SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is April 19th, 2024, 9:51pm
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Reviews    Script Reviews  ›  Memento Moderators: bert
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 1 Guests

 Pages: « 1, 2 : All
Recommend Print
  Author    Memento  (currently 2822 views)
Breanne Mattson
Posted: January 25th, 2006, 10:43pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1347
Posts Per Day
0.20

Quoted from Martin
Does that make sense?


Yes, it does make sense. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it as well and I don’t recall the revelation that Sammy didn’t have a wife.

Michael (my boyfriend) says he vaguely recalls the possibility that a character may have glossed over the condition not being real.

Your explanation makes it a lot better. If that’s not the intention of the writer, it should have been.

Honestly, I have to say, the whole timeline thing was far more detrimental to the movie than any plot points. Some of the points you’re making would have been much more considerable if it weren’t for that backward scene gimmick.

As far as I’m concerned, it was totally unnecessary and really hurt the cohesiveness of the film. If it had benefited the story in some way, I’d say, “great idea,” but it didn’t. It just made it muddled and confusing unnecessarily. Especially with a plot that’s so complex. Stuff like that just makes me think the producers are trying to hide the plot holes.

But yes, I understand what you’re saying. And thank you for an insightful explanation. I’d have to watch the movie again to see if I think you’re right (and I’m definitely not excited about the notion of watching this movie again), but I appreciate the food for thought.

I’ll check out the link.


Breanne


Logged
Private Message Reply: 15 - 28
sfpunk
Posted: January 26th, 2006, 12:40am Report to Moderator
New



Location
US
Posts
102
Posts Per Day
0.01
(POST CONTAINS SPOILERS)
the backwards narrative to me I think worked absolutely perfectly because it put us in his shoes. We know what he's doing to do but we have no clue what he's just done just as he does. The story is then about finding out the motives of a guy who doesn't remember his motives himself. It's one of my favorite movies of all time and I'll admit it's confusing but that doesn't mean it makes no sense or is full of plot holes. I'll try to clarify a few of them but I may leave stuff out so sorry in advance.

To hit on what Martin said, I think that he interpretated the film differently. I hesitate to use the words wrong or right because I've been on IMDB discussing this exact thing. I don't believe that Leonard kiled his wife with the penicilin, that was just Teddy tricking him and then he got so confused and the flashback indicated that. I feel that it's supposed to cast doubt into our minds just as it does Leonards but in the end it doesn't make much of a difference as it's just a subplot, I don't think it's trying to imply that his wife wasn't murdered.

**however, an argument people make for that point is that if you watch one of the black and white scenes with Sammy Jenkis in a mental institution it flicks to Leonard for just a second in that institution which makes me think that Nolan was implying his eventual fate. I don't know if it was trying to say if Leonard was Sammy or just that Leonard would eventually end up crazy in the same way and be committed. The DVD I have also contains note cards on Leonard after he's being checking into a mental institution. However, I still don't think that adds up to the Leonard being Sammy and killing his wife deal**

As for Breannes comment about how he remembered stuff he did it through condition and pictures. I'm pretty sure he always took the picture of the cars and things and learning to write stuff down was probably done through conditioning. I don't think it ever says how long ago his wife died so he could have had a while to get used to having to take pictures of everything. Again, in the Sammy Jenkins back story it explains that conditioning should have made for new learning.

Martin, I'd be interested to hear what you think about my theory and Breanne, I think you should definetly give it another view. Maybe there are plot holes that I am overlooking as I was obsessed with this movie when it came out and I tend to overlook plotholes when I really like a movie but I do feel there are explanations for what you mentioned.


My Scripts
'Trail Of Ashes' - (Drama/Horror)

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 16 - 28
Breanne Mattson
Posted: January 26th, 2006, 1:10am Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1347
Posts Per Day
0.20
The movie specifically says that he can form no new memories. It’s impossible to learn or “condition” without the use of memory. Therefore, if his condition is real, everything he learns or uses memory to do is a plot hole. You simply cannot learn without the use of memory. Period. He would be like the other guy, basically a zombie.

