Talk:Memento (film)/Archive 2

Leonard's Condition

I do not think it is crystal clear that Leonard actually suffers from anterograde amnesia. As he was studying the case of Sammy Jenkis he was trying to determine if it was psychological or an actual physical ailment. I think it is entirely possible that Leonard is suffering from short-term memory loss only psychologically, becasue it seems to be highly improbably that two people so closely linked would get it and the fact that he was studying the Jenkis case would make it very prevalent in his mind and in a sense the condition was highly suggestible to him. I am not really sure which is the truth, but I do not agree with the definiteveness of the article on this point.

I left this comment, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Gangster Octopus

One can of course try to prove that nothing of all of this happened, but as to although it is never made clear whether his condition is also psychological or due to the blow to the head. - his condition was physical. Proof: a) Sammy couldn't learn to distinguish electrified objects by instinct b) Lenny at one point mentioned something about that he learned to trust his instincts c) Lenny proves that he is able to learn by instincts by getting rid of Teddy. I might be totally wrong, and there might be other interpretations. Let the so called 'experts' of the movie decide. Dominykas Blyze 23:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

But if Teddy is telling the truth (which he is, plenty of info supports this), Sammy's test information is irrelevant. Sammy is revealed to be a faker, so either he never learned the pattern in the shapes because he pretended not to remember, or this is actually a projected memory and Lenny was the one who couldn't learn through repetition. This makes sense if the problem was psychological, because at some level realizing he was responsible for his wife's death, he would have subconciously manipulated his own mind or system, allowing him to learn by repetition later. Additionally, if the problem is in fact psychological, this could explain how he remembered what happened to his wife and projected it onto Sammy. Some guy 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs significant editing. At the moment it is bloated, and contains a great deal of what can politely be called original research. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Summarizing the questions presented by the movie is not original research. Making opinionated conclusions is. This article needs work, but it also contains a lot of good material. I'm going to do some work on the article (but maybe tomorrow, it's late). --L33tminion (talk) 06:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Did some editing and rewriting. A few things:

1. I worked on the "Plot" and "Characters" sections, but they still need more work.
2. Who played Mrs. Jenkins and who played Jimmy? The actors for the other main characters are mentioned in the "Characters" section.
3. The "Questions and Interpertations" section is long and somewhat repetitive. Could it be condensed and written as a few paragraphs of prose instead of a set of bulleted lists? (I'll put in some time on that section later...)

--L33tminion (talk) 07:47, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I made an initial attempt at rewriting the "Questions and Interpertations" section. (Should the title of that section be changed to something else?) --L33tminion (talk) 16:30, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Just as a comment, the name of the character is Sammy Jenkis, with an e, which can easily be checked by looking at the tatoo on Leonard's hand. It's listed as Jankis throughout the article. In general the theories of how the story fits together are probably worth mentioning more than particular interpretations, since the film is deliberately left up to some debate. Relevant sources of information include the DVD extras, Teddy's and Leonard's recollections, and the official memento movie site.BigCow|

You know, I took a shot at cleaning up the "Questions and Interpretations" section, to remove the bloat and original research, but frankly, I've come to the conclusion it's all original research and should be removed. --Misterwindupbird 06:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His name is Sammy Jankis. I checked a freeze frame of the movie, and it supports this. However, for further proof, check the end credits or just listen to the many times it is said throughout the movie. 68.6.55.51 12:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

I went through the entire plot and rewrote it for clarity, coherancy, correct grammar, and spelling. I changed Sammy Jankis to Jenkis as suggested earlier. I rewrote most of the character summaries to be consistant with the plot changes and merged some of the introductory information with the plot information to form the much needed summary. I think you will find my changes to be fairly thorough but please change anything that needs it. I have attempted to acheive a more objective view of the movie and removed many phrases in the plot and summary that were more opinion-like. I have chosen not to go into EVERY detail of the film for sake of brevity- but have kept those plot points that are most relevant to Leonard's story as a whole. If you are in doubt of my changes, please read the version prior to my edits and compare them to the current version. I think you will find the new version superior. I am taking down the cleanup notice at the top of the article. Thank you. Whetstone 1:47, 3 July, 2005

