MovieChat Forums > Memento (2001) Discussion > (Spoiler) What are the possible explanat...

(Spoiler) What are the possible explanations for Memento? Part 1 of 6...

posted 15 years ago by sdckapr
90 replies | jump to latest

There have been several threads about the possibilities and truth in Memento so I dug this out of the archives...

Part 1: Premises and Theories

Like all films and stories, interpretations of the filmmakers vision and intent can be discussed and debated. I have seen some films where people have debated a difference despite what the director says was his intent [for me: Blade Runner comes to mind: I disagree with what Scott says he intended to imply. I do not infer what he claims from the film, nor do I think it makes the most sense based on the film. But that is a separate story...]

For any explanation or theory, it is important to differentiate between what we see as facts and what the conjectures are. The conjectures we have are based on what we presume the facts are. Facts can be used to dispute the conjectures of other theories. Conjectures can not dispute the conjectures of other theories. Conjectures are interpretations, accepted facts are not interpretations. Facts should be the same for all.

Given a premise about a film, one can conclude certain things about it when examined in the context of the film. The conclusion ranks its probability from essentially negating it (it is impossible) to it is a certainty (it is the only possibility) and also everything in between.

If one just takes the character of Teddy, several premises can be made to illustrate the various levels on this range of probabilities. These are meant only to be possible examples, many other premises are possible (essentially an infinite number of them).

Impossible. The premise is negated by the film. A premise like: Teddy gave Lenny all his tattoos is clearly impossible since the film shows Lenny giving a tattoo to himself and also shows him getting one from Emma.

Improbable. The premise is not negated by the film, but the premise does not seem very likely based on the film. Teddy is Natalie's brother. There is nothing in the film that negates this, the closest thing is that Natalie seems to think that Lenny may be the "Teddy" that Jimmy went to meet. She may be lying about this to Lenny and only pretending to think he was Teddy or she may not realize Jimmy went to meet her brother. Not impossible, but it does not seem too likely.

Possible. There is nothing to negate the premise or make it improbable, but neither is there anything which suggests or even implies that it is true: Teddy is Emma's brother. It is more likely that Teddy has Emma for a sister than Natalie, since there is no indication one way or another that Emma could not be. Nowhere in the film, is it suggested that they are sibling however, which seems to make the speculation unlikely.

Suggested/hinted There is nothing in the film which explicitly indicates that this premise is true, but there is at least one thing mentioned in the film which seems to indicate that it is meant to be true. Teddy is the cop who asked Natalie about Lenny. Natalie never gives the name "Teddy" or even "Gammell", but she states a cop came into the bar looking for someone with memory problems. It could be a cop whom we never see in the film, it could be someone else entirely. They may not even be looking for Lenny. There are other possibilities, but the "suggestion" is that the man was Teddy claiming to be the cop.

Implied. In this instance there is something in the film which indicates the premise is more likely true: Teddy is the one talking to Lenny on the phone (when Lenny is not talking to Burt on the phone). The person on the phone is providing info to Lenny which will ultimately "setup" Jimmy Grantz (which we learn later Teddy is doing), the person gives Lenny a photo, which Teddy says later that he took. Lenny agrees to meet this person Teddy is there. The movie indicates that Lenny has a note with the name "Officer Gammell" on it, and we know that is Teddy's name.

Probable. These are premises that are not quite facts, but seem to be "acceptable" and presumed to be true by many people due to the evidence in the film. Teddy is a cop. Teddy says on multiple occasions he is a cop and he has a badge. Lenny is even shown to examine the badge (at the time believing that Teddy is not a cop) and he believes that the badge is real. This does not make it a fact, since Teddy could be lying, the badge may be fake and Lenny may not be able to tell it is a fake. We get no explicit confirmation about whether or not he is cop, but we also are shown nothing to negate it and multiple times it is suggested and thus seems indicated.

Facts. These are not really premises as all. We see these things occur, so we can tell that they are meant to be seen as objective facts. Lenny shot Teddy. We see Lenny shoot Teddy. This is a fact. We can not tell why he shoots Teddy, this requires conjecture, based on the other facts in the film. It is a fact that Teddy says that he is a cop, but him being a cop can not be claimed as a fact.

Now it is important to realize that theories can not be proven. One can demonstrate that a theory is consistent with the facts, but it does not prove that the theory is true, it does not make it a fact. One can only disprove theories, by showing how it does not fit the facts that are presented. And just because you have a valid theory does not negate a different theory. Many theories can be devised to explain the facts and the theories do not have to be consistent with one another.

In general, theories are first judged on how well they fit the data. Theories that better fit more of the facts and have smaller holes are typically judged better than those that leave more holes and explain less of the facts. Occam's Razor is generally used to decide between theories which explain the facts equally well. If 2 theories are equally good, the simpler one is chosen. [Note: that this does not imply that the simpler theory is always chosen for any complex theory. The more facts we have the more complex the theory. The theory must first explain the facts, that is the most important aspect. Simplifying comes later when trying to arrive at a "preferred theory"] Simplifying for the most part is finding a theory that has fewer unneccessary elements or speculations.

The Memento explanations generally fall into 3 main groups which seem to cover, I beleive, almost all of the possible explanations that have been proposed. There are slight variations and subgroups within these groups, but these are generally more subtle and some can arrive just from nit-picking differences in certain aspects.

In this series of posts, The major interpretations will be listed and some of the pros and cons will be discussed.

In the Part 2: The Presumption that what we see may just be a fantasy or someone's recollection...

[–] sdckapr 15 years ago

Part 2: The Presumption that what we see may just be a fantasy or someone's recollection.

As discussed in Part 1, there are 3 main theories for interpreting Memento. The first theory is distinct from the other 2 in the belief of what the facts presented by the movie are. In these theories what is see on the screen may or may not accepted as really happening. They may be a fantasy, a dream, or someone's inaccurate recollection. They may not all be objective.

It is important to realize that this type of interpretation is possible for essentially any and all films, it is often just a matter of choosing to not believe that what we see on the screen is objective reality but some type of subjective recollection.

With this (or any interpretation) it thus becomes very important, before debating the theory, to come to a consensus of what facts are to be debated (and this may be a debate in itself!). There is no sense in pointing holes in the theories if the facts used to dispute the theories are in dispute. One must start with a consensus of the facts that are being debated.

Supporting this argument are several things. The events we see are clearly not real. What we see occur is not linear in any way. Some is in color some is in black and white. It also has different color schemes in it. This seems to enhance the artificiallity of what we see.

There are also things in the film that are not consistent with other things in the film:
Teddy's license plate is seen to change during the film
The writing on the "Coaster note" from Natalie changes within the film
The picture of "dead Jimmy" is not the same person as the man who played "Jimmy"
The outside of Dodd's Motel room does not match the inside of the room
There are other things more minor things (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/goofsthat) which could be used to indicate that "non-reality" of what we see.

The presumption that the movie is not composed of facts, but is a fantasy/dream of some sort, supports a multitude (essentially an infiinite number) of possibilities. Lenny may be thinking of all these events while in a mental institute. Other possible theories are that it is all someone's dream. One could argue that there is no Lenny, there was no attack. No one may even have anterograde amnesia, etc.