If his condition is the result of insanity, then I would be willing to reconsider my opinion because that would change everything.

As far as the backward scenes, however, I’m sorry. I simply cannot believe they are necessary. I still believe it’s just a gimmick.

I’m not saying the movie didn’t have potential. It had a lot going for it. I just don’t think it ultimately worked. I’m the kind of viewer/reader who will forgive a lot of problems with a movie, even a less than satisfying payoff, even boredom, if I think the experience is ultimately good. This movie, however, I found to be a failure for me in the overall experience of it.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 17 - 28
Kevan
Posted: January 26th, 2006, 8:06am Report to Moderator
New


Posts
298
Posts Per Day
0.04
Hehe..

Breanne has made a good argument for her assertions regarding the holes in the plot.. A lot of the criticisms she and I are referring to is the believability of the loss of a ‘short-term memory’..

A 'short-term memory'.. This is part of our perception which as humans we require to function..

Don't get me wrong, the premise for 'Memento' is real clever but unfortunately the unraveling of the narrative does not work because we as an audience are expected to blindly accept that the main character is suffering from 'short-term memory loss' and that he can solve problems of what has gone before when he has no memory of what went before. That's the biggest hole there is right there! The device used by the story-teller fails to recognize that he has constructed a main character who uses alternative mechanisms substituting these for his memory but he is unable to remember anything else about people and or events so how can he use stuff that he can't remember is connected to the events or people or not..

See what I mean? The explanation for a character with no memory using a device or additional devices to gain information of which his memory is unable to retain is futile because as soon as he wakes up the next day (using this as an example) his lack of short term-memory means he would have forgot what he did yesterday.. In fact, he may just wander into a burger joint order a meal and coke, read a paper and wonder to himself "now, what was it I did yesterday? For the love of Mike, I can't remember." The character’s pockets would be full of photographs, writing on scraps of paper, telephone numbers and each day he wakes he won’t know the significance of them because he has no memory.. Seems obvious to me.

There are varying degrees to how a person suffers with the loss of 'short-term memory'.. 'Short-term memory' refers to what we did today, yesterday, this morning.. Long-term memory refers to your life experiences the very stuff that make you who you are.. Gradually over time your sort-term memory becomes assimilated into your long-term memory, some stuff is discarded but the important stuff that your brain decides is important to you is retained..

There is a third element to memory and this is called 'trace memory'.. This refers to what happens now at this very moment.. Anything you do or say or see let’s say experience via your perception is brought into your ‘trace memory’ this is then fed into your 'short-term memory'. Only later does this information become filtered and assimilated into your 'long-term' memory.

Therefore, the criticisms are not directly related towards the character’s behavior via his ‘long-term memory’, he will remember he had a wife, can drive a car, who his name is, all manner of stuff actually. It’s the loss of the ‘short-term memory’ which poses the real problem because if one suffers from a loss of this then it inhibits the memory of events which happened in that very ‘short-term memory’ You can’t be selective with what stuff the character will conveniently forget and at the same time use physical devices as an attempt to stimulate that ‘short-term memory’ because he hasn’t got one to be stimulated.

If the main character has an accomplice, and ally who took notes and kept both him and the audience up-to-date about the back history and the unfolding information which enables a tying-in of history then this would communicate to both the character and the audience the very information we need to know.

As it is, we as an audience are expected to suspend our belief that the device used for the main character. i.e. ‘short-term memory loss’ can be substituted by something else.. This is simply not possible without the help from an additional character who does not suffer from this memory loss..

If you are unfortunate to suffer from ‘short-term memory loss’ then you’ll be stranded like a ship lost at sea.. Everyday you will not be able to remember what happened the day before. You will be stuck in a loop only being able to remember the stuff before the fatal memory loss occurred and nothing more..

