Memento: More Than A Puzzle
When it was independently released in March 2001, Christopher Nolan’s film Memento was screened in just eleven theaters (Memento, 2001 Box Office). Produced for a mere $5 million dollars and shunned by major distributors, Memento demonstrated an uncanny appeal that attracted filmgoers to see the film again and again. What was the cause? Memento is an intricate puzzle film that almost required its audience to watch it twice if they wanted “to figure out what the hell was going on” (Klein 1). This essay will examine Memento with attention to its unique narrative syuzhet, its chronological narrative structure, and a personal reaction to the film.
Unique Narrative Syuzhet. Upon one’s first encounter with the film Memento, the viewer is thrust into the confusing world of a non-linear narrative construction. More than being complex in the order of the scenes, which might be as simple as taking logical, linear plot elements (A,B,C,D,E,F) and scrambling them (B,E,C,F,A,D), writer/director Christopher Nolan split the narrative into two parts and juxtaposed those parts in a startling and disorienting way. He assembled that latter portion of the film in reverse order, so that the first scene is last and the last first. Then he assembled the former portion of the film chronologically between each of the latter scenes. For the sake of illustration, assume the former portion is represented by numerals (rendered on screen in monochrome) and the latter represented by letters (rendered on screen in color). The resulting presentation would appear as F,1,E,2,D,3,C,4,B,5,A,6 in the cinematic release of the film. Continuing this illustration as a loose representation of the arrangement of Memento, Scene 6 is a major turning point where the two narrative parts meet and coalesce into a continuous, linear component of the film. This junction is communicated through a change from monochrome to color and strangely carries the viewer to the end of the film. The significance of the monochrome and color device will be discussed shortly.
Why would Nolan choose to produce such a convoluted syuzhet? In an online essay, Amrohini Sahay states, “the film provides a postmodern reworking of the classic elements of 1940s American film noir” and posits that the “film’s use of a visually ‘messy’ and complex post-linear editing style…presupposes a spectator who delights in negotiating a terrain of conflicting and fragmented information” (Sahay 1,2). No one can deny that the idea of a puzzle film is intriguing to a certain segment of filmgoers. Various reviewers invoked titles like The Sixth Sense, The Usual Suspects, and Last Year in Marienbad when citing comparative works.
However, Nolan’s motivation is clearly deeper than just impressing cerebral moviegoers. Part of the answer is found in Linda Cowgill’s definition of the key ingredient in a great non-linear film – thematic unity, which is “the synthesis of thematic ideas and plot movements” (Cowgill 150). Previously she states that a “well-written nonlinear film exposes a character or a situation from a number of different vantage points; the use of more than one vantage point to construct the plot allows characters and their motivations, both conscious and unconscious to be explored in depth” (Cowgill 149). The unifying thematic idea in Memento is protagonist Leonard Shelby’s debilitating mental condition known as anterograde amnesia, a real disorder defined as “a selective memory deficit, resulting from brain injury, in which the individual is severely impaired in learning new information. Memories for events that occurred before the injury may be largely spared, but events that occurred since the injury may be lost” (Myers). Leonard became afflicted at the time of his wife’s rape and murder when, in an attempt to rescue her, he was shoved into a mirror, receiving a serious head trauma. The viewer is led to believe, through a series of flashbacks, that Leonard remembers who he is (was) and details before and up to the event, but is simply unable to create new memories from that time on.
What about Cowgill’s assertion that there would be exposure of character from a number of different vantage points? The convoluted, non-linear syuzhet provides the brilliant perspective of a different vantage point every time the viewer rejoins the reverse order narrative. Nolan’s decision to intentionally code the narrative parts with monochrome on-screen for the forward continuity (essentially the exposition, inciting incident, and climax of Act I) and color on-screen for the reverse order continuity (Acts II and III) mercifully helps the viewer to begin to decode the fabula. This intentional structure was described in a documentary included in the Limited Edition DVD release:
NARRATION (V.O.) Memento’s structure is established in the first three scenes – a kind of road map for how to watch the film.
