There is no way to truly know what happened. - Memento (2001) Discussion

[–] sdckapr 11 years ago

I've been reading and reading all these posts saying that they know for sure that Leonard killed his wife with insulin, simply because Teddy said so.

While there are some on these and other boards who claim to "know for sure" what happened, I think it is small fraction and pretty evenly split those who "Teddy" is lying and those who "know" Teddy is telling the truth. I think for the vast majority of people, there is no certainty just considered opinions and conclusions drawn from the evidence of the film. Much seems to stem from what things they accept within the film and what they may or may ignore as important, and how much importance they put onto those things.

But while the film offers many possibilities [See the thread at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/board/nest/151560455 for a discussion of the pros and cons of the various subsets], it is a film and my expectations are that the film should offer the answers within its framework. And the only answers about what happened from attack to film's start come from Teddy, so like many people we accept Teddy's exposition as the conventional answer http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.2, even though as Nolan indicates that "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.)

I believe that Sammy is real, and killed his wife with insulin.

I find the coincidence of both Sammy and Lenny having diabetic wives to just be too much. The idea that Lenny investigated Sammy is a stretch to some degree, but the premise is established early in the film and in some ways is required for Lenny to function as well as he does. But for both to be diabetic ... The film seems to me to show Lenny with memories of a diabetic wife on several occasions http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.9, so it is toug to believe that Sammy had a diabetic wife as well.

I also believe that Leonard's wife may or may not have actually died, but his house was attacked.

So you believe some of Teddy's exposition it seems. Teddy is the only one suggesting that his wife survived. In Lenny's account she died in the attack. In Teddy's exposition there was an attack as well, he does not dispute this. In and interview with Filmmaker magazine (http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/archives/issues/winter2001/features/p ast_imperfect.php), Nolan commented: "The most interesting part of that for me is that audiences seem very unwilling to believe the stuff that Teddy [Pantoliano] 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 don't 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 [The Matrix, Bound], 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."

But he does remember his wife gravely injured, and that's what keeps him going, knowing that 2 people killed his wife, or so he thinks.

And this is a key point in the film. Lenny's actions at the end of the film are based not on what you or I or anyone else may think, but what Lenny thinks. Lenny is shown abandoning what he believes to be a true quest in order to start what he believes is a false quest. To me, if Lenny would only abandon his quest for the 2nd attacker if he believed Teddy that he was dead. And I can only see him believing Teddy if he did not believe Teddy was lying to him. But if Lenny knows for a fact he is lying about his wife being diabetic and whether or not Sammy was a faker or whether he not Sammy had a wife, then he would have reason to doubt Teddy's statement that the 2nd attacker was dead, so would not abandon his quest for the 2nd attacker. Lenny believes that "My wife deserves vengeance. Doesn't make any difference whether I know about it."

I don't know whether or not he actually killed the other guy, or if they truly were junkies or something else. It's hard to believe Teddy when he manipulates Leonard in the film so much.

Again that is the point. It is also hard to believe Lenny when manipulates himself in the film so much. All of the main characters try and manipulated and use Lenny's condition for their own reasons. But if you believe Teddy, you get answers to the questions raised in the film and the statements Teddy makes are supported (though admittedly never proven which is the point) in the film.

Either way, Leonard does believe that he has already killed his wife's killer at the end of the film, so he does create a new "John G." But that's only because without someone to hunt down, his life would have no purpose.

And this is part of Teddy's exposition and some of the answers he provides, and shows that on some level that Lenny believes Teddy and what he is stating in the exposition.

I don't think that he was the one who killed his wife, simply because how would he have developed that condition without severe head trauma?

Developing "that condition without severe head trauma" is part of the subset of explanations when you do NOT believe Teddy. Teddy's exposition had the attack, Lenny getting the condition, then Lenny's wife using his condition to commit suicide by proxy, then Teddy investigating his wife's death by insulin and coming to believe Lenny that there were 2 attackers.

Everything in the past he remembers from before the accident, so why would he confabulate a whole character who unknowingly killed his wife with insulin?

I can't answer this, since I find this improbable. It is one of the reasons I don't buy the theories where both Teddy and Lenny are lying with the conclusion that somehow Sammy is Lenny that some offer. But this is NOT the case, when one believes Teddy's exposition. Teddy indicates that Sammy was not confabulated, but a real person that Lenny investigated that Lenny discovered to be a faker.

Teddy's exposition indicates that Lenny conflated some of his post-attack recollections of the insulin OD with some pre-attack memories of Sammy (see the faq athttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.31 for more details). It is similar mechanism to another part of the film (and for me a clue to the acceptance of Teddy's exposition) when it shows Lenny conflating a post-attack recollection of himself being a mental ward with a memory of Sammy being in a mental ward.

If he had done the same, he wouldn't have remembered it.

Teddy's explanation is that he did not do the same thing, but he was the only one who did, but due to his memory condition which impairs his ability to recreate new memories, the events were remembered inaccurately. But now that it is remembered incorrectly his un-impaired recall, continues to recall the inaccurate memory.

But it's very hard to know for sure in any case.

It is hard, since we are not meant to know for sure. We are like Lenny, unsure of what is going on.

Probably Nolan's best film, simply because it allows for so many questions and is open to so many interpretations.

For me, it is by far his masterpiece. But while it "allows for so many questions and is open to so many interpretations", for me one of the masterstrokes of genius, is that if you are like me and many others if want an answer, you can get it from within the framework of film by accepting the exposition offered in the film. And if you are like you (and many others) and don't want answers, you can have a film that you can believe has no answers, by ignoring the exposition since it does not confirm the truth.

reply

[–] komedydude85-203-796954 11 years ago

You make a ton of good points, and I just watched it again a few nights ago. I think it's possible Leonard did kill his wife accidentally, but if he did after he had the short term memory loss, how would he have remembered it with the Sammy story? The worst part is that I do find it hard to trust Teddy, simply because even at the end of the film, when Leonard asks if they know each other, Teddy says, "No, I'm a cop." But Lenny knows because he has the photograph. Your interpretation is valid, as are many others. I did think the memory of Sammy in the home changing to Leonard was significant, however.

