MEMENTO FANS!.. I need your help!

My AP english teacher assigned us a report before the year ends and it just so happened that he picked this movie for us to watch in class. At the end of my report I am asked to describe the overall significance of the movie and its deeper meaning. I am having some trouble putting that all into words. Could any of you guys help me out? Thanks.

anyone?

that's a hard one... what do you mean by significance - morale of the story?

basically the theme of the movie. What does it say about memory and whats "its function" i guess.

well... what did you get from the film? did you enjoy it first of all? did you understand it through and through?

Its one of my fav movies that ive seen recently and I understand the basic plot of what happens in chronologic order but im not sure of how to explain the memory aspect of Lennys.

Frame Gride 2 said:

What does it say about memory and whats "its function" i guess.

Click to expand...

what you mean??

a movie doesn't necessarily have to "say" anything or have a ...."function"
ummm....guess it's a matter of wording and surely I'm not the right person since not native english

Memento main...."function" is just to shock the spectator with its unusual telling of events...
guess the director choosed a nonfamous actor so that the attention is aimed not on the story of Larry itself, but aimed on the paradoxical role of man's memory



or at least that's what weed made me think about it
have a good night

Its been a long time since I last watched it but maybe a couple of points.
I found alot of people (most infact) had watched it more than once - some to get a better understanding, and others for the immersive experience. My brother called the film the best he's ever watched.

I personally think that this film involves the audience in a way that other thrillers don't. All thrillers try their best to captivate their audiences. Grabbing an audience and keeping them in suspence all through the ride is what hinges these films.
The way this film involves, stimulates, and inspires its audience is by using the focal point - memory and its nature - as a basic filmic technique which directly affects narative.

The technique used in the film - whereby its cut up and has no chronological structure, I forget the name - has been used before, namely in Pulp Fiction., but in the case of this film it is intrinsically related to the characters plight. The veiwer is engaged on another level - you have to do alot of the hard work and try to piece together the ideas in the film. The confusion and anxiety experienced by the main character mingles with your own.
A film that done this to some degree is The Usual Suspects.
The film in its structure sais alot about memory and how we use it, because the viewer has to apply his own memory to navigate mentally through this film.

I don't know that's off the top of my head. Maybe some form of debate will draw you closer to how you want to articulate what the film represents for you.

I think your teacher could've used plenty of other movies to illustrate the concept he's barely grasping at with Memento.

The movie's main purpose is its structure, a completely new way of storytelling. Lenaord's STM (short-term memory) loss facilitates the film's structure, rather than the structure faciilitating a message or character trait we're supposed to pick up on in Leonard.

I'm only guessing that he (your teacher) is talking about the fact that memory is completely subjective and is entirely fallible. Nothing you see, hear, smell, taste, or touch will ever be remembered exactly as it was when you first experienced it. The only problem with this concept is that there is nothing to change, its simply the way memory works.

You can play up the aspect of the desire for a human being to have purpose. Note how the lead character, I forget his name, creates a problem for himself to solve.

wow u guys are some smart fucks reading this thread reminded me of being in class.kudos to yall!
momento rocked btw multi_co

jaydubnb said:

You can play up the aspect of the desire for a human being to have purpose. Note how the lead character, I forget his name, creates a problem for himself to solve.

Click to expand...

More or less that is what i am getting at. How would I expand this concept and connect Lenny's memory problems to that of finding closure and a purpose?

Frame Gride 2 said:

More or less that is what i am getting at. How would I expand this concept and connect Lenny's memory problems to that of finding closure and a purpose?

Click to expand...

I would disagree with that idea. The problem of Leonard's wife being murdered is never put into question, and the fact that he's trying to solve it isn't a problem he's created for himself. He simply can't remember that he's apparently already solved the problem (or possibly "solved" it several times over, leaving several John G.'s dead in his wake).

