don't see how you exclude the alternative hypothesis, which IMO is somewhat more plausible than your theory. Your view that Leonard's wife remained alive but didn't know that two people were involved in raping her because she was wrapped in a wet shower curtain is a serious stretch. I don't remember for sure now, but wasn't the shower curtain transparent and wasn't the room lighted? On the other hand, if, as you suggest, the wife remained alive but didn't know about the second person because only one person raped her and the other didn't participate and remained hidden, then Leonard wouldn't have much reason to be enraged with the second person, who didn't do anything except be present.

These and other incongruities lead me to think that, if the truth must be known, the wife died as a result of the rape, and the "pinch" flashback was true, not the insulin injection flashback. I have already said, however, that certainty about the truth of the movie's backstory is unnecessary and inconsistent with what the director was trying to do.

[Jason McCullough]

It's entirely possible she died from injuries or was killed after Leonard gets jumped in the bathroom.

[Tom Chick]

Another theory is that Leonard was actually a replicant.

Kross, so you're basically saying the whole revelation at the end of the movie is a red herring? That's a pretty sloppy way to end a mystery and it's a much weaker dramatic choice. Particularly since you seem to be hanging your hat on whether or not Leonard's wife knew there were two attackers.

If that's how you enjoyed Memento, more power to you. But I'm happy to say that's not the movie I saw. :)

-Tom

[mtkafka]

Besides all this, whats the real message of Memento? I thought it was an 'existential' movie on how our own memories mean crap since even if we didnt have them we'd still be just in the now... know what I mean? Meaning the past is past. It's fleeting and we live in a chaotic world where we dont know who we really are since the past events of our existence can be rebuked by something as meaningless as the lead guy in Memento killing his best friend, even if he was a dick sometimes!

etc

[Kross]

Kross, so you're basically saying the whole revelation at the end of the movie is a red herring? That's a pretty sloppy way to end a mystery and it's a much weaker dramatic choice. Particularly since you seem to be hanging your hat on whether or not Leonard's wife knew there were two attackers.

If that's how you enjoyed Memento, more power to you. But I'm happy to say that's not the movie I saw. :)
No, I think most of the revelation is true. Teddy used Leonard as an assassin, and, when Leonard realizes this, he sets himself up to assassinate Teddy as a result. This is the central point of the movie, and, since we agree on this, I'd say we enjoyed fundamentally the same movie in almost all important respects.

I just don't think Nolan gave us enough to determine with certainty whether Leonard's wife really died from the rape or from an insulin shot, and thus we cannot determine with certainty the extent to which Teddy lied to and used Leonard. Did (1) Teddy merely take advantage of Leonard's rage over his wife's murder, or did (2) Teddy fabricate the murder as well, only to "confess" later that the murder wasn't a murder and was only a rape? I'm not as convinced as you are that (2) is a stronger dramatic choice, but, in any event, a viewer's desire for better drama cannot alter what the director in fact did. Nolan was deliberately confusing on this point, and I can only presume he meant to be confusing for a reason.

[TimElhajj]

No, I think most of the revelation is true. Teddy used Leonard as an assassin, and, when Leonard realizes this, he sets himself up to assassinate Teddy as a result. This is the central point of the movie, and, since we agree on this, I'd say we enjoyed fundamentally the same movie in almost all important respects

Really, this is the movie's strongest point. You can come away with a different plot than the guy sitting right next to you, but both of you still enjoy the show.

At least Nolan didn't feel inspired to give us a "minority report" ending with the narrator telling us, "And then Leonard was pardoned for the murder of Teddy, but the authorities kept a very close watch on him for the rest of his life."

I'm with mtkafka. The coolest part of the movie is the way it plays with memory and what it means.

[Anonymous]

I have a love/hate relationship with this movie; this is movie making slight of hand. All this movie keeps doing is tricking the watcher by telling the story backward so that you never really can piece it together until the end. You don't know that his wife survived and is diabetic (and the story he tells is actually the story of himself) and you couldn't possibly know that he had already killed the people responsible for raping his wife(unless I missed something). I doubt I just made a lot of sense, but this movie is like telling a story of something terrible happening and then ending it with someone waking up from a dream which leads the reader to wonder whether any of it was true.