There were also a few flashes of Leonard with a needle in his hand, most notably the one in the bedroom. When I wrote the OP, I hadn't seen the movie in at least a year. It truly is a masterpiece, and not knowing the truth for sure makes us just like Leonard, not knowing if Teddy is telling the truth about him previously killing the second guy, or if there was even a second guy. There might not have even been a John G, but simply Leonard's repressed guilt, although he didn't remember killing his wife. The fact that Teddy was using him to kill drug dealers, and to make money seems to paint Teddy as a liar.

Even if Teddy does tell the truth, Leonard's not going to remember it. And if he did kill his wife, why not make another tattoo, unless of course he needs to keep believing his wife is dead? It's the only thing that gives his life meaning, so it leaves a lot of questions, but does provide some answers. Either way, fantastic movie that I don't think will ever get surpassed on my favorites list. It's #1 forever.

reply

[–] sdckapr 11 years ago

You make a ton of good points,

as did you.

I think it's possible Leonard did kill his wife accidentally, but if he did after he had the short term memory loss, how would he have remembered it with the Sammy story?

I think the faq at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.31 gives the logic and links to some info from a case study of someone with anterograde amnesia

The worst part is that I do find it hard to trust Teddy, simply because even at the end of the film, when Leonard asks if they know each other, Teddy says, "No, I'm a cop." But Lenny knows because he has the photograph.

And I interpret Teddy's motivation as giving Lenny the option to come clean, believing that he found and killed and 2nd attacker so could end his huntiing. But Lenny will choose not to end his hunting. Remember not what the interpretation of the motivations:
Teddy twice tells Lenny the quest is over
Lenny chooses to stop his hunt for the 2nd attacker
Lenny chooses to continue hunting
Lenny sets up someone he does not believe is the 2nd attacker to be his next victim.

Lenny had several options and what he consciously chooses is to both continue hunting AND to kill someone under false pretenses. He does not choose neither or only one of them, he chooses BOTH of them.

Your interpretation is valid, as are many others.

I agree (and one of hte points of the thread at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/board/nest/151560455)

I did think the memory of Sammy in the home changing to Leonard was significant, however.

As do I. I interpret it as a visualization of Lenny's ability to create new memories that are anchored to existing memories and how they may become conflated (this matches a case study about this condition http://web.mit.edu/bnl/pdf/Neuropsychology18(4)756-69.pdf) and thus acts as a clue to what Teddy reveals about Lenny conflating the insulin OD with real memories of Sammy.

There were also a few flashes of Leonard with a needle in his hand, most notably the one in the bedroom.

If you are referring to the one with the pinch, yes it most notable, but it is also the one most open to alternative interpretations of Lenny just "considering" what Teddy said and then rejecting it. The other 2 shots are less open to interpretation. One occurs at Natalie's house with no one around and long after he would have forgotten what Teddy said and the other occurs with Teddy but before Teddy even mentions Lenny's wife being diabetic. Lenny also lies about that one saying it is "Sammy, not me" though we clearly see it is him and there is no "alternate version" of this like the pinching.

It truly is a masterpiece, and not knowing the truth for sure makes us just like Leonard, not knowing if Teddy is telling the truth about him previously killing the second guy, or if there was even a second guy.

The structure suggests at the start that Teddy is the "killer" and Lenny is the "moral avenger". But at the end of the film (or middle thrid of the film when viewed chronologically) Lenny is demonstrated to be an immoral killer, setting up someone he does not believe is the 2nd attacker and Teddy is shown to be someone who tells (and I think convinces) Lenny that the quest is over.

There might not have even been a John G, but simply Leonard's repressed guilt, although he didn't remember killing his wife.

True, but I don't see the suggestion anywhere within the film. This requires that we doubt both Teddy and Lenny's accounts of facts. This is one of the places their accounts agree.

The fact that Teddy was using him to kill drug dealers, and to make money seems to paint Teddy as a liar.

I don't disagree that he is liar. But the film demonstrates that he can also be honest. So it is not a case of him lying about everything. Part of the idea is what we interpret the motivation for lying to be. Remember the film also indicates that Lenny is also a liar (as are Natalie and Burt). If you choose to ignore accounts by anyone who is a liar, you are left with only getting information from outside the film. But I expect my answers to come from within the film and thus look at motivation as well.

I see no suggestion from the film that there were drug dealers killed before Jimmy (Jimmy needed the new clue about "drug dealer" beyond the "White male named John G.") and Teddy needed "Fact 6". I believe the exposition given in the film that the money was a secondary motivation and the primary one was convincing Lenny the quest was done. If Teddy wanted to hunt and kill drug dealers he could do it easier and less conspicuously without Lenny.

And remember, Lenny chooses without Teddy's help (as Teddy suggested he would) to continue hunting and Lenny also chooses an immoral path to set up someone who is not the 2nd attacker. To me the actions by Lenny and Teddy are the same (they are using Lenny's condition to set up someone who is not the 2nd attacker). If I accept the motivations given by the film, I judge Lenny's immorality as worse. Teddy claims to be doing it to make Lenny happy, while Lenny is claiming to do it to make himself happy. Teddy has to live with what he has done, Lenny knows he will not have to live with it due to his condition.

Even if Teddy does tell the truth, Leonard's not going to remember it.

No, but he could leave himself a note that the quest is over, if his desire was to stop hunting. But even if he wanted to continue hunting, he could continue to hunt the dead man instead of choosing an immoral path to continue hunting.

And if he did kill his wife, why not make another tattoo, unless of course he needs to keep believing his wife is dead?

No one in the film suggests his wife is still alive. Both Teddy's and Lenny's account agree on this point. Both also agree that the 2nd attacker was not responsible for her death. In Lenny's account it was the 1st attacker who Lenny killed the night of the attack who strangled his wife, and in Teddy's account she survived the strangulation and used Lenny's condition to kill herself. But both Teddy and Lenny agree that the 2nd attacker bears some responsibility for her death and that Lenny deserves vengeance.