The movie's main purpose is its structure, a completely new way of storytelling. Lenaord's STM (short-term memory) loss facilitates the film's structure, rather than the structure faciilitating a message or character trait we're supposed to pick up on in Leonard.

Click to expand...

the structure in this film is not facilitated by this man's condition in its entirety if memory serves. The narrative does to some degree have independence from the protagonist's experience, chronologically speaking. The story is fragmented and does go back and fowards continuosly, and even though this helps to convey how muddled things are for him and how he goes about creating this little world where things have purpose, the path that leads you there is seperate from his point of view.
Then again its been an age since I watched the film and I could be wrong. But can you tell me how its a wholly new technique when you compare it to the structure used in The Usual Suspects?

You can play up the aspect of the desire for a human being to have purpose. Note how the lead character, I forget his name, creates a problem for himself to solve.

Click to expand...

I hadn't thought about that, but its a good point. Purpose is a/the drive that motivates man. Given this individual has a disability which castrates him to the extent that he cannot have a meaningful life, plus the fact that he appears to have an obsesive compulsive dissorder (which is consequence of his hardship, or a facet of his personality not related to this), he constructs a world where he has purpose, and at some level accepts it is self deceit. It may be viewed as a critique of how everyone stuctures their lives on surrounding recources, and at some point have to concede that it is easier to go along with the bullshit than to question it.

I would disagree with that idea. The problem of Leonard's wife being murdered is never put into question, and the fact that he's trying to solve it isn't a problem he's created for himself. He simply can't remember that he's apparently already solved the problem (or possibly "solved" it several times over, leaving several John G.'s dead in his wake).

Click to expand...

there is a particular moment when you get to see him solving the mystery but telling himself that its alright to live in lala land and that its ok to confuse himself.

DevilRedeemed said:

the structure in this film is not facilitated by this man's condition in its entirety if memory serves. The narrative does to some degree have independence from the protagonist's experience, chronologically speaking. The story is fragmented and does go back and fowards continuosly, and even though this helps to convey how muddled things are for him and how he goes about creating this little world where things have purpose, the path that leads you there is seperate from his point of view.
Then again its been an age since I watched the film and I could be wrong. But can you tell me how its a wholly new technique when you compare it to the structure used in The Usual Suspects?

Click to expand...

Sure, the movie isn't told in flashback, and its almost entirely told in reverse order. The Usual Suspects is almost entirely a flashback told from the begining forward. Leonard isn't recounting his journey to the man on the other end of the phone (in the black and white, chronological pieces) because he can't remember it. The structure of the film is in short 5-10 sequences, which is roughly the amount of time a person suffering from STM loss can remember anything before it starts fading away. So basically you're viewing Leonard's life the way he remembers it...only he doesn't.

It also parallels Leonard's journey. All he knows is that his wife is dead, and that she was murdered. So he begins to solve her murder. At the beginning of the movie, all we know is that Leonard is hunting somebody who supposedly killed his wife, and that he is willing to kill to exact his revenge. So we begin to collect pieces of information as to why this is so.

Buro Destruct said:

Sure, the movie isn't told in flashback, and its almost entirely told in reverse order. The Usual Suspects is almost entirely a flashback told from the begining forward. Leonard isn't recounting his journey to the man on the other end of the phone (in the black and white, chronological pieces) because he can't remember it. The structure of the film is in short 5-10 sequences, which is roughly the amount of time a person suffering from STM loss can remember anything before it starts fading away. So basically you're viewing Leonard's life the way he remembers it...only he doesn't.

It also parallels Leonard's journey. All he knows is that his wife is dead, and that she was murdered. So he begins to solve her murder. At the beginning of the movie, all we know is that Leonard is hunting somebody who supposedly killed his wife, and that he is willing to kill to exact his revenge. So we begin to collect pieces of information as to why this is so.

Click to expand...