[Ben Sones]

I'm still not buying Teddy's story. Some of it, certainly, but not all of it. Tom's counterarguments are all things that I've previously rejected because they require leaps of logic that go beyond what we are shown in the film. Why doesn't Leonard have a Polaroid of Teddy? Why didn't Leonard's wife see her assailants, at least well enough to know that there were two of them? Sure, if you assume that Teddy is telling the truth in the final scene, you can fabricate explanations. the logic that supports them is circular by necessity, though. I maintain that the simplest explanation is that Teddy is lying about how Leonard's wife died.

Here's another thing to consider: if Leonard killed his wife with an insulin injection, why doesn't he remember that she is diabetic? Teddy implies that it's guilt. Over something that happened after his accident? Something that he can't even remember? According to Teddy, Leonard is so upset over her death that he's actually changed past memories--something which, medically speaking, should not be possible if Leonard really does have anterograde amnesia. If what Teddy says is true, then Leonard would not remember killing her, but he would certainly remember that she was diabetic. He would have no lasting guilt over her death, and thus no reason to try (fruitlessly, if his condition is real) to alter his memory of her diabetes, or create a new history for Sammy Jenkis out of whole cloth.


I'm with mtkafka. The coolest part of the movie is the way it plays with memory and what it means.

And it does that a lot. Watch Teddy's license plate. The first time we see it, chronologically, it reads "SG13 7IU." When Leonard writes it down, he writes the "I" as a simple line with no serifs. At the tattoo parlor, the tattoo artists mistakes it for a "1," and inscribes it as such. Later we see the actual license plate again, and lo and behold--it's changed to match Leonard's (incorrect) tattoo! Now it reads "SG13 71U."

This film consistently shows us that there is no consistent, objective reality to be grasped, at least not for Leonard (and therefor also not for the viewer). To try to solve it like a murder mystery is to miss the point. IMHO, of course.

[TimElhajj]

And it does that a lot. Watch Teddy's license plate. The first time we see it, chronologically, it reads "SG13 7IU." When Leonard writes it down, he writes the "I" as a simple line with no serifs. At the tattoo parlor, the tattoo artists mistakes it for a "1," and inscribes it as such. Later we see the actual license plate again, and lo and behold--it's changed to match Leonard's (incorrect) tattoo! Now it reads "SG13 71U."

Sweet!

Thanks for pointing that out. I remember thinking that he should be more careful to distinguish it as a letter, but I had no clue they actually used that to drive home the point. I love it.

You raise a good point about Leonards inability to feel guilt after the accident. It looks like Tom has pretty much given up arguing his side of it, but it would be interestign to see if he could come up with a rebuttal to that. ;)

[Jason McCullough]

I went looking for some stuff about Leonard's type of amnesia, and found a brain surgeon who regularly removes half of a kid's brain to stop seizures.

http://www.fastcompany.com/online/13/brainsurgery.html



The hemispherectomy I do now is a lot different from the one I did 10 years ago. I used to take out the whole hemisphere at once. Now I take it out piecemeal. When you try to remove half of the brain in one piece, you can't help but pull up the other half and, in the process, disturb the brain stem. Early on, we had some patients who didn't wake up right after surgery. One stayed in a coma for a month. I concluded that the brain stem was moving too much. The more of these procedures we did, the more we learned. If you want to improve, you have to keep an open mind.


If you need me, I'll be hiding under the covers.

[Bub, Andrew]

If you want to improve, you have to keep an open mind.


Oh that is just too corny. Brain Surgeons, can't live with 'em, can't... whirrrr --drooool--

[DrCrypt]

Like Tom, I don't really see any reason to doubt Teddy's story at the end of the movie - as he pointed out, if you do, it eliminates the only thing about the film that hasn't already been done to death before. Leonard choses motivated delusion over aimless truth - a pretty understandable choice. I think it is also interesting that the choice to make Teddy "John G." closes the circle of pointless murder and revenge - part of what is great about it is that the justest belief for Leonard to choose (that Teddy is John G.) is also the falsest one.