This type of interpretation allows for any possibility that one can think of, since essentially we have no facts that can dispute anything: we have no facts only fantasy. We can thus "explain everything" by not really explaining anything, so ultimately I find this type of explanation "empty".

[My favorite of these types of explanations is that Lenny is a drunken college who is in for one major hangover in the morning. He just watched, in a marathon session, episodes of "CSI", "Frasier", "Battlestar Galactica", and the "Lone Gunman". He also watched the movies: Matrix, Clean Slate, and Betrayal, and drank very heavily and ate all sorts of spicy food.

The movie was all his demented dream combining elements from all the above: it explains all the flaws and can answer all questions, but ultimately "explains nothing".]

So while these things can be used to argue that the events we see are not real, I don't think the debate is really whether or not the movie events are real. They are obviously not real, it is a film. Leonard Shelby does not and did not exist. The question comes whether Nolan expects us to look past the artifice and "suspend disbelief" to believe that the events are real.

In Part 3, The Presumption that what we see occur are to be considered facts...

[–] sdckapr 15 years ago

Part 3: Presuming the movie events we see are facts

I think that most people, when seeing a movie, try to suspend disbelief and try to believe that the what they see occur on screen actually happened. We know that it is just a story, but we want to look past this and believe in the "movie-reality" of what is on the screen. Granted, there are some films where we see things that are dreams or visions of some sort, but we trust the story teller will indicate to us some time which things, in that movie-reality, are not factual.

Thus if we accept this notion, there are many things we can accept occur during the film. For example, we see Lenny kill Teddy. This then becomes a fact. The reason he did it, what he believes at the time can all be conjectured, but they will never be facts. On the other hand, the "Sammy Story" or the recollection of the attack that Lenny tells to people, are not composed of facts. It would be a fact that Lenny stated these things, but the events we "see" Lenny tell us about, we did not see happen: Lenny may be lying or just mistaken about what the facts are.

We can conjecture about things that do not agree with the what Lenny says, but those conjectures must be supportable by being able to explain why Lenny is lying or how he becomes mistaken. There must be a motivation for someone to lie (not simply that he is lying, since he is a liar) that is part of the speculation, theory, or explanation.

If we accept these facts presented in the film, we can pretty much explain the events that we see occur. This can be difficult on some level, since Nolan has chosen to present a plot (the more formal literary term is sjuzhet) that is non-linear and it is left to the viewer to "translate" the plot into the story (the more formal literary term is fabula)

[Note: (see the FAQ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.3 for how the sequences are ordered. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_formalism for more distinction on these concepts of plot vs story. Stefano Ghislotti also has an excellent article called "Backwards: Memory and Fabula Construction in Memento by Christopher Nolan" (http://wwwesterni.unibg.it/fa/fa_mem01.html) which discusses the concepts in how they relate to the film and how Nolan provides us the clues necessary for us to decode the plotline as we watch].

When the story is broken out (with no other conjectures) we can see the events we would then judge as facts. I will not list them here since they are already compiled in the FAQ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.33.

But while this description details what happens in the film it really does not explain anything. It is like a mystery movie, we know the facts of what happened and who was killed, but we want to know the details of what happened. Why did the events occur as they did? Are people lying, when and why? There are all sorts of questions that are raised during the film. A listing of the facts is just not enough to satisfy us. We must analyze the film to try to understand it more detail...

In Part 4, We examine presuming the events are facts and Teddy is lying during the exposition...

[–] sdckapr 15 years ago

Part 4: Presuming the movie events are facts / Presuming Teddy is lying

In previous posts, I have mentioned that there are 3 major groups for explaining the movie. The first division was what to believe are the facts. The first group made a presumption that the movie events may not be facts, but only interpretation (a dream/fantasy/some kind of dementia, etc).

The other 2 groups accept the events seen in the film as facts. While there is some disagreement on what all these facts are (mostly nits in my opinion), I think there is a general consensus. These facts/events were detailed previously and are in the FAQ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.33)

The primary difference in the last 2 groups come into the interpretation of these facts. An interpretation of what they mean, how important some of the clues are, etc. And while there are some variations in both groups, it seems clear that the biggest distinction in the 2 groups is in the film's climax: Is Teddy lying or is Teddy being truthful during the exposition?

Now, it seems clear (and I think there is little disagreement) that the movie shows all the main (and some of the secondary) characters as liars: they are all shown to lie in at least 1 point of the film:
Lenny admits to lying to himself to be happy
Teddy lies to Lenny on multiple occasions
Natalie lies to Lenny to setup Dood
Burt lies to Lenny to steal money
Jimmy, Dodd, Emma, etc are not shown to lie, but are in the film so briefly it does not really matter.

So on some level we have no one to trust at all, there is no sleuth in the film offering a solution that we are meant to accept as confirmation of the truth. At the film's conclusion, why should we believe Teddy? Teddy is a known liar.

Presuming Teddy is lying supports one of the premises of the film: Lenny can not remember anything after the attack. This is what anterograde memory dysfunction is the inability to remember new things. One can argue with how accurately AMD has been portrayed in the movie (but that is another discussion), but Nolan clearly has given us the "ground rules" of his movie portrayal.

For Teddy to be telling the truth, we must accept that Lenny is able to make new memories and that he can make them selectively: he only remembers what Nolan wants him (and needs him to remember) just for the plot twist.

Also, it requires that Lenny not remember that his wife was diabetic. He must not remember whether Sammy was a faker or not. Lenny can not know whether or not Sammy had a wife. Again this is contrary to the AMD portrayed in the film where Lenny has all of his pre-attack memories.

The biggest support for Teddy is lying is therefore that to presume he is truthful seems to indicate that what Lenny can and can not remember subject to the whim of the director [some have described it as a type of deus ex machina on Nolan's part] and not to any information or hint in the film.

But there are several holes and inconsistencies with presuming Teddy is lying. The biggest problem with presuming Teddy is not truthful is that Teddy is the ONLY person in the film who can provide us any information or explanation on what happened between the attack and the start of the film. Lenny has no memory of it, the other characters do not know anything about it. We can get some information from Lenny, if he is reciting it from his files, but we do are not offered any.

Teddy is the only person in the film who offers us any explanation. If we presume Teddy is lying, we are given a mystery where we see the facts, but before the detective tells us what happened and to fit all the pieces together, the movie is ended and we are left with no conclusion or wrap up at all. The movie becomes a "shaggy dog story": a joke with no punch line.

Not only are we not provided with any answers, this presumptions raises questions so we seem to have less than before we made any presumptions on whether or not Teddy tells the truth.

This allows a multitute of possibilities, though admittedly not as many as accepting no facts as the "Subjective interpretation" has, but still offers dozens if not hundreds of possibilities all dependent on what things that Teddy says we choose to believe. Many of these possibilities deal with what become unanswered questions (Does Lenny even have a wife, was she diabetic, Was there an attack, was it a car accident, is Lenny faking, is Sammy a real person or a figment of Lenny's imagination, when did Teddy first meet Lenny, are Lenny and Sammy the same person, was there an attacker, were there even 2 attackers, etc)

Many people love this speculation aspect of this and other films. It allows them to be creative in creating what they may see as a perfect film, and it even allows them to argue that they were the first (and possbily only one) who truly gets the film as no one else has seen that particular aspect of it. The problem with this approach is not only that is often seems to the ignore the filmmaker's suggestions from the film, but seems to suggest that the filmmaker is not even creating a film that is for everyone.