It's the only thing that gives his life meaning, so it leaves a lot of questions, but does provide some answers.

I think Teddy's account provide any of the answers we need. Doubting items in the exposiiton just remove answers from the film. The hunting giving his life meaning is part of the motivation given in Teddy's exposition.

Either way, fantastic movie

I agree. I think all of Nolan's film pale in comparison to this one.

Nice discussion. Thank you!

reply

[–] andyd-1 9 years ago

>>>I think it's possible Leonard did kill his wife accidentally, but if he did after he had the short term memory loss, how would he have remembered it with the Sammy story?

Lenny explained that he was experimenting with giving Sammy 'memories' via electric shocks, - maybe the huge shock of Lenny's wife's death created some form of memory in Lenny, albeit inaccurate and jumbled with the Sammy story.

Also the notion that all memories of Lennies before the accident are perfect, obviously that's subject to doubt, they are still at best 'normal' memories, subject to clouding etc.

reply

[–] the-author 10 years ago

While there are some on these and other boards who claim to "know for sure" what happened, I think it is small fraction and pretty evenly split those who "Teddy" is lying and those who "know" Teddy is telling the truth. I think for the vast majority of people, there is no certainty just considered opinions and conclusions drawn from the evidence of the film. Much seems to stem from what things they accept within the film and what they may or may ignore as important, and how much importance they put onto those things.

But while the film offers many possibilities [See the thread at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/board/nest/151560455 for a discussion of the pros and cons of the various subsets], it is a film and my expectations are that the film should offer the answers within its framework. And the only answer about what happened comes from Teddy, so like many people we accept Teddy's exposition as the conventional answer http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.2, even though as Nolan indicates that "the answers are all there in the film, but the terms of the storytelling deliberately prevent people from finding them.

Or, how about?

Lenny is shown abandoning what he believes to be a true quest.

Stevie, he has tattoos which are permanent. He's not abandoning his quest.

Stevie, we miss your insane reasoning.

Best unknown feature at IMDB.com
http://www.imdb.com/features/video/browse/

reply

[–] njiuma 9 years ago

Lenny is shown abandoning what he believes to be a true quest in order to start what he believes is a false quest.

- this part was a key indicator for me that the one not to trust is Leonard himself, and go with most of Teddy's exposition as truth. There was a point that Leonard states he will be satisfied with killing Teddy (his newest John G.) as his wife's killer.

...if you believe Teddy, you get answers to the questions raised in the film and the statements Teddy makes are supported

- yes, this led me to conclude that Leonard inadvertently killed his wife, and cannot live with himself, so he keeps following fake quests for his wife's killer.

* Also, there was a key scene where Leonard decides to go with Teddy as his John G. wife killer, I forget where it is, but I know there are at least two that reveal Leonard as deliberately lying to himself to manufacture another fake quest for his wife's killer. It revealed Teddy as telling the truth and Leonard as a villain, despite Teddy's obvious character flaws.

Lenny's wife using his condition to commit suicide by proxy

- I wound up drawing this same conclusion after many repeated viewings...

"If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!"

reply

[–] the-author 11 years ago

Don't give up on a good opinion so quickly just because one guy tries to sell you his version.

he does create a new "John G." But that's only because without someone to hunt down, his life would have no purpose.

That statement is based also on what John G said. Why would you believe this? Shouldn't you believe what Leonard says, that he is going to kill Teddy because he tricked him into killing Jimmy? I can't see it any other way.

Best unknown feature at IMDB.com
http://www.imdb.com/features/video/browse/

reply

[–] komedydude85-203-796954 11 years ago

Who truly knows for sure, but I'm sure that Leonard had some resentment in that moment towards Teddy, so he decided at that point to kill him. He had knowledge of being manipulated by Teddy to kill those who were not his wife's killer, so he decided to kill Teddy, the guy who had him kill someone so that Teddy could score a ton of money. I still see Teddy as untrustworthy, simply because he lied and lied to Leonard, so the exposition at the end may or may not be entirely true, or true at all. Nolan says all the answers are there for the careful viewer, but in actuality it is impossible to know the truth, especially when we're watching the film through Leonard's point of view.

The only thing we know for sure is Leonard creates Teddy as a John G, and Teddy created Jimmy as a James G. That's the scope of it. You can choose to believe what Teddy says, or you can discount him as a liar. It's hard to truly know, but that's what makes this movie so captivating. The fact that memory is unreliable anyway, so the only things we do know are what are contained within the film, and even the memories in the film probably are confabulated. It's a mystery that is such a mind-twister that it takes multiple viewings to even begin to grasp the scope of what was accomplished here, no matter which way you see it.

Anyway, happy trails...

reply

[–] sdckapr 11 years ago

Who truly knows for sure, but I'm sure that Leonard had some resentment in that moment towards Teddy, so he decided at that point to kill him.

But it is important to note that Lenny does NOT kill him in righteous / momral outrage, but chooses to kill him in an immoral fashion. And Lenny makes no statement that he is killing Teddy for any moral reason, but explicitly states that he is lying to himself to be happy...

I still see Teddy as untrustworthy, simply because he lied and lied to Leonard

Do you also find Lenny to be untrustworthy for exactly the same reason and doing the exact same actions? That leaves no account in the film trustworthy...

[quotes]Nolan says all the answers are there for the careful viewer, but in actuality it is impossible to know the truth[/quote]

The key is "impossible to know the truth", but one can still accept the answers if one chooses or beleive the film provides no exposition.

The only thing we know for sure is Leonard creates Teddy as a John G, and Teddy created Jimmy as a James G. That's the scope of it.

That is not entirely true. While it shows Leonard setting up Teddy, it does not show Teddy setting up Jimmy. Teddy admits to it (but you believe he is untrustworthy, so this may not be true). I believe Teddy and the other implications that Teddy did set up Jimmy, but it is NOT established in the film as something we can know as "truth"

It seems to me that the films shows more than Lenny setting up Teddy. It shows that Teddy twice tells Lenny the quest is over. It shows Lenny choosing to abandon the quest for the 2nd attacker. It shows Lenny choosing to continue hunting.