Any more analysis is pretty silly. In regards to Memento, take a cue from your average, greasy, Matrix-obessed film student: sure, you COULD spend the rest of your life intellectually masturbating and wondering if the "real" world that Neo wakes up into once freed from the Matrix isn't just another aspect of the Matrix itself... but then you'd be missing out on the undulations of Carrie-Anne Moss' sublime ass. And that's worth a loose thread or two.

[Ben Sones]

Like Tom, I don't really see any reason to doubt Teddy's story at the end of the movie - as he pointed out, if you do, it eliminates the only thing about the film that hasn't already been done to death before.

What, the twist ending?


Leonard choses motivated delusion over aimless truth - a pretty understandable choice.

Disbelieving Teddy's story, or at least most of it, doesn't eliminate this at all. The fact that Leonard cannot be sure of exactly what happened to his wife, or of which "facts" are true, does not change the fact that he knowingly chooses to delude himself into killing Teddy. The disagreement stems from whether Leonard makes this choice based on a revelation of the objective truth of how his wife's murder and his subsequent life unfolded, or based on his realization that he can never discover that truth because his condition precludes it. The latter explanation makes more sense to me, partly because it doesn't require the support of an elaborate framework of unlikely (and unrevealed) coincidences, and partly because it better fits the film's theme.

Listen to Leonard's final soliloquy. Are those the words of a man that knows he has been shown the truth and instead chooses willful delusion? Or are they the words of a man that has finally realized that he can't know the truth at all? He has realized that his system doesn't work, that his "facts" are as arbitrary as memory. His condition forces him to rely on his system in order to have any sort of meaningful interaction with the world around him, and at the end of the movie he realizes that even this is an illusion because his facts aren't. He can't know what is true and what isn't--his condition won't allow it--and in desperation he questions reality itself:

"I have to believe in the world outside my own mind. I have to believe that my actions still have meaning, even if I can’t remember them. I have to believe that when my eyes are closed, the world’s still there."

In the end, he chooses a world that he has imbued with false meaning over one that has no meaning at all. The veracity of Teddy's speech is irrelevant, and I think Nolan purposely sprinkled it with both truths and contradictions to underscore the point. That, at least, seemed fairly obvious to me.

[Ben Sones]

And, by the way, for those of you who think Teddy's final speech is all true should be taken at face value, both of these lines come from that speech:

"I dunno... your wife surviving the assault... her not believing about your condition... the doubt tearing her up inside.., the insulin -"

...And...

"I was the cop assigned to your wife’s death. I believed you, I thought you deserved the chance for revenge."

So which is it, Teddy? Did she die during the assault, or did Leonard kill her with an accidental insulin overdose? My advice regarding Teddy: don't believe his lies.

[Alan Au]

The "revenge" comment reads differently if you take it to mean revenge for the loss of memory rather than revenge for the attack on Leonard's wife.

- Alan

[Kevin Perry]

I think it's important that Teddy's final comments be true, although individual elements in them can certainly be misleading.

The beauty of Memento for me is that while the narrative is backwards, its structure and theme are not. In fact, they are rigidly not-- they conform to standards of the genre (necessarily in my opinion).

Memento is a noir. It starts with a murder, we are presented with a damsel in distress who turns out not to be who she says she is, we are presented with a obvious villain who turns out to be false, we find the real killer under shocking circumstances, and our hero is wearied by the world even more. A fundamental theme in noir is rejection of redemption.

Memento's narrative seems to turn this on its head, but when looked at structurally and themetically, it's not.

We start with a murder-- Leonard murdering Teddy. We then must find out why. It quickly becomes obvious that Leonard is extremely dangerous and open to manipulation, and that someone must have caused him to kill Teddy. So Leonard is the murder weapon, and also the investigator. Neat trick.

We meet the damsel in distress at the proper time. It quickly becomes obvious that she is manipulating Leonard, but it becomes equally obvious that it's too early for her to be the real villain. We're treated to the great sequence where she turns him onto Dodd and Teddy, but left still wondering who the villain can be.