I would certainly object to the first part of the 'Plot Summary' as described. Chronologically the movie starts with Leonard in his motel room and he relates the story of Sammy Jenkis. But the veracity of that story must be considered as highly suspect. Leonard is a very unreliable narrator and Teddy contradicts the story in large part, although, of course, he may be lying. Also, Sammy is not faking, Leonard makes it very clear that he does not think Sammy is faking. He reasons that Sammy's condition is not physical, but psychological. --Gangster Octopus 5 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

Here is how the paragraph looks now:

"Chronologically speaking, the story begins with Leonard in a motel room. He engages in a conversation on the phone with an unidentified other party, where he tells the story of Sammy Jankis. According to Leonard, he was an insurance investigator and one of the cases was of a man Sammy Jankis, who suffered from anterograde amnesia. Leonard investigates Sammy's case and determines that Sammy's condition is not physical, rather it is psychoogical, and is therefore exempt from any insurance converage."

What would you change about it? Whetstone 2:41, 7 July, 2005

Nothing, I wrote it. --Gangster Octopus 7 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)

"psychoogical" perhaps? Rich Farmbrough 10:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Leonard/Lenny

I haven't seen this movie in years, and I only saw it once, but is Leonard referred to as both Leonard and Lenny in this film?~

His wife called him Lenny and he didn`t like it. He makes a point repeatedly whenever those who get close to him start using it. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)~

Plot summary

What do you think of the following analysis?

- Leonard suffers a blow to the head and gets memory loss.

- His wife is not killed in the attack, she is diabetic.

- In all her pain, she did not believe his illness and tested him (as in the case of Sammy Jenkins), dying from an overdose.

- His remaining life is ruined and seeks revenge with the help of Teddy.

- After they find and he kills the killer Teddy realizes it has no effect on him and starts using him for his own purposes.

The movie picks up about a year later and deals with the events leading to Leonard killing Teddy.

The essential issue is that Leonard is lying to himself in two ways. He has unconsciously manipulated his remaining memory to forget that he killed his wife, mainly using the story of Sammy Jenkins. He also consciously manipulates the notes and even his tattoos, again to forget what he doesn’t like.

Everyone who knows of his condition, Teddy, Natalie and even the Hotel receptionist, manipulate him to serve their own interests. Teddy is not the real liar in the movie, after all he only does it to steer Leonard to his own goals, but Leonard is by far the biggest liar as he consciously and unconsciously lies to himself, shaping his real memories and the "facts" he fabricates.

There are many clues and events in the film to support this hypothesis. Mainly that we do not see his wife die, he remembers her alive several times and rape is a cause of pregnancy, but not death. I believe Teddy is honest when at the end of the film, he talks truthfully to Leonard and that eventually leads to his death. I feel this is one of the messages of the film, how the truth kills, and hints at why Leonard hides away from it.

Christopher Nolan says that there is only one valid interpretation. What do you think? I would like to edit the article, which is still ambiguous, but not without discussion.

Cgonzalezdelhoyo 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a vote of support for your new post at the top of the page. (New items go at the bottom of the Talk page, not the top.) ((OK, now its back in the bottom.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 18:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC))) I don't think there should be any ambiguity in the article. Memento is a murder-mystery with a specific correct answer to it. At the end, as Lenny writes Teddy's license plate number, he asks himself whether it's okay to lie to himself, and responds that in Teddy's case it is. He knows that by writing Teddy's plate number that he is ordering himself to kill Teddy. As he writes it, he knows that Teddy is definitely not his wife's killer, but he's mad at Teddy. Everything Teddy says at the end is true. At one point, Lenny say that he feels like someone has set him up to kill to wrong person. He's correct, but it is he himself who framed the set-up by writing down Teddy's licence plate.