Other problems in presuming Teddy is lying, is trying to provide reasons for how Teddy and Lenny act in the climax based on this presumption. People don't randomly lie or tell the truth. There are reasons that people lie.

Teddy has no reason to lie to Lenny about things Lenny knows the truth about. Lenny knows whether or not Sammy was a faker. Lenny knows whether or not Sammy had a wife. Lenny knows whether or not his own wife was diabetic. Teddy is not going to convince him otherwise and it will not confuse Lenny. There seems to be no reason (other than that he can lie, it won't hurt, he is a liar, etc) for Teddy to be lying at this stage.

Also if Teddy is lying and trying to deceive Lenny in some manner during this time, he also has no reason to tell Lenny the truth about his name (and have to convince Lenny of this truth). He is not asked about this info, so he has no reason even to try and hide it, he provides this truthful info without prompting [and yes, it is a fact that people who lie can and do tell the truth on occasion]. There is no reason for Teddy to be truthful at this stage and a very good reason not to: it could get him killed (as we see that it does).

In addition to the inability for Teddy to have any reason to lie about things that Lenny knows the truth about and also to be honest (not just truthful, but honest) about things Lenny does not know, Lenny's actions suggest that he believes Teddy.

If Teddy is lying about Sammy, his wife, and whose wife was diabetic, Lenny should know the truth about it since it is memory obtained before the attack and should not be affected by this condition. Therefore, if Teddy were lying, Lenny would know Teddy was lying. Therefore Lenny has no reason to believe Teddy when Teddy said that he killed the 2nd attacker a year ago. For all Lenny knows, the "pointing picture" could have been taken after Teddy had him kill another drug dealer (which seems to be what he believed when he saw the picture in his motel room).

Lenny could believe he killed someone a year ago, but has no reason to believe that it was the real John G. In fact he has a good reason (if he knows Teddy is lying to him) to believe it may not have been the 2nd attacker but a setup, just like Jimmy was a setup.

So if Lenny has no reason to believe Teddy, he has no reason to believe that his quest is over. If he has no reason to believe that his quest is over, he has no reason to essentially abandon it and start leaving himself false clues to start a false quest. If is goal is to find and kill the 2nd attacker (as the movie indicates), not just kill anyone, he has no reason to setup Teddy and abandon his quest.

Lenny's actions suggest that he believes Teddy when he says that he killed the 2nd attacker, which suggest that he believes Teddy. Since Lenny would know if Teddy was truthful about pre-attack items, it suggests that Teddy must be truthful about them, which suggests that the whole climax is a revelation of the truth.

Next: Presuming Teddy is truthful ....

[–] sdckapr 15 years ago

Presuming the movie events are facts
Presuming Teddy is truthful

I have discussed the other 2 groups of explanations in Memento in other posts: Group 1 presumes the film's events are a fantasy/dream or some kind of dementia which means nothing we see within the film can be used really as facts and how this allows for an infinite number of possible explanations.

Presuming the movie's events are facts, can lead to a consensus to begin discussion but break into 2 groups: the group that presumes that Teddy is lying in the climax (discussed earlier) and the group that presumes that Teddy is being truthful.

I came to the presumption that Teddy is truthful in my first viewing of the film and over the years I think this presumption has strengthened as the holes in the lying explanation have not been filled by anyone believing that Teddy is not truthrul.

Most arguments seem to focus on putting holes in the Teddy lying (which admittedly there are some) but not offering any explanations for the holes in their own theory. Any explanations used to fill in the holes in the Teddy truthful are just dismissed as "hand waving" or not to be the suggestion or the intent of Nolan. Some argue that they are unintentional from sloppy writing, only in the film since Nolan needed to move the film in this path.

I have always presumed that going into any film or story that the author has a point and will provide the necessary answers to the questions raised. Sometimes we have to accept premises that are not completely based on science fact (as we do in many Science Fiction films) and accept some "lip service" to concepts that ignore facts to get past those items and see the story/film the director is trying to make.

Therefore, my biggest reason for believing Teddy in the climax is simple: it is the only way we are provided any explanation or answers or even suggestion of answers. No one else in the film can provide the details of what happened between the attack and the movie's events. No one else can support or deny what Lenny is claiming.

Once the presumption of that Teddy is truthful, we can see that it not only provides a possible explanation (and I believe the most probable explanation given the facts we have) but also supports the supplemental information/facts which are provided on the DVD and the official website and even has support from within the film from what Lenny does.

[Many people believe that the movie should stand on its own and only use facts from the film and facts from reality, and not use madeup facts from the website. I choose to consider the website as canon, but will not use these facts to dispute any claims unless, in the discussion, we agree to use or not use all the supplemental facts.

The website, while not proving that Teddy is truthful or lying, does support the Teddy is trutthful since the supplemental info indicates that Lenny's wife died 8 months after the attack]

I support the "conventional explanation of the film" and this is detailed in the FAQ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.2

As mentioned in the "Teddy is lying" discussion, the biggest holes described in believing Teddy involve Lenny's memory:

Presuming Teddy is truthful ssems to deny one of the premises of the film: Lenny can not remember anything after the attack. This is what anterograde memory dysfunction is the inability to remember new things. One can argue with how accurately AMD has been portrayed in the movie (but that is another discussion), but Nolan clearly has given us the "ground rules" of his movie portrayal.

For Teddy to be telling the truth, we must accept that Lenny is able to make new memories and that he can make them somewhat selectively: he only remembers what Nolan wants him (and needs him to remember) just for the plot twist.

Also, it seems to require that Lenny not remember that his wife was diabetic. Again this is contrary to the AMD portrayed in the film where Lenny has all of his pre-attack memories.

I see these as three separate items:
1) Lenny not remembering things that he should
2) The premise of the film and the film's "ground rules"
3) Lenny remembering things that he shouldn't

For the first item, we really have 1 instance of this that provides the hole. It is a fact that Lenny denies that his wife is diabetic. This statement, does not prove whether she was or not, or even if Lenny remembers it. It only indicates that Lenny says she was not.

I do not deny that Lenny said his wife was not diabetic. But, the movie suggests that Lenny does remember it, hinting that Lenny just chooses to deny/ignore it. After Teddy claims that Lenny's wife was diabetic, we are shown what appears to be a memory of him giving her an injection (supporting that he does remember what he should). I think he realizes what this means (that he killed his own wife with insulin) and he does not want to accept it. He thus denies that she was diabetic and believes instead that it was just a pinch.

The FAQ details other sequences where we see Lenny have memories of preparing a syringe http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.9 supporting that idea that he does remember a diabetic wife.

Admittedly there are alternate suggestions/interpretations of the scene (eg he considers Teddy's statement and rejects it as untrue) an alternate interpretation does not negate/dispute another interpretation. Thus there is evidence within the film support that Lenny does remember that is wife is diabetic and that it may be a conscious choice to ignore/eny it. Thus the hole that he does not remember when he should is filled by facts from the film.