In the final act, we get the reveal. We need another murder to intensify the action, so Leonard kills again. Teddy, who's the only major character left who can be the villain, of course can't be because he's already dead. But Teddy makes a blistering villain speech to Leonard-- and we discover who the killer is: Leonard, as he decides to disbelieve Teddy forever and put himself on that track. And also, not coincidentally, rejecting the redemption that Teddy's speech represents-- which is why it's important for Teddy to be largely telling the truth at the end.

It's an amazing piece of structural work to have a reverse narrative while all the structure and thematic pieces fall into place.

[Bub, Andrew]

Say, that was pretty impressive Kevin.

I've been dipping my toes in Noir lately. Reading Chandler's early stuff and watching Bogart movies courtesy of Netflix and, looking back, Memento does have that world-weary feeling. There's a futility to it all. Everything is poison, nothing is "truth", and the hero remains cursed.

Great, now I'm going to have to watch it again.

[Kross]

A good discussion of Memento can be found here (http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/06/28/memento_analysis/print.html). According to the writer:

Still, even after so many viewings, after reading the script and discussing the film for months, I haven't been able to come up with the "truth" about what transpired prior to the film's action. Every explanation seems to involve some breach of the apparent "rules" of Leonard's disability -- not merely the rules as he explains them, but the rules as we witness them operating throughout most of the film.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

BIG GIANT FUCKING SPOILER FOR DONNIE DARKO!!


OK, so here I was, home alone and baby sitting and decided to watch Donny Darko again.

Get it now. Thanks for the spoiler wumpus

What I want to know is

1. HOW did Frank go back in time to lead Donny through the events that transpired?

2. WHERE did Donny find this time portal which allows him to travels back to the night of the accident, and chooses to stay in his room and be killed rather than perpetuate the time loop that leads to the death of two innocent people.

[Oppressor]

]
BIG GIANT FUCKING SPOILER FOR DONNIE DARKO!!


OK, so here I was, home alone and baby sitting and decided to watch Donny Darko again.

Get it now. Thanks for the spoiler wumpus

What I want to know is

1. HOW did Frank go back in time to lead Donny through the events that transpired?

2. WHERE did Donny find this time portal which allows him to travels back to the night of the accident, and chooses to stay in his room and be killed rather than perpetuate the time loop that leads to the death of two innocent people.

Ever consider that it's all nonsense in the head of a kid who got his girlfriend killed and then simply went bonkers and constructed his own internal reality out of scrambled bits and pieces of his memory of the events of that fateful October? That's what I got out of it once I learned how Frank ended up the way he did.

And those two movies at the theatre: fascinating choices, eh? The Last Temptation of Christ wherein Christ is shown what happens if he chooses not to die and Evil Dead which is about, well, bringing back the dead.

[Brian Koontz]

Ever consider that it's all nonsense in the head of a kid who got his girlfriend killed and then simply went bonkers and constructed his own internal reality out of scrambled bits and pieces of his memory of the events of that fateful October? That's what I got out of it once I learned how Frank ended up the way he did.

That's wrong for a few reasons...

#1: There are a few scenes without Donnie. If he is creating the reality that is unlikely to occur.

#2: When Donnie's sister surprises him while he is talking to Frank he IS surprised... internally created reality leaves zero room for surprise.

#3: It also leaves very little room for frustration, and Donnie spends nearly half the movie being frustrated in one way or another.

#4: There is much less point to Donnie's interactions with the shrink if he in fact IS crazy when the emergent truth of the situation is that he is not.

Here's what I see going on...

The Time Travel stuff has to be seen as legitimate. That's a starting point. Its implied that divine intervention presented itself to Sparrow to inspire the book.

The "natural" reality is for Donnie to die from the jet engine crash. He in fact does not by more divine intervention, in the form of Frank.

The rest of the movie can be summed up by divine guidance offered to one human (Donnie), which creates an ever-widening emotional gap between him and the other (non-divine-inspired) humans.

"The end of the world" still confuses me. I suppose this is the explanation of that...