A clue that no mentions around here is the scene with the hooker. Leonard says at one point that it the night his wife was attacked she had been up for a while and hence the bed was cold. He says it would be nice if he remembered the bed as warm so that in the future whenever he woke up he would find the bed cold and know that it was not the same night. That's what he is doing with the hooker. He's laying down a new track in his mind so that instead of remembering a cold bed before the assault, he will remember a warm bed. That's one of the primary themes of the movie -- that we all tell ourselves lies in order to live. Leonard does this all the time. That's one big difference between him and Sammy Jenkins. Sammy allegedly couldn't acquire any kind of new memory through repetition. Leonard can. Leonard has changed his memory of his own wife because in order to live he needs to remember the past differently.

- JethroElfman 12:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tks for the vote. It seems clear to me now that leonard is manipulating his memory in atleast 3 different ways:

- Subconsciously i.e. doesnt remember she has diabetes

- Consciously using repetition i.e. as described above by JethroeElfman

- Consciously using his memory system i.e. whith his tattoos.

Please recall that the tattoo of Samy Jenkins is different from the rest and has been done by him in a careless kind of way. I wonder if that is part an effort to imprint his own subconcious memories of the affair on Sammy Jenkins, and not himself.

It is quite clear to me that this movie is about memories and the role they play in our lives. Leonard is a rare case through whom the issues are augmentated for detailed examination. A brilliant film by all accounts.

P.S. Ocam's razor says we have to ignore the possibility that Tommy is lying to him at the end of the movie. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 18:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Newcomer here so perhaps I'm missing the point, but does a discussion about several possible interpretations of what the plot might mean belong in an encyclopedia entry about the film? I don't know if there's scope for 'Possible interpretations of the film Memento' being a separate article? Mortice 17:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to explain the story in chronological order, while numbering each scene chronologically so then we can explain the scene works something like 19, 1, 18, 2, 17, 3 etc...that way the story can make sense but we can see how it fits together in the reverse chronology. Also maybe put mark the black and white scenes in such a way when they are numbered too such as 19, (1), 18, (2), 17, (3) etc...

Question: I've seen this movie twice now and I still don't completely understand it. If Leonard was in fact the one who was giving insulin injections to his wife and ended up killing her by giving her too many at once, a) how can he remember this story (even if he thinks this is what happened to Sammy Jenkis), and b) if he was in fact committed after killing his wife, why is he not still in a mental institution? Also, if Leonard knew Teddy from before when they were looking for Leonard's wife's rapist, why didn't Leonard have a picture of Teddy? --Katiej88 03:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Film Flaw?

In the article it has been pointed out that Leonard could not know of his condition due to it being physical; he can not remember the fact he has anterograde amnesia. Because it appears he has learnt through repetition he takes his amnesia for granted (he just knows he has it, it is not a memory) I think this should be changed in the article, but I didn't want to just change it because someone might disagree. Drew 02:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Another Interpretation

An interpretation not mentioned in the article is the relationship between revenge and forgetting. Since this is an interpretation, I am putting it in the discussion.

This came to me quickly when I saw the film, so I would say it is fairly obvious. When someone is filled with hate and obsessed with revenge, his mind transforms the memory of the original cause. We sear our hate and desire for revenge (represented by the tattooing in the film) into ourselves to an extent the makes the original events irrelevant. The plot of the movie is a brilliant and fascinating vehicle for a syndrome that is much more prevalent in the world than anterograde amnesia.

Examples in recent world events are the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s justified by memories that were much more mythology that history. (Don't believe the "news" in the US about so-called historical hatreds based on interviews of Leonard-like characters or local politicians pandering to them.) Another one is the Sept. 11 attack, justified in part by the 1918 fall of the Ottoman Caliphate. The Ottomans were a religiously tolerant and corrupt Sultanate who were widely hated in the Islamic areas they controlled, not holy leaders of the Islamic world who were overthrown by 20th Century Crusaders. The current obsession with the crusades is itself maintained by some serious tattooing of minds, as is our war with Iraq, which has just as little to do with 9/11. Talk about anterograde amnesia.

