No one has answered this question yet.
While aspects of many movies are debatable and open to interpretations, this FAQ page is not about what could be possible in a film if we presume all sorts of things that are not indicated or even suggested by the filmmakers. This FAQ page is dedicated to answering questions about the film and what the filmmaker created. Any debate on other alternatives should be presented in reviews or discussed in external blogs/forums/wikis. The question and answers will deal with what is portrayed within the film and suggested by the creators of the film.
In the Salon article "Everything you wanted to know about 'Memento'", Andy Klein discusses this idea. He indicates:
Is there an answer? I don’t know. Christopher Nolan claims there is one. In an article in New Times Los Angeles on March 15, [2001, when the movie was released in the US] Scott Timberg writes: “Nolan, for his part, won’t tell. When asked about the film’s outcome, he goes on about ambiguity and subjectivity, but insists he knows the movie’s Truth — who’s good, who’s bad, who can be trusted and who can’t — and insists that close viewing will reveal all.” [Note for context: Klein also goes onto say that he believes Nolan is not being totally truthful about this, but Klein admits that does not know.]
Nolan also commented on the film having answers:
I believe the answers are all there in the film, but the terms of the storytelling deliberately prevent people from finding them. If you watch the film, and abandon your conventional desire for absolute truth - and the confirmation of absolute truth that most films provide you with - then you can find all the answers you're looking for. As far as I'm concerned, my view is very much in the film - the answers are all there for the attentive viewer, but the terms of the storytelling prevent me from being able to give the audience absolute confirmation. And that's the point.
[From James Mottram's "The Making of Memento", 2002, Faber and Faber Limited, page 26.]
So one of the problems Nolan gives to us is that we never know what the truth is. There are thus many possible ways to analyze the film even though not all the interpretations seem to be equally likely.
In "Past Imperfect", an interview with Chuck Stephens for Filmmaker magazine in 2001, Nolan also stated:
The most interesting part of that for me is that audiences seem very unwilling to believe the stuff that Teddy says at the end – and yet why? I think its because people have spent the entire film looking at Leonard's photograph of Teddy, with the caption: "Don't believe his lies." That image really stays in people's heads, and they still prefer to trust that image even after we make it very clear that Leonard's visual recollection is completely questionable. It was quite surprising, and it wasn't planned. What was always planned was that we dont ever step completely outside Leonard's head, and that we keep the audience in that interpretive mode of trying to analyze what they want to believe or not. For me, the crux of the movie is that the one guy who might actually be the authority on the truth of what happened is played by Joe Pantoliano, who is so untrustworthy, especially given the baggage he carries in from his other movies: he's already seen by audiences as this character actor who's always unreliable. I find it very frightening, really, the level of uncertainty and malevolence Joe brings to the film.
Is there an answer? I don’t know. Christopher Nolan claims there is one. In an article in New Times Los Angeles on March 15, [2001, when the movie was released in the US] Scott Timberg writes: “Nolan, for his part, won’t tell. When asked about the film’s outcome, he goes on about ambiguity and subjectivity, but insists he knows the movie’s Truth — who’s good, who’s bad, who can be trusted and who can’t — and insists that close viewing will reveal all.” [Note for context: Klein also goes onto say that he believes Nolan is not being totally truthful about this, but Klein admits that does not know.]
Nolan also commented on the film having answers:
I believe the answers are all there in the film, but the terms of the storytelling deliberately prevent people from finding them. If you watch the film, and abandon your conventional desire for absolute truth - and the confirmation of absolute truth that most films provide you with - then you can find all the answers you're looking for. As far as I'm concerned, my view is very much in the film - the answers are all there for the attentive viewer, but the terms of the storytelling prevent me from being able to give the audience absolute confirmation. And that's the point.
[From James Mottram's "The Making of Memento", 2002, Faber and Faber Limited, page 26.]
So one of the problems Nolan gives to us is that we never know what the truth is. There are thus many possible ways to analyze the film even though not all the interpretations seem to be equally likely.
In "Past Imperfect", an interview with Chuck Stephens for Filmmaker magazine in 2001, Nolan also stated:
The most interesting part of that for me is that audiences seem very unwilling to believe the stuff that Teddy says at the end – and yet why? I think its because people have spent the entire film looking at Leonard's photograph of Teddy, with the caption: "Don't believe his lies." That image really stays in people's heads, and they still prefer to trust that image even after we make it very clear that Leonard's visual recollection is completely questionable. It was quite surprising, and it wasn't planned. What was always planned was that we dont ever step completely outside Leonard's head, and that we keep the audience in that interpretive mode of trying to analyze what they want to believe or not. For me, the crux of the movie is that the one guy who might actually be the authority on the truth of what happened is played by Joe Pantoliano, who is so untrustworthy, especially given the baggage he carries in from his other movies: he's already seen by audiences as this character actor who's always unreliable. I find it very frightening, really, the level of uncertainty and malevolence Joe brings to the film.
Chronologically, the black-and-white sequences come first, the color sequences come next. The color sequences are alternated with black-and-white sequences. The B&W sequences are put together in the correct chronological order. The color ones, though shown forward (except for the very first one) are ordered in reverse. Overall this gives the film a "hairpin plotting" alternating from "reverse flowing" pathway to "forward flowing" pathway. Using the numbering scheme suggested by Andy Klein in his article for Salon magazine who took numbers from 1 to 22 for the B&W scenes and letters A-V for the color ones the plotting of the film as presented is: Opening Credits (shown "backwards"), 1, V, 2, U, 3, T, 4, S, ..., 22/A, Credits. There is a smooth transition from B&W sequence 22 to color sequence A and it occurs during the development of a "Polaroid" photo. If mapped out the sequencing looks like this as the plot spirals through the story:
>>>>>> Chronological Flow >>>>>> (Black and White Sequences)
[Start of >>1>>> >>2>>> .... >>21>>> >>22>>> EndCredits Story] ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / / \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ / /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ [End of / / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ Story] ^ ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v Opening <<<V<< <<<U<< <<<C<< <<<B<< <<<A<< [Backwards Sequence] (Color Sequences) <<<<<< Chronological Flow <<<<<<
A graphical representation of the film is also available online. The chronological order of the story is (and can be viewed as a "Hidden feature" on many of the DVDs) Credits (run in reverse), 1, 2, 3, ..., 22, A, B, ..., V, then the Opening title run "backwards" to what was shown (the opening title sequence is ran in reverse during the actual film, so it is shown in the correct way in this version). Stefano Ghislotti also has an article called "Backwards: Memory and Fabula Construction in Memento by Christopher Nolan" which discusses how Nolan provides us the clues necessary for us to decode the plotline as we watch and help us understand the story from it.
>>>>>> Chronological Flow >>>>>> (Black and White Sequences)
[Start of >>1>>> >>2>>> .... >>21>>> >>22>>> EndCredits Story] ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / / \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ / /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ [End of / / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ Story] ^ ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v ^ v Opening <<<V<< <<<U<< <<<C<< <<<B<< <<<A<< [Backwards Sequence] (Color Sequences) <<<<<< Chronological Flow <<<<<<
A graphical representation of the film is also available online. The chronological order of the story is (and can be viewed as a "Hidden feature" on many of the DVDs) Credits (run in reverse), 1, 2, 3, ..., 22, A, B, ..., V, then the Opening title run "backwards" to what was shown (the opening title sequence is ran in reverse during the actual film, so it is shown in the correct way in this version). Stefano Ghislotti also has an article called "Backwards: Memory and Fabula Construction in Memento by Christopher Nolan" which discusses how Nolan provides us the clues necessary for us to decode the plotline as we watch and help us understand the story from it.
While Nolan has never discussed the reasons in detail, there has been some speculation on what purposes within the film the non-linear plotting may seem to serve.
(1) The reverse color sequencing puts us into Leonard's mind. We have to "go with the flow" like Leonard does and try to understand what things are with little or no context. We get confused a little and must make assumptions and deductions, just like Leonard must do. But unlike Leonard, we can see how well we "guessed" what was going on, since we can put the events more into context when we see the later movie scenes (earlier story scenes)
(2) It puts the twist at the end of the film instead of only one third of the way into the story.
(3) It allows Nolan to play with our perceptions of the characters. At the beginning their motivations seem very clear, but at the end we just can not be sure. We initially see (in movie order) Teddy as the second attacker, Leonard as the hero, Natalie as the helper when we first meet them. At the end of the film, these perceptions are much less clear. Is Teddy the second attacker, is he a villain, is he actually more of a friend/victim? Natalie is shown to be using Leonard, but was she also taking pity on him and is trying to help on some level? At the end of the film we see Leonard's actions (setting up Teddy) but his motivations are much less clear at the end. We don't know if he is abandoning the real quest believing it is unattainable or if he feels that Jimmy deserves vengeance more than his own wife or even if he is trying to eliminate Teddy so that he is never reminded that the 2nd attacker is dead. The movie is not explicit with its answers.
(4) The hairpin narrative of the plotting is set up like a spiral (see above for an explanation of the sequences of the film). This sequencing and the theme of repetition has been seen as a way to suggest Leonard's life after his wife's death as a spiral: the events in the past have happened similarly before, and that they may happen again, It has also been seen as a moral lesson to the audience: The path Leonard seems to have chosen may ultimately drag him down and destroy him if he can't get out of the loop.
(5) It's really the only way to have the audience relate to Leonard (not knowing what happened prior). Were it to all be connected linearly, we would know everything that happened prior which would make the story more predictable and less interesting. We would know from the beginning that Leonard had set himself on the path to kill Teddy and the how wouldn't really have much of a twist.
(1) The reverse color sequencing puts us into Leonard's mind. We have to "go with the flow" like Leonard does and try to understand what things are with little or no context. We get confused a little and must make assumptions and deductions, just like Leonard must do. But unlike Leonard, we can see how well we "guessed" what was going on, since we can put the events more into context when we see the later movie scenes (earlier story scenes)
(2) It puts the twist at the end of the film instead of only one third of the way into the story.
(3) It allows Nolan to play with our perceptions of the characters. At the beginning their motivations seem very clear, but at the end we just can not be sure. We initially see (in movie order) Teddy as the second attacker, Leonard as the hero, Natalie as the helper when we first meet them. At the end of the film, these perceptions are much less clear. Is Teddy the second attacker, is he a villain, is he actually more of a friend/victim? Natalie is shown to be using Leonard, but was she also taking pity on him and is trying to help on some level? At the end of the film we see Leonard's actions (setting up Teddy) but his motivations are much less clear at the end. We don't know if he is abandoning the real quest believing it is unattainable or if he feels that Jimmy deserves vengeance more than his own wife or even if he is trying to eliminate Teddy so that he is never reminded that the 2nd attacker is dead. The movie is not explicit with its answers.
(4) The hairpin narrative of the plotting is set up like a spiral (see above for an explanation of the sequences of the film). This sequencing and the theme of repetition has been seen as a way to suggest Leonard's life after his wife's death as a spiral: the events in the past have happened similarly before, and that they may happen again, It has also been seen as a moral lesson to the audience: The path Leonard seems to have chosen may ultimately drag him down and destroy him if he can't get out of the loop.
(5) It's really the only way to have the audience relate to Leonard (not knowing what happened prior). Were it to all be connected linearly, we would know everything that happened prior which would make the story more predictable and less interesting. We would know from the beginning that Leonard had set himself on the path to kill Teddy and the how wouldn't really have much of a twist.
