Memento

After we watched Memento, me and a friend became obsessed with Nolan and tracking down Following with no luck. Finally it was released in the states and I bought it right up.

Anyway I have a lot of love for Memento but I've only watched it twice for some reason. I really have to get off my ass and watch it again. It has to be 8 years since I last watched it but it remains one of my favorite movies of the decade.

I am not entirely sure that it's the best film noir of the decade, but that's just because I have a terrible memory for that kind of thing. There could very well be a film I feel is a better noir that came out this past decade, or there might not be. I honestly don't know

Same here. It really had a HUGE impact on me when I saw it, and when I look in the mirror and see the film geek I am today, I know that MEMENTO is partially responsible. I felt such a huge rush in the theater, it was smart, fascinating, well acted, and the twist not only made sense... it kind of leaves you shaken.
When I left the theater I was energized and excited. If a movie could be that smart and fun and challenging, then what other movies were out there waiting for me? I felt like I'd discovered a whole new world. I'd seen good movies before, but rarely in theaters, so it was a bit of a revelation for me.

I ended up going back the next night... and the next... until finally I got to a point where I'd seen it six times in theaters. It remains the movie I've most seen in theaters.

I'm not sure he's regressed. Sure, he's made block buster films in the years since MEMENTO, but I would be hard pressed to say that he has not attempted to challenge in his subsequent films.

I for one am a huge fan of the PRESTIGE. You don't have to like that movie though to admit that it's a challenging one. I know plenty of people who are utterly confused by the ending and have no idea what was going on. I am proud of myself because while I managed to figure out Angier's trick (he was cloning himself), Bale's simple trick went right over my head and I never saw it coming. Like Angiers, I assumed it just HAD to be something more complicated than a twin.

Anyway, yeah, I take issue with your statement that he has not challenged audiences since that time.

And lets not forget that 5 years ago a film like TDK would have been far from a sure bet. It's very dark and also pretty challenging for a main stream blockbuster.

PS I still have the MEMENTO poster on the wall of my room at my mom's house

It's no RED ROCK WEST.

Everyone has their personal fave for the decade, and this is one I can't discount even though it's not on my personal top ten.

It really is an amazing film. It doesn't hold up totally, but the first and second viewings are great.
I wish a greater career on Guy Pearce after Priscilla: Queen of the Desert, this, and LA Confidential. He's awesome.

What about it doesn't hold up? It might not pack the emotional punch of the first viewing, but, if anything, Memento should be given higher marks after two or three viewings when it becomes clear that the film does hold up to the strict scrutiny the structure invites.

I've seen people level the complaint that it wouldn't be nearly as compelling if it was told chronologically, yet I've never seen it mentioned as a detriment to other nonlinear narratives.

Tricky nonlinear narratives bore me. (Seriously, not EVERY film needs to start off in media res.) A few years ago, unless the director upended conventions, I didn't like the film. But now all that trickiness bores me. That said, the characters and actors give off a great vibe. That alone makes it rewatchable to me. I don't own it.

The thing is the nonlinear narrative in Memento is in service to the story. Its purpose is to get us more into the characters head and demonstrate the way he may experience the world. I recently watched 21 Grams, and the use of nonlinear storytelling there serves no purpose other than try to be fancy. That isn't the case with Memento.

Exactly. The audience is supposed to feel what the protagonist is feeling.

I saw this four times in the theater. Needless to say, I love it and have introduced a ton of people to it. I haven't revisited it in quite some time, though. I especially like seeing how people interpret the ending. We are made to feel sympathetic to his plight through out the movie, and then we're hit with this suckerpunch that Leonard is intentionally lying to himself - and murdering a bunch of people along the way - in order to deal with his condition. It's really bleak.

Wow, yeah. I somehow forgot the nonlinear structure mirrors his lack of short-term memory. Strange that I forgot that. I guess I was first enticed by the movie because of it's non-linearity. I was into that stuff at the time. Now I like movies where people talk a lot.

How do you forget the memory stuff? It's the whole premise!

CHUD will always be connected to this film for me because I kept misspelling the title as Momento in the discussion thread and the usuals loved to harp on that. But despite knowing the correct spelling, I kept misspelling it because I was trying so hard not to!