This is the very major fault with the movie..

You either accept the author's premise and enjoy the movie for what it is..

Alternatively you are a rational being, you know that the loss of ‘short-term memory’ means a human is unable to function correctly on those levels which require memory and as a consequence you reject the author’s premise and are able to comfortably assert that the story does not work because of the failing of the device used for the main character. As a consequence, any believability in the movie is lost because of the knowledge you have about the concept of ‘short-term memory’. The suspension of disbelief is broken, the story falls flat on its face all because of a poor premise which does not work.

It’s all about questioning the premise. If it works for you then fine, I don’t won’t to spoil your enjoyment of this movie. For myself, and Breanne it seems, it simply doesn’t work.

If I remember correctly, I don’t remember saying that..
Logged
Private Message Reply: 18 - 28
Martin
Posted: January 26th, 2006, 8:42am Report to Moderator
Been Around



Location
Frankfurt, Germany
Posts
607
Posts Per Day
0.09
So you're suggesting that when you suspend disbelief, you fail to be a rational being?

I think the one point you're missing is that, through conditioning, Leonard IS able to form new memories. Sammy Jankis was faking his condition. This was revealed in the way that he continually failed to 'learn' which electrified items to avoid when he was tested. This proved that he was a fraud.
Leonard supposedly develops the real condition which allows him to remember certain things through conditioning. This very fact is reiterated several times throughout the movie. The notion that if he repeats something enough times, he 'should' be able to remember it. Since the events of the film supposedly take place a year after his wife's death, is it not possible that he has a long term memory of these events albeit in a jumbled format. Would looking at the same tattoos every day for a year make him remember the significance of what is written? Quite possibly. I think if a movie defines its own set of rules and adheres to those rules, we can suspend our disbelief and enjoy the ride.

By your logic, our knowledge of the paradox of time travel makes it impossible to enjoy any movie that uses time travel as a device.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 19 - 28
Kevan
Posted: January 26th, 2006, 6:17pm Report to Moderator
New


Posts
298
Posts Per Day
0.04
Dr dude

Time Travel is Science Fiction and we do suspend our belief with these forms of fiction in order to comprehend.. This is our appreciation of it.. I reckon we all agree to these concepts as a social construction of reality.. It’s a cultural thing common to Western thought based upon science and reasoning, mathematics, religion, law and other socially constructed institutions. I believe German academic literature was at the forefront of this very argument in the early part of the 20th Century.

When something is rooted in a ‘reality’ I feel it must at least reflect that reality. If a concept bends the rules of reality, so to speak, then this is cheating.. This is why in my opinion, I consider the plot in ‘Momento’ to have a large hole.. In this particular example I mean..

For me I need to feel comfortable about reality because it means a lot to me, it locates me in a moment within a universe of chaos.. Otherwise logics have no meaning and everything we perceive is simply constructs of screenwriters.. I prefer an agreed perceptual reality.. I don't mind it blurred around the edges, particularly stories which test my understanding of my above statement but the concept better be a sound one otherwise I use my bullshit meter and if it looks and feels as if it fails my test then it falls flat on its face.

There is a difference.. One is ’so’ and the other is ‘nay’.. Which position would you adopt based upon the concept of logic. Memory or having no memory

But, people can still enjoy this movie if they ignore that reality is being bent here..

My comments are simply an opinion, admittedly adopting a position of an agreed social construction, rather than a deconstruction of a social construction of reality just to work as a plot device, but it is an opinion just the same, but opposite.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 20 - 28
Martin
Posted: January 26th, 2006, 7:02pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Location
Frankfurt, Germany
Posts
607
Posts Per Day
0.09
I'll make this my last post on the subject.

I'm not sure what 'agreed social construction' you're referring to, but here's an interesting study of a patient who suffers from anterograde amnesia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_%28patient%29

I think it shows that Memento is rooted in reality and that the reality is a lot more complicated than 'memory' or 'no memory'.