Jonathan Nolan's short story Memento Mori was inspired by an idea he had about a man with AMD obsessed with revenge. [The same idea (not the short story) inspired Christopher Nolan's script for this film.] Christopher Nolan (from an interview originally on the 22 March 2001 episode [season 5 episode 2] of the Independent Film Channel's TV series Independent Focus, available on the 1-disc US DVD) explains:
It was based on a short story that my brother, Jonah, was writing that's just been published* in Esquire magazine and he told it to me about 3 years ago while we were driving from Chicago to Los Angeles. He said I'm working on a story and it's about this guy with this condition, he can't make new memories, and he's looking for revenge. He's looking for the guy who killed his wife.
I just thought it was such a fantastic idea, such a way into the film noir genre, a way to kind of reassess some of the over familiar tropes, really. And I said to him, can I take it and write a screenplay from it while you work on your story and get it the way you want. And he said yes, which was lucky because in the end it actually took him as long to finish the story as it did for us to finish making the film.
[* = It was published in the March 2001 Volume of Esquire]
The movie script (with the short story) can be found on IMSDb here. Note: Both can be found in the Region 1 (2-disc) Limited Edition and the 3-disc Region 2 Special Edition DVDs. The short story but not the script is also available on the 1-disc Region 1 DVD. A paperback book containing script for the film (and for one other Nolan film) is available for purchase through Amazon here.
It was based on a short story that my brother, Jonah, was writing that's just been published* in Esquire magazine and he told it to me about 3 years ago while we were driving from Chicago to Los Angeles. He said I'm working on a story and it's about this guy with this condition, he can't make new memories, and he's looking for revenge. He's looking for the guy who killed his wife.
I just thought it was such a fantastic idea, such a way into the film noir genre, a way to kind of reassess some of the over familiar tropes, really. And I said to him, can I take it and write a screenplay from it while you work on your story and get it the way you want. And he said yes, which was lucky because in the end it actually took him as long to finish the story as it did for us to finish making the film.
[* = It was published in the March 2001 Volume of Esquire]
The movie script (with the short story) can be found on IMSDb here. Note: Both can be found in the Region 1 (2-disc) Limited Edition and the 3-disc Region 2 Special Edition DVDs. The short story but not the script is also available on the 1-disc Region 1 DVD. A paperback book containing script for the film (and for one other Nolan film) is available for purchase through Amazon here.
This was due to the rules of the Academy which nominates the Oscars. There are two writing nominations possible: The Adapted Screenplay award is for the writer of a screenplay adapted from another source (novel or play usually), and the Original Screenplay award is for the writer of a script not based on previously-published material. The key point in the distinction is the phrase "previously-published". The film Memento was released before the short story was published, so based on the Academy rules, it was not based on any previously published material so was considered an "original screenplay". But the Writers Branch Executive Committee was aware of Academy was informed of the entire circumstances and therefore considered it a collaborative story/screenplay for awarding of the nomination.
One of the problems with shooting on black-and-white film stock is, if it is to be mixed with colour sequences, it has, ultimately, to be printed on colour film stock. Early on, Nolan and his director of photography, Wally Pfister, saw the black-and-white dailies (printed to black-and-white stock), and marvelled at the sharp contrast. "I had the deep blacks, so I felt I was right on course," says Pfister. When they were printed to colour, contrast and sharpness was lost, and an unwelcome colour tint was gained. "It was really a downer," he adds: "Chris really accepted it. For me it was such a disappointment. In the end, when we had to print to colour, the lab really were never able to nail the look. You inherently get a colour tinting on it, so we had to choose between a reddish tint or a blueish tint. In the end, we aimed towards the blue."
[From James Mottram's The Making of Memento, 2002, Faber and Faber Limited, page 87]
[From James Mottram's The Making of Memento, 2002, Faber and Faber Limited, page 87]
People with this condition sometimes do know they have this condition. The "classic example" is a case study of a man called "H.M." [after his death in 2008, the need for anonymity was gone and his name was revealed to be Henry Molaison]. H.M.'s was a "pure case" caused by surgery and not an accident. He had epileptic seizures and the doctors believed that if they removed some of his temporal lobe (including the hippocampus), then he would no longer get them. The doctors were correct in this respect: they cured him of his seizures. He also got this condition since (it was later discovered) the hippocampus is important to the "consolidation" of memory (converting the short-term to long-term memory). H.M. does know he has a condition:
In case you're wondering, he was aware of his condition as illustrated in his often quoted statement: "Every day is alone in itself, whatever enjoyment I've had, and whatever sorrow I've had. Right now, I'm wondering. Have I done or said anything amiss? You see, at this moment everything looks clear to me, but what happened just before? That's what worries me. It's like waking from a dream; I just don't remember." (Note: The referenced PDF file is quoting from the article: Milner, B. (1970) Memory and the temporal regions of the brain. In Biology of Memory, K.H. Pribram and De.E. Broadbent (Eds.). New York: Academic Press., p. 37.) Perhaps even more explicit is the quote from "Neuroimaging H.M.: A 10-year follow-up examination" by D.H. Salat, et al: "His [H.M.'s] insight into his condition is excellent. He is always aware that he has a memory impairment and does not confabulate to conceal it."
Clive Wearing, who has one the most severe cases of this condition, seems to be aware of his problem and will speak about it. Dr Michael Oddy, neuropsychologist at Ticehurst House Hospital (where Clive stays), indicates in The Mind, 2nd edition, "The Clive Wearing Story, Part 2: Living Without Memory" (Part 2a): We try to train the staff so that they don't ask Clive questions or begin discussions which put a load on his memory. For example, if you ask Clive "How are you today?" there's an implicit demand on "Well, I'm better today than I was yesterday" and he gets quite upset and he will then start to talk about how he's been ill and how he can see and hear for the first time. The "Remember Sammy Jankis" tattoo is also an aid to Leonard to associate his "problem" with his real investigation of Sammy and his discovery of this condition. He realizes he has a problem and can then deduce what it is from the clues at hand.
In case you're wondering, he was aware of his condition as illustrated in his often quoted statement: "Every day is alone in itself, whatever enjoyment I've had, and whatever sorrow I've had. Right now, I'm wondering. Have I done or said anything amiss? You see, at this moment everything looks clear to me, but what happened just before? That's what worries me. It's like waking from a dream; I just don't remember." (Note: The referenced PDF file is quoting from the article: Milner, B. (1970) Memory and the temporal regions of the brain. In Biology of Memory, K.H. Pribram and De.E. Broadbent (Eds.). New York: Academic Press., p. 37.) Perhaps even more explicit is the quote from "Neuroimaging H.M.: A 10-year follow-up examination" by D.H. Salat, et al: "His [H.M.'s] insight into his condition is excellent. He is always aware that he has a memory impairment and does not confabulate to conceal it."
Clive Wearing, who has one the most severe cases of this condition, seems to be aware of his problem and will speak about it. Dr Michael Oddy, neuropsychologist at Ticehurst House Hospital (where Clive stays), indicates in The Mind, 2nd edition, "The Clive Wearing Story, Part 2: Living Without Memory" (Part 2a): We try to train the staff so that they don't ask Clive questions or begin discussions which put a load on his memory. For example, if you ask Clive "How are you today?" there's an implicit demand on "Well, I'm better today than I was yesterday" and he gets quite upset and he will then start to talk about how he's been ill and how he can see and hear for the first time. The "Remember Sammy Jankis" tattoo is also an aid to Leonard to associate his "problem" with his real investigation of Sammy and his discovery of this condition. He realizes he has a problem and can then deduce what it is from the clues at hand.
(1) ...Burt's name when Burt is showing him the wrong room?
(2) ...the note on Natalie's pic about helping out of pity?
(3) ...to lock the car doors after Teddy tells him to?
(4) ...that he is on Tattoo Fact 6?
These are some questions that come up periodically and seem to indicate to people that Leonard must be faking despite the other evidence/facts in the film that clearly indicate that he is not faking. While it is possible that all of these instances are just goofs in the film, all of these can be explained by editing. There does not seem to be any reason to presume errors, when editing explains things very well. It is clear we do not see Leonard 24 hours per day and 7 days a week. We only see him for a total of about 2 hours over the course of presumably about 3 days. There is a lot of information that we do not see. It should be clear that just because we do not actually see Leonard (or anyone else) do something that not seeing it does is not meant to indicate that it is not done. While we see Leonard go to the bathroom, we never see him have a bowel movement. That does not mean we should presume that Nolan is indicating that this condition makes Leonard no longer able to have a bowel movement or that the condition allows him no longer to need bowel movements. These parts have been edited out as they are in most movies, even when people do not have a mental condition. Also, if we see Leonard at point A and then at point D, barring other info, it can be presumed that he went thru points B and C. It does not prove that he went thru points B and C, but as there is nothing to indicate that he did not so, it is a valid presumption.
Additionally, as with all of us, Leonard's memory appears to work better sometimes and sometimes (also like most of us!) his memory appears to not work well at all! It appears that film subtly hints on occasions that Leonard is able to hold his memory for extraordinary amounts of time, for a man with his condition.
- Knowing Burt's name:
In the case of Leonard knowing Burt's name, we are shown on different occasions (in the lobby, on the phone, etc) that Burt tells Leonard his name. It is almost as if he is amazed that Leonard can not remember him. When Leonard and Burt go from the lobby to Leonard's old room, there is a cut and we do not hear their conversation in transit. It is not improbable that they talked during this time and Burt could have mentioned his name again. Thus when Leonard referred to him by name, he might have just heard it offscreen.
- Note on Natalie's pic about helping out of pity:
This is the strongest scene in the film that indicates Leonard may be faking since he seems to have held onto his memory for an extraordinary amount of time, perhaps an hour or so. Of course it is another that can be explained easily by editing. Natalie tells Leonard she lost someone, then time passes. Leonard gets up in the middle of the night and writes on Natalie's pic that she will help him out of pity. This is a long time for him to remember if he is remembering when we saw them discuss it. However, it is not hard to imagine that Leonard had repeat conversations on many subjects. Nolan wisely does not show us all this repetition. The fact is that we do not see or hear the conversation that took place while they were in bed, immediately before Leonard gets up. It is possible that this was the very conversation that they were having. Supporting this is the sorrowful look on Natalie's face. Her face is consistent with someone who had just been speaking about someone they had lost recently.
- Locking the car door:
This seems to have been put in by Nolan as a red herring to give people a suggestion that he may be faking, while providing other clues to indicate that he is definitely not faking. The facts are that we see Leonard lock his car every time (at least every time he does so on camera) after he finds Teddy in his car and Teddy tells him to lock his car. Leonard even does this even when it makes no sense, since much of the time the window is broken. But just because we see him lock it afterwards, is in no way proof that he did not lock it before. Many people lock their car doors and make it a habit. [Many parents try to instill the habit in their children even before they drive: you get out of the car, you lock the door; you get in the car and you buckle the seatbelt.] So even though Nolan made a point of showing him lock his car after Teddy told him to, does not mean that Leonard did not do it before Teddy told him to do it.
It has been brought up that all the times we see Leonard get out of his car before Teddy told him to lock, we never see Leonard lock the door. This is true: we never see him lock the door. But the fact remains, we never see him not lock the door, either. We do not know whether the door was locked or not. We see Leonard get out of the car three times before Teddy tells him to lock it: (1) At Emma's for Tattoo, (2) At Ferdy's Bar by the dumpster, (3) At Natalie's house. In not one of these scenes is it shown whether or not he locks the car. In every case, the scene is cut before Leonard would be locking it. It may be speculated that perhaps Nolan and Dody Dorn cut these scenes quickly for a reason and showed later in other scenes that he was locking. Their intent may have been to confuse some of the viewers and make them come to a conclusion that Leonard is faking if they do not pay attention to the other clues in the film. They are misleading by not showing us something, allowing people to believe something that may not be true. Also, even though we do not see whether or not Leonard locked the door outside Emma's, we are shown that when he leaves Emma's he definitely unlocks the door. While this is not proof he had it locked, but if he is conditioned to unlock it, it supports the notion that he could be conditioned to also lock it. So since we have three instances that we do not know whether he locked or not, and no instances when we are shown him not locking it, there does not seem to be any proof that Leonard never locks the car before Teddy tells him to. While it is a habit that people lock their car doors or that it is common sense for them to do so, people also forget to do it. Even if Leonard did lock the car door, he could forget to do it just as people without this condition would do. Even given his condition, he would not be any more likely to forget since locking the door is an implicit response formed by habit and routine.