Recently rewatched this and wanted to come in and sing its praises.

I remember rushing to the local arthouse theater during its limited 2 week run to see this. And then the movie actually gained steam and played longer. D'oh! Hahaha.

Immaturity resulted in me turning a bit on the film because suddenly this underdog darling started being praised for "OOOH, GOING BACKWARDS!" by casual viewers.

But now I admire the film and the work Nolan put into its structure even more. Always loved the performances. I especially LOVE how stuck up Leonard no matter what condition his brain is in.

"Roll up the window. It's cold."
"It's broken."
"I can get that fixed for ya."
(Leonard gives an "Oh, could you!?" snarl)

I think it'd be wrong to describe Nolan as a director for hire. While I understand where you are coming from, I think much of the success of The Dark Knight was in the way Nolan turned a "Hollywood Popcorn Flick" into something that resembled a more personal style of filmmaking. Regardless of opinions on quality, it is quite different then the average Superhero movie and explores many themes that pop up again and again Nolan's films. In many ways The Dark Knight is just as much a neo noir (only with Bat ears!) as Memento is. Batman Begins, on the other hand, is pretty much a well constructed piece of Hollywood Entertainment. Only REALLY SERIOUS.

While his best work (so far) is definitley Memento, I believe that you can see the beginning filmography of a great auteur in his work. The Prestige is also a work that I don't think should be dismissed - the twists and turns could easily be gimmicks but Nolan made that a movie about character, not plot. It's why it holds up so well on repeating viewings.

I just watched this again recently, and was struck by something. Was Leonard intentionally lying to himself, or was he being taken advantage of by Teddy. I know at the end (beginning?) he was lying to make himself kill Teddy, but the others, such as Jimmy, weren't those set up by Teddy for profit?

I take what Teddy says as true. He did help Leonard find the real John G. But as Teddy said, it didn't stick. So he helps Leonard kill other John Gs so that he has some purpose while making some money on the side for himself.

Leonard does intentionally lie to himself in the moment he realizes what's going on. He rationalizes it, sets up the pieces, and then forgets (as he tends to do, hehe). So from that point, he isn't lying to himself anymore. He does believe in what he's doing.

But why believe anything Teddy says? He's obviously lied to Leonard before. I mean, are we supposed to take everything that's said at the end of the movie at face value?

I'm guessing that the actual answer to most of these questions is "there's no solid answer".

Well, I mostly believe Teddy because Joey Pants' performance just feels like he's being brutally honest in that moment. It really seems like Teddy is simply laughing at the ridiculousness of his situation. Plus his explanation makes sense to me while being consistent with the story that Nolan is telling.

I take most of what Teddy says at face value, but it's not the whole picture. Teddy's explanation doesn't take into account the fact that Leonard may have been the one in the mental institution before all this John G business started. So even taking Teddy's story as mostly true, there is still a lot of wiggle room.

I just figured Teddy was lying about so many things that he must be lying about all of it, and that he's using Leonard. I had never thought Leonard was lying to himself. Though after this latest rewatch, I may have to reconsider that.

To me, it's simple. The story is more interesting if Teddy is telling the truth at that moment, so that's how I take it.

To put it simply, everyone uses Leonard at some point. Every once in a while, Leonard decides to let this happen. Kinda like a toy... needs to be wound up every once in a while.

Memento is and always has been a tremendous favorite of mine. I do see where Kate’s coming from in being hesitant about outright calling it “best noir of its decade” (especially since L.A. Confidential was just a couple years before it… and funnily enough also starred Pearce), but I don’t think there’s any debating that it’s if nothing else one serious, serious motherfucker of a contender for that title. Also probably ranks as one of my favorite theatrical experiences of that year. Between this, Pricilla, L.A. Confidential, and Ravenous, Pearce had a pretty damn kickass output in the 90’s.

As it so happens, a couple months ago I’d gotten into an extended debate with an online friend of mine over this movie. Basically my friend thought of this movie as nothing more than a gimmick film, a movie that without the “backwards narrative” structure would basically be little more than a generic thriller, and in a way still pretty much is.