Anyway, you don't like the movie and that's fair enough. I respect your opinion. But I'm of the opinion that, although flawed, Memento is a little more plausible than you give it credit for.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 21 - 28
Breanne Mattson
Posted: January 26th, 2006, 10:10pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1347
Posts Per Day
0.20
Martin,

I know you said you’ve already posted your last post and I don’t want to provoke you. I understand why because this could go on forever and I would also like to get out of this conversation at some point. But I would like to say something.

I think you make some very valid points. I’ve been thinking about what you said and I think you touched upon an important aspect of this whole thing when you spoke about suspending disbelief. I’m wondering now if the problem for me with this film doesn’t lie not in an implausible premise so much as in its inability to get me to suspend disbelief.

We all must suspend disbelief to some degree to watch any movie. Even a drama based on a true life story requires the viewer to ignore that they’re watching a movie and accept the actors and scene cuts, etc. So I think the question here is really now, why did this movie fall so short for me in getting me to suspend disbelief? And I’ve basically concluded that the reasons are often shallow. We suspend disbelief for a film when it shows us what we want to see.

I’ll do a comparison of The Terminator and Memento to demonstrate.

I saw The Terminator in the theater when it came out. I recall the audience really getting into it and really loving it. It doesn’t seem so original now because it’s been so endlessly copied but at the time, it was very innovative. It was an immediate box office success. But why?

I thought about it. And as I remember, people went on and on about the action. They talked about Arnold smashing and shooting stuff. And then there was the quotable dialogue. “Come with me if you want to live!” And of course the now trademark Arnold, “I’ll be back.” The plot holes were the last thing people talked about and then they were just glossed over and then people moved on.

For me, there was also the woman who, though simple and ignored in her everyday life, was so important that a man would travel through time to give his life to defend her. It carried with it a tragic love story very similar to the romance of a wartime epic. And in the middle of an action flick.

People wanted to believe it because it was exciting and quick paced and, aside from the time travel element, relatively tight and simple. It started out with a naked Arnold Schwarzenegger ripping a guy’s heart out. And then comes a naked Michael Biehn (who for my money is one of the most handsome and sexy men I’ve ever seen) to save the day. I’ve already mentioned the Linda Hamilton character which really resonated with me (and I think a lot of women).

Cameron structured it so that it gave us every reason to want to suspend disbelief.

Of course, something doesn’t have to be action to do that. One of my favorite movies of all time (if not the) is A Tale of Two Cities with Ronald Coleman. I don’t believe for five seconds that it was really possible for a man to switch places with a man in prison, but the idea of a man loving a woman so much that he would rather give his own life for her to be with the man she truly loved is such a staggering and moving notion that the viewer wants to witness it so bad as to forget the rationale and simply experience it.

Now to Memento. While pondering these things, I think I finally realized why it ultimately failed for me. I thought about my viewing experience. When I first started watching the movie, I was excited. I’d heard it was good and I’d wanted to see it for a while. It started out interesting.

After a while, though, I got tired of it. The backward scene thing was I think the first thing to start irritating me. I still don’t find it necessary. It was very, very (I can’t stress this enough) annoying.

Then there was the main character. I know he’s got a memory problem and I tried to forgive him for this but the character was just so flat for me. He was just the same in every scene. He never changed or grew and transformed in any way. Again, I realize he had a memory problem. I’ve watched movies about families where a loved one had Alzheimer’s but I felt for the characters, the torn apart family and the poor parent or grandparent sadly losing their precious memories of the people they most cherished. I was touched by it. But the character in Memento just wasn’t able to evoke those kinds of feelings.

Its inability to make me care about the characters allowed me to reinstate disbelief and start rationalizing the story. From there, it just fell apart.

Anyway, sorry this is so long.