The second "hole" involves Nolan changing premises of the film. We are told that Lenny can not make new memories and that he has anterograde amnesia. The movie is based on this premise and it is unfair to Nolan to change premises and the films ground rules.

I admit but I agree that Nolan is not as "fair" as some mystery writers. I don't think we are provided with all the necessary information to solve the movie without the explanation (though I think very few mysteries do). I think the most we can ask for is for the movie to be consistent and allow us to see the clues when we watch the film again. And admittedly, Nolan is not very explicit in the clues, it think we are provided some.

The first argument involves the premise of the film. Personally I think is a poor argument. the premise of the film is that Lenny is after the man who killed his wife. At the end of the film, we realize that the man he killed (Teddy) at the beginning of the film is not the 2nd attacker, and also we learn (whether you believe Teddy or not) that the 2nd attacker did not murder Lenny's wife: it was either the 1st attacker or Lenny. There is no evidence to indicate that the 2nd attacker even raped Lenny's wife.

The movie has a plot twists, which means that what we presume may not be true. We are meant to believe things that are not true: the whole non-linear narrative and getting into Lenny's mindframe is meant to teach us that what we presume may not be true.

As to fairness, yes Nolan could have been more exlicit, but he does provide clues that what Lenny says is not 100% accurate:

Lenny claims he does not have amnesia. This is not true. He has anterograde amnesia. Lenny is implying he does not have retrograde amnesia, which is what most people think about when they hear the term amnesia. Lenny is simplifying it for Burt, choosing to not be completely precise, yes technically what he says is false, but it is not a lie just an oversimplification of a complex fact.

Lenny claims he he can remember everything from before the attack. Again this is not completely true. It is a simplification of the truth. His pre-attack memory should be no better than anyone else's memory. It is not an absolute. He can misremember the facts just like we all do. This goes along with the memory is unreliable discussion with Teddy at the cafe.

[As a side note, this is a hole with AMD, Lenny should really not be able to remember the attack. AMD causes some retrograde amnesia. In addition, he should have problems with being able to tell the Sammy story: AMD also affects episodic memory. These facts tend to suggest the unreality of the film rather than suggesting a difference between Teddy lying and truthful. I tend to presume they are just facts that Nolan got wrong or chose to ignore for the larger story. We are shown that Lenny's case is a mild case of AMD so it may not be as affected as other cases would be]

Lenny also claims he can make no new memories. Again this is also not true. The movie clearly shows that Lenny can learn things after the attack. Procedureal memories (for example), we are told are stored using different parts of the brain. What Lenny means is that he can make new explicit memories.

But the facts of this condition also indicate that it is not absolute [See the FAQ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.29] which discusses this point and also details how many professionals in the field judge this film to be one of the more accurate depictions of amnesia in the films.

Nolan also seems to provide a clue to this fact when he shows us a shot which may be interpreted of a memory of Lenny in a mental institute: a memory he could not have if the condition were absolute (yes there are alternate explanations for the scene, but alternate explanation do not negate this explanation)

While this covers the holes about Lenny not remembering when he should and Nolan not providing clues to the memory not being 100% there is still the suggestion that Lenny's remembering the insulin OD is too selective. It is too much a deus ex machina: lenny only remembers it since it is needed for the plot.

I think Nolan does suggest how it is possible and why this type of memory is retained. The flash of Sammy turning into Lenny in the mental institute suggests to me a "projection" of Lenny recollections onto Sammy memories. The anchor of the recollection is the Sammy memory.

It is important to realize, that this condition does not force lenny to start with a "clean slate". His memories are not "erased". The short term memories are just typically not consolidated into long-term memories.

But, Lenny 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. The FAQ discusses this in more detail and provides references for further reading if desired http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.31.

The movie seems to hint that Lenny can recall his wife's death (to some extent). Lenny is shown to have a rather unique perspective. Before lenny got this condition, he studied and learned about this condtion, he observed a subject (Sammy) being tested. Then when he was tested and for other items that are only "vaguely recalled" he is better able to "project/transfer" those implicit recollections onto his actual explicit (declarative) memories of Sammy.

His memories of Sammy's life becomes a mixture of "just Sammy" items (Lenny's actual memories), items that (more or less) relate to both Sammy and Lenny, and items that are "wholly Lenny" that are projected onto sammy. It even will contain some confabulations (common among people with memory problems) of items that have nothing to do with either one of them, it is just Lenny's mind filling gaps in the story.

It is a way of his mind finding an alternate method of storing these memories. He is unable (thru physical damage) to put them directly into long-term memories, so the mind "finds an alternate path" thru other sections of this brain and "projects" them onto Sammy-memories.

These recollections are essentially misremembered. It is unconscious not conscious: Lenny believes these things are true. When confronted with facts which dispute it he can realize the problem but it can be confusing and unlike we who have normal memory, we it is difficult for Lenny to correct his error and make sure the next time he recalls the information accurately

This type of mechanism can be supported by the facts of this condition.

Last Part: "Is there are final truth?"

[–] sdckapr 15 years ago

Is there a final truth to Memento?

In this series of posts, I have tried to give a feel for some of the pros and cons of various aspects of the film. What are we to treat as facts. Is the film meant to be completely subjective: some fantasy or dream in someone's mind or are we supposed to believe that what we see occur are objective facts for us to debate their meaning. We also discussed what we can conclude and speculate on what happened before the events of the film. But in addition to the interpretations for the film, one of the other big debates is the question of if Nolan intended a final truth for the film.

This questions is debated almost as much as the different theories are discussed. Is the ending meant to be ambiguous, does Teddy's veracity even matter to what we see occur? Is it enough of a twist to see Lenny consciously lie to himself to continue a hunt he beleives is false and setup someone he does not believe is 2nd attacker to even worry about what may have happened prior to the events depicted in the film.

In Andy Klein's Salon Article "Everything you wanted to know about 'Memento'" http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/06/28/memento_analysi s/index.html 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.'

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.

Based on these quotes one could conclude that there is meant to be "some" answer, but that it can never be completely established as true. What takes the ambiguity debate to a different level is the decision to have 4 separate commentary tracks for the last 3 chapters of the film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.21 and to have Nolan lie in at least one of them. We know that he lies since in separate commentaries he says things that are mutually exclusive to things he says in other commentaries.

In the commentary track for Title3 Nolan states that Leonard is killed since Teddy has told "one lie too many" and in the track for Title4 he states that Leonard is killed since "Teddy has told the truth one too many times". Both can not be true thus he is lying in at least one of the commentaries. The problem with the decision to lie and not just be ambiguous and misdirect, is that it raises the question of what we can believe and what we can not believe of his statements.

In the Title4 Commentary he indicates that Teddy is the truth and it is Lenny who is unreliable:

We're showing Teddy giving him the answers, Leonard denying them, but these mental images breaking through...The whole way through the film we have been very upfront (and it was important to be upfront with the audience) about the fact that this is, not neccessarily, a reliable narrator. At several points in the story, and this is by far the most obvious, where we actually show revision of long-term memory, we show revision of memory in visual terms. And here we see it with him visuallizing the incident being injected and then him seeing that in a different way, seeing it as an innocent pinch. And right there, it is absolutely explicit, that what we are dealing with here is an unreliable narrator. How can it not be, since we've seen it both ways.