Rating Update

The, uh, rating for this movie on the IMDb has changed. I checked today and am going to change it. It has dropped from 24 to 25.--Iwerts 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Character edit

However, the film never makes certain which version of his wife's or her attacker's fate, or Leonard's own condition, is the truth. The film also suggests that Leonard's rewriting of his version of reality is only an extreme version, due to his memory condition, of what all people do in shaping their perceptions of themselves and reality to justify their own actions and cast themselves as the good guy.

A major contradiction that reveals Leonard's condition as most likely pyschological, not biological, is the fact that Leonard can, with great consistency, remember that his problem is his lack of short term memory ability. In fact, he should only be able to remember up to the time of his injury, but he could only have become aware of the injury and its effect after the injury occurred. Were the injury the actual cause of the inability to remember, then he would not be able to remember that fact. If Leonard's amnesia is a mental condition, not a physical condition, then is Leonard's subconscious able to act with intent?

I feel it would be wise to delete the second paragraph. The paragraph undermines the previous, which states the the producers intent is uncertainity. the paragraph proceeding it, gives "fan fiction", or rather a POV theory on the characters personality. Also considering the pyschological vs biological & mental vs physical statements that make no sense. Also, since he does remember his specific problem, it may have been gradual, and perhaps there was a sammy jenkins, or maybe he really doesn't have the type of amnesia he purpetuates but rather another type of disease. However these are all theories that are not encyclopedic so really shouldnt be in there as fact. I felt it only proper to post a statement to my intentions on a major edit. Somerset219 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Leonard was a con man

Leonard was a con man and a coldblooded killer. He had a similar case before, so he learnt and learnt the mistakes by the other con man and perfected the plot to kill his wife for insurance money.

1. Leonard knew that he has the condition everyday.
2. If Leonard could projects the memory that he shot insulin for his wife to the prior case he worked for, that means at least that he remembered, contradicting his claim of memory loss.

As for manipulations by others, he was just playing along. Coconut99 99 01:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No he wasn't. He learnt (he had the condition) by repetition, memorised in a different part of the brain to short term memory. And that memory of the insulin may have been a one off memory in the other part of the brain. He couldn't remember nearly everything after the blow to the head, but one or two things come back. Like seeing his wifes eyes open. Drew 02:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also mentioning that the narration of the film are the objective thought processes of Leonard. If he was a con man, he wouldn't be thinking, "Okay, what am I doing now? How did I get here?" etc. This is evidence that Leonard is in fact not a con man. 144.80.227.230 19:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Jenkis/Jankis

The name is spelt both ways in the article. I don't know which one in correct. -- Kendrick7 07:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Check the DVD at the ending with the credits. 202.168.50.40 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I was gonna mention yesterday I did just that, but the article was fixed already. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Scene order on the DVD

I've added a trivia point starting "In the Dutch release of the DVD...". I expect the statement is true of all releases but I don't have any evidence as I only have one copy. If anyone can confirm it to be true of all, or an identifiable subset, of releases of the DVD, please update the trivia point. Mortice 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I have removed two unmarked spoilers from the trivia section. I don't think it's appropriate to include events in the film as "trivia", and the phrasing was somewhat POV. The film doesn't give enough information for us to call it a "fact" that Leonard "changed Sammy's story to include his own". I've also removed the description of Andromeda Strain The. Exactly the same text is already included in the Andromeda Strain article, where it's actually relevant, so it doesn't need to be in the Memento article, where it's not. CKarnstein 03:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

New image

Can the recent black and white image be cropped to help maximize detail of Leonard? A third of the right side seems like it could be cropped out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea; I've taken care of it.--Dark Kubrick 01:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks better now. This is a favorite film of mine; when I find the time, I'll see if I can provide some citations, especially regarding production. Keep up the good work. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I love this film too. If you can provide any information regarding production, that would be great.--Dark Kubrick 01:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Matrix cast

Some of the people who worked on this movies worked also in Matrix. What about a line or two about his fact?