My counter-argument of course was that the movie transcends the “gimmick” label because the narrative structure is used to literally put you in Leonard’s shoes, to see the world and situations he faces as he sees them: a series of consequences that constantly befall him without his every being able to really know what initially caused them. By being put in his shoes, by being made to see firsthand what it would be like to live in a world where the whole concept of having a frame of reference is non-existent, you get emotionally invested in Leonard’s situation and wish all the more to see him overcome it, since you’re experiencing it along with him.

Pearce’s heartbreakingly frustrated performance sells this all the more so; the fact that Leonard can be simultaneously bitter (perfectly understandable) as well as also being able to have something of a sense of humor about his condition makes him easily sympathetic and likable, and the movie aside from being a damn great noir mystery/thriller, also becomes a gripping account of this guy’s personal struggle against both his extremely unique and fucked up medical condition as well as all of the trouble that it helps bring down on him from others (including those who have no issues with taking advantage of him).

In fairness, I myself have had to deal with not one, but two very rare, oddball, and terribly frustrating medical conditions in my life; so I’m a pretty easy mark for a movie about such a subject matter, particularly one this exquisitely well made to boot. I think its fair to say that because of this I sympathized with Leonard possibly on a somewhat deeper level than a lot of other people probably have. But even discounting and divorcing myself from that POV, the movie still holds up ridiculously well as a modern noir film in and of itself, especially considering how many different ways one can read many of the situations and character interactions that crop up around Leonard.

Yet in spite of my passionate arguments to the contrary, my friend still couldn’t see it as anything more than a cheap gimmick movie. Then again, he’s also someone who absolutely hates Kubrick’s The Shining due to how it deviates from the King novel, and sees it as a piece of style over substance with a sloppy narrative (pretty much the polar opposite of how I feel). These kinds of disagreements between us aren’t that uncommon.

But yeah, aside from Pearce I also love pretty much everyone in this, from Moss and Pantoliano, on down to Boone and Tobolowsky. I don’t think I’ve ever NOT unabashedly loved Tobolowsky in anything I’ve ever seen him in, regardless of how good or bad the movie around him was, and if I haven’t seen close to everything he was ever in throughout the 80’s and 90’s, it sure as hell feels like I have.

To this day, I still occasionally work “Test this you fucking quack!” (complete with middle finger) into a conversation should the opportunity present itself. Go ahead and groan or eyeroll if you must, I still find it damn amusing.

There's no reason for Teddy to lie to Leonard as he won't remember what he said anyway. The movie only makes sense if Teddy's telling the truth. Not to mention Leonard's whole voice over at the end. He intentionally sets Teddy up. "You're a John G. So you'll be my John G." You're left with the impression this hasn't been the first time he's done this.

Poor choice of words on my part. I think the very concept doesn't really hold up. Even with tattoos and all that, Leonard wouldn't be functional.

I know, it's just a movie, and I'm being nitpicky as hell, but that bothers me for some reason.

Scientist's disagree. From Wikipedia:

I know the disorder is real, but I still can't buy that he has the time to figure out that he's on a mission to find his wife's killer, tattoos or not. It's not like it's a deal-breaker or anything. I still love the movie.

The structure of the film is awesome, and I think that's what those people are referring to more than the story and such. It really is like a look into his head.

"this amnesic character retains his identity, has little retrograde amnesia, and shows several of the severe everyday memory difficulties associated with the disorder."

This quote speaks directly to the portrayal of his disorder. Not how the film was structured.

Well I thought it was established in the film that the reason he figures it out without having to figure it out, is because he's conditioned himself repeatedly.

Exactly. Remember Sammy Jenkins? He also conditioned himself to greet people with a knowing expression because he was aware of his disorder and knew that he forgot people.

Yeah sorry guys, I'm off-base on this one I guess. I'll watch it again soon(it's been about five years) and pop back in.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Originally I came away with the thought that this was the first time and that he sets Teddy up because Teddy's been using him, but I had to rethink that when I watched it recently. I think it's because when I saw Memento in the theater (thanks to CHUD) movies were first starting to move from entertainment to art form for me, and as such I was still at a point where I wanted Leonard to be a good guy. Watching it with a more mature eye, both artistically and in real life, I can see the idea that Leonard was intentionally setting up people as John G. to help him deal with life.