If one listens and believes Nolan in this commentary (believing Teddy is being truthful during the exposition), we are provided answers for the events prior to the film and we have no ambiguity.

But when one listens and believes Nolan in the commentary for Title3 (believing Teddy is lying during some or all of the exposition), we seem to have to accept a huge premise change and a plot hole. Nolan claims that Teddy has "developed a story that is credible and fits in between the gaps in Leonard's knowledge and that's crucial. Because for it to have any effect, for it to be in any way credible, it has to fit in to those gaps. And that question of 'Are you sure?' is, that's the point, he can't be sure. That's why the lies have power." Nolan indicates that Lenny not only can not remember whether or not Sammy was a faker or whether or not he had a wife, that he can remember his own wife but does not know whether or not she was diabetic.

But, the other things he asks us to accept if we don't believe Teddy is that the film is essentially a a "Shaggy Dog Story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_dog_story) a mystery without an answer. He indicates in the commentary for Title4: "A lot of people watch the film would rather believe Teddy and the appalling ideas that he presents than to go without an answer".

It makes one wonder, if Nolan had intended the movie to NOT have an answer, why he would even suggest one at the end of the film, why not just leave it open and suggest nothing. Or if his intent was meant to be ambiguous why not provide equally weighted solutions: some answers only provided by one solution, others only answered by another.

As it stands he not only suggests a solution when we presume that Teddy is being truthful during the exposition, but this solution can answer every question that one can answer presuming Teddy is lying and answers more of them. And in addition every hole that one can find in the Teddy is truthful during the exposisiton is a hole in the Teddy is lying and the Teddy is lying has many more inconsistencies in the film.

[–] Jigsaw_At_The_Disco 15 years ago

You took some time writing this, and I enjoyed reading it (Though I did skim through some things to be honest) hopefully this will fill some people in on things they didn't quiet understand before.

..put each other in your hearts forever because forevers about to happen here in just a few minutes

[–] sdckapr 15 years ago

You took some time writing this, and I enjoyed reading it

Thanks. I dug it out of my archives, it was written several years ago before the FAQ even existed and is much shorter now that I can reference it...

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] srgreening 15 years ago

Good read, I'll be honest. I thought the way you replied to some of the other posters you didn't come off well (probably better than the opposition).

I posted reply to you on another post and this answer some of those points. You pretty much have the same conclusions as me (albeit you have thought of it in more detail than I).

I have posted about why and how the memory loss on another post and whilst we can merely speculate. I think it's a good discussion point that I think in the later point of the story telling and the ongoing themes is very interesting.

[–] sdckapr 15 years ago

Good read, I'll be honest.

Thank you

I thought the way you replied to some of the other posters you didn't come off well (probably better than the opposition).

In what way. I am always looking to improve myself...

[–] srgreening 15 years ago

I think you jump to defend yourself to vehemntly sometimes. Its better to ackonwledge someone and offer your alternative rather than present the 'your wrong, this is why, I'm right, this is why' type response. Your answer are often right and well structured, but reading on the internet it can come off agressive. Also you may find there is a middleground you can agree on and both find mutual ground and learn from.

You've seen what happens in disagreement they turn into deconstructive slanging matches rather than discussions. Which isn't what you came for initially was it? Just an idea to get more out of your discussions.

[–] sdckapr 15 years ago

I think you jump to defend yourself to vehemntly sometimes. Its better to ackonwledge someone and offer your alternative rather than present the 'your wrong, this is why, I'm right, this is why' type response. Your answer are often right and well structured, but reading on the internet it can come off agressive. Also you may find there is a middleground you can agree on and both find mutual ground and learn from.

Thanks for the feedback. I will keep it in mind...

[–] decredico 13 years ago

The 1 hour 30 minute mark makes it very clear what the truth is.

[–] sdckapr 13 years ago

The 1 hour 30 minute mark makes it very clear what the truth is.

Are you really concluding that Leonard is a shape-shifter and literally changed his appearance?

I think the scene is not meant to be literal and is more symbolic and is in Leonard's mind. I think it is meant to show visually how Leonard can create new post-attack memories by linking them to pre-existing memories of Sammy. It foreshadows Teddy's indication that this can create "false memories" as well.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ThePrestigeRocks 12 years ago

YOU MUST REALLY HAVE A LOT OF TIME ON YOUR HANDS TO PREPARE SOMETHING LIKE THIS!

IT IS A VERY THOROUGH ANALYSIS, THOUGH I THINK A LITTLE TOO LONG-WINDED.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO WRITE IT!

[–] sdckapr 12 years ago

YOU MUST REALLY HAVE A LOT OF TIME ON YOUR HANDS TO PREPARE SOMETHING LIKE THIS!

Time well wasted in my opinion.

IT IS A VERY THOROUGH ANALYSIS, THOUGH I THINK A LITTLE TOO LONG-WINDED.

I hope you didn't sleep too much while reading it.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO WRITE IT!

You are very welcome! Thanks for the comments.

[–] Asphyxiod 12 years ago

So the pretentious nerd sdckapr is back shamelessly bumping his thread.

Next we have Peter Breene...

[–] ThePrestigeRocks 12 years ago

I WAS CONFUSED BY ANOTHER THREAD SUGGESTING ONLY 2 PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FILM. THIS ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE ARE MANY MORE THAN JUST 2.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sdckapr 10 years ago

Funny!

[–] gonza-peralta 11 years ago

Ain't nobody got time for that!

[–] ThePrestigeRocks 10 years ago

EXCELLENT POST. DESERVES A BUMP!!

[–] the-author 10 years ago

Keeping his memory alive? I suppose he deserves that just based on the time and effort he put into trying to understand and explain this film.

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

[–] ThePrestigeRocks 9 years ago

A must read for all Memento Fans. Thanks for writing this.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ThePrestigeRocks 9 years ago

EXCELLENT COMMENT

[–] the-author 9 years ago

EXCELLENT COMMENT

Thanks.

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

[–] sdckapr 8 years ago

A must read for all Memento Fans. Thanks for writing this.

Thank you for your kind words.

[–] sdckapr 15 years ago

How about this one: Leonard killed his wife deliberately?

I would place it at most in the "possible", though it seems more "improbable" based on what we see. I see nothing that hints or suggests it and several things that argue against it and seem inconsistent with the film.

It would seem to me to fall as one of the dozens of Teddy is lying items.

I have heard it several ways: Lenny is faking (though the movie seems to argue against this), Lenny now feels guilty and is psychologically denying it (though this retrograde amnesia and does not seem to fit with what we see symptomatically by his condition), Lenny feels guilty and it someone gives him anterograde amnesia (though retrograde about the incident), etc.

[–] the-author 14 years ago

Nolan said recently that believing John Gammell/Teddy is NOT the real solution to Memento, so he kind of blew you out of the water, though I know you would like to ignore that fact.