[And even with these established facts, some argue the "bizarro-logic" that Teddy tells Lenny the quest is over since he wants him to continue, that Lenny abandons the hunt for John G since he believes he is alive and that Lenny chooses to continue hunting since he wants to stop...]

reply

[–] mad_weather 11 years ago

And Lenny makes no statement that he is killing Teddy for any moral reason

Now, that is not true. He says: "Can I just let myself forget what you've told me? Can I just let myself forget what you made me do?" Not "what I've done" which could be interpreted either way and adapted to "I killed John G. but immorally chose not to stop" version. It's a clear and unambiguous statement that the reason for setting Teddy up is that Lenny blames Teddy not just for some uncomfortable truths Teddy knows about him but for the way Teddy abused this knowledge. Also, "You think I just want another puzzle to solve? ... In your case, Teddy, yes, I will" states that he doesn't *agree* that he wants to lie to himself just to be happy as a rule, but he's ready to make an exception in order to enact revenge.

it does not show Teddy setting up Jimmy. Teddy admits to it (but you believe he is untrustworthy, so this may not be true)

But Jimmy himself implies that Teddy set him up, and so does Natalie, so it counts as a verified claim. The *reason* he did it for might be debatable, but not the fact.

reply

[–] sdckapr 11 years ago

Now, that is not true. He says: "Can I just let myself forget what you've told me? Can I just let myself forget what you made me do?" Not "what I've done" which could be interpreted either way and adapted to "I killed John G. but immorally chose not to stop" version. It's a clear and unambiguous statement that the reason for setting Teddy up is that Lenny blames Teddy not just for some uncomfortable truths Teddy knows about him but for the way Teddy abused this knowledge

I disagree that it is "a clear and unambiguous statement" siince it seems to me that he essentially answers the questions he poses with YES.

Lenny asks himself some questions:
Can I just let myself forget what you've told me?
Can I just let myself forget what you made me do?
You think I just want another puzzle to solve?
Another John G. to look for?

Then makes a statement (italics on emphasized word):
You're a John G. So you can be my John G.

Then raises another question:
Do I lie to myself to be happy?

And to me answers all the questions raised in this list:
In your case, Teddy, yes, I will.

He is allowing himself to forget what Teddy said, he is allowing himself to forget what Teddy told him, he is creating another puzzle to solve and creating another John G to look for, and lying to himself to be happy.

It seems to me that if he truly felt it was wrong to use his condition to kill someone who was NOT the 2nd attacker, he wouldn't do that himself, since that would makes his actions just as wrong (in an absolute moral vs immoral state and I believe more wrong in a sliding scale of morality) than what Teddy did.

But Jimmy himself implies that Teddy set him up, and so does Natalie, so it counts as a verified claim.

I disagree. It adds support (and as I stated, I believe Teddy set up Jimmy), but none of those claims make it a known fact established in the film as truth (which is what the OP's statement indicated). We are explcictly shown that Lenny sets up Teddy, but it is not explcitly shown that Teddy sets up Jimmy.

I don't but too much stake in this interpretation, but Teddy may have even been a secondary player in the setup. Some have argued that Natalie was the mastermind of the film and was the one who ultimately setup Jimmy to be killed by using Teddy.]

The *reason* he did it for might be debatable, but not the fact.

So Teddy's motivation and the fact are still debatable and have been debated on the setup. It is NOT a fact established by the film.

reply

[–] mad_weather 11 years ago

He is allowing himself to forget what Teddy said, he is allowing himself to forget what Teddy told him, he is creating another puzzle to solve and creating another John G to look for, and lying to himself to be happy.

You're ignoring the "I'm just someone who wanted to make things right" part. It shows that he's still not given up on justifying his own actions to himself, trying to view them as moral. If his primary motivation was to feel happy even if it means lying to himself, that goal would be conceded without fight. Motivation of revenge for Teddy's abuse of his quest gives him such a possibility.

It seems to me that if he truly felt it was wrong to use his condition to kill someone who was NOT the 2nd attacker, he wouldn't do that himself, since that would makes his actions just as wrong (in an absolute moral vs immoral state and I believe more wrong in a sliding scale of morality) than what Teddy did.

Correction: that would make his actions just as wrong in our eyes but not in his. Teddy's transgression against him gives him a feeling he's entitled to retaliate in kind.

We are explcictly shown that Lenny sets up Teddy, but it is not explcitly shown that Teddy sets up Jimmy.

[shrug]If you insist on channeling Heinlein's Fair Witness, then yes, we can't claim it's established. But the difference between 99.9% and 100% certainty is rarely an issue.

I don't but too much stake in this interpretation, but Teddy may have even been a secondary player in the setup.

Unless we bring an unknown party into the movie, then no, he couldn't.

Some have argued that Natalie was the mastermind of the film and was the one who ultimately setup Jimmy to be killed by using Teddy.

Since this version contradicts the established fact that Natalie gave him data of the same license plate number that he wrote prior to meeting her, it's not "less plausible", it's plain wrong. There's no reason to bring this zany version into a sensible discussion.

reply

[–] benntura 11 years ago

I always thought Lenny accidentaly killed his wife by injecting her with too much insulin.

reply

[–] sdckapr 11 years ago

I get s sense of deja vu with this discussion .

I aplogize for taking so long to respond, I have been out of town with no internet and it has taken a while to catch up on things...]

You're ignoring the "I'm just someone who wanted to make things right" part.

I'm not ingnoring it, I am including it along with the other facts which include him choosing to continue hunting and also choosing to kill Teddy under false pretenses. That line is justifying his desire to kill the 2nd attacker. It is past tensed ["wanted to make things right"]. I am not arguing that the quest for vengeance was immoral. It is his decision to kill Teddy under false pretenses which demonstrates an immorality even in his own mind.

This is really "hit-home" when he repeats the exact same action that Teddy. If it is wrong in Lenny's mind for Teddy to use Lenny's condition to kill under false pretenses, it remains wrong for him to use his condition to kill Teddy under false pretenses. [Two wrongs do not make it right...]