- Tattoo Fact 6:
This is probably the most controversial. The editing is not really that apparent; the scene is almost cut as one long shot, so a time delay is really not apparent. Based on the script, it is apparent that other scenes were to be put into the sequence. These were either filmed and cut or not filmed at all. In either case, they are not in the film and the sequence seems to have no real breaks in the action. Many people just presume and accept that the sequence is an editing error, and leave it at that. However, it can still be explained through editing. We know that Leonard makes lists, he summarizes his facts for easy retrieval. It is possible (i.e. there is nothing in the film that makes it impossible) that Leonard has made a list of tattoo facts that he can refer to. If he did have a list, a good place for it would be in his pocket with the notecards so he would see it when he was going to tattoo a fact. It is even possible that he writes the facts on a card then to make sure it is not lost; he could write the next one onto the back of this card. Then later, after getting the tattoo, he would rewrite the list and place it in his pocket, ready for the next one. The list is the tattoos he has, the card is the tattoos he needs. In the sequence of events, we do not see everything that Leonard looks at, but it is clear that he looks down in the direction of his pocket. It is possible that he could pick out a card with tattoo facts 1 through 5 listed, could note that it goes to 5 (he would not have to read the facts), turn the card over and write Fact 6 on the card and proceed. There are no facts in the film which make this impossible and it is consistent with Leonard's behavior throughout the film.
Additionally, as with all of us, Leonard's memory appears to work better sometimes and sometimes (also like most of us!) his memory appears to not work well at all! It appears that film subtly hints on occasions that Leonard is able to hold his memory for extraordinary amounts of time, for a man with his condition.
- Knowing Burt's name:
In the case of Leonard knowing Burt's name, we are shown on different occasions (in the lobby, on the phone, etc) that Burt tells Leonard his name. It is almost as if he is amazed that Leonard can not remember him. When Leonard and Burt go from the lobby to Leonard's old room, there is a cut and we do not hear their conversation in transit. It is not improbable that they talked during this time and Burt could have mentioned his name again. Thus when Leonard referred to him by name, he might have just heard it offscreen.
- Note on Natalie's pic about helping out of pity:
This is the strongest scene in the film that indicates Leonard may be faking since he seems to have held onto his memory for an extraordinary amount of time, perhaps an hour or so. Of course it is another that can be explained easily by editing. Natalie tells Leonard she lost someone, then time passes. Leonard gets up in the middle of the night and writes on Natalie's pic that she will help him out of pity. This is a long time for him to remember if he is remembering when we saw them discuss it. However, it is not hard to imagine that Leonard had repeat conversations on many subjects. Nolan wisely does not show us all this repetition. The fact is that we do not see or hear the conversation that took place while they were in bed, immediately before Leonard gets up. It is possible that this was the very conversation that they were having. Supporting this is the sorrowful look on Natalie's face. Her face is consistent with someone who had just been speaking about someone they had lost recently.
- Locking the car door:
This seems to have been put in by Nolan as a red herring to give people a suggestion that he may be faking, while providing other clues to indicate that he is definitely not faking. The facts are that we see Leonard lock his car every time (at least every time he does so on camera) after he finds Teddy in his car and Teddy tells him to lock his car. Leonard even does this even when it makes no sense, since much of the time the window is broken. But just because we see him lock it afterwards, is in no way proof that he did not lock it before. Many people lock their car doors and make it a habit. [Many parents try to instill the habit in their children even before they drive: you get out of the car, you lock the door; you get in the car and you buckle the seatbelt.] So even though Nolan made a point of showing him lock his car after Teddy told him to, does not mean that Leonard did not do it before Teddy told him to do it.
It has been brought up that all the times we see Leonard get out of his car before Teddy told him to lock, we never see Leonard lock the door. This is true: we never see him lock the door. But the fact remains, we never see him not lock the door, either. We do not know whether the door was locked or not. We see Leonard get out of the car three times before Teddy tells him to lock it: (1) At Emma's for Tattoo, (2) At Ferdy's Bar by the dumpster, (3) At Natalie's house. In not one of these scenes is it shown whether or not he locks the car. In every case, the scene is cut before Leonard would be locking it. It may be speculated that perhaps Nolan and Dody Dorn cut these scenes quickly for a reason and showed later in other scenes that he was locking. Their intent may have been to confuse some of the viewers and make them come to a conclusion that Leonard is faking if they do not pay attention to the other clues in the film. They are misleading by not showing us something, allowing people to believe something that may not be true. Also, even though we do not see whether or not Leonard locked the door outside Emma's, we are shown that when he leaves Emma's he definitely unlocks the door. While this is not proof he had it locked, but if he is conditioned to unlock it, it supports the notion that he could be conditioned to also lock it. So since we have three instances that we do not know whether he locked or not, and no instances when we are shown him not locking it, there does not seem to be any proof that Leonard never locks the car before Teddy tells him to. While it is a habit that people lock their car doors or that it is common sense for them to do so, people also forget to do it. Even if Leonard did lock the car door, he could forget to do it just as people without this condition would do. Even given his condition, he would not be any more likely to forget since locking the door is an implicit response formed by habit and routine.
- Tattoo Fact 6:
This is probably the most controversial. The editing is not really that apparent; the scene is almost cut as one long shot, so a time delay is really not apparent. Based on the script, it is apparent that other scenes were to be put into the sequence. These were either filmed and cut or not filmed at all. In either case, they are not in the film and the sequence seems to have no real breaks in the action. Many people just presume and accept that the sequence is an editing error, and leave it at that. However, it can still be explained through editing. We know that Leonard makes lists, he summarizes his facts for easy retrieval. It is possible (i.e. there is nothing in the film that makes it impossible) that Leonard has made a list of tattoo facts that he can refer to. If he did have a list, a good place for it would be in his pocket with the notecards so he would see it when he was going to tattoo a fact. It is even possible that he writes the facts on a card then to make sure it is not lost; he could write the next one onto the back of this card. Then later, after getting the tattoo, he would rewrite the list and place it in his pocket, ready for the next one. The list is the tattoos he has, the card is the tattoos he needs. In the sequence of events, we do not see everything that Leonard looks at, but it is clear that he looks down in the direction of his pocket. It is possible that he could pick out a card with tattoo facts 1 through 5 listed, could note that it goes to 5 (he would not have to read the facts), turn the card over and write Fact 6 on the card and proceed. There are no facts in the film which make this impossible and it is consistent with Leonard's behavior throughout the film.
No, it cannot be due to the nature of anterograde amnesia. Physical damage to the brain essentially can lead to the impairment in creating new memories [anterograde amnesia, which is Leonard's problem] and may even involve impairment in recalling recently-created memories [some retrograde amnesia, which does not seem to affect Leonard at all]. Psychological impairment of memory (known as "Psychogenic Amnesia") is caused by some intense emotional experience. The purpose for the loss is the mind's attempt to exclude painful or guilt-laden memories from consciousness. Memory is not really lost, but is misplaced. (This is retrograde amnesia, which again does not seem to affect Leonard.) These memories can be recalled by free association, hypnosis, and other procedures. The facts from medical literature indicate: "In psychogenic amnesia, there is no anterograde memory loss." The medical literature also indicates: "Psychogenic amnesia is characterized by an inability to recall information already stored in the patient's memory." So if we presume that Leonard has anterograde amnesia then it must be caused by physical trauma. If we presume that his problem is emotional (and not due to any physical problem) then any amnesia is retrograde: a failure to recall painful memories. But this presumption is not consistent with what we see in the film, since the entire plot of the film involves him seeking revenge since he can remember the attack and since he does seem to have memories of an insulin overdose.
There is no significance explicitly given in the film of why there are so many different font styles and typefaces. They also vary in size, some are all lowercase, some all upper case, some upside down, some mirror images, some in script, some not. They also vary in content: some are facts Leonard uses to track the second attacker, others are just reminders about his condition, still others are general reminders of things he was aware of before the attack. The various styles most likely reflect a suggestion of different tattoo artists and possibly their own preferences. There has been some speculation on some meaning of "remember Sammy Jankis" being in a script face when the film shows Leonard using a different handwriting style for notes he questions. But the "remember Sammy Jankis" tattoo while in script is not handwriting, and the style is used in another tattoo as well "buy film" and would serve no purpose to have this questioned.
If we do not believe Teddy's exposition, we don't know who may have setup Jimmy since we are never shown who is on the phone and Teddy admits to doing it. Some believe that Teddy is lying and character on the phone may never be shown in the film or could be Dodd, Natalie, or always Burt and one of them setup Jimmy for a reason not disclosed in the film. If we believe Teddy in the exposition, it is quite obvious since Teddy he admits to doing it.
Why? In the conventional interpretation—that takes it that Teddy is speaking the truth in the key scene—Teddy has been trying to help Leonard get vengeance. After they successfully tracked the second attacker and Leonard killed him, Teddy realized that the memory did not stick. Still wanting to see Leonard happy and hoping that he could convince him through repeatedly indicating the truth, he continued to help Leonard hunt for a man he already killed. After a year of hunting the same man, Teddy decided to find another victim (it is not stated in the movie what triggered this new killing). Teddy decides to setup a Jimmy Grantz. He has a near match in the name, is a drug dealer so he is not completely innocent of crime, and they can also make some money. But while there is motivation for money, possible motivation to kill drug dealers, the movie is relatively explicit: Teddy is trying to (and does succeed) to convince Leonard the quest is done. But we see that even though convinced, Leonard chooses to continue.The movie indicates that his motivation for doing this was to try and convince Leonard that the quest was done.
If Teddy's goal were to get Leonard to continue, there was no reason for Teddy to lie to Leonard and try to convince him that dead Jimmy was the second attacker. Teddy lied and tried to convince Leonard even knowing that, at that time, Leonard did not believe that dead Jimmy was the second attacker. If Teddy's goal were to convince Leonard to continue (instead of stopping) he could have told Leonard the truth: Jimmy was not the second attacker, but that someone (he would not have to say who) used Leonard to kill the wrong man. All Teddy needed to do as tell the truth, tell Leonard he will fix things us and agree to meet Leonard later. This has the advantage of being true, Leonard already believes or suspects it, and it not only gets Leonard to leave so he can get the money, but it then allows Teddy to start setting up the next person. But Teddy does not try to convince Leonard that the quest is incomplete. He lies to convince Leonard that the quest is done. And when that doesn't work, he admits that Jimmy was not the second attacker and then tries (and succeeds!) in convincing Leonard that the second attacker was killed a year ago. So here we are shown at the end of the film Teddy trying twice to convince Leonard that that the second attacker is dead and the quest is complete. And when Teddy succeeds in convincing Leonard, we are shown that Leonard is the one who consciously chooses to continue a hunt he is convinced is completed.