[–] devonedwards013 14 years ago

So the director's comments are only valid when they support your viewpoint? In another thread you said that Nolan's DVD commentary, when he said that Teddy was a cop, was intentionally misleading. Get your story straight, author.

[–] BugleBob 14 years ago

Suggested/hinted There is nothing in the film which explicitly indicates that this premise is true, but there is at least one thing mentioned in the film which seems to indicate that it is meant to be true. Teddy is the cop who asked Natalie about Lenny. Natalie never gives the name "Teddy" or even "Gammell", but she states a cop came into the bar looking for someone with memory problems. It could be a cop whom we never see in the film, it could be someone else entirely. They may not even be looking for Lenny. There are other possibilities, but the "suggestion" is that the man was Teddy claiming to be the cop.

These suggested/hinted, and previous improbables fail to mention the conversation of natalie and lenny when she gives him the info of the man with the licence tag lenny is looking for.she said she might have seen him at the bar. and she clearly new his name by then. If there was any connection between natalie and lenny, she is clearly setting him up. but for what reason???

I'm rootin' for ya, we're all in this together.

[–] mad_weather 14 years ago

Not "clearly" at all. She gives Lenny the name of a man who drives a car with a certain license plate number, exactly the same number that Lenny had written down earlier completely by himself, not being urged to do so by someone, not being shown the plate on purpose, etc. If Natalie tinkered with the plate/person link, deliberately giving a name that otherwise *wouldn't* appear, or [tinfoil_hat_mode=on] somehow arranged for Teddy to drive a certain car instead of one he otherwise would, then you could say she's "setting him up". As it is, no, there's no visible connection between them.

[–] the-author 14 years ago

That is a huge mistake that many make. Think. If Teddy is pretending to be a drug dealer with 200,000 dollars worth of drugs, why would he risk his life by returning to the bar as a cop where he knows Jimmy's girlfriend works?????

There is a real cop looking for Leonard. John G can not possibly be that cop.

[–] sdckapr 14 years ago

These suggested/hinted, and previous improbables fail to mention the conversation of natalie and lenny when she gives him the info of the man with the licence tag lenny is looking for.

And based on the ending of the film where we see Lenny write down the plate, setting up Teddy before he meets Natalie, makes the hint that Natalie setup Lenny as a red herring: a hint that is shown later to be a poor conclusion

she said she might have seen him at the bar.

Adding to the suggestion that he may have been the cop. Presumably Teddy never came to the bar before that as she only knew the name "Teddy" but not what he looked like.

she clearly new his name by then.

She knew the name "Teddy". But the movie never makes any hint or suggestion that she figures out what "Teddy" looks like, or that his full name is "John Edward Gammell". The nickname "Teddy" also does not immediately associate with someone named John. It is not even immediate with the middle name of Edward...

[–] BugleBob 14 years ago

I guess what Iwas trying to say was Natalie saw the picture on the licence, and told lenny about the abandon building. If and only if there was a connection which I didn't get from the movie. she is setting him up.I read about possibilities of her and Teddy being related.
I just saw the movie last night and I am trying to put alot of things together. I do beleive all the FACTS are there.Just sifting through them. Lenny said it exactly.You can't trust your memory, you can't trust your eyes, the color of rooms change. For example. Natalie told Lenny "Dodd? might be looking for him because she told him what kind of car Lenny is driving while he was beating her up". That never happened. Dodd was chasing Lenny not because he knew who he was but because he recognized the car.

Some questions I do have.
Does the movie show everything that acually happened? You never saw Lenny give Natalie the tag number. when or how did she get it.

Jimmy Met lenny before. He mentioned that he was the memory guy and asked what he was doing ther. What were the events that happened? Was that about him taking pictures at the motel?

Natalie recognized Jimmy's car when Lenny pulled up in it, But did not seem to concerned.

I plan on watching it again in a couple of days and I need to pay more attention to the break in and rape scene and what was in the police report.

Also. it is clear Teddy knows all about Lenny early on,as if they had contact many times before. but Lenny does not have a picture of him until then.???

Will be posting soon...

I'm rootin' for ya, we're all in this together.

[–] sdckapr 14 years ago

I guess what Iwas trying to say was Natalie saw the picture on the licence, and told lenny about the abandon building. If and only if there was a connection which I didn't get from the movie. she is setting him up.

But the movie shows us that Lenny sets up Teddy BEFORE he even meets Natalie. One of the twists near the end of the film is that Lenny sets himself up. Natalie sends Lenny to the abandoned location, since she knows it is isolated as Jimmy did drug deals there. Her presumption is that Lenny wants to kill the man whose license plate she provided and she gives him an isolated location.

I read about possibilities of her and Teddy being related.

Related in what way? Some speculate about things not suggested in the film, but also not specifically eliminated from the film (Teddy and Natalie are siblings or even lovers, etc). The suggestion I take from the film is that Natalie does not know who Teddy was.

I just saw the movie last night and I am trying to put alot of things together. I do beleive all the FACTS are there.

The facts from the film (presuming that what we see are accurate and not subjective items) are http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.33. The conventional interpretation is that the film provides answers through an exposition in the film's conclusion by Teddy http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.2

Does the movie show everything that acually happened?

There are many things in the 3 days not shown, we only see 2 hours of time.

You never saw Lenny give Natalie the tag number. when or how did she get it.

Natalie says she saw it on his leg and offers to run the plate for him. Presumably during an edit, he gives her the number.

Jimmy Met lenny before. He mentioned that he was the memory guy and asked what he was doing ther. What were the events that happened?

The film does not show when they met. The way Jimmy responds to Lenny suggests that Jimmy met Teddy and Lenny together http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.40

Was that about him taking pictures at the motel?

This is how Teddy explains that Jimmy and Lenny may have met. It is not shown when Lenny takes pictures or suggested. I think Teddy was giving a reason that seemed reasonable, since saying he introduced the 2 so Jimmy would not be suspicious would not have worked.

Natalie recognized Jimmy's car when Lenny pulled up in it, But did not seem to concerned.

I think she was concerned. I think she was afraid. She had to be wondering what game this guy was playing. Was this a message to her? I think she played it cool to try and figure out what was going on (a parallel to what Lenny is constantly doing and even what we had to do while viewing the colored scenes in reverse order...)

Also. it is clear Teddy knows all about Lenny early on,as if they had contact many times before. but Lenny does not have a picture of him until then.???

We don't know if he did or not. He probably had many pictures we were not shown. He did not go to the lobby looking for someone named Teddy, he went to the lobby looking for an "Officer Gammell" and the implication is that he did not have a picture of someone with that name written on it. And when Lenny tried to put it on the picture, Teddy told him to write "Teddy"... [see also http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.46)

[–] BugleBob 14 years ago

I started to watch this film again last night. Backwards. It is amazing how simple things get burnt into your memory (that are wrong) when you watch it the way it is presented. alot of facts are definitely mixed up.

I read the facts from the linbk you provided, though most are accurate there are alot missing that definitly contribute to the story.

also early on it mentions the conversation on the phone. Presumably with Teddy. which I think because it is not a fact is a big mistake to presume.This elimanates a many number of possibilities.