Sure, it would probably fit nicely under the Production section.--Dark Kubrick 14:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the information is notable unless Nolan was impressed by The Matrix and invited some of the cast for Memento. Otherwise, it seems extremely trivial. From my memory, you're talking about "Trinity" and "Cypher", right? It's two actors who happen to be in the same film. If it's coincidential, it's not encyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what? On second thought, Erik's right.--Dark Kubrick 18:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of cast section

I'm gonna be bold here and suggest that the cast section be removed. They're not required of film articles, and I can't really see the reason for keeping this one. It contains a lot of information that's already covered in the rest of the article (or is about to be, as I plan on expanding the Production section). Anyone agree?--Dark Kubrick 03:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been posted for a week, so I'm assuming no one is opposed?--Dark Kubrick 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm removing it.--Dark Kubrick 22:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to mention Moss and Pantoliano alongside Pearce, as they were other two major players in the story -- as opposed to mentioning/linking them in the brief story description (just put an unlinked (Moss) and (Pantoliano) instead, perhaps)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erikster (talk • contribs) 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

For those of you who are fans of the film and want to show it....

{{User:Yukichigai/Memento}}

File:Single Polaroid Photo.jpg This user wants you to know that they have this condition....

Enjoy. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 10:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Expressionist film

Could Memento be considered an expressionist film? I think it fits the criteria, but I didn't want to put it in that category without putting it out there first. Thebanjohype 03:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have an opinion on this? Thebanjohype 01:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

viewer experience vs. plot details

i understand that with the film following such a disorientating timeline it is difficult to explain the plot to the readers of this page, but presenting the plot in the way that it is at the moment just tells the story and shows no mention of how the viewers of the movie experience it. i suggest only a few extra lines be added, for example to the scene with the revelation from teddy (final scene in the movie), mentioning how this is the climax of the movie and presents this information plot twist, changing everything the viewer (and leonard himself) knew bout the entire situation. that is a critical part of how the film works, and i think information like that would be more useful to the readers than merely a chronological alalysis of the events in the film. Djchallis 15:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Planescape: Torment reference

A while ago I added a reference to this article explaining that its plot is similar to the critically acclaimed computer game Planescape: Torment, only with the fantasy elements removed. I was wondering why it had been removed, I could not find in the history which editor had deleted it.

Yes, thats true. I think that anyone who played the game will notice striking similarities between both of them.

Journals

• Gargett, Adrian (2002). "Nolan's Memento, Memory, and Recognition". CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture: A WWWeb Journal. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Schmidt, Torben (2003). "Christopher Nolan's Memento - Analysis of the narrative structure of a noirish revenge film" (PDF). Goethe University, Frankfurt. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Lyons, Diran (2006). "Vengeance, the powers of the false, and the time-image in christopher nolan's memento". Journal of Theoretical Humanities. 11 (1): 127–135. doi:10.1080/09697250600798003. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (may be hard to find)
• Williams, G. Christopher (2003). "Factualizing the Tattoo: Actualizing Personal History Through Memory in Christopher Nolan's "Memento"". Post Script. 23 (1): 27–36. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (saved)
• Little, William G. (2005). "Surviving Memento". Narrative. 13 (1): 67–83. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (saved)
• Clarke, Melissa (2002). "The Space-Time Image: the Case of Bergson, Deleuze, and Memento". The Journal of Speculative Philosophy. 16 (3): 167–181. (saved)
• Renner, Karen (2006). "Repeat Viewings Revisited: Emotions, Memory, and Memento". Film studies. 8: 106–115. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (saved)
• Sibielski, R. (2004). "Postmodern? History, Identity, and the Failure of Rationality as an Ordering Principle in Memento". Literature and Psychology. 49 (4). (can't seem to retrieve at the moment)

Some journals for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Martin-Jones, David (2006). "Memento". Deleuze, Cinema and National Identity: Narrative Time in National Contexts. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 141–150. ISBN 0748622446. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

A chapter in a book about Memento. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed additions

Release

According to Jonathan, right after the Venice premiere, Christopher attended a press conference and explained for the first (and I think last) time the entire story behind the film. Jonathan was slightly upset