Why? In the conventional interpretation—that takes it that Teddy is speaking the truth in the key scene—Teddy has been trying to help Leonard get vengeance. After they successfully tracked the second attacker and Leonard killed him, Teddy realized that the memory did not stick. Still wanting to see Leonard happy and hoping that he could convince him through repeatedly indicating the truth, he continued to help Leonard hunt for a man he already killed. After a year of hunting the same man, Teddy decided to find another victim (it is not stated in the movie what triggered this new killing). Teddy decides to setup a Jimmy Grantz. He has a near match in the name, is a drug dealer so he is not completely innocent of crime, and they can also make some money. But while there is motivation for money, possible motivation to kill drug dealers, the movie is relatively explicit: Teddy is trying to (and does succeed) to convince Leonard the quest is done. But we see that even though convinced, Leonard chooses to continue.The movie indicates that his motivation for doing this was to try and convince Leonard that the quest was done.
If Teddy's goal were to get Leonard to continue, there was no reason for Teddy to lie to Leonard and try to convince him that dead Jimmy was the second attacker. Teddy lied and tried to convince Leonard even knowing that, at that time, Leonard did not believe that dead Jimmy was the second attacker. If Teddy's goal were to convince Leonard to continue (instead of stopping) he could have told Leonard the truth: Jimmy was not the second attacker, but that someone (he would not have to say who) used Leonard to kill the wrong man. All Teddy needed to do as tell the truth, tell Leonard he will fix things us and agree to meet Leonard later. This has the advantage of being true, Leonard already believes or suspects it, and it not only gets Leonard to leave so he can get the money, but it then allows Teddy to start setting up the next person. But Teddy does not try to convince Leonard that the quest is incomplete. He lies to convince Leonard that the quest is done. And when that doesn't work, he admits that Jimmy was not the second attacker and then tries (and succeeds!) in convincing Leonard that the second attacker was killed a year ago. So here we are shown at the end of the film Teddy trying twice to convince Leonard that that the second attacker is dead and the quest is complete. And when Teddy succeeds in convincing Leonard, we are shown that Leonard is the one who consciously chooses to continue a hunt he is convinced is completed.
Both of these pieces of information are stored on the note Leonard has about Dodd:
DODD White guy, 6′2″, blonde MonteRest Inn on 5th St Room 6 Put him onto Teddy OR just get RID OF him foR NAtAlie 919 BOOTH ST.
DODD White guy, 6′2″, blonde MonteRest Inn on 5th St Room 6 Put him onto Teddy OR just get RID OF him foR NAtAlie 919 BOOTH ST.
Burt says that he told his boss about Leonard's condition, and the manager told him to try and rent him another room. The first room is room 21, where Leonard stays during the black&white sequence of the movie. When Teddy is hiding in the Jaguar outside Natalie's house he tells Leonard to go to a motel, and recommends the Discount Inn. (This is though a bit confusing, as he already has met Leonard there and knows he already has a room there. When Leonard and Teddy leave, Leonard does not check out.) When Leonard takes his advice and goes to this motel, Burt seizes the chance to do as his boss asked him and rents him room 304.
By freezing it, the first part can be seen. The screen shows (Note that the "41 AD" is actually between the lines as a annotation, not part of the actual sentence)
Chapter One Two years have gone by since I finished writing the long story of how I, Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germani- cus, the cripple, the stammerer, the fool of the family, whom none of his ambitious and bloody-minded relatives consid- ered worth the trouble of executing, poisoning, forcing to suicide, banishing to a desert island or starving to death which was how they one by one got rid of each other how I survived them all, even my insane nephew Gaius Caligula, and was one day unexpectedly acclaimed Emperor 41 A.D. by the corporals and sergeants of the Palace Guard.
It is the opening of the 1935 book by Robert Graves (1895-1985), Claudius the God and his Wife Messalina. For more information about the book, go to Amazon, select "Books" on the "search" list and enter the ISBN code 0679725733 in the search box. Members of Amazon can read the first page of the book. This is a sequel to Graves' book, I, Claudius. It creates an interesting parallel with the story in the movie, which is also told/narrated by the protagonist, who has a (mental) handicap. This causes others to perceive him as weird, crazy and harmless, and they even abuse him for their own benefit. But nobody realizes that the pathetic protagonist is actually very bright and resourceful. In the end, he comes out victorious over many others, who are either dead or lost, proving that he is the better man despite his limitations.
Chapter One Two years have gone by since I finished writing the long story of how I, Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germani- cus, the cripple, the stammerer, the fool of the family, whom none of his ambitious and bloody-minded relatives consid- ered worth the trouble of executing, poisoning, forcing to suicide, banishing to a desert island or starving to death which was how they one by one got rid of each other how I survived them all, even my insane nephew Gaius Caligula, and was one day unexpectedly acclaimed Emperor 41 A.D. by the corporals and sergeants of the Palace Guard.
It is the opening of the 1935 book by Robert Graves (1895-1985), Claudius the God and his Wife Messalina. For more information about the book, go to Amazon, select "Books" on the "search" list and enter the ISBN code 0679725733 in the search box. Members of Amazon can read the first page of the book. This is a sequel to Graves' book, I, Claudius. It creates an interesting parallel with the story in the movie, which is also told/narrated by the protagonist, who has a (mental) handicap. This causes others to perceive him as weird, crazy and harmless, and they even abuse him for their own benefit. But nobody realizes that the pathetic protagonist is actually very bright and resourceful. In the end, he comes out victorious over many others, who are either dead or lost, proving that he is the better man despite his limitations.
According to the Internet Movie Firearm Database, Leonard Shelby's gun was a Beretta Cougar Inox with white grips. Dodd's gun was a Smith & Wesson either model 3913 or model 4516. Teddy's revolver was a Smith & Wesson Model 19 Snubnose.
It is very possible that this is just a goof in the movie because at first it appears to some that we see Dodd's SUV block the Jaguar and afterwards, it seems to have moved forward so that it is no longer blocking it. [It seems to do this during the time that Dodd's SUV "inexplicably" turns into a truck and then turns back into the SUV, which is clearly a "goof".] But it could also just be a misperception that the Jaguar is actually blocked in by Dodd. There does seem to be enough room for Leonard and the Jaguar to escape and the misperception is just due to camera angles and editing. If it is not a goof, the sequence of events when looked overhead (L is Leonard's car, D is Dodd's vehicle, B is the Building) could be diagrammed as below:
(1) L BB L BB BB DDD BBBBB
(2) BB L BB LBB DDD BBBBB
(3) BB BB LBB DDDLBBBBB
(4) BB BB BB DDDLBBBBB L
(5) BB BB BB DDD BBBBB L L
(6) BB BB BB DDD BBBBB LL
(7) BB BB BB DDD BBBBB LL
(1) L BB L BB BB DDD BBBBB
(2) BB L BB LBB DDD BBBBB
(3) BB BB LBB DDDLBBBBB
(4) BB BB BB DDDLBBBBB L
(5) BB BB BB DDD BBBBB L L
(6) BB BB BB DDD BBBBB LL
(7) BB BB BB DDD BBBBB LL
This question is never explicitly answered in the film, nor is there really any suggestion as to where it got to. It would appear that Nolan did not consider this a very important detail in his overall narrative of the film, but we may speculate. There are several possibilities that come to mind. (1) At the end of the story it could very well still be in the trunk ready for Leonard to rediscover it and wonder where it came from. (2) Leonard could have during the course of the film already added it to whatever stash of money he has been using for expenses. (3) Teddy could have broken into the car and taken it at some time during the film. (4) It is even possible that Natalie could have used a spare key (it is not unlikely that a couple living together would each have a key to the vehicles), found the money and taken it.
These types of questions come up periodically and any answer would have to be speculative since nothing explicit is given in the film and there is also very few implicit indicators. We know at one point, if Jimmy is not lying, that there was $200,000 in the trunk of the Jaguar. We see some of this money but can't verify the truth of what Jimmy said nor do we know what happened to it. At the end of the story is it still in the trunk? Did Leonard add it to whatever stash he has? Did Teddy take it? Did Natalie take it?
We just don't know, Nolan gives us no indication. He seems to have chosen to concentrate on the killings and less on these mundane aspects of his day-to-day existence. We also see Leonard only spend $40 in the entire timeframe of the movie (about 3 days) even though there are times when he would have spent money (pay the escort, pay Emma for the tattoo, etc). We do not even really get any indication of how he keeps track of money. He could have cleaned out any savings or checking account for the cash. We have no indication how much he may have had. He could even have gotten some from the second attacker a year ago. There is nothing to dispute this (though there is nothing to dispute other possibilities). We can speculate that he most likely uses cash, since he knows cops could trace checks, credit and debit cards. And there is nothing in the film to dispute this, either. And as for keeping track of his expenses, if we presume that it would make sense that he would have developed a system, we can presume he has a system and nothing disputes this either. One edited exchange does not show or dispute a system. We don't see Leonard take the money out of his wallet, nor do we see whether he made note of spending the money. Since we see no other transactions, we really have nothing to go on. We could presume that he has no method at all for keeping track of finances, and while there is nothing explicit to refute this, it seems to go against Leonard's character. Leonard seems to be intelligent enough to realize that he would need a financial system, so he most likely created one.
Other than the $40 Leonard gave to Burt there are two other times finances are discussed. One time is when Teddy asks Leonard where he got the car and suit from. Leonard says that he has money. Teddy asks him from where, and it is seems clear that Leonard has no idea and he presumes it is from his wife's life insurance. It is clear that Leonard does not really know (and he shouldn't) since this came after he got this condition. Without looking at any notes he may have on the subject, Leonard would have no idea where his money came from. So this exchange gives no info on where or how much or anything, since Leonard does not look, and Teddy does not say.
The other exchange about finances is when Burt tells him to always get receipts. This seems clearly to be a joke (he smiles before saying it), and not advice, since Burt just said he has been ripping Leonard off. Leonard seems to take it as a joke with his sarcastic response of having to write it down. The exchange comes across that Leonard is probably always asking Burt for a receipt and Burt does anything in his power to distract him to forget about it. Burt seems so fascinated with Leonard's condition: always telling Leonard his name, acting like they have never met, so Leonard will explain it to him again. While the scene could indicate real advice from Burt, it would seem to indicate that Leonard is stupid and forgotten anything he knew about managing money that he may learned before the attack. This seems unlikely with this condition: Leonard would not lose his intelligence nor forget basic things he learned before. These facts make this presumption inconsistent with the film.
We just don't know, Nolan gives us no indication. He seems to have chosen to concentrate on the killings and less on these mundane aspects of his day-to-day existence. We also see Leonard only spend $40 in the entire timeframe of the movie (about 3 days) even though there are times when he would have spent money (pay the escort, pay Emma for the tattoo, etc). We do not even really get any indication of how he keeps track of money. He could have cleaned out any savings or checking account for the cash. We have no indication how much he may have had. He could even have gotten some from the second attacker a year ago. There is nothing to dispute this (though there is nothing to dispute other possibilities). We can speculate that he most likely uses cash, since he knows cops could trace checks, credit and debit cards. And there is nothing in the film to dispute this, either. And as for keeping track of his expenses, if we presume that it would make sense that he would have developed a system, we can presume he has a system and nothing disputes this either. One edited exchange does not show or dispute a system. We don't see Leonard take the money out of his wallet, nor do we see whether he made note of spending the money. Since we see no other transactions, we really have nothing to go on. We could presume that he has no method at all for keeping track of finances, and while there is nothing explicit to refute this, it seems to go against Leonard's character. Leonard seems to be intelligent enough to realize that he would need a financial system, so he most likely created one.
Other than the $40 Leonard gave to Burt there are two other times finances are discussed. One time is when Teddy asks Leonard where he got the car and suit from. Leonard says that he has money. Teddy asks him from where, and it is seems clear that Leonard has no idea and he presumes it is from his wife's life insurance. It is clear that Leonard does not really know (and he shouldn't) since this came after he got this condition. Without looking at any notes he may have on the subject, Leonard would have no idea where his money came from. So this exchange gives no info on where or how much or anything, since Leonard does not look, and Teddy does not say.