The movie presents an alternative reality, enabled by Time Travel and divine intervention. The alternative reality ends when Frank is killed. That reality thus ends, which I suppose the movie calls "the world" somewhat inexplicably since things then revert to "natural" reality which apparently does not inspire "world" status.

The Dual Worlds is what drives the entire movie. In the Alternate World Donnie is something of a hero. He saves the town from a sick pervert, comes to an appreciation of Time Travel, gives reasonable insights into literature (for a high school student). He develops an idea for glasses that brighten the world by brightening the dreams of children. This follows a conversation with his girlfriend about how terrible things are.

According to the movie, THIS world is the good one. Thus "the end of the world" upon its end and reversion to "normal" (which this movie apparently treats as bad) reality.

The end showing the characters doing double takes was bizarre at the time, with the explanation apparently being that the Dual Worlds were merging into one world, with Alternate Reality (dominated by the Christ Figure Donnie Darko) providing a lasting (however brief and fleeting perhaps) impression upon Natural Reality.

I apparently don't share the rather depressing view that Natural Reality is so terrible, and if I did I certainly wouldn't provide this extremely convoluted method of "improving" it.

Or in short, Donnie Darko is a mediocre movie.

[Soma]

Finally saw this movie.

Did Teddy tell the truth in the end? In that kind of circumstance given that the 'true stroy' is so complicatad, either it is a compleite lie but Teddy memorised them for 'rainy' days like this or improvised on the spot (unlikely), or the story is the truth. I don't think the movie itself gives a definite answer though. I thought the point is more subtle.

I thought the movie wants to show that even Leonard wasn't sure. The ultimate arbitor of truth supposedly is Leonard's memory, and Leonard only trusted his memories (and his handwriting). However he remembered bits of his wife being pinched, and then he remembered giving his wife the shot. He remembered his wife dead in the bathroom, then he remembered her alive. He remembered Sammy Jenkins giving the shot, then he remembered himself give the shot. Leonard in the end did not even trust his memory because of these conflicits. What he was sure was that all this time Teddy had been playing him to do Teddy's dirty work. That was what made Leonard mad, and wanted to tattoo Teddy's licence plate.

This echoes with the earlier claims in the movie about going by long term memory: what truths are there if those long term memory fades or being distorted? He cannot function properly as a person, he is just being manipulated by everyone who knows his condition (which is basically everyone, including Natalie).

Anyone else has the feeling that the premise of this movie is ripped from Planescape Torment??

[Dirt]

I never liked a movie I couldn't trust.

[noun]

The resurrection of a THREE year old thread, why sirs, I do believe that's a record.

[Alan Au]

"Don't trust the skull."

- Alan

[Andrew Mayer]

The resurrection of a THREE year old thread, why sirs, I do believe that's a record.

I just checked, and the oldest threads come from June 2002, so that's about the best you can do around here.

[Raife]

I just checked, and the oldest threads come from June 2002, so that's about the best you can do around here.

Yeah, that's when we moved from the old blue forums.

[Soma]

I can't remember a GUEST can start a thread, but oh well...

[Rimbo]

So, I'm a bit late to this party. Finally saw it (thanks Netflix!) for the first time tonight.

I'd have to agree that the movie works whether Teddy's speech at the end is true or not. The whole point of it is that, after seeing how he's been used by (at least) two other people, we finally see him make a choice to use himself at the end. And the scary thing is... how many times has that happened before?

But the comparison to film noir is the most apt. That he chooses, in that moment, not to allow himself to know that the case is closed -- and even more interesting, that he has done so in the past. Just like how this thread has been necro'ed after a three year gap more than once. (And who the heck is that Ron cat?)

Terribly gripping film, because with each new scene, you're wondering what happened in the moment before it. You're always wondering, "OK, how DID he end up in this situation?"