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN: “We wanted to just very simply express to the audience the rhythm of the piece, how these things were going to fit together, the difference between color material, black & white material and that kind of thing, and to suggest a relationship between those different story elements that was going to progress through the rest of the film.” (Anatomy of a Scene: Memento)
As far as exposing the character of our protagonist, Nolan’s syuzhet delivers. Like a fixed length tape loop, where the bias head “erases” previously recorded magnetic media by scrambling the ferrous oxide particles in preparation for new information being recorded by the record head, so is Leonard’s difficulty with creating and retaining new memories. Before he has a chance to recall the fresh memory it is “recorded over” by another cognitive event. David Julyann, the film’s composer, provides this additional thought: “The inter-cutting of the color and black and white scenes starts giving you a clue to the way the story’s told. The color scenes always end on the beginning of the following color scene, which is previous in time, if that makes any sense. Hopefully the audience is as confused as Leonard is.” (Anatomy of a Scene: Memento)
The point? As presented in its cinematic release, the “against-the-grain” narrative structure of Memento generates a level of anxiety and confusion in the viewer that drags the viewer into Leonard’s mental mess. In the online journal Film-Philosophy, George Bragues surmises “that the audience shares in Leonard’s memory disability, unable to use their power of recall over previous scenes in the film to remember previous elements of the story being presented” (Bragues 65). J.J. Murphy corroborates this premise: “Memento succeeds in placing the viewer into the damaged mind of its protagonist, allowing us to experience the perceptual shift by which his questionable actions are made to appear perfectly logical” (Murphy 195). This is the motivation for Nolan’s convoluted approach to Memento’s syuzhet.
Chronological Narrative Structure. Reconstructing the chronological narrative of Memento from the fragmented pieces provided in the cinematic release of the film is not that easy. The screenplay enumerates nearly 200 scenes and the DVD contains 45 chapters alternating in Nolan’s monochrome and color syuzhet. As presented, Memento opens with the killing of a stranger by someone else we don’t know and the subsequent capture of the result on a Polaroid camera. This scene was shown in reverse – starting with the photo fading out and ending with the bullet returning to the gun. Chronologically this is the last scene of the film. Here, in the cinema release, it is the first.
Fortunately, the Limited Edition DVD release provides a chronological rendering of the film, enabling the curious viewer to consider the fabula. In this form, Memento becomes slightly more accessible as a story, with clear structural elements driving the action.
The film opens with the aforementioned black and white scenes which quickly establish that things aren’t quite normal for the yet to be identified protagonist. Within the context of a neurotic noir narration and cinematographic third person POV, the last name of this character is withheld for nearly five minutes; his full name is not uttered until 7:34 seconds into the chronology. It is notable that this information is contained within the flashback sub-plot of the Sammy Jankis story, as told by Leonard to an anonymous phone caller. Other key information is provided during this exposition including the fact that Leonard suffers from the same memory loss disorder as Sammy, that he was an insurance investigator looking for fraud (particularly in the Jankis case), and that he feels like he’s in touch with his disorder. He states: “Sammy Jankis wrote himself endless notes. But he'd get mixed up. I've got a more graceful solution to the memory problem. I'm disciplined and organized. I use habit and routine to make my life possible. Sammy had no drive. No reason to make it work.” As Leonard reviews his tattooed chest in the hotel room mirror, the reverse message across his pectorals rightly reads, “John G. raped and murdered my wife.” Then, as though he’s been asked a clarifying question, he says, “Me, I gotta reason” (Memento, The Script at IMSDb 16). This is the framing action, which, as Cowgill explains, “creates a continuity in the plot and establishes a context in which to tell the story” (Cowgill 152).
As the conversation unfolds and the exposition continues, Leonard completes Sammy’s tragic story in flashback vignettes, demonstrates paranoia regarding phone calls, is won back to the phone by a Polaroid picture of him and eventually agrees to meet with the policeman on the other end of the line. That policeman is Teddy. This is the inciting incident, occurring at approximately 19 minutes in the chronology, that sets Leonard on his course. The climax of Act I is when Leonard strangles the drug dealer Jimmy Grantz.
Brilliantly crafted cinematographically, as Leonard snaps a Polaroid of the dying Jimmy and shakes the photo, the screen changes from monochrome to color. This is the transition into the beginning of Act II. Despite Leonard’s continued restarts in the realm of short-term memory, he is treated to a quick download of information from Teddy. Leonard’s disorder impairs his ability to judge the veracity of this information, however he does conclude that Teddy lies and he shouldn’t believe him. This is a key fact, which Leonard revisits via his Polaroid photos and influences his responses to Teddy. He also notes Teddy’s license plate number. When Leonard takes Jimmy’s Jaguar, he drives away with the $200,000 from the botched drug deal; monies that Jimmy had offered Leonard to spare his life. This appears to be Teddy’s motivation for setting up Jimmy. Is Teddy a dirty cop or a cop at all?