The other exchange about finances is when Burt tells him to always get receipts. This seems clearly to be a joke (he smiles before saying it), and not advice, since Burt just said he has been ripping Leonard off. Leonard seems to take it as a joke with his sarcastic response of having to write it down. The exchange comes across that Leonard is probably always asking Burt for a receipt and Burt does anything in his power to distract him to forget about it. Burt seems so fascinated with Leonard's condition: always telling Leonard his name, acting like they have never met, so Leonard will explain it to him again. While the scene could indicate real advice from Burt, it would seem to indicate that Leonard is stupid and forgotten anything he knew about managing money that he may learned before the attack. This seems unlikely with this condition: Leonard would not lose his intelligence nor forget basic things he learned before. These facts make this presumption inconsistent with the film.
Christopher Nolan in one of the commentary tracks for the film comments on Teddy's license plate:This car license number "SG13 7IU", that's actually the zipcode of the school I attended. I just put it in there because, as I was writing the script, I just grasped at a familiar number. And then later kind of liked the idea that maybe there would be someone out there that would be watching the film, back in England, and it would just seem familiar to them even though they had no idea that they were in any way connected with the people who made this film. And sure enough, since the film's come out, I've got quite a few sort of phone calls and emails from random people who attended the same school who were very surprised by that.What Nolan says is not completely accurate, however. The postcode for the school he attended, Haileybury in Hertford, is SG13 7NU. Teddy's license plate, SG13 7IU, is actually an invalid English postcode. The "postcode area" of SG is for Stevenage and the District "SG13" (as well as "SG14") is for Hertford. The postcode sector "7" does exist, but the postcode unit "IU" is invalid.The "Inward code" (7IU) while it has the correct form (a number followed by 2 letters) is invalid since it contains the letter "I" and the inward code never uses the letters C, I, K, M, O, or V.
1. They are expensive.
Anterograde amnesia is a real condition. It is actually the most common type of amnesia known. While many film portrayals are inaccurate, Memento has been mentioned as being accurate. Caltech neuroscientist Christof Koch called Memento "the most accurate portrayal of the different memory systems in the popular media," [Koch, Christof (2004). The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach. Roberts and Company Publishers, p 196. ISBN 0974707708. Physician Esther M. Sternberg, Director of the Integrative Neural Immune Program at the National Institute of Mental Health identified the film as "close to a perfect exploration of the neurobiology of memory." Writing in the journal Science, Sternberg concludes:
This thought-provoking thriller is the kind of movie that keeps reverberating in the viewer's mind, and each iteration makes one examine preconceived notions in a different light. Memento is a movie for anyone interested in the workings of memory and, indeed, in what it is that makes our own reality.
[Sternberg, E.M (June 1st, 2001). "Piecing Together a Puzzling World: Memento". Science 292 (5522): 1661-1662]
Clinical neuropsychologist, Sallie Baxendale, writes in "Memories aren't made of this: amnesia at the movies": The overwhelming majority of amnesic characters in films bear little relation to any neurological or psychiatric realities of memory loss. However, three films deserve special consideration ... 'Memento' (2000) also deserves a special mention. Apparently inspired partly by the neuropsychological studies of the famous patient HM (who developed severe anterograde memory impairment after neurosurgery to control his epileptic seizures) and the temporal lobe amnesic syndrome, the film documents the difficulties faced by Leonard, who develops a severe anterograde amnesia after an attack in which his wife is killed. Unlike in most films in this genre, this amnesic character retains his identity, has little retrograde amnesia, and shows several of the severe everyday memory difficulties associated with the disorder. The fragmented, almost mosaic quality to the sequence of scenes in the film also cleverly reflects the "perpetual present" nature of the syndrome. In addition to Memento, Finding Nemo (2003) and I Know Who You Are (2000) are the other two films Baxendale indicates are worth "special mention".
A real life case of someone with this condition is Clive Wearing. A documentary on Clive is The Man with the 7 Second Memory (2005) if anyone is interested in films about this condition. YouTube also has a couple of additional documentaries: The Mind, 2nd editon, "Life Without Memory: The Case of Clive Wearing" (1999) (Part 1a and Part 1b) and The Mind, 2nd edition, "The Clive Wearing Story, Part 2: Living Without memory" (Part 2a, Part 2b, Part 2c, and Part 2d). Clive's is much, much more severe than Leonard's (or most cases). Neuropsychologist, Dr. Barbara A. Wilson, OBE (Medical Research Center. Cambridge. England) has evaluated him on 15 occasions since 1985 (according to the documentary). Well, I think Clive Wearing is unique. I've never known another person so amnesiac as Clive. And I've probably seen about 700 brain injured people, most of them with memory impairment. He's definitely the most amnesiac person I've known...And even if he sees his own writing in his diaries or video tapes of himself, he acknowledges that its him on the video or him conducting or him writing, his handwriting, but says he wasn't conscious then. And the fact that he must have been conscious to have written or conducted, he won't accept it. Now that, I've never seen that in any other amnesiac people, even people with a very dense amnesia. They don't say "I wasn't awake then" or "I wasn't conscious then", so I feel that aspect of it is more than the memory impairment. There are also several case studies in Oliver Sack's book: The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat. A good one is a chapter on a man named "Jimmy G." who got it from chronic alcoholism (this is termed "Korsakoff's syndrome").
The "classic example" is a case study of a man called "H.M." or "Henry M." [after his death in 2008, the need for anonymity was gone and his name was revealed to be Henry Molaison].There is much online about him, google on anterograde amnesia "H.M." to get a number of hits and information. H.M.'s was a "pure case" caused by surgery and not an accident. He had epileptic seizures and the doctors believed that if they removed some of his temporal lobe (including the hippocampus), then he would no longer get them. The doctors were correct: they cured him of his seizures! He also got this condition since (it was later discovered) that the hippocampus is important to the "consolidation" of memory (converting the short-term to long-term memory). Philip J. Hilts, published in 1995 by Simon & Schuster, wrote a biography of H.M. called "Memory's Ghost: The Strange Tale of Mr. M. and the Nature of Memory" which has some interesting comments about this condition, several passages of them relating strongly to things Leonard does in the film suggesting that Nolan must have done some "homework".
This thought-provoking thriller is the kind of movie that keeps reverberating in the viewer's mind, and each iteration makes one examine preconceived notions in a different light. Memento is a movie for anyone interested in the workings of memory and, indeed, in what it is that makes our own reality.
[Sternberg, E.M (June 1st, 2001). "Piecing Together a Puzzling World: Memento". Science 292 (5522): 1661-1662]
Clinical neuropsychologist, Sallie Baxendale, writes in "Memories aren't made of this: amnesia at the movies": The overwhelming majority of amnesic characters in films bear little relation to any neurological or psychiatric realities of memory loss. However, three films deserve special consideration ... 'Memento' (2000) also deserves a special mention. Apparently inspired partly by the neuropsychological studies of the famous patient HM (who developed severe anterograde memory impairment after neurosurgery to control his epileptic seizures) and the temporal lobe amnesic syndrome, the film documents the difficulties faced by Leonard, who develops a severe anterograde amnesia after an attack in which his wife is killed. Unlike in most films in this genre, this amnesic character retains his identity, has little retrograde amnesia, and shows several of the severe everyday memory difficulties associated with the disorder. The fragmented, almost mosaic quality to the sequence of scenes in the film also cleverly reflects the "perpetual present" nature of the syndrome. In addition to Memento, Finding Nemo (2003) and I Know Who You Are (2000) are the other two films Baxendale indicates are worth "special mention".
A real life case of someone with this condition is Clive Wearing. A documentary on Clive is The Man with the 7 Second Memory (2005) if anyone is interested in films about this condition. YouTube also has a couple of additional documentaries: The Mind, 2nd editon, "Life Without Memory: The Case of Clive Wearing" (1999) (Part 1a and Part 1b) and The Mind, 2nd edition, "The Clive Wearing Story, Part 2: Living Without memory" (Part 2a, Part 2b, Part 2c, and Part 2d). Clive's is much, much more severe than Leonard's (or most cases). Neuropsychologist, Dr. Barbara A. Wilson, OBE (Medical Research Center. Cambridge. England) has evaluated him on 15 occasions since 1985 (according to the documentary). Well, I think Clive Wearing is unique. I've never known another person so amnesiac as Clive. And I've probably seen about 700 brain injured people, most of them with memory impairment. He's definitely the most amnesiac person I've known...And even if he sees his own writing in his diaries or video tapes of himself, he acknowledges that its him on the video or him conducting or him writing, his handwriting, but says he wasn't conscious then. And the fact that he must have been conscious to have written or conducted, he won't accept it. Now that, I've never seen that in any other amnesiac people, even people with a very dense amnesia. They don't say "I wasn't awake then" or "I wasn't conscious then", so I feel that aspect of it is more than the memory impairment. There are also several case studies in Oliver Sack's book: The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat. A good one is a chapter on a man named "Jimmy G." who got it from chronic alcoholism (this is termed "Korsakoff's syndrome").
The "classic example" is a case study of a man called "H.M." or "Henry M." [after his death in 2008, the need for anonymity was gone and his name was revealed to be Henry Molaison].There is much online about him, google on anterograde amnesia "H.M." to get a number of hits and information. H.M.'s was a "pure case" caused by surgery and not an accident. He had epileptic seizures and the doctors believed that if they removed some of his temporal lobe (including the hippocampus), then he would no longer get them. The doctors were correct: they cured him of his seizures! He also got this condition since (it was later discovered) that the hippocampus is important to the "consolidation" of memory (converting the short-term to long-term memory). Philip J. Hilts, published in 1995 by Simon & Schuster, wrote a biography of H.M. called "Memory's Ghost: The Strange Tale of Mr. M. and the Nature of Memory" which has some interesting comments about this condition, several passages of them relating strongly to things Leonard does in the film suggesting that Nolan must have done some "homework".
Leonard makes a statement in the film that he can not create new memories. Some take this as literal truth of something we must believe and others have claimed it is a flaw on Nolan's part of the reality of this condition. The simplest explanation is that it is a "simplification" and an imprecision in what Leonard states. Most people do not nit-pick everything they say. [This is akin to Leonard saying he does not have "amnesia". He is simplifying for Burt: he means that he does not have "retrograde amnesia", which is what most people think of when they hear the term "amnesia". In reality, Leonard does have amnesia. Leonard has anterograde amnesia.] The movie clearly indicates that Leonard can create new procedural memories via habit and routine. In fact with this condition, implicit memory creation (procedural memories are only one type of implicit memory) is not affected at all, since it occurs through other parts of the brain. Therefore people with this condition are able to create new memories: implicit memory creation is completely unaffected.
The implication about this statement is not so much about the implicit memory creation that the movie discusses, but about the explicit memory creation. This condition causes an impairment in the ability of someone to create new explicit memories. But even this impairment is not absolute. Even some new explicit memories may be created: "Amnesia is not an all-or-nothing condition, and even H.M., from time to time, has meagre conscious recollections of information encountered postoperatively". H.M.'s was a "pure case" caused by surgery and not an accident. He had epileptic seizures and the doctors believed that if they removed some of his temporal lobe (including the hippocampus), then he would no longer get them. The doctors were correct: they cured him of his seizures! He also got this condition since (it was later discovered) that the hippocampus (more generally the MTL: media temporal lobe) is important to the "consolidation" of memory (converting the short-term to long-term memory).