[Adree]

http://i40.tinypic.com/i29jck.jpg

[Rimbo]

http://i40.tinypic.com/i29jck.jpg

I would think

http://www.einsiders.com/iscoop/cutenews1.4/data/upimages/jason_vorhees.bmp

would be more apropos

In that it keeps coming back for a sequel

[Pogue Mahone]

You know, I've always loved this movie, but there's one thing I have never understood after watching it quite a few times: when at the end of the movie the main character kills the drug dealer (so actually, at the beginning of the series if events chronologically) he then takes his car and his clothes, allowing him to be misidentified by the bar owner and getting the ball rolling for the sequence of events of the movie. It seems to me that had Leonard not taken over his identity, in effect, things would have worked out differently -- in other words, not set himself up to be manipulated by the bar owner (I apologize, it's been a long time since I last saw the film and I don't remember her name). So what I don't understand is why Leonard takes his car and clothes to begin with?

[Rimbo]

Because it was a nice car and nice clothes and had a quarter of a million in the trunk.

But getting manipulated by the bartender was just a bonus. He could have had anyone investigate that license plate number, as long as it wasn't Teddy; but he wouldn't have trusted Teddy, because he also wrote a note not to trust him.

[Pogue Mahone]

Oh sure, it's a great suit and nice car with a quarter of a million bucks in the trunk. That belonged to the drug dealer that he just murdered! Why not just wave a flag for the dealer's friends and police to just come get him?

[Rimbo]

Oh sure, it's a great suit and nice car with a quarter of a million bucks in the trunk. That belonged to the drug dealer that he just murdered! Why not just wave a flag for the dealer's friends and police to just come get him?

Which actually happened.

[Pogo]

Did Derek Smart really post with [3000AD] after his name?

[Warning]

Did Derek Smart really post with [3000AD] after his name?
lol

45

[Rimbo]

Yes, this thread is a veritable rogue's gallery of QT3 misfits and banned folks.

*cough*

[Pogue Mahone]

Which actually happened.

But that's exactly my point, Rimbo. Anyone could predict that this outcome would happen. My question is why? I don't get why Leonard, even considering his impairment, would make such a monumentally terrible judgment call as to take the car, clothes and money from the drug dealer he just murdered. Of course someone was going to find him and nothing good could come of it. Why not get the hell out of there, steal Joey Pants' truck or something? I have a feeling it's done because the plot requires it, which is disappointing in a movie that holds together pretty well otherwise.

[Rimbo]

I think the reason he did it was because doing so would keep Teddy around. He just gave Teddy two hundred and fifty thousand reasons to stay near him. Not just for the money, but as his "minder" and buddy and unwitting target. But mostly for the money. Teddy can't get to the contents of the trunk while Leonard has the keys, so he has to stick around and hope that Leonard would conveniently forget which car he drives or something.

[Mark Asher]

That's right. The only way to get into a trunk that has $250,000 is with the car keys. That money is impossible to get at otherwise....

[Rimbo]

Well, he's still a cop. He has SOME principles. Besides, he probably still thought he was going to split it with Leonard.

[graller]

Sigh reading this again just reminded me how awesome this movie was an how sad that only once in a while does someone make a truly great picture.

[extarbags]

Sigh reading this again just reminded me how awesome this movie was an how sad that only once in a while does someone make a truly great picture.

The director of Memento has topped it at least once and arguably twice since.

[Malcolm Tucker]

How can anyone not like Wet Hot American Summer?

[graller]

The director of Memento has topped it at least once and arguably twice since.

Well the Prestige was truly awesome.

[Joe M.]

Well the Prestige was truly awesome.

Yeah, I still don't know exactly what happened in that movie, and I don't want to know. It's perfect.

[Tyjenks]

Ha! After successfully avoiding spoilers for 8 years, I finally saw this last night. All I have to add is:

I thought it was Sammy Jankis? Jenkins would have been cool though.

[Paul_cze]

I am gonna have to watch it again, for 13th time.Yeah, "remember Sammy Jankis."

[newbrof]

I love that movie, one of the best of recent years... I don't like Nolan's Batman stuff... it's okay, but if you know Memento and Prestige and Insomnia....