Motivation of revenge for Teddy's abuse of his quest gives him such a possibility.

I agree and killing him then and there in moral outrage with that motivation could be argued. [And after killing Teddy in moral outrage, he could decide whether or not he wanted to continue hunting]. But the film requires that he NOT kill Teddy in moral outrage. The film requires that he choose instead to lie to himself to be happy and kill Teddy under false pretenses.

Correction: that would make his actions just as wrong in our eyes but not in his. Teddy's transgression against him gives him a feeling he's entitled to retaliate in kind.

When we talk "just as wrong" we are talking comparing 2 wrongs. And admittedly, I believe anyone doing something they know is wrong believes it is less wrong than someone else doing the same thing. But the point remains, that having to lie to himself about it, is indication that in his mind the actions are wrong/immoral.

It is different in his mind than killing the 1st attacker to save his wife or the 2nd attacker for vengeance. Those people he has not need to lie to himself to kill them. He is able to kill them in moral outrage. Teddy is different, he must feel he is not justified in killing him an/or does not believe he has the moral authority to kill Teddy in moral outrage, so chooses to kill him under false pretenses.

When one is doing the right/moral thing there is no need to lie about it.

we can't claim it's established.

That is my point, and the reason there are so many possibilities for answers in the film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/board/nest/151560455

But the difference between 99.9% and 100% certainty is rarely an issue.

Perhaps, but I would not have that high a probability. I don't beleive that Lenny killing Teddy, even though shown on the screen is even 100%. There is the possibility the entire film is a subjective reality.

[In my discussion of the possibilities I use the terms: Impossible, Improbable, Possible, Suggested/hinted, Implied, Probable, and Fact. I put Lenny killing Teddy as a "fact" (shown on screen), but Teddy on the phone as only "implied", but Teddy setting up Jimmy as "probable".

But the fact remains, even if we accept what we see as real, we do not know if Teddy is being truthful or not and the film never establishes how many different people Lenny talks to on the phone in his motel.

Unless we bring an unknown party into the movie, then no, he couldn't.

It does not require a "an unknown party", it could be Natalie or even Dodd who set Jimmy up using Teddy in the process. Remember we are discussing possibilities and facts.

Since this version contradicts the established fact that Natalie gave him data of the same license plate number that he wrote prior to meeting her, it's not "less plausible", it's plain wrong.

You seem to be thinking of one of the subsets of the Natalie as mastermind, where she is also setting of Teddy. I agree that possibility of this is low ("improbable"), but we were discussing the idea of Natalie using Teddy to kill Jimmy, not Natalie using Lenny to kill Teddy.

There's no reason to bring this zany version into a sensible discussion.

You brought it in, I did not. But try to be open-minded, even though you think of it as "zany" and think it is "improbable", we are on a website where we are discussing "possibilities". My preference is to use what the film suggests, but that does not mean others are not open to the ideas of using what the film does not completely dispute.

Good discussion. Thanks.

reply

[–] the-author 11 years ago

You only seem to answer the weaker points on this board. Of course, there are more and more threads that request no responses from sdckapr.

Good luck MW.

Best unknown feature at IMDB.com
http://www.imdb.com/features/video/browse/

reply

[–] mad_weather 11 years ago

I get s sense of deja vu with this discussion

Really? Excuse me for a moment, I must check my tattoos.

This is really "hit-home" when he repeats the exact same action that Teddy.

Indeed it is - because he uses against Teddy exactly the same act that he himself was wronged with.

If it is wrong in Lenny's mind for Teddy to use Lenny's condition to kill under false pretenses, it remains wrong for him to use his condition to kill Teddy under false pretenses. [Two wrongs do not make it right...]

It may be true in your eyes, but there are still plenty of people who believe and act as if two wrongs *did* make it right. The "eye for an eye" principle is thousands years old. Keep in mind that Lenny doesn't avenge Jimmy's death. He's offended by Teddy's abuse of his righteous quest for vengeance for personal gain. So he doesn't believe it's wrong to answer in kind.

I agree and killing him then and there in moral outrage with that motivation could be argued.

Well, he demonstrated his inability to do that when he tried. Anyway, killing Teddy then and there wouldn't give him anything that using him as a target could not.

When we talk "just as wrong" we are talking comparing 2 wrongs. And admittedly, I believe anyone doing something they know is wrong believes it is less wrong than someone else doing the same thing.

Important point: doing something wrong *after* the same thing has been done to them. It certainly does make censored plenty of people feel it to be less wrong.

Teddy is different, he must feel he is not justified in killing him an/or does not believe he has the moral authority to kill Teddy in moral outrage, so chooses to kill him under false pretenses.

[shrug] Anyway, it still implies he chooses to use his quest in order to kill Teddy, not to kill Teddy in order to continue the quest.

but we were discussing the idea of Natalie using Teddy to kill Jimmy, not Natalie using Lenny to kill Teddy.

O.O Huh??? *That* is a version I've never heard. No wonder I misread your post.

You brought it in, I did not

Yeah, it seems that *you* brought in a different, even *more* zany version. [snicker]

But try to be open-minded, even though you think of it as "zany" and think it is "improbable", we are on a website where we are discussing "possibilities". My preference is to use what the film suggests, but that does not mean others are not open to the ideas of using what the film does not completely dispute.

I'm exactly in the position of the man who said, 'I can believe the impossible, but not the improbable... Tell me that the great Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing–room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible; it's only incredible. But I'm much more certain it didn't happen than that Parnell's ghost didn't appear; because it violates the laws of the world I do understand. (c)

I see no virtue in being "open-minded" towards versions that make no sense even if they are physically not impossible. Even assuming that Natalie *had* reasons to have Jimmy dead, reasons that stay completely out of the movie frame, she has no reasons to act a "grieving widow" to Lenny of all people, a fifteen minutes man. It is essentially the same as doing it where nobody can see you. So no, I do not think this version is worth being taken seriously.

reply

[–] sdckapr 11 years ago

Really? Excuse me for a moment, I must check my tattoos.