Nolan also suggests (provides us a clue to) this fact when he shows us a shot which may be interpreted of a memory of Leonard in a mental institute: a memory he could not have if the condition were absolute. It appears that Nolan does suggest how it is possible and why this type of memory is retained. The flash of Sammy turning into Leonard in the mental institute suggests to many a "projection" of Leonard recollections onto Sammy memories. The anchor of the recollection is the Sammy memory. It is important to realize, that this condition does not force Leonard to start with a "clean state". His memories are not "erased". The short term memories are just typically not consolidated into long-term memories. But, Leonard does have experiences after the attack and "on some level" bits are recalled: though maybe only subconsciously, and some relegated to show up only as "conditioning" (some probably to his surprise—when did I learn to do that?) other things only "recalled" as only distant memories. These are the implicit, non-declarative memories.
For example, in Oliver Sacks' book: The Man who Mistook his wife for a Hat, he has an entire chapter on a man named "Jimmy G." who got this condition (anterograde memory dysfunction) from chronic alcoholism (this is termed "Korsakoff's syndrome"). Sacks states: [Jimmie] sometimes retained faint memories, some dim echo or sense of familiarity. Thus five minutes after I had played tic-tac-toc [sic] with him, he recollected that "some doctor" had played this with him "a while back" - whether the "while back" was minutes or months ago he had no idea Also, this condition does allow you to learn thru conditioning (as mentioned many times in the movie), but some things may "break thru" that "typically won't". "Jimmy G" is also discussed online: Jimmy was stuck in the year 1945, it turned out. He only remembered one or two events since that year. (One was the death of his brother, which says something about the relationship of emotions and encoding.) Studies on people with this condition have concluded: "factual information, which is ordinarily learned as declarative (conscious) knowledge and with the participation of the medial temporal lobe, can be acquired as nondeclarative memory" which is a means of saying that explicit memories can be learned from implicit memories as has been hypothesized as a mechanism for what Nolan appears to have suggested. As stated this is enhanced by Leonard's knowledge of Sammy and his explicit memories of Sammy. It has been pointed out in the classic AMD case of H.M. that "experiments demonstrate that H.M. is capable of learning some new factual information when it can be fixed to already acquired knowledge." This paper even the suggests that this can lead to false memories due to incorrect anchoring. H.M. seems to have anchored some of the Challenger explosion (which happened after his AMD) with his memories of the Titanic disaster. This type of misrembering seems to also be suggested in the film especially in the sequence of Sammy in a mental institute that turns into Leonard as someone's nurse walks by.
The implication about this statement is not so much about the implicit memory creation that the movie discusses, but about the explicit memory creation. This condition causes an impairment in the ability of someone to create new explicit memories. But even this impairment is not absolute. Even some new explicit memories may be created: "Amnesia is not an all-or-nothing condition, and even H.M., from time to time, has meagre conscious recollections of information encountered postoperatively". H.M.'s was a "pure case" caused by surgery and not an accident. He had epileptic seizures and the doctors believed that if they removed some of his temporal lobe (including the hippocampus), then he would no longer get them. The doctors were correct: they cured him of his seizures! He also got this condition since (it was later discovered) that the hippocampus (more generally the MTL: media temporal lobe) is important to the "consolidation" of memory (converting the short-term to long-term memory).
Nolan also suggests (provides us a clue to) this fact when he shows us a shot which may be interpreted of a memory of Leonard in a mental institute: a memory he could not have if the condition were absolute. It appears that Nolan does suggest how it is possible and why this type of memory is retained. The flash of Sammy turning into Leonard in the mental institute suggests to many a "projection" of Leonard recollections onto Sammy memories. The anchor of the recollection is the Sammy memory. It is important to realize, that this condition does not force Leonard to start with a "clean state". His memories are not "erased". The short term memories are just typically not consolidated into long-term memories. But, Leonard does have experiences after the attack and "on some level" bits are recalled: though maybe only subconsciously, and some relegated to show up only as "conditioning" (some probably to his surprise—when did I learn to do that?) other things only "recalled" as only distant memories. These are the implicit, non-declarative memories.
For example, in Oliver Sacks' book: The Man who Mistook his wife for a Hat, he has an entire chapter on a man named "Jimmy G." who got this condition (anterograde memory dysfunction) from chronic alcoholism (this is termed "Korsakoff's syndrome"). Sacks states: [Jimmie] sometimes retained faint memories, some dim echo or sense of familiarity. Thus five minutes after I had played tic-tac-toc [sic] with him, he recollected that "some doctor" had played this with him "a while back" - whether the "while back" was minutes or months ago he had no idea Also, this condition does allow you to learn thru conditioning (as mentioned many times in the movie), but some things may "break thru" that "typically won't". "Jimmy G" is also discussed online: Jimmy was stuck in the year 1945, it turned out. He only remembered one or two events since that year. (One was the death of his brother, which says something about the relationship of emotions and encoding.) Studies on people with this condition have concluded: "factual information, which is ordinarily learned as declarative (conscious) knowledge and with the participation of the medial temporal lobe, can be acquired as nondeclarative memory" which is a means of saying that explicit memories can be learned from implicit memories as has been hypothesized as a mechanism for what Nolan appears to have suggested. As stated this is enhanced by Leonard's knowledge of Sammy and his explicit memories of Sammy. It has been pointed out in the classic AMD case of H.M. that "experiments demonstrate that H.M. is capable of learning some new factual information when it can be fixed to already acquired knowledge." This paper even the suggests that this can lead to false memories due to incorrect anchoring. H.M. seems to have anchored some of the Challenger explosion (which happened after his AMD) with his memories of the Titanic disaster. This type of misrembering seems to also be suggested in the film especially in the sequence of Sammy in a mental institute that turns into Leonard as someone's nurse walks by.
Periodically people request similar films to Memento. IMDB has a
system[/link] to find recommendations on similar films.
To do it "manually" the first thing to define is what is similar:
Same director (Christopher Nolan): Inception (2010); The Dark Knight (2008); The Prestige (2006); Batman Begins (2005); Insomnia (2002); Following (1998); Doodlebug (1997)
Revenge films: Batman (1989); Once Upon a Time in the West (1968); The Count of Monte Cristo (1934); Death Wish (1974); Gladiator (2000); High Plains Drifter (1973); Irreversible (2002); The Virgin Spring (1960); Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003); Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004); Payback (1999); Revenge (1990); Walking Tall (1973)
Modern film noir: Alien (1979); Angel Heart (1987); Blade Runner (1982); Blood Simple (1984); Blue Velvet (1986); Body Heat (1981); Brick (2005); Chinatown (1974); Dark City (1998); Gattaca (1997); The Grifters (1990); Johnny Mnemonic (1995); L.A. Confidential (1997); The Matrix (1999); Minority Report (2002); Mulholland Drive (2001); 1984 (1984); Night Moves (1975); Outland (1981); RoboCop (1987); Sin City (2005); Strange Days (1995); The Terminator (1984); Total Recall (1990); The Usual Suspects (1995); Virtuosity (1995)
Suspense: Some Great ones from Alfred Hitchcock: The 39 Steps (1935); The Birds (1963); Dial M for Murder (1954); To Catch a Thief (1955); The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956); North by Northwest (1959); Notorious (1946); Psycho (1960); Rear Window (1954); Rebecca (1940); Strangers on a Train (1951); Vertigo (1958);
You can also check out AFI's 100 Greatest Thrillers.
Film narrative structure: Peppermint Candy (1999); Betrayal (1983); Five Times Two (2004); Irreversible (2002); The Salton Sea (2002)
Parallel timelines: The Fountain (2006); The Godfather Part II (1974); The Limey (1999)
Non-linear films: Quentin Tarantino seems very fond of the non-linear narrative and uses it frequently: Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003); Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004); Pulp Fiction (1994); and Reservoir Dogs (1992) are good examples. Another director making non-linear films is Alejandro G. Iñárritu; famous examples are Amores Perros (2000), 21 Grams (2003) and Babel (2006).
Twists at end: Citizen Kane (1941); Fallen (1998); Fight Club (2004); Lucky Number Slevin (2006); The Machinist (2004); Primal Fear (1996); Psycho (1960); Saw (2004); The Sixth Sense (1999); The Usual Suspects (1995); Unbreakable (2000); The Village (2004)
Similar memory conditions: Clean Slate (1994); Finding Nemo (2003); 50 First Dates (2004); Masters of Science Fiction episode A Clean Escape (2007); Remember Sunday (2013); Winter Sleepers (1997)
Documentaries on Clive Wearing: The Man with the 7 Second Memory (2005) which is nice documentary if anyone is interested in films about this condition.
YouTube also has a couple of additional documentaries: The Mind, 2nd edition, "Life Without Memory: The Case of Clive Wearing" (1999) (Part 1a and Part 1b) and The Mind, 2nd edition, "The Clive Wearing Story, Part 2: Living Without memory" (Part 2a, Part 2b, Part 2c, and Part 2d).
To do it "manually" the first thing to define is what is similar:
Same director (Christopher Nolan): Inception (2010); The Dark Knight (2008); The Prestige (2006); Batman Begins (2005); Insomnia (2002); Following (1998); Doodlebug (1997)
Revenge films: Batman (1989); Once Upon a Time in the West (1968); The Count of Monte Cristo (1934); Death Wish (1974); Gladiator (2000); High Plains Drifter (1973); Irreversible (2002); The Virgin Spring (1960); Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003); Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004); Payback (1999); Revenge (1990); Walking Tall (1973)
Modern film noir: Alien (1979); Angel Heart (1987); Blade Runner (1982); Blood Simple (1984); Blue Velvet (1986); Body Heat (1981); Brick (2005); Chinatown (1974); Dark City (1998); Gattaca (1997); The Grifters (1990); Johnny Mnemonic (1995); L.A. Confidential (1997); The Matrix (1999); Minority Report (2002); Mulholland Drive (2001); 1984 (1984); Night Moves (1975); Outland (1981); RoboCop (1987); Sin City (2005); Strange Days (1995); The Terminator (1984); Total Recall (1990); The Usual Suspects (1995); Virtuosity (1995)
Suspense: Some Great ones from Alfred Hitchcock: The 39 Steps (1935); The Birds (1963); Dial M for Murder (1954); To Catch a Thief (1955); The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956); North by Northwest (1959); Notorious (1946); Psycho (1960); Rear Window (1954); Rebecca (1940); Strangers on a Train (1951); Vertigo (1958);
You can also check out AFI's 100 Greatest Thrillers.
Film narrative structure: Peppermint Candy (1999); Betrayal (1983); Five Times Two (2004); Irreversible (2002); The Salton Sea (2002)
Parallel timelines: The Fountain (2006); The Godfather Part II (1974); The Limey (1999)
Non-linear films: Quentin Tarantino seems very fond of the non-linear narrative and uses it frequently: Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003); Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004); Pulp Fiction (1994); and Reservoir Dogs (1992) are good examples. Another director making non-linear films is Alejandro G. Iñárritu; famous examples are Amores Perros (2000), 21 Grams (2003) and Babel (2006).
Twists at end: Citizen Kane (1941); Fallen (1998); Fight Club (2004); Lucky Number Slevin (2006); The Machinist (2004); Primal Fear (1996); Psycho (1960); Saw (2004); The Sixth Sense (1999); The Usual Suspects (1995); Unbreakable (2000); The Village (2004)
Similar memory conditions: Clean Slate (1994); Finding Nemo (2003); 50 First Dates (2004); Masters of Science Fiction episode A Clean Escape (2007); Remember Sunday (2013); Winter Sleepers (1997)
Documentaries on Clive Wearing: The Man with the 7 Second Memory (2005) which is nice documentary if anyone is interested in films about this condition.