[Austin Arlitt]

I listened to the commentary a few weeks ago, and Nolan hints that Leonard writes down Teddy's license plate because Teddy has pushed him too far this time. He doesn't want Teddy manipulating his long-term memory, because that's his most valuable possession. Nolan even comments that the audience is expected to wonder whether the Polaroid of Leonard at the supposed killing of a prior John G was faked.

A few years ago when I first watched this, I thought Teddy's speech at the end was supposed to be true, but I'm no longer convinced. I still think it's clear that Teddy is not the 'real' John G, if such a person exists, but I'm willing to put a little more stock in Leonard's long-term memory. If he's revolting against the lies Teddy feeds him, which are designed to change his memory & guilt him into Teddy's wishes, then I'm not sure that I can pick out any one past as objective truth.

[russellmz00]

I listened to the commentary a few weeks ago, and Nolan hints that Leonard writes down Teddy's license plate because Teddy has pushed him too far this time. He doesn't want Teddy manipulating his long-term memory, because that's his most valuable possession. Nolan even comments that the audience is expected to wonder whether the Polaroid of Leonard at the supposed killing of a prior John G was faked.

i don't know if that is part of it but the commentary has three or four versions where nolan says teddy lies and where teddy doesn't lie.

not only that but the license plate changes!
http://www.christophernolan.net/memento_mem.php

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

IMO, one of the smartest movies I've seen. One thing I particularly appreciate is that the premise seems like a one-shot affair; I doubt I would be impressed if another movie tried to do the same thing now.

[Paul_cze]

It is probably my favourite movie ever made. It has just such a strong atmosphere that even if some ultimate truth could be figured out, that atmosphere would still make it entertaining.

[russellmz00]

IMO, one of the smartest movies I've seen. One thing I particularly appreciate is that the premise seems like a one-shot affair; I doubt I would be impressed if another movie tried to do the same thing now.

i liked this guy's analysis in this thread that memento followed the basic film noir plot:


I think it's important that Teddy's final comments be true, although individual elements in them can certainly be misleading.

The beauty of Memento for me is that while the narrative is backwards, its structure and theme are not. In fact, they are rigidly not-- they conform to standards of the genre (necessarily in my opinion).

Memento is a noir. It starts with a murder, we are presented with a damsel in distress who turns out not to be who she says she is, we are presented with a obvious villain who turns out to be false, we find the real killer under shocking circumstances, and our hero is wearied by the world even more. A fundamental theme in noir is rejection of redemption.

Memento's narrative seems to turn this on its head, but when looked at structurally and themetically, it's not.

We start with a murder-- Leonard murdering Teddy. We then must find out why. It quickly becomes obvious that Leonard is extremely dangerous and open to manipulation, and that someone must have caused him to kill Teddy. So Leonard is the murder weapon, and also the investigator. Neat trick.

We meet the damsel in distress at the proper time. It quickly becomes obvious that she is manipulating Leonard, but it becomes equally obvious that it's too early for her to be the real villain. We're treated to the great sequence where she turns him onto Dodd and Teddy, but left still wondering who the villain can be.

In the final act, we get the reveal. We need another murder to intensify the action, so Leonard kills again. Teddy, who's the only major character left who can be the villain, of course can't be because he's already dead. But Teddy makes a blistering villain speech to Leonard-- and we discover who the killer is: Leonard, as he decides to disbelieve Teddy forever and put himself on that track. And also, not coincidentally, rejecting the redemption that Teddy's speech represents-- which is why it's important for Teddy to be largely telling the truth at the end.

It's an amazing piece of structural work to have a reverse narrative while all the structure and thematic pieces fall into place.

[Omniscia]

I haven't seen this one in a while. I really should watch it again.

My sister borrowed my DVD a while back, to watch with her boyfriend, and they reportedly couldn't make it past 10 or 15 minutes before getting bored and giving up. I am so disappointed.

Also, fuck you, Mike Nelson, and your banner ad at the top of this page. This is yet another film (see also Jaws) that does not need the full Rifftrax treatment.

[Rimbo]

That Kevin Perry comment is pretty damned insightful.