I see. I've always seen The Usual Suspects as a film which works with the use of flashback, but breaks the rules, insofar as flashbacks never lie, they give you insight into what took place before to give meaning to the story. The character in Usual Suspects was spinning a yarn and much of what is told is half truths. Its almost like you are watching the film through the cop's imagination.
Anyway sorry to divert from the topic. I just thought that this other film was Memento's closest distant cousin.

DevilRedeemed said:

I see. I've always seen The Usual Suspects as a film which works with the use of flashback, but breaks the rules, insofar as flashbacks never lie, they give you insight into what took place before to give meaning to the story. The character in Usual Suspects was spinning a yarn and much of what is told is half truths. Its almost like you are watching the film through the cop's imagination.
Anyway sorry to divert from the topic. I just thought that this other film was Memento's closest distant cousin.

Click to expand...

I can see how you would come to that conclusion. A lot of people feel flashbacks are the director or invisible narrator stepping in and saying "This is how it went down, so you can understand whats about to happen next." And oftentimes they are. However in the case of The Usual Suspects the flashbacks are Verbal Kint's version of the events, and thus, aren't entirely true.

Similar to Leonard fabricating the Sammy Jenkis story. To him it was a flashback, he had forgotten that he made it up.

Buro Destruct said:

I can see how you would come to that conclusion. A lot of people feel flashbacks are the director or invisible narrator stepping in and saying "This is how it went down, so you can understand whats about to happen next." And oftentimes they are. However in the case of The Usual Suspects the flashbacks are Verbal Kint's version of the events, and thus, aren't entirely true.

Similar to Leonard fabricating the Sammy Jenkis story. To him it was a flashback, he had forgotten that he made it up.

Click to expand...

I attended film school for the first three months then quit (want to concentrate on writing script and learning fully how to do that), and they where quite strict with the tennets of things like flashbacks and how flashbacks never lie. The fact of the matter is that exceptions to the rule always exist and its fun to find them out. I think that interpretative excetions to the rules can also exist, it depends 'how' you view the film (I'm a sociology graduate, so this kind of thing is involuntary reflex), but that's a different matter.

He does lie to purposefully decieve himself in the film though doesn't he? I think I remember that. He wants closure but finds that a) he doesn't really, and b) his condition denies him or allows him to deny closure. That was kind of dissapointing for me actually as closure for the audience comes at the price of having to accept that the premise is a riddle the answer to which is simply deciept (self-deciept gives way to deciept of the audience). The loop plays again infinetly, always triggered by the same ambition to self-decieve.
Ok I'm rambling a bit, but I was let down by the conclusion. Maybe I was waiting for God to come down and slap the him or something.

DevilRedeemed said:

I see. I've always seen The Usual Suspects as a film which works with the use of flashback, but breaks the rules, insofar as flashbacks never lie, they give you insight into what took place before to give meaning to the story. The character in Usual Suspects was spinning a yarn and much of what is told is half truths. Its almost like you are watching the film through the cop's imagination.
Anyway sorry to divert from the topic. I just thought that this other film was Memento's closest distant cousin.

Click to expand...

See Rashomon (1950) by Akira Kurosawa.

‘Nuff said.

Man, this movie is one of my top 20 most favourites...

I like how the characters who knew of Lenny's memory disability used it to their own purpose:

> Leonard's (Lenny) wife used it to kill herself...
> Because business was slow, Bert (the Inn clerk) checked Lenny in two rooms...
> Natalie used it to get Dodd...
> Teddy used it to get Jimmy...

> Lenny used his own memory loss problem to forge his own truth... He killed his own wife so he ruined 12 pages of police records of his wife's death, incorporated Sammy Jenkis to this whole thing, perpetrated Teddy as John G (his wife's "killer"), etc...

I think you just wrote this kid's paper for him.



Later

shir0

zer0hue said:

See Rashomon (1950) by Akira Kurosawa.

‘Nuff said.

Click to expand...

I had forgotten about that film. Kurosawa could have made that film today and it would still seem modern/cutting edge. Pure genius.

Yea they did shiro