YouTube also has a couple of additional documentaries: The Mind, 2nd edition, "Life Without Memory: The Case of Clive Wearing" (1999) (Part 1a and Part 1b) and The Mind, 2nd edition, "The Clive Wearing Story, Part 2: Living Without memory" (Part 2a, Part 2b, Part 2c, and Part 2d).
The Blu-ray edition of Memento was released in August 15th, 2006. It is reviewed here, and it contains the following features: (1) HD video in 1080p resolution, (2) PCM 5.1 Audio, (3) Director's Commentary by Christopher Nolan, and (4) Featurette: Anatomy of a Scene. A newly remastered (transfer approved by Christopher Nolan) Blu-ray Edition of Memento was released on February 22nd, 2011. It is reviewed here.
The Region 1 US single-disc: Website; IFC interview with Christopher Nolan; Tattoo gallery; Short story "Memento Mori" by Jonathan Nolan; US trailer; Bios of the actors [Note: this DVD does not have the "Chronological edit" of the film nor are the chapters setup to do it conveniently by manually selecting the chapters]
The Region 1 US 2-disc Limited Edition: Menu system that is a puzzle in itself; Audio commentary by director Christopher Nolan with different endings; "Anatomy of a Scene" featurette; Director's script; International poster art gallery; Short story "Memento Mori" by Johnathan Nolan; Stills/production sketches gallery; Trailers (US and international). Unadvertised features: "Chronological edit" of film; Bootleg cover art; Concept art gallery; Journal; Props gallery. Region 2 UK 3-disc: Audio commentary by director Christopher Nolan with different endings; Interview with director Christopher Nolan; Interview with star Guy Pierce; Cast and crew Biographies; "Anatomy of a Scene" documentary; Easter egg—reversed version of the film; Shooting script split screen; Reading of the short story "Memento Mori"; Production stills and sketches gallery; Props gallery; International poster art gallery; Concept art and bootleg cover art gallery; Leonard's Journal; International theatrical trailer.
The Region 1 US 2-disc Limited Edition: Menu system that is a puzzle in itself; Audio commentary by director Christopher Nolan with different endings; "Anatomy of a Scene" featurette; Director's script; International poster art gallery; Short story "Memento Mori" by Johnathan Nolan; Stills/production sketches gallery; Trailers (US and international). Unadvertised features: "Chronological edit" of film; Bootleg cover art; Concept art gallery; Journal; Props gallery. Region 2 UK 3-disc: Audio commentary by director Christopher Nolan with different endings; Interview with director Christopher Nolan; Interview with star Guy Pierce; Cast and crew Biographies; "Anatomy of a Scene" documentary; Easter egg—reversed version of the film; Shooting script split screen; Reading of the short story "Memento Mori"; Production stills and sketches gallery; Props gallery; International poster art gallery; Concept art and bootleg cover art gallery; Leonard's Journal; International theatrical trailer.
The outerpack of the DVD case is light blue cardboard and made to look like a "file folder". In the original packaging there is a sheet of paper glued to the back. It contains a picture of Guy Pearce as "Leonard Shelby" and the contents of the 2 discs and credits, etc (like the info on the back of most DVDs). This can be easily removed as it is only stuck with a glob of glue in the center so may easily be missing. The DVD case proper slides out from the cardboard case and has a plastic paperclip on it (there are various colors). This may be easily lost. The cover of the DVD case has "Psychiatric Report", and is a flipcase. The cover is opened to the left and the right side has a yellow Post-it note with the word "Watch" and a drawing of an open book (again something easily lost). The flipcase is then open upwards and the top section contains Disc 1 and the bottom section contains Disc 2. On top of Disc 2, there are several loose pieces of paper keeping with the "psych folder" theme (This theme is also is carried onto the discs and menus of the DVD). They are (in no particular order): (1) A "Police Department" sheet with the main title screen from Disc 1, with "Watch" circled and note on how to "Play Movie", (2) a filled in formsheet for marking the "Condition of Admission" including drawings of front/back male for marking injuries, (3) a blank "Mental Health Battery" "Answer Sheet", and (4) a blank sheet with lines "Al Summary and Diagno" / "Recommendation" and a place for "Physician's Signature".
How to watch the movie in chronological order. For most versions see the IMDb link to "Alternate Versions"
For the R2UK 3-disc edition, an online review of this DVD indicates:
"When you pop the second disc in, you'll be presented with a very sparse selection of extras, which should clue you in immediately to the fact that there is something else rather large hidden on this DVD. Nor would you be wrong; if you move the selection line down to the bottommost option, "Biographies", and then press that ever-useful right arrow button, you'll be taken to the chronological version of Memento, and in glorious Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1 to boot!"
Note: The US single-disc version does not have this feature.
What is the story with the different commentaries? The Region 1 US 2-disc Limited Edition has four different endings to the commentary track. (This seems to also be the same for the R2UK 3-disc edition, though it is not confirmed). You must have comments on, via "COMMENTS" from main screen, and do not change the audio (LISTEN on main screen) when you make the transition right after Chapter 13 to get the alternate commentaries. You can display the current title/chapter to know which one you are on. The film is "Title 1" on the disc. At the end of Chapter 13 in this title (at ca 1:33:50 mark), the commentary/film will branch if you're listening to the commentary track (soundtrack #4) at that moment. If you have changed the audio settings to listen to the other soundtracks (DD 5.1, DD 2.0 or DTS 5.1), your commentary will not "branch" and you will continue to Chapter 14 of Title 1. If you turn the commentary on after this branch point you will also stay in Title 1. This commentary track after chapter 13 plays normally until ca the 1:37:15 mark, when it will slow down and then reverse and run backwards and pretty much sound like gibberish. If you are listening to the commentary track as you cross the 1:33:50 mark, your player will randomly switch to title 2, 3 or 4, and it will stay with that one branch every time you go over the branch point until you eject and reload the disc. Then you can go to COMMENTS (to put on the comments) from the main menu, then CHAPTERS from the main menu, choose chapter 13, fast-forward to near the end and let it play through the transition. Check the title-number to see what commentary you're listening to, and if it is one you've heard, stop, eject and try again!
Each of these titles contains the final three chapters of the film encoded with a different version of the commentary (ca the last 20 minutes, otherwise they are pretty much the same. Title 2 is the title 1 commentary without the reverse and backwards playing. It is like the rest of the commentary and deals with movie making and is pretty generic. Title 3 states the Teddy is lying at the "movie's end" and gives the reasons. Title 4 states that Teddy is being truthful at the "movie's end" and gives the reasons.
How to navigate the R1US 2-disc Limited Edition. A "printable" DVD navigation guide is archived here. Disc 1 has these features: (1) turn on/off subtitle, (2) change audio options, (3) play the movie, (4) select scenes, (5) turn on commentary—by selecting the appropriate menu item. There is a different one in each column that gets to an item and if you read the actual words, it is relatively obvious (i.e. WATCH in column 3 is to play the movie). The second disc has all the other goodies. It is set up like a psych exam: the main menu is the center of wheel and each of the answers moves you out from the center along "spokes". The cards with only opinions (along the spokes) do not affect where you go. When you get to a card with a "puzzle", answering the puzzle correctly gets you a "special feature". The puzzle with the tire changing pictures has 2 "correct" answers: the "correct answer" and the "anti-correct" (the answer in reverse), each will lead to a different feature. If you answer a puzzle incorrectly, you move off a spoke, heading around in a circle to a different spoke. The answers on this circle "between spokes" are opinion questions. The ones on the left take you "counter-clockwise" the ones on the right take you "clockwise" towards the next spoke. The puzzles are not difficult, and they have made it especially easy that all the ones with A through E have "C" as the answer (for the most part just selecting "C" will navigate fine.
For the R2UK 3-disc edition, an online review of this DVD indicates:
"When you pop the second disc in, you'll be presented with a very sparse selection of extras, which should clue you in immediately to the fact that there is something else rather large hidden on this DVD. Nor would you be wrong; if you move the selection line down to the bottommost option, "Biographies", and then press that ever-useful right arrow button, you'll be taken to the chronological version of Memento, and in glorious Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1 to boot!"
Note: The US single-disc version does not have this feature.
What is the story with the different commentaries? The Region 1 US 2-disc Limited Edition has four different endings to the commentary track. (This seems to also be the same for the R2UK 3-disc edition, though it is not confirmed). You must have comments on, via "COMMENTS" from main screen, and do not change the audio (LISTEN on main screen) when you make the transition right after Chapter 13 to get the alternate commentaries. You can display the current title/chapter to know which one you are on. The film is "Title 1" on the disc. At the end of Chapter 13 in this title (at ca 1:33:50 mark), the commentary/film will branch if you're listening to the commentary track (soundtrack #4) at that moment. If you have changed the audio settings to listen to the other soundtracks (DD 5.1, DD 2.0 or DTS 5.1), your commentary will not "branch" and you will continue to Chapter 14 of Title 1. If you turn the commentary on after this branch point you will also stay in Title 1. This commentary track after chapter 13 plays normally until ca the 1:37:15 mark, when it will slow down and then reverse and run backwards and pretty much sound like gibberish. If you are listening to the commentary track as you cross the 1:33:50 mark, your player will randomly switch to title 2, 3 or 4, and it will stay with that one branch every time you go over the branch point until you eject and reload the disc. Then you can go to COMMENTS (to put on the comments) from the main menu, then CHAPTERS from the main menu, choose chapter 13, fast-forward to near the end and let it play through the transition. Check the title-number to see what commentary you're listening to, and if it is one you've heard, stop, eject and try again!
Each of these titles contains the final three chapters of the film encoded with a different version of the commentary (ca the last 20 minutes, otherwise they are pretty much the same. Title 2 is the title 1 commentary without the reverse and backwards playing. It is like the rest of the commentary and deals with movie making and is pretty generic. Title 3 states the Teddy is lying at the "movie's end" and gives the reasons. Title 4 states that Teddy is being truthful at the "movie's end" and gives the reasons.
How to navigate the R1US 2-disc Limited Edition. A "printable" DVD navigation guide is archived here. Disc 1 has these features: (1) turn on/off subtitle, (2) change audio options, (3) play the movie, (4) select scenes, (5) turn on commentary—by selecting the appropriate menu item. There is a different one in each column that gets to an item and if you read the actual words, it is relatively obvious (i.e. WATCH in column 3 is to play the movie). The second disc has all the other goodies. It is set up like a psych exam: the main menu is the center of wheel and each of the answers moves you out from the center along "spokes". The cards with only opinions (along the spokes) do not affect where you go. When you get to a card with a "puzzle", answering the puzzle correctly gets you a "special feature". The puzzle with the tire changing pictures has 2 "correct" answers: the "correct answer" and the "anti-correct" (the answer in reverse), each will lead to a different feature. If you answer a puzzle incorrectly, you move off a spoke, heading around in a circle to a different spoke. The answers on this circle "between spokes" are opinion questions. The ones on the left take you "counter-clockwise" the ones on the right take you "clockwise" towards the next spoke. The puzzles are not difficult, and they have made it especially easy that all the ones with A through E have "C" as the answer (for the most part just selecting "C" will navigate fine.