I had checked mine before responding, right after I had my sandwich of dirty socks and underwear…

Indeed it is - because he uses against Teddy exactly the same act that he himself was wronged with.

Exactly my point. If he believe it is wrong for Teddy to do that, then it is also wrong for him to do that. This is especially revealing since Lenny could have killed Teddy without doing so under false pretenses. The film shows him choosing to both kill Teddy under false pretenses and choosing to continue his quest.

It may be true in your eyes, but there are still plenty of people who believe and act as if two wrongs *did* make it right. The "eye for an eye" principle is thousands years old.

But "eye for an eye" is not about doing a wrong and killing Teddy under false pretenses is not "eye for an eye". Teddy did not kill anyone.

Keep in mind that Lenny doesn't avenge Jimmy's death.

Exactly my point.

He's offended by Teddy's abuse of his righteous quest for vengeance for personal gain.

Again, my point. The offense is Teddy's abuse of the quest. The wrong is to Lenny and now Lenny is repeating the wrong. Eye for an eye would be abusing a quest of Teddy's to make him do something. Not further abuse of the quest.

So he doesn't believe it's wrong to answer in kind.

I don't see where Lenny indicates this. The film seems to me to indicate he is abusing his quest in order to be happy. And his actions support what Teddy indicates: a desire to continue hunting even if Teddy is not involved. It seems to me that Lenny's actions are ensuring that he is able to continue hunting without Teddy being able to tell him the quest has already been completed.

Well, he demonstrated his inability to do that when he tried.

The film seems to me to have shown him with the ability to kill in moral outrage if it is justified.

Anyway, killing Teddy then and there wouldn't give him anything that using him as a target could not.

It would give him the vengeance you think he believes he is due. I see no other suggestion in him delaying moral killings. He does not try and arrest the first attacker. He does not allow Jimmy to live so he can jot down his license place so he can continue hunting him.

Important point: doing something wrong *after* the same thing has been done to them. It certainly does make censored plenty of people feel it to be less wrong.

Again, my point. It may be "less wrong" in their eyes, but it does not make it right in anyone's eyes. But there are limits. Most people if for example someone's daughter is raped, would believe it is justifiable to rape the daughter of the rapist to give an "eye for an eye".

Anyway, it still implies he chooses to use his quest in order to kill Teddy, not to kill Teddy in order to continue the quest.

Lenny has chosen to continue hunting and he chooses to kill Teddy for a variety of reasons, none of them to me seem to me to be moral in his mind. But killing Teddy to facilitate continuing seems to be one of them even if he is choosing to use the quest to do it. They are not mutually exclusive, Lenny can use in quest in order to kill Teddy and also be killing Teddy in order to more easily continue in the future.

Remember it is not only his decision to kill Teddy under false pretenses which shows a lack of morality on Lenny's part. His decision to kill Jimmy without ensuring he is the 2nd attacker also shows a lack of morality. Michael McKenna currently a professor of philosophy at Florida State University has published various articles mostly on the topics of free will and moral responsibility. He makes some excellent points about Lenny's morality:

When he acted, his mental life was, in the here-and-now sense, largely cohesive, organized as it was around a commitment to a campaign of revenge. And while his reasons for killing, in the case of Jimmy Grantz, for instance, were the products of others’ acts of deception, nevertheless he still acted on them. Furthermore, he was well aware, as he notes several times, and as others note to him, that his evidence was fairly shaky for who did what and which clues he could rely upon. Nevertheless, on the basis of this very thin evidence, he was all too prepared to kill. These sorts of in-the-moment decisions reveal deeply morally objectionable ways in which Leonard exercised his agency.

From Chapter 1: "Moral Monster or Responsible Person? Memento's Leonard as a Case Study in Defective Agency." In Memento: Philosophers on Film, Andew Kania, Editor. Routledge, London and New York, 2009, p 40

So not only does the film show Lenny's lack of morality in his choices to kill without certainty, it demonstrates it more explicitly when it shows Lenny setting up someone to be killed under false pretenses. If Lenny considers it wrong / immoral to kill Teddy then and there, it is just as wrong / immoral to kill him later under false pretenses. His "future self" can claim some "moral high-ground" in his lack of knowledge of the whole truth (just as he did with Jimmy's killing) the Lenny who sets Teddy up can make no such claim. And it seems to be even hypocritical since he seems to be doing the exact same actions that you claim make Teddy deserving of death.

Yeah, it seems that *you* brought in a different, even *more* zany version.

I stated I find it improbable, but the point remains, that the possibility, demonstrates that the film does not establish as a fact that Teddy set up Jimmy or even that he was set up under false pretenses [I think the film implies this, but I believe Teddy's exposition].

I see no virtue in being "open-minded" towards versions that make no sense even if they are physically not impossible.

This is another point we will have to disagree on. For me the open-minded is one aspect: even with my acceptance of the "valid possibilities" (ie they are not "impossible") you claim as "zany" still brings claims I being "closed-minded" just in my demonstrations of where they are improbable and inconsistent with the film. The other point is, I don't like making inaccurate claims and I tend to correct inaccurate claims. Claims of absolute certainty with most films are not completely accurate and with this film and its purpose in not confirming the truth, seems to me requires more attention to understanding what we do know from what we only conclude and presume.

Look at our discussion. We have both seen the same film on multiple occasions and it seems to me we both know and under the details of what we are seeing. We also both accept the exposition offered by Teddy, yet we disagree on several fundamental differences in other things…

It is essentially the same as doing it where nobody can see you. So no, I do not think this version is worth being taken seriously.

But we are not discussing how serious we should take it. The question still stems from: does the film show us explicitly that Teddy set up Jimmy. I think it is a valid conclusion (and the one I think is most probable), but it is never demonstrated within the film. Other people (Natalie, Dodd, or someone off-screen could have set up Jimmy). They remain possibilities even though it is not suggested by the film and it "defies" certain film logic. But those are not the points being discussed. The discussion was whether Teddy setting up Jimmy is established in the film as a fact.

reply

[–] mad_weather 11 years ago

But "eye for an eye" is not about doing a wrong and killing Teddy under false pretenses is not "eye for an eye". Teddy did not kill anyone.