As the action rises through Act II, Leonard “meets” Natalie when she mistakes him for her boyfriend, the now deceased Jimmy Grantz. She seems to know more than she says and clearly is familiar with Leonard’s mental condition, despite that fact that the viewer doesn’t know of any previous meetings. In a notable interaction, Natalie brings Leonard to her home and sets him off with a series of obscene, cruel insults resulting in Leonard striking her and pushing her down. Having removed all writing utensils so Leonard cannot make notations of the event, Natalie temporarily leaves. After a few moments (and the restart of Leonard’s memory), she returns to feign an assault by an associate of Jimmy’s named Dodd. Natalie requests that Leonard help her by killing Dodd. Clearly she has manipulated the circumstances to take advantage of Leonard’s disorder. Is Natalie a good girl or a bad girl?
In a poignant episode that leads to the midpoint, Leonard hires a prostitute to reenact the night his wife was killed using several personal items that belonged to his wife. When the difficult and emotional scene plays out to reveal the self-gratifying call girl snorting cocaine in the bathroom, Leonard tells her she can leave. The viewer is unsure of his motivation, but as he drives to a remote location and burns the items, he seems to want to close the door on his grief. He says, “Probably burned truckloads of your stuff before. Can't remember to forget you” (Memento, The Script at IMSDb 57). This moment occurs approximately 65 minutes into the chronology and is the midpoint. His contemplative innocence as he holds vigil through the night plays like a spiritual purification, preparing the warrior for what is next.
As Act II races to a close, Leonard is chased by Dodd who recognizes Jimmy’s car, roughs up Dodd, frees Dodd, sleeps with Natalie (without a clear explanation of their level of intimacy), and is offered help to identify the license plate number tattooed on his thigh. In their final meeting leading the climax of Act II, Leonard receives an envelope containing the DMV report from Natalie. He is now holding the final identifying piece to the puzzle leading to John G. Natalie invites him to remember his wife and emotionally identifies with him by saying, “You know what we have in common? We’re both survivors. Take care, Leonard” (Memento, The Script at IMSDb 21).
Parenthetically, Memento’s fabula unfolds the character integrity of both Teddy and Natalie so that the viewer senses there is something more to their relationship. Both use Leonard to get something they want. Teddy uses Leonard to kill Natalie’s boyfriend Jimmy Grantz. Does Natalie concur? Natalie uses Leonard to get at Dodd, clearly another part of the drug-dealing network. Does Teddy concur? Are they partners in this whole matter? Or, as revealed at the end of Act II, is Natalie more than happy to get the information implicating Teddy, thereby helping Leonard to find and kill his John G?
Act III begins at approximately 97 minutes in the chronology as Leonard re-enters his room at the Discount Inn. There he updates his memory using his “mind map” on the wall. Next, he opens the envelope from Natalie that identifies John Edward Gammell (aka Teddy) as the John G. he’s been pursuing. His course is set and he leaves to find Teddy. In a classic moment of coincidence, Teddy arrives at the hotel lobby as Leonard is paying his bill, and the two set off on a mission under Leonard’s direction. He is in control now, despite his mental disorder. He doesn’t fall for Teddy’s attempt to switch cars or deflect their destination. In the end, Leonard confronts an unrepentant Teddy, who at the last moment realizes Leonard’s resolve and cries, “No.” The gun fires, Teddy dies, and Leonard snaps a Polaroid photograph. All that remains is for the photo to develop. This is the end chronologically and the beginning cinematographically.
A Personal Reaction. My first viewing of Memento occurred shortly after the film was released on DVD in late 2001. I was curious because of all the buzz created by its puzzle construction and wasn’t disappointed by the experience. In fact, my first response was to try and watch it again. Unfortunately, time was short and the DVD needed to be returned to the rental house.
When Memento was offered as a film of choice for a graduate class and I realized it would provide a fertile analysis for an essay, the immersion process began in earnest. This paper is the result. My research included reading the screenplay, reviewing recommended texts, combing the many online articles cited in this essay, and watching the film again – both the cinematic release and the chronological DVD Special Feature.