The movie does not explicitly indicate when the movie takes place. James Mottram in the book "The Making of Memento" (Faber and Faber, 2002, p. 147) indicates: "For those interested, the action—barring flashbacks—takes place over three days and two nights." [Mottram discusses how it was essential for Cindy Evans, the costume designer, to have Nolan provide this information so she could determine the number of clothing changes a character would need and also to "age them" properly for the required scenes.] From the official website and extras on some of the DVDs we can get additional information not in the film:
I. The pre-history: The website is clear (if you want to believe that the items in there are "canon") that Leonard was in an institute. A timeline from the website info: The attack was 24 Feb 1997. [Website (HTML or Flash) or Copy of website on the DVD: Newspaper article - "revenge" - 1st item is a "Police Department death report"]. Leonard's wife died Nov 1997 (probably before the 4th) [From copy of website on the DVD: newspaper article - "Forgetful" - 7th item is part of psych evaluation with the comment: "he [Leonard] demanded to see his wife (deceased 11/97)". He also has a note to himself (on website and DVD copy) newspaper article - "Leonard" - 3rd item dated 4 Nov 1997: "She's gone, Leonard. Gone for good." [There also is a newspaper clipping (on DVD and both website versions: newspaper article - "Leonard" - 1st item) that indicates that his wife "was listed in critical condition". This is presumably the day after the attack]. Leonard's "initial diagnosis" at the institute was 16 Jan 1998 [Website (HTML or Flash) or Copy of website on the DVD: Newspaper article - "forgetful" - 6th item is his "initial diagnosis" with the date.] He escaped from the institute Sept 1998 [Website (HTML or Flash) or Copy of website on the DVD: the Newspaper article states this at the start of the 3rd column]. The movie takes place around 25 Oct 1999 [Website (Flash) or Copy of website on the DVD: the Newspaper article - "suspicious" - 4th item is a "police department officer's report" on an interview with Emma the tattooist which has dates.] Leonard probably killed the first John G right after escaping (which was "over a year ago" as Teddy said in the film)
II. Other clues: The website is clear: "Shelby suffers from severe anterograde memory dysfunction as a result of head trauma sustained during confrontation with intruder (Feb 1997). Shelby has recovered almost none of his ability to convert short-term experiences into long term memory" [Newspaper article - "forgetful" - 5th item]. This indicates that Leonard is not faking and that he can convert some of his memories to long-term memory.
III. Teddy's license: (1) Name: John Edward Gammel, (2) City: San Francisco, and (3) Plate number: SG13-7IU (seven-i-u). Note the tattoo has 71U and the car changes from 7IU to 71U in the movie—a hint of how treacherous the memory is!
I. The pre-history: The website is clear (if you want to believe that the items in there are "canon") that Leonard was in an institute. A timeline from the website info: The attack was 24 Feb 1997. [Website (HTML or Flash) or Copy of website on the DVD: Newspaper article - "revenge" - 1st item is a "Police Department death report"]. Leonard's wife died Nov 1997 (probably before the 4th) [From copy of website on the DVD: newspaper article - "Forgetful" - 7th item is part of psych evaluation with the comment: "he [Leonard] demanded to see his wife (deceased 11/97)". He also has a note to himself (on website and DVD copy) newspaper article - "Leonard" - 3rd item dated 4 Nov 1997: "She's gone, Leonard. Gone for good." [There also is a newspaper clipping (on DVD and both website versions: newspaper article - "Leonard" - 1st item) that indicates that his wife "was listed in critical condition". This is presumably the day after the attack]. Leonard's "initial diagnosis" at the institute was 16 Jan 1998 [Website (HTML or Flash) or Copy of website on the DVD: Newspaper article - "forgetful" - 6th item is his "initial diagnosis" with the date.] He escaped from the institute Sept 1998 [Website (HTML or Flash) or Copy of website on the DVD: the Newspaper article states this at the start of the 3rd column]. The movie takes place around 25 Oct 1999 [Website (Flash) or Copy of website on the DVD: the Newspaper article - "suspicious" - 4th item is a "police department officer's report" on an interview with Emma the tattooist which has dates.] Leonard probably killed the first John G right after escaping (which was "over a year ago" as Teddy said in the film)
II. Other clues: The website is clear: "Shelby suffers from severe anterograde memory dysfunction as a result of head trauma sustained during confrontation with intruder (Feb 1997). Shelby has recovered almost none of his ability to convert short-term experiences into long term memory" [Newspaper article - "forgetful" - 5th item]. This indicates that Leonard is not faking and that he can convert some of his memories to long-term memory.
III. Teddy's license: (1) Name: John Edward Gammel, (2) City: San Francisco, and (3) Plate number: SG13-7IU (seven-i-u). Note the tattoo has 71U and the car changes from 7IU to 71U in the movie—a hint of how treacherous the memory is!
There are 3 different versions of the "Official" Memento website. On the online website there is a flash and an HTML version. On the R1US single-disc DVD there is a copy. [There is also a copy on the R2UK 3-disc DVD which is presumed to be the same as the US edition, but has not been confirmed by anyone]. All three start out with the "Memento" scraps and the "Some memories are best forgotten" segments and go to a newspaper article which was presumably written after the events of the film ("Photograph Sparks Murder Investigation"). On the Flash/DVD (not on the HTML) version the last word "Questions" in the Subtitle is also a link. This link leads to a scrap of Paper that states "WHO DID I KILL?". In the Flash if you enter type in "Teddy" in the second scrap and click on it, you will get a short film of clips from the film. On the DVD, if you click on it you get a list of names and if you choose "Teddy" you will get credits for the DVD.
All three have links based on certain words:
Column 1 Paragraph 1: "body" Paragraph 1: "foul" Paragraph 2: "suspicious" Column 2 Paragraph 2: "Leonard" Paragraph 3: "photographs" Column 3 Paragraph 5: "forgetful" Paragraph 6: "local" Paragraph 6: "revenge"
The body link takes you to the picture of dead Teddy. On the Flash version it changes to a shot of Leonard's wife taking a breath under the shower curtain and then back to the original. If selected on the DVD, the picture is changed to the Leonard's wife taking a breath and then back to Teddy's pic. The HTML just returns to the article. The foul link in all 3 versions has 4 items. In the Flash/DVD version the first one (the Dodd photo) transforms into the pointing Leonard photo. The suspicious link on the flash/DVD has 5 items and on the HTML there is only 4. The HTML does not have the "Police Department" report where an officer interviewed Emma. Like in the 2 previous words the first item on the Flash/DVD version transforms. It changes to a shot of Leonard creating tattoo fact 5 and then back again. The Leonard link has 4 items in all 3 versions. The first (a newspaper article about the attack) is transformed in the Flash/DVD version to show a closeup of Leonard's eye, then his wife taking a breath, then back to the article. The photographs link is much different in the Flash/DVD than in the HTML. The Flash/DVD have pictures of Marko, Noam, Teddy, David, Dodd. The Flash also ends with a picture of Miquel which the DVD does not have. Other than Teddy and Dodd, none of the pictures were props shown in the film. [The may have been created by and are pictures of the website designers. The website indicates: "Site design by Webflow Solutions and Musth Design. For design information, please call (212) 750-0996 or email marko@webflowsolutions.com". So Marko seems to be one of the designers.] The HTML version from the photographs link shows only photo props from the film: dead Teddy, Natalie, jaguar, Dodd,Teddy, truck, burned dead Jimmy pic, Discount Inn.
There are 11 items in the forgetful link. The 7th item in the DVD is slightly different from the current Flash/HTML version. It is a scrap of paper from a "Clinical Record" of Leonard's "Initial diagnosis". In the scrap there are a couple of paragraphs. At the end of the first paragraph in the Flash/HTML is the sentence: "I asked if anything was bothering him and he demanded to see his wife (deceased)." In the DVD version the same sentence states: "I asked if anything was bothering him and he demanded to see his wife (deceased 11/97)." The HTML version currently matches the Flash version, but before the summer of 2001 it matched the DVD. Sometime in the summer of 2001 it was changed online to match the Flash version. The local from the Flash/HTML versions are identical and contain 5 items. The DVD version contains only 4 items, the scrap of paper with the photocopy of Teddy's driver's license and the note from Natalie is not on the DVD. All versions have the same items from the revenge link. The order of the items on the HTML version of a couple of the items is different than on the Flash/DVD versions.
All three have links based on certain words:
Column 1 Paragraph 1: "body" Paragraph 1: "foul" Paragraph 2: "suspicious" Column 2 Paragraph 2: "Leonard" Paragraph 3: "photographs" Column 3 Paragraph 5: "forgetful" Paragraph 6: "local" Paragraph 6: "revenge"
The body link takes you to the picture of dead Teddy. On the Flash version it changes to a shot of Leonard's wife taking a breath under the shower curtain and then back to the original. If selected on the DVD, the picture is changed to the Leonard's wife taking a breath and then back to Teddy's pic. The HTML just returns to the article. The foul link in all 3 versions has 4 items. In the Flash/DVD version the first one (the Dodd photo) transforms into the pointing Leonard photo. The suspicious link on the flash/DVD has 5 items and on the HTML there is only 4. The HTML does not have the "Police Department" report where an officer interviewed Emma. Like in the 2 previous words the first item on the Flash/DVD version transforms. It changes to a shot of Leonard creating tattoo fact 5 and then back again. The Leonard link has 4 items in all 3 versions. The first (a newspaper article about the attack) is transformed in the Flash/DVD version to show a closeup of Leonard's eye, then his wife taking a breath, then back to the article. The photographs link is much different in the Flash/DVD than in the HTML. The Flash/DVD have pictures of Marko, Noam, Teddy, David, Dodd. The Flash also ends with a picture of Miquel which the DVD does not have. Other than Teddy and Dodd, none of the pictures were props shown in the film. [The may have been created by and are pictures of the website designers. The website indicates: "Site design by Webflow Solutions and Musth Design. For design information, please call (212) 750-0996 or email marko@webflowsolutions.com". So Marko seems to be one of the designers.] The HTML version from the photographs link shows only photo props from the film: dead Teddy, Natalie, jaguar, Dodd,Teddy, truck, burned dead Jimmy pic, Discount Inn.
There are 11 items in the forgetful link. The 7th item in the DVD is slightly different from the current Flash/HTML version. It is a scrap of paper from a "Clinical Record" of Leonard's "Initial diagnosis". In the scrap there are a couple of paragraphs. At the end of the first paragraph in the Flash/HTML is the sentence: "I asked if anything was bothering him and he demanded to see his wife (deceased)." In the DVD version the same sentence states: "I asked if anything was bothering him and he demanded to see his wife (deceased 11/97)." The HTML version currently matches the Flash version, but before the summer of 2001 it matched the DVD. Sometime in the summer of 2001 it was changed online to match the Flash version. The local from the Flash/HTML versions are identical and contain 5 items. The DVD version contains only 4 items, the scrap of paper with the photocopy of Teddy's driver's license and the note from Natalie is not on the DVD. All versions have the same items from the revenge link. The order of the items on the HTML version of a couple of the items is different than on the Flash/DVD versions.
Powered by Alexa
- How long is Memento?1 hour and 53 minutes
- When was Memento released?May 25, 2001
- What is the IMDb rating of Memento?8.4 out of 10
- Who stars in Memento?
- Who wrote Memento?
- Who directed Memento?
- Who was the composer for Memento?
- Who was the producer of Memento?
- Who was the executive producer of Memento?
- Who was the cinematographer for Memento?
- Who was the editor of Memento?
- Who are the characters in Memento?Leonard, Natalie, Teddy, Burt, Waiter, Leonard's Wife, Sammy Jankis, Sammy Jankis, Doctor, Dodd, and others
- What is the plot of Memento?Leonard Shelby, an insurance investigator, suffers from anterograde amnesia and uses notes and tattoos to hunt for the man he thinks killed his wife, which is the last thing he remembers.
- What was the budget for Memento?$9 million
- How much did Memento earn at the worldwide box office?$40 million
- How much did Memento earn at the US box office?$25.5 million
- What is Memento rated?R
- What genre is Memento?Mystery and Thriller
- How many awards has Memento won?57 awards
- How many awards has Memento been nominated for?116 nominations
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content