The last thing I want to say is that everything I say is my opinion. Just because I say a movie is bad doesn’t mean it’s bad. It means just that I say it is. I’m not going to insert “this is just my opinion” into everything I say because I think it should be something that’s just understood. I know you know that. Just saying it for the record.

The movie may very well be a masterpiece for all I know. But when people dissect the particulars of a film, it can’t be good. I think how good a film is ultimately depends on whether the feedback is about the things that made you suspend disbelief or things that bug you when you’re unable to.

Like I said, I totally respect your opinion. And you may be right. Could be I just don’t see it.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 22 - 28
Kevan
Posted: January 27th, 2006, 6:29am Report to Moderator
New


Posts
298
Posts Per Day
0.04
Dr Mabuse

Just an explanation about my reasons for this film's failings..

Like you said, its just an opinion..

If it works for you, then this is great, I have no problem with that.. Cool..

Kev
Logged
Private Message Reply: 23 - 28
Impulse
Posted: January 27th, 2006, 10:01pm Report to Moderator
New


Colon Dash Right Parenthesis

Location
MO
Posts
329
Posts Per Day
0.05
Wait, wait, wait ... SPOILER ALERT!!





Shelby's wife was murdered. Teddy told him she survived and that Leonard let her kill herself with insulin, but that's not true. Leonard remembered that she wasn't diabetic. After Leonard accuses him of lying, Teddy backtracks and says "okay.. I guess I can't make you believe what you don't want to be true." What really happened is that Shelby had already murdered the real "John G" but Teddy constructed the tale again to keep Leonard looking, like a demented little game for him to watch. Oh, and Teddy is really John Edward Gammel, a police officer who worked on Leonard's case. Anyway, just to clear that up. I liked it. I don't care that other people don't like it, I loved it.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 24 - 28
sfpunk
Posted: January 28th, 2006, 12:46am Report to Moderator
New



Location
US
Posts
102
Posts Per Day
0.01
impulse, that is just one of the explanations
if you go to the link that dr mabuse gave it explains a theory about how leonard did kill his wife with incelin and from what i read it made sense
i interpretated the exact way you did but the other one is quite plausible too... im not sure if youre supposed to know which is real


My Scripts
'Trail Of Ashes' - (Drama/Horror)

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 25 - 28
Kevan
Posted: January 28th, 2006, 8:28am Report to Moderator
New


Posts
298
Posts Per Day
0.04

Quoted from Impulse
I don't care that other people don't like it, I loved it.


That's an expression of your freedom of choice, to illustrate you have a valid opinion.. Hey that's great..

On the other side of the debate it's referred to as an alternative viewpoint, a lot of people have them regarding religion, law, political systems, sexual orientation, food, and, I could go on all day here, all manner of things..

To not care suggests you fail to see the point based upon your own heavily biased opinion rather than show respect of the existence of another opinion..

You don't neccesarily have to agree with somebody else's opinion to recognize an alternative exists out there.

This is the beauty of ideas, that somebody sees the world a little differently to yourself. This is the very stuff that make me and you different...
Logged
Private Message Reply: 26 - 28
Breanne Mattson
Posted: January 28th, 2006, 1:31pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1347
Posts Per Day
0.20
I always find it funny when people say they don’t care what other people think. There’s a tremendous difference between saying that and something like, “I care what other people think but I don’t let that dictate my view.”

I’ve said it before and I’m saying it now. People do care what other people think and people who say they don’t are lying. Sorry to be so blunt but it’s the truth. People do care what other people think. You wouldn’t feel the need to point out how much you don’t care if you really didn’t care.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 27 - 28
Impulse
Posted: January 29th, 2006, 5:25pm Report to Moderator
New


Colon Dash Right Parenthesis

Location
MO
Posts
329
Posts Per Day
0.05
Okay, maybe I shouldn't have said it that way. What I meant was, "I see where you're coming from, but I still like it."

Thanks for the head's up about the link, Kevan.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 28 - 28
 Pages: « 1, 2 : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Script Reviews  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006