I still beleive The fact are the key to the story with a little interpetation of the conversation and lies being told.

Fact: Natalie knows of Teddy, Her note said kill Dodd or put him on to Teddy.
Teddy knows all about Lenny. His pictures, his condition, his system. They have a very long relationship.

The angle I'm working on now is Lenny probably is not a cop.(though I have not ruled it out altogether. maybe a bad cop) But is working with another bad cop.Possibly the one talking to Lenny on the phone. Teddy knows the ins and outs of the drug dealings at the bar and went there (not claiming to be a cop looking for lenny. as you said returning would be a huge mistake.but do we know if the cop was there before or after Jimmys murder?) to set up a drug deal with Jimmy through Natalie to steal the money.
Teddy is definately looking out for Lenny. Bringing him clothes. warning him about hanging around too long. Comming to help Lenny after he ties up Dodd. He has a motive for protecting him and himself. He claimed to be a cop after Lenny kills Jimmy. But did not when he came to help Lenny at the hotel room. In fact he acted as if he did'nt know Natalie at all. Probably so Dodd would not make the connection.
Teddy with the help of bad cop set up stings against drug dealers and uses Lennys disability to get him to kill them. This probabaly happened many times as Teddys comment to Lenny at the abandon building was "your no killer. Thats why your so good at it."
Teddy protects Lenny for the next time.

I'm rootin' for ya, we're all in this together.

[–] mad_weather 14 years ago

Fact: Natalie knows of Teddy, Her note said kill Dodd or put him on to Teddy.

Not quite. Natalie knows Teddy's *name*. Apparently Jimmy told her that he's going to meet the guy named Teddy, but she doesn't know what "Teddy" looks like. When she meets Lenny for the first time, she asks him "Are *you* Teddy?". Also, the note is not "her", it's Lenny's note that *he* writes according to his own scope of knowledge - "I'll give him some bruises of his own and tell him to look for a guy called Teddy". At this moment, though, neither of them are aware who Teddy is.

The angle I'm working on now is Lenny probably is not a cop.(though I have not ruled it out altogether. maybe a bad cop) But is working with another bad cop.

It's a bad practice to introduce additional entities into the explanation without real need. Before "working the angle" of an extra unnamed cop that is never shown to us in the movie, you'd have to ask yourself what you're going to achieve with that. What does the additional cop explain that a single Teddy - introducing himself as Teddy the drug dealer when talking to Jimmy but not Natalie (and we already know that he *didn't* talk to Natalie as "Teddy") and as a cop looking for Lenny when talking to Natalie but not Jimmy (and the most obvious opportunity for Teddy to be looking for Lenny would be immediately after Lenny ditches him at Emma's tattoo parlor, escaping Teddy's attempt to swindle Jimmy's car keys from him; when Jimmy is obviously dead) - does not explain.

He has a motive for protecting him and himself.
...
Teddy protects Lenny for the next time.

Again, there's no need for an excessive explanation where the more simple one works. Teddy has much more immediate reason to protect Lenny - 200 grands in Jimmy's car that Lenny drives now. For several times Teddy tries to get car keys from Lenny - first by persuading Lenny to switch clothes (and the car!) at Emma's, then when driving Dodd out of town, then offering to fix the broken window. This impelling urge, and not a hypothetical next time, is what defines Teddy's behavior.

[–] BugleBob 14 years ago

________________________________________________________________________________

Again, there's no need for an excessive explanation where the more simple one works. Teddy has much more immediate reason to protect Lenny - 200 grands in Jimmy's car that Lenny drives now. For several times Teddy tries to get car keys from Lenny - first by persuading Lenny to switch clothes (and the car!) at Emma's, then when driving Dodd out of town, then offering to fix the broken window. This impelling urge, and not a hypothetical next time, is what defines Teddy's behavior.
_______________________________________________________________________________

So all Teddy is interested in is the money? nothing else? how is he HELPING Lenny? Teddy is a cop? a friend? liar? Why has he kept Lenny around so long?

Have to say... I have read alot of posts, and you have alot of responses. It seems you came up with YOUR explanation a long time ago and now spend your time here disproving any other thought or angle.

You pick and choose the comments you want to respond to and ignore the rest

Who created the fact sheet? (Presumably he was talking to Teddy) IS NOT A FACT. and has no place on there.
Is that your way of keeping it simple?

It is not a simple story. I'm not making it difficult. I don't beleive there are any real goofs. but every scene means something. ther are several things that have not been addressed by you or anyone else and would possibly have some bearing to the story.

I said possibly.

I'm willing to consider it.

I'm OPEN minded.

So... Tell me about the pick up truck... and try not to use the word apparantly or presumably too much. as that is not factual...

I'm rootin' for ya, we're all in this together.

[–] mad_weather 14 years ago

and try not to use the word apparantly or presumably too much. as that is not factual...

Well, "apparently" and "presumably" are exactly words for something that is *not* factual, but is accepted as the most plausible working hypothesis, while others seem to be less "waterproof". That's the often case with discussing "Memento".

So all Teddy is interested in is the money? nothing else? how is he HELPING Lenny? Teddy is a cop? a friend? liar? Why has he kept Lenny around so long?

I think that at first Teddy *was* helping Lenny and acted as his friend. But after he did help him to find and kill the first John G, and when Lenny, instead of "somehow remembering" it, grew restless and started so search for John G. again, Teddy got more cynical disposition about his quest. We don't know whether Teddy followed Lenny for that year between the first kill and "current" moment or not. There's no evidence to this or that option, could be either way (though if this is not a first killing for money, why Teddy still drives a crappy car?). But when several pieces came together, when Jimmy G appeared, a drug dealer that nobody but his girlfriend would care for, Teddy felt a chance of easy money and grabbed at it. Again, later he might or might not come to a decision to repeat it once again, of which we know nothing, but for now, it's too early for Teddy to consider it, while the current situation with money still in Lenny's car and Lenny being too close to the last crime scene isn't yet resolved.

In short, I believe Teddy's disposition gradually deteriorated from "He's a nice guy, he deserves some help" in the beginning, through "He's a nice guy, but without MY guidance he's nothing" somewhere during the year, to "There's friendship, and there's money, let's not mix priorities" in the period actually shown.

Teddy is a cop? a friend? liar?

All at once.

It seems you came up with YOUR explanation a long time ago and now spend your time here disproving any other thought or angle.

[shrug] If this is how you see it, so be it. I'm not going to apologize for some "other thoughts or angles" being not well-thought-out enough. Two can play this game - if you have arguments to support your version and/or find weak spots in mine, go ahead. Even in case we won't persuade each other, an *argumentative* brain workout may at least prove amusing. If you don't - well, simply whining about not respecting other people's "angles" won't impress me. "Opinions are like as*holes - everybody's got one, and all of them stink" (c).

(Presumably he was talking to Teddy) IS NOT A FACT.

"He" who? Please clarify which episode you're talking about right now. I presume this is about Lenny talking to someone by the phone in black-and-white scenes; if not, disregard the next paragraph.