Teddy used Lenny's weakness for personal gain, ending with death of an "innocent", performed by Lenny's hands, which makes Lenny a beguiled accomplice in murder. Lenny exploited the same weakness, ending with the death of a perpetrator. Seems pretty much eye for an eye to me.

The film seems to me to have shown him with the ability to kill in moral outrage if it is justified.

Or, more precisely, if it matches a certain pattern, which was conditioned into him by habit and routine: when he believes a person is guilty in his wife's death. When the pattern is not matched, the moral outrage is certainly there, but the actual killing fizzles, overruled by a more powerful taboo ingrained by society.

It would give him the vengeance you think he believes he is due.

And so would the knowledge that Teddy *will* be killed in due course, that "justice" will be served not just because of his resolve, but because he *already* took all necessary measures to make it true. *And* it gives him an additional bonus of hopefully making it "right" this time, so that killing in full belief that he dealt with his wife's murderer would stick like it didn't the first time, which he blames on Teddy's involvement. (For the record: I don't argue that it *will* happen so; it pretty much might be the other way. I only say that it is what he *hopes* will happen, as his daydream indicates and the taking a picture in the beginning of the movie supports)

Again, my point. It may be "less wrong" in their eyes, but it does not make it right in anyone's eyes. But there are limits. Most people if for example someone's daughter is raped, would believe it is justifiable to rape the daughter of the rapist to give an "eye for an eye".

But the question is not about what is or is nor wrong objectively, but what is Lenny's take on the issue. And Lenny seems to believe it *is* less wrong, which ices his choice.

Lenny can use in quest in order to kill Teddy and also be killing Teddy in order to more easily continue in the future.

Just as he can kill Teddy here and now in order to satisfy his moral outrage OR in order to make sure Teddy doesn't stand in the way of his quest. Both choices can equally well satisfy both needs. Therefore, the chosen action itself, without context, is in no way an indication of his motivation.

His decision to kill Jimmy without ensuring he is the 2nd attacker also shows a lack of morality.

In this case he has the testament of an officer of the law, who is supposed to act on proof and is capable to hold in memory all the necessary evidence even if Lenny is unable to do so due to his condition. He reasonably assumes that such ensuring *is* made even if outside of his own scope. You can't expect a person in his circumstances to stand and verify the whole chain of logic and evidence on every damn step.

If Lenny considers it wrong / immoral to kill Teddy then and there, it is just as wrong / immoral to kill him later under false pretenses.

Again, it's a matter of who believes in what. Objectively, both those choices *are* equally immoral, and I never disputed objective morality of Lenny's choice. From Lenny's standpoint, though, they are different matters.

We also both accept the exposition offered by Teddy, yet we disagree on several fundamental differences in other things…

Yes, because what the exposition presents is mostly *events* that might or might not happen during or before the movie scope and that led to the current state of affairs. These we mostly agree upon. Motivations and assessment of such events, though, are different matter. There's no "evidence" other than circumstantial that might prove what a person truly thinks, as he may be not honest even with himself (and it's certainly an important factor in Lenny's case). So these matters can be debatable even while in agreement on the former.

reply

[–] the-author 11 years ago

He will never get it. (But you do a good job in representing the majority.)

Best unknown feature at IMDB.com
http://www.imdb.com/features/video/browse/

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrJJay 9 years ago

That is not entirely true. While it shows Leonard setting up Teddy, it does not show Teddy setting up Jimmy. Teddy admits to it (but you believe he is untrustworthy, so this may not be true). I believe Teddy and the other implications that Teddy did set up Jimmy, but it is NOT established in the film as something we can know as "truth"

Everything you've said are true exept this one.
So if Teddy didn't set up Jimmy, Teddy sent Leo to there for no reason? Does that make any sense to you? Just because we do not see every second of the film does not negate the truth that teddy setting up jimmy. (from faq: "Just because we do not see every possible memory that Leonard may have of his life before the attack, does not mean he does not have the memories. The movie is edited. We do not see Leonard 24/7 and even then we do not see everything Leonard thinks about, nor do we hear constant voiceovers to explain things."http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq?ref_=tt_faq_sm#.2.1.9 )
And besides showing that scene wouldn't be consistent in regards of the story telling of the film since Nolan constructs the story only through the eyes of Leonard.
The film doesn't show nor tell us everything but implies some things. This is one of them.

reply

[–] the-author 11 years ago

Leonard creates Teddy as a John G,

But, 'Teddy' IS John G. True, he is not connecting him to his tattoo at that moment. (irony)But, this is not a coincidence. Is 'Teddy' a drug dealer? Well, how did he convince Jimmy that he could provide 200K worth of drugs? Usually, the people that believe John (his real name is john or Eddie, not Teddy by his own admission), don't realize that John can not possibly be the police officer Natalie talks about. Whereas John sees drug deals going on while he is at the bar and obviously was not there as a cop.

The unknown truth is how did Leonard really get his first tattoo. We also don't know why someone from San Francisco is following around a mental patient in LA. Would you follow someone whose entire mission in life is to mercilessly kill someone with your name?????

Best unknown feature at IMDB.com
http://www.imdb.com/features/video/browse/

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sdckapr 11 years ago

it's a mirror of the real world: everything is gray and it's a mystery you cannot solve.

On some level, everything in life is gray as well and no mysteries can ever be solved to an absolute degree. But they can be solved, if we accept that there is no confirmation of the truth. To me (and I am sure many others as well, to quote from one of Nolan's Memento commentary tracks), I "would rather believe Teddy and the appalling ideas that he presents than to go without an answer". One is able to find answers in the film, just like one can find answers to many of mysteries of the world.

But if you want a film that has no answers, the film makes it easy to ignore the exposition and choose to go without an answer.

reply

[–] mamoru-sama 11 years ago

The hell are people talking about, it's pretty clear Lenny remembers his wife having diabetes and tries to push these memories away from his mind.

The very fact that he ressorts to set himself up to murder Teddy to prevent himself from this truth proves it's exactly was happened.

reply

[–] sdckapr 11 years ago

The hell are people talking about, it's pretty clear Lenny remembers his wife having diabetes and tries to push these memories away from his mind.

