Skip to main content

Well, I guess I can only make you remember the things you want to be true.

Memento
(2000)

(SPOILERS) Nolan joins forces with cinematographer Wally Pfister for the first time, and together they set the scene for the increasingly vast-in-scale – but cerebrally so – populist fare that would follow over the next two decades. Memento was one of those instantly cool cult indie darlings, like Donnie Darko or Pi, and you were invited to do little else but wow and flutter at a formidable new talent. Which is to say that Memento is impressive, both formally and thematically, but it also evidences the weakness that would increasingly manifest for the director going forward.

Memento’s conceit is both simple and effective; through telling his tale of an anterograde amnesiac in reverse, Nolan renders the straightforward facts concerning his protagonist’s quest complex and elusive. One can play the picture in chronological order if one has the right DVD (I still have the original R2 single disc edition); I’d never got round to it until this visit, and even then, I quickly gave up, as it simply isn’t very interesting viewed that way. Indeed, one of the reasons I suspect I haven’t returned to Memento in almost two decades is that, despite rating it highly, it isn’t so stimulating as a repeat offender. Thematically, yes, but as a narrative it rather wilts. First impressions are everything. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing (Roger Ebert suggested it wouldn’t warrant multiple viewings: “Confusion is the state we are intended to be in”); it rather depends what you’re angling for from your movie.

Certainly, the info dump that kicks off the proceedings (ie comes at the end of the released movie) is unwieldy to say the least. All that business with Sammy Jankis (Stephen Tobolowsky) turns out to have been Leonard’s own experience and – as Joe Pantoliano’s cop Teddy Gammell tells it – Leonard tracked down his wife’s killer(s) a long time ago, but due to his condition refused to accept it. Consequently, Teddy used Leonard’s vigilance for his own ends (this refusal to accept the truth in turn leads to Teddy’s death at “the beginning”). Now, it may be that Teddy is lying – Nolan noted audiences were unwilling to believe Teddy, in much the same manner that Leonard isn’t – but if that’s ambiguous, what is not is that we see Leonard actively nourishing his own self-deception. Which rather supports Teddy’s account, at least to a degree.

Indeed, for all Memento’s structural dazzle, as a puzzler it isn’t so distant from other shlockier genre examples. Had it turned out that Leonard was actually responsible for his wife’s death – and I bet Nolan considered it; the germ of the idea can be found in his assaulting Natalie, and then her turning it on him – it would have been in the same amnesiac/mental aberration furrow as the likes of Shattered and Shutter Island (God forbid it bore any relation to the latter).

Instead, what’s significant about Memento is how small its world is, and that – in direct contrast to Nolan’s subsequent fare, except maybe for Insomnia – is its salvation. All Leonard really does is become suspicious of Teddy, and thanks to a stray drinks coaster hook up with and get manipulated by Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss). Indeed, it’s in this that Memento’s effective dissertation on paradigms is laid out. Those who know more about the world than Leonard, about the truth of the world – Teddy, Natalie, motel clerk Burt (Mark Boone Junior) fleecing Leonard for two rooms – have no compunction in influencing and using him for their own benefit, fully aware he stands no chance of seeing things as they really are. And possibly, even if they show him, he won’t believe them. Sound familiar?

If one has a limited understanding of or ability to perceive the world, it becomes impossible to make decisions about one’s circumstances that are beneficial to one’s wellbeing. And the more corrupted that perception is or becomes, the more one is likely to make choices that are actively counterproductive to the same.

Leonard is caught in a purgatory, spending his life going round in circles because others tell him to, and he actively allows them to tell him to. Decisions about where he lives (Burt), whom he makes friends with (Natalie, who deceives him and sends him on a massive detour, being Callum Keith Rennie’s Dodd) and whom he trusts as a guide (Teddy). In Memento, this truth is a particularly stark one, because it’s really rather pathetic that Leonard believes he’s onto something, that what he’s doing is important, that it’s “big”, and that the key to everything is within his grasp. But he actually has no idea and further, he cannot, because he has zero perspective. He can’t see things from above, looking down. Much like our lives, perhaps? Even when we think we believe we have insight, be it spiritual, political or global, we’re invariably still only snatching a sliver of something someone else is permitting us to perceive. “The world doesn’t just disappear when you close your eyes, does it?” But to an extent, it does.

Leonard has a massive book of clues, but his trying to work things out on a personal level is akin to the rabbit warren of, say, the JFK assassination; it will only turn up further questions, because the closer one gets, the further away one actually is from coherent perception. Leonard’s condition simply means his confirmation biases are more immediate and dramatic: “You don’t want the truth. You make up your own truth” he is told, and finally he admits “Do I lie to myself to be happy? In you case Teddy, yes, I will”.

Nolan commented "What the film says is that you can take on knowledge unconsciously through repetition, through habit". But that’s partly due to its internal logic (the how it is that Leonard even knows he has a condition). What it really says is that unconscious knowledge – intuition, if you like – is no more valid than flawed memory.

In many respects this scale and approach to a movie is Nolan playing to his strengths; the geography of action is within his grasp, and the focus is within the cranium rather than overstretching itself with dazzling set pieces and special effects (which is where his limitations as a filmmaker usually manifest themselves). The intricacies of editing work for him when they’re exclusively to do with the mind. The Tobolowsky plot is easily the most arresting part of Memento, and it’s easy to see why Nolan decided to lace it throughout the middle section of the movie (watched in a chunk at the start, it takes up about a quarter of an hour). It’s an excellent “in” to the picture’s themes; Sammy’s wife (Harriet Sansom Harris) begins doubting her husband’s condition because someone else doubts her husband’s condition. How well do we know our minds? How well can we say we know who we are, let alone assess who others are?

All Nolan’s films are about perception and the limitations thereof to some degree, but Memento is the one that probably sets out this store most overtly. The director’s canvases will change, and sometimes, his efforts won’t be wholly satisfyingly, as he attempts to stretch the material to fit his predilections (Batman Begins). But it’s easy to see, on the predictive programming front, why Nolan has become such a darling of TPTB. He’s putting it out there in plain sight, how easy it is to blur and blend and fabricate the reality of the masses, and still we’ll be entirely malleable when we’re told to be.


Popular posts from this blog

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.