As a work of cinematic art, Memento is very dense. It stands up to multiple viewings not only because of the puzzle it presents, but also because of the questions it continues to ask. On the one hand, there are questions like: Did Leonard really kill his wife by inducing a diabetic coma? Is this bizarre narrative a view to his psychological coping mechanism to cover for his guilt? Is Leonard the witless pawn of Teddy, Natalie, and others who drive him to perform heinous acts under the cloak of his own forgetfulness? These questions and other like them have “spawned a speculative maelstrom” online, in journals, and in film study classes (Sahay 3).
Teddy suggesting that Leonard’s wife actually survived the attack and that Leonard killed her in the manner of Mrs. Jankis’ diabetic coma death further stokes the speculation. Additionally, writer/director Nolan included several subliminal visual hints that the whole affair might have been a fabrication of Leonard’s broken mental state. One particularly creepy moment is in telling the end of Sammy Jankis’ story, when the shot of Sammy in the asylum momentarily becomes Leonard. In another fantasy moment from somewhere in Leonard’s mind, Leonard’s wife is seen rested her head on his chest with an additional tattoo visible over his heart – I’ve Done It. Whose fantasy is this?
On the other hand, it is the deeper questions of the frailties of humanity and our common, innate bent to be territorial, protectionist, and instinctual. As noted earlier, Leonard suggests that his discipline and organization is his secret weapon in the fight against his brain disorder. But he also states that habit and conditioning allow him to act on instinct (Memento, The Script at IMSDb 36). Is Nolan, through Leonard’s character, implying a connection to Jung’s “collective unconscious?” At strategic points in the film, Leonard does things that, although aided by his Polaroid photos and handwritten notes, appear to be instinctual responses. One example is when Teddy meets Leonard at the tattoo parlor and encourages him to change clothes, move the car, and come with him. Leonard’s response, after consulting the Polaroid photo and note, is to do the opposite, a reversal, by jumping out a back window and leaving Teddy behind. Is short-term memory lapse trumped by intuition? Is Leonard hard-wired to do certain things, regardless of what he actually remembers?
The idea of truth being relative rather than absolute is suggested at several points in the film. Even Teddy scolds, “You don't want the truth. The truth is an f—king coward. You make up your own truth” (Memento, The Script at IMSDb 115). It is the strange phenomenon of “spin” in modern politics and shading of the facts to accomplish our own selfish goals that Teddy so prophetically proclaims. Bragues responds that the fact “that we all alter our memories to suit our purposes, signals that the uncertainty that Leonard confronts is not peculiar to him because of his disability, but applies to everyone” (Bragues 77).
Leonard is hardly “everyman” but his pitiful condition and the manipulation of his disorder helps endear him to the viewers as a tragic protagonist. In the end (chronologically) he kills Teddy and takes a picture of the scene. Is this the end of his vendetta? The unanswered questions are what keep me coming back.
Conclusion. This essay set out to review the unique narrative syuzhet created by writer/director Christopher Nolan in the film Memento, examine its chronological narrative structure, and provide a personal reaction to the film. Will Memento stand the test of time to remain a noteworthy example of independent film breaking the rules and setting a new standard? Certainly Nolan’s notoriety has continued to grow with his subsequent cinematic offerings like The Prestige, Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight. The future of challenging, cinematic art looks bright.
Works Cited
Anatomy of a Scene: Memento (transcription). The Sundance Channel. November 2001. Limited Edition DVD. 26 May 2009.
Bragues, George. Memory and Morals in Memento: Hume at the Movies. Film-Philosophy, No. 12.2, September 2008. Web. 26 May 2009.
Cowgill, Linda J. Secrets of Screenplay Structure: How to Recognize and Emulate the Structural Frameworks of Great Films. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 1999. Print.
Klein, Andy. Everything you wanted to know about “Memento”. Salon.com. Web. 26 May 2009.
Memento, 2001 Box Office Data. Box Office Mojo. Web. 31 June 2009.
Memento, The Script at IMSDb. The Internet Movie Script Database (IMSDb). Web. 26 May 2009
Murphy, J.J.. Me And You And Memento And Fargo. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2007. Print.
Myers, Catherine. "Anterograde Amnesia, Glossary Entry." Memory Loss & The Brain. 2006. Memory Disorders Project at Rutgers-Newark. Web.1 Jun 2009
Sahay, Amrohini. Memento and the Cultural Production of the New Corporate Worker. The Red Critique. Web. 25 May 2009.