Yes, it's not a fact. But I have a reason to think it is so: in the scene in Emma's parlor, Teddy says: "Sometimes you don't answer the phone, so he slips *beep* under your door to scare you into answering it, giving you a line of crap about John G being a local drug dealer", which exactly describes the black-and-white scene that took place no more than a couple of hours before. If it was not him, then how did he know that this is what happened?

It is not a simple story. I'm not making it difficult. I don't beleive there are any real goofs. but every scene means something. ther are several things that have not been addressed by you or anyone else and would possibly have some bearing to the story.

Oh, there's no doubt that there are plenty of moments in Memento that allow for multiple interpretations. Not all of them, though, are significant to the story, and by close examination, it usually turns out that where it *does* matter, alternate interpretations tend to not hold water.

So... Tell me about the pick up truck...

Er... What about the pick up truck?

[–] the-author 14 years ago

Steve aka "sdcapr" (and about six other names) wrote the FAQ and his version of the actual answers. That is why he is the only one who refers to them as facts or proof. He will often refer to them as if they were gospel. Beware.

[–] PhoenixRising1980 12 years ago

Teddy has much more immediate reason to protect Lenny - 200 grands in Jimmy's car that Lenny drives now. For several times Teddy tries to get car keys from Lenny - first by persuading Lenny to switch clothes (and the car!) at Emma's, then when driving Dodd out of town, then offering to fix the broken window. This impelling urge, and not a hypothetical next time, is what defines Teddy's behavior

This makes no sense. Teddy could easily get the $200K immediately, it is nothing for him to either pull a gun on Lenny and make him give it to him, or simply knock Teddy out, take his keys and take the money. In both scenarios, Lenny would never remember what happened anyway. If Teddy really wanted that money, he would've done either one of those scenarios right after he finds Lenny at the tattoo parlor.

[–] sdckapr 14 years ago

I am not going to respond to all your comments as madweather has joined in and I don't want to split the thread just to expand on his answers. He has an excellent knowledge of the film (even though we disagree on several points of interpretation of what some of the facts mean).

I started to watch this film again last night. Backwards.

I presume by "backwards" you mean in chronological order, other than the scene during the opening credits none of the film is backwards, the flow of the color sections make the flow of those segments seem backward, but the truly only "backward in time" flow is going from color to black and white...

It is amazing how simple things get burnt into your memory (that are wrong) when you watch it the way it is presented. alot of facts are definitely mixed up.

It is not the facts that are mixed up, the facts remain the same. It is the presumptions and conclusions one makes about some of the facts without having all the details...

I read the facts from the linbk you provided, though most are accurate there are alot missing that definitly contribute to the story.

The list of facts is not meant to be "all-inclusive", but to concentrate on what is required to tell what we know happens without any interpretation of those facts.

Presumably with Teddy. which I think because it is not a fact is a big mistake to presume.This elimanates a many number of possibilities.

It is listed as a presumption and a link to discussing the logic of the conclusion. It is not presented as a fact. While there are many possibilities (Natalie on the phone, it is always Burt, Jimmy, Dodd, Sammy, Emma, other characters in the film or even someone never shown in the film) the suggestion (as madweather indicated with some reasoning) and also listed in a FAQ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.15 using who Lenny goes to meet in the lobby.

I still beleive The fact are the key to the story with a little interpetation of the conversation and lies being told.

And that is where the conventional thought comes from. If we presume that the film provides an answer then it follows we need to accept Teddy's solution as it is the only one provided in the film. If we presume Teddy is lying, then even Nolan admits the film provides no answers. [as mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, in one of the commentaries Nolan states: "A lot of people watch the film would rather believe Teddy and the appalling ideas that he presents than to go without an answer".

Fact: Natalie knows of Teddy, Her note said kill Dodd or put him on to Teddy. Teddy knows all about Lenny. His pictures, his condition, his system. They have a very long relationship.

Yes the movie indicates that she knows OF Teddy, but it demonstrates (unless we presume that she is pretending for Lenny) that she does NOT know who he is. Her not did not say to "kill Dodd", it said "Put him onto Teddy OR just get RiD of him FOR NATALie". The note says nothing about killing. And while Teddy does seems to know a lot about Lenny, it is NOT a fact that "They have a very long relationship", this is a conclusion. It is POSSIBLE (though I believe the film suggests that the relationship is over a year old) that they just met in the lobby of the motel when Lenny goes to meet an "Officer Gammell".

The angle I'm working on now is Lenny probably is not a cop.(though I have not ruled it out altogether. maybe a bad cop)

I presume that you mean "Teddy", not Lenny. It is a presumption either way, both are possible. The important point the film makes is that when Lenny decides to setup Teddy, he BELIEVES that Teddy is a cop.

But is working with another bad cop.Possibly the one talking to Lenny on the phone.

While possible, I see nothing in the film that suggests that there is some character affecting the plot that is never shown. Where do you think the film suggests some unseen character? I see nothing in the film that requires some unseen character, so fail to see the need to even speculate about characters unseen or unmentioned...

Who created the fact sheet?

The FAQ was created several years ago by a user named "sokolinskaia". "Wiz-Kid" and I contributed and helped in creation and editing certain topics at the start. [It originally started as a means to point posters to frequently asked questions to the board instead of rewriting the same answers over and over again or to point to threads that would move tot he the later pages and then be deleted.]

I continue to contribute and even a user bj_kuehl has been known to make contributions and protect it from vandalism and from overly speculative items.

But as mentioned in the FAQ:
"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 discussed on the boards. The question and answers will deal with what is portrayed within the film and is suggested by the creators of the film.

The many other possible alternate interpretations was the reason this thread was started, to be able to discuss and debate the more speculative and fringe ideas that are out of place in the FAQ. Like Wikipedia, the FAQ is more for the conventional interpretations, though unlike wikipedia it does try to acknowledge that there are other possibilities and that the movie does not explicitly answer many questions, so some interpretation, speculation and conclusions must be reached on the facts we are shown (but remember some believe that nothing in the story is true, that it is all a dream, which makes every interpretation possible).

[–] Caboose22 14 years ago

I agree with your interpretation and it was well thought out. However, the more I watch the movie, the more I come up with a theory that there is no Teddy. What I mean by that is that perhaps Teddy is his memory. I still hold this theory in my mind since no one else interacts with or sees Teddy. Perhaps there is an other cop looking for Lenny for all this murdering hes been doing. Now I know there are no facts to support this and it's not something that I've looked into too closely but I still find it interesting to speculate upon. This theory sort of jumped out at me because I watch a lot of movies and subconciously always look for the twist in movies and notice when only a single character interacts with another throughout a film. Anyways, great post for a great movie, cheers!

[–] mad_weather 14 years ago

No *Teddy*? That is, no Joe Pantoliano? The guy who betrayed Neo? Well, that would require that Lenny was not just an AA case, but a schizophrenic. Colored scenes are not memories, they are happening here and now (for that matter, they *couldn't* be memories, because Lenny is unable to form them). But you're wrong, Burt the doorman sees him in the beginning ("This guy. He's here already."), and also Emma the tattooist ("It's private back here!").

[–] Drakenlord 14 years ago

How can there not be a Teddy? We saw a picture of a dead Teddy.

Yes, ignore Sdckpar as he is not interested in the truth but only in his deluded opinion.