[Cormac]

Here (http://www.thehighdefinite.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/memento-mapped-portrait-name.jpg)'s a timeline of the story!
I really need to rewatch this movie...

http://i.imgur.com/iCqt7.jpg

[Paul_cze]

This is my favourite movie of last 12 years. I think I am going to rewatch it myself.

[Relayer71]

Damn, now I need to rewatch it too - been a while so I think I've forgotten the ending (beginning?).

[madkevin]

Rereading this thread again, the most shocking thing I've discovered about Memento is that Tom didn't think Wet Hot American Summer was funny.

[russellmz00]

if someone looked into christopher's nolan mind, how long would it be before they threw up from motion sickness?

[Austin Arlitt]

I now know a John G. He buys me drinks when we sing karaoke, which causes my short-term memory to lapse.

But I'm pretty sure he didn't murder my wife.

[Kevin Perry]

That Kevin Perry comment is pretty damned insightful.

Thanks! Now go play Shadow Watch.

[HighPlainsDrifter]

Ha! After successfully avoiding spoilers for 8 years, I finally saw this last night. All I have to add is:

I thought it was Sammy Jankis? Jenkins would have been cool though.

Pffft, amateur! Successfully avoided spoilers for another two years beyond that!

But, also not much more to add. I don't trust Teddy's lies but there were multiple moments of truth in the reveal at the end.

The film holds up very well. It has a timeless quality.

[habibi]

Ha ha, I rented this movie in iTunes when it was featured as Movie of the Week two weeks ago and boy, how did I miss this movie 10 years ago?

Great stuff. My love for Nolan is rekindled!

What was Natalie's motivation to off Teddy?

[RedTide]

Ha ha, I rented this movie in iTunes when it was featured as Movie of the Week two weeks ago and boy, how did I miss this movie 10 years ago?

Great stuff. My love for Nolan is rekindled!

What was Natalie's motivation to off Teddy?

SPOILERS

Been a while since I saw it, but I don't think she had a motivation to off Teddy. Guy Pearce decides to kill Teddy when he writes down the license plate number, and then he choose to forget about it. Natalie just runs the plates. But, I could definitely be wrong about that, it's probably been over a year since I saw it last.

[habibi]

She knows she could manipulate him to do nasty things to people, that's what she made him do to Dodd. So, the only reason she were so 'helpful' to provide him with Teddy driving license is knowing he will kill him. But why? Because Teddy set Lenny up to kill Natalie's boy friend, the drug dealer Jimmy (shown at the end of the show)?

[Anonymgeist]

While Lenny was the one who actually killed Jimmy, Natalie knows that the reason Lenny did it was that Teddy had set the situation up and manipulated Lenny into it.

By running the plates, she'll be helping kill the man who she believes was ultimately responsible for the death of her boyfriend.

Of course, Lenny had originally written down Teddy's license plate number knowing that eventually he'd follow through the clues, see that Teddy's real name is a "John G", and kill him. She was really only helping move along what Lenny had set in motion.

[habibi]

I have a feeling that Natalie has her own motivations. I doubt it was just revenge for Jimmy. There was a scene where she kept all the pens and openly insulted Lenny. She was showing us (audience) that she could manipulate Lenny too. But what is her motivation? Who gains from Teddy's death?

[HighPlainsDrifter]

I need to track down a chronological re-mix to help make this thing make sense.

[Harkonis]

the dvd had a code you could put in to play it normal order

[Anonymgeist]

I need to track down a chronological re-mix to help make this thing make sense.

The Special Edition dvd (http://www.amazon.com/Memento-Widescreen-Two-Disc-Limited-Edition/dp/B0000640SA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339344649&sr=8-1&keywords=memento+special+edition) has a hidden feature where it plays the movie in chronological order.

[Anonymgeist]

I have a feeling that Natalie has her own motivations. I doubt it was just revenge for Jimmy. There was a scene where she kept all the pens and openly insulted Lenny. She was showing us (audience) that she could manipulate Lenny too. But what is her motivation? Who gains from Teddy's death?

Personally, I'm satisfied with revenge as a motivation, but there's always a matter of the drug money (wasn't it something like $200,000?) that was in the trunk of Jimmy's car....