I have not really heard a good explanation to explain what the film shows with some of those alternate ideas. I agree that the movie actually shows that Leonard does have memories of his wife being diabetic, so the bigger question is more about why Lenny is denying it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.9

The very fact that he resorts[sic] to set himself up to murder Teddy to prevent himself from this truth proves it's exactly was happened.

I don't think it actually "proves" anything, since there are other possibilities (which is why I say it can not be proved). These are "valid" as the film does not refute them, but they have "issues". If you are interested in that I would recommend reading through my thread at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/board/nest/151560455 which goes into some detail about the major possibilities in the film and some of the pros and cons of each and describes (and gives examples) of levels of confidence in some ideas from may be "impossible" to "facts" based on what is shown in the film.

I believe that Lenny's actions in the film demonstrate Lenny's immorality, and also supports what Teddy says in the exposition.

reply

[–] mamoru-sama 11 years ago

These are "valid" as the film does not refute them,

I'm sorry, what?
So anything is valid as long as a movie doesn't refute it? In that case I could come up with a billion theories for every movie ever made.

reply

[–] kcolli11 11 years ago

Your post is what just lead me to this board. I've seen Memento before, years ago, loved it, but it wasn't until I watched it again yesterday that I thought Wait a minute. There's no way Leonard was really Sammy because he couldn't have made the new memory conflating Sammy's story and his own after his head trauma. If we accept that Leonard really was Sammy, we have to also believe that Leonard is somehow faking his condition. He wouldn't be able to form those new memories any other way. And I definitely don't think the message we're meant to take from this movie is, "Leonard was faking it." So that leads me to believe someone really did attack his wife (no way for us to know if she died or not since Leonard's head injury happens right after he finds her) and that he's spent his time since that attack trying to find the guy and get revenge.

reply

[–] sdckapr 11 years ago

There's no way Leonard was really Sammy because he couldn't have made the new memory conflating Sammy's story and his own after his head trauma.

These are 2 different ideas. Lenny is Sammy is not about conflating it is about creating the Sammy story after getting the condition. The whole Sammy is Lenny is about NOT believing Teddy nor believing Lenny's account so one can create any story of what happened before the film.

Beleiving Teddy indicates that Lenny has conflated some of his real pre-attack memories of Sammy with some post-attack recollections of himself. This is possible and has been documented with real cases of anterograde amnesia.

So that leads me to believe someone really did attack his wife

This is consistent with both Lenny and Teddy's accounts.

(no way for us to know if she died or not since Leonard's head injury happens right after he finds her)

No way to know, but we are shown Lenny remembering her opening her eyes and Teddy is the only one we can get info post attack/pre-film so if we want info from the film in that timeframe we must go to Teddy's exposition...

he's spent his time since that attack trying to find the guy and get revenge.

Which remains consistent with Teddy's exposition

reply

[–] Evangelion217 10 years ago

The entire ending explained everything. Even Nolan said that Teddy was telling the truth, during his commentary on the film.

reply

[–] sdckapr 10 years ago

Even Nolan said that Teddy was telling the truth, during his commentary on the film.

The film has multiple commentary tracks: in another commentary in the film he said that Teddy was lying...

reply

[–] Evangelion217 10 years ago

Yeah, and Nolan corrected himself, because he realized that he was being stupid.

reply

[–] sdckapr 10 years ago

Nolan corrected himself, because he realized that he was being stupid.

Nolan stressed after the film was initially released that the answers were all in the film. I think after the film got wider release and there was more conversation about it, someone convinced him for the DVD to create multiple commentaries and lie in at least one of them to keep the "ambiguity" and discussion going...

reply

[–] Evangelion217 10 years ago

Well that's one way to look at it.

reply

[–] brett-161-847980 10 years ago

He did kill his wife with insulin it actually shows his face for a split second as the guy who kills his wife with insulin. Its actually in the first like 30 minutes if you watch it again you will probably see what I am talking about.

reply

[–] Evangelion217 10 years ago

I agree, but Nolan contradicts himself for no reason.

reply

[–] Bree_33 10 years ago

What we know for sure: All of the characters lie to, con, and manipulate Leonard for their own reasons.

☁☀☁

------__@
----_`\<,_
___(*)/ (*)____
» nec spe,nec metu •´¯`» 'O let not Time deceive you, You cannot conquer Time.

reply

[–] roni-roshni 10 years ago

My boyfriend must have seen it three or more number of times now and poor guy still has no idea what actually happened. It's his favorite movie :p

reply

[–] komedydude85-203-796954 10 years ago

Still, I don't trust Teddy and I don't believe his motives are pure. Maybe he was just sick of messing with Leonard so that he told him that Leonard did what Leonard told Teddy Sammy Jankis did to his wife. Even if Christopher Nolan says Teddy is telling the truth, that doesn't make it a fact. The only conclusion we know for sure at the end is that Leonard will hunt down Teddy even though he knows he did not kill his wife. That shows that even if Leonard did find or will find the person who did kill his wife, he wouldn't remember, unless he made a tattoo. This is one reason why I don't think he did it and that he hasn't found the person who did. He would have tattooed "John G is dead." It's possible Leonard did kill his wife, but how did he suffer the head injury then? Perhaps it was after the head injury and his wife survived the attack. But he knew his wife wasn't diabetic. He said it himself. His long-term memory wasn't affected. It's possible his wife did survive the attack and left him and he's chasing ghosts as well. There are so many possibilities that you can't just go by Teddy's exposition. Teddy has been shown to be crooked and not a guy I would trust if I had a condition like Leonard's.

reply

[–] the-author 10 years ago

It should be noted that Nolan also said that Teddy was lying, deliberately contradicting his statement that Teddy told the truth. He admits it was intentional as he will never explain the film.

Best unknown feature at IMDB.com
http://www.imdb.com/features/video/browse/

reply

[–] MrJJay 9 years ago

Hahah lol and you didn't take the trouble to tell what happens i guess. xD

reply