Man, this is such a good movie. I'll agree that Nolan's other films aren't bad, but none are as good as this one.

I’m basically with this 100% in terms of who’s being truthful with whom.

What I’ve often wondered though is Teddy’s ultimate motivations: we know he’s obviously benefiting monetarily from his “cases” with Leonard, and he both claims and indeed shows some signs that he does care about Leonard personally; but it’s really difficult to gauge the extent to which his actions (insofar as perpetuating Leonard’s hunt for John G) are out of genuine care for Leonard in “giving him a purpose in life”. Pantoliano’s performance is so multifaceted, his characterization of Teddy being such a slippery figure throughout the whole movie, that it’s incredibly hard to properly judge to what extent he really, truly cares about Leonard and to what extent he’s simply exploiting him.

I think its definitely a case of “a little from column A, a little from column B”, but really the movie leaves itself wide the hell open for the viewer to decide for themselves whether it’s more out of column A or more out of column B; whether or not Teddy ultimately at the end of the day represents a benevolent caretaker who’s looking out for this poor soul in a very misguided manner, or a crass opportunist who’s exploiting a terrible handicap. This aspect of Teddy right here makes him easily one of the most interesting characters in the film outside of Leonard himself, and among Pantoliano’s career-best roles. There’s so much wiggle room to argue both for Teddy being a concerned friend of Leonard’s or Teddy being a bastard that’s exploiting his disability for personal gain.

I also love the notion brought up in this thread that Leonard intentionally setting up someone who wronged him as the next John G is something he may well have done before prior to Teddy. The movie never goes out of its way to explicitly imply this (least as far as I can recall), but the concept is indeed there, and it’s incredibly fascinating all the same. And its all the more heartbreaking a facet if one were to look at it from the perspective that Teddy is ultimately perpetuating the John G hunt out of genuine empathy for Leonard and giving his life meaning and purpose. Looking at it from that angle, Leonard turning the tables on him can be construed as perhaps an overly spiteful spitting in the face/backstabbing of someone who genuinely wanted to look out for him, but chose to do it in sort of a screwed up, self-serving manner.

Or you could look at it from the perspective that Teddy is purely screwing over Leonard to make money for himself and that his claim that he’s also doing it to help Leonard is self-justifying bullshit, in which case Leonard’s ultimate revenge on Teddy takes on more of a “Fuck yes, stick it to that SOB!” sort of tone. It could be argued that this latter reading may be somewhat less interesting and tragic than the former, but it’s still perfectly valid considering how open to interpretation this particular aspect of the story is, and it could be argued that it perhaps makes the ending slightly more uplifting. I’m not personally arguing in favor of one reading over the other, I’m just laying the cards out on the table.

In short, yeah this movie rules.

This was how I first thought of the film, but I think it was because I wanted the movie to have a "good guy". After this most recent rewatch, I kind of have to reconsider it though.

Yeah, that's a large part of what makes this such a great movie: its nowhere near that cut and dry the closer you look at it. Its not even just the unique structure, which is ingenious enough; the story in and of itself and how its told is just incredibly well crafted and has so many layers and winkles to how it can be read. Every plot element and character all compliment one another so well.

This is why I found that discussion I mentioned earlier where my friend dismissed this movie as a “hollow gimmick film” to be so maddening. He’s someone who considers himself to be a fan of primarily cerebral, intelligent films with depth in their storytelling. He’s someone who generally looks down upon the kinds of mindless (but fun) shoot em ups or gory slasher films that so many chewers (myself included) tend to love so much alongside the intelligent high brow films, and prefers to stick almost exclusively to the more artsy stuff. For him to show such a bizarre dismissal of one of the most brilliant films of 90’s just baffled the fuck out of me.

This would be a gimmick if it's structure weren't so essential both narratively and thematically.

This is the one Christopher Nolan film I can love without reservation.

I always thought it was both. They already found John G but he didn't remember. So Leonard felt empty with little purpose to his life left and a revenge he could never truly enjoy. So he probably made the decision to alter the files and condition himself, and got Teddy to help him. He probably intended for Teddy to keep him on a circular path. However, Teddy got the idea to take out two birds with one stone and set him up to get his revenge and make some money on the side.

For some reason I just don't think Leonard would let himself continually kill people. That's why I think it was Teddy's idea and not Leonard's intention.

Though I'm not sure if he conditioned himself before or after escaping from the mental hospital.

The question is...did Leonard finally end the cycle, or will he eventually make the same decision? I like to think he got the tattoo saying he did it and went off somewhere to live in peace. Though, he might end up back with Natalie and either she'd use him for her own purposes or she genuinely started to like him and they end up together. Judging from the dvd/old website, the police eventually start looking for him if they haven't already been.

Are you guys thinking what I'm thinking?

prequel!!

but to add to the discussion, my one question is why Leonard never got the tattoo if he killed John G.

There is a split second shot during the series of memory flashes right before Leonard's final line of voiceover where you see him laying on his bed with his wife. He actually did have a tattoo that said, "I did it." If that memory is indeed real (and I do think it is), it suggests that he had that tattoo removed so that he would continue to have purpose in his life.

I think that was just him imagining what his perfect world would have been like. Do you think that he would go on a quest for revenge if his wife were still alive?

That's a good point. But "John G" did still rape his wife (right?) and damage his brain permanently. People can want revenge for lots of reasons.

I always thought the "I did it" was Leonard realizing that he was Sammy Jankis, and that he was the one that accidentally killed his wife. There is no John G. It was a story Teddy helped him make up so he could bring meaning to his life, and of course for Teddy to have a side gig stealing money and cars from thugs.

Great. Now I don't know what to think.

It's all coming back to me now. There are several shots throughout the movie where we see flashes of Leonard in scenes about Sammy Jankis. There's a scene in the mental institute where we see Sammy in a chair, someone walks by, and it flashes to Leonard. And there's another scene where there's a flash of Leonard giving his wife an insulin shot, and then it quickly flashes to him pinching her thigh. There are enough bits like that to call into question everything we've learned about Leonard's back story, which of course is told by a guy with brain damage. I tend to support Teddy's story that there was no John G. and "Sammy" is really Leonard. *

ETA: And I'm all of a sudden remember the Memento website having some game like the Lost experience, at the end of which showed newspaper headings about a man who escaped from a mental institution and others showing a string of murders down the California coastline (or whatever path Leonard took).

*I'm amending this again as the details of the movie return to me. There was a John G but Leonard's wife didn't die in the attack. It was Leonard who killed her by giving her too many insulin shots, at her request via the Sammy Jankis story.

Correct. John G. was real, but the wife didn't die in the attack. She died of too much insulin. God, I love this movie.

Really? I'm one of the weird ones that loves The Prestige almost as much as Memento. And I adore both the Batman films, although they aren't perfect. And Robin Williams makes Insomnia a better film than it really is.

Based on my recollection of the film, this is how I think it goes down:

A John G. did attack and rape Leonard's wife and give Leonard anterograde amnesia. They try to cope with it together but it's clear that Leonard isn't getting any better. Teddy, the investigating officer, takes pity and tries to help Leonard find John G.

Leonard's wife (she doesn't have a name, I checked!) goes along with it on the slim possibility that it might trigger something in Leonard and give her back her husband. Because I can't see Teddy getting far with helping Leonard out with his vengeance career without his wife's help.

They find John G. At least they find a John G. that fits well enough (does it really matter? hahahah). They take the photo. Leonard gets the "I did it" tattoo. But it doesn't stick (like nothing EVER sticks!). Leonard's wife performs her own test on Leonard as a last ditch effort to get her husband back. Doesn't take. Leonard gets sent to the mental institution.

From there, it's anyone's guess as to how Leonard got out and started his quest for vengeance again. Either Leonard manages to train himself to believe the story about Sammy Jankis and develops the rituals he would need to continue his purpose... or Teddy, still feeling sorry for him, gets him out. To serve Leonard's purpose or his own... who knows which one came first? Maybe Teddy found another scumbag named John G. and had a bright idea...

I'm not convinced the "I did it" tattoo is real, but the rest I buy.

I'm not convinced that YOU'RE real! (runs off crying)

When it comes to this movie, I really take the stance that if you buy one thing you gotta buy the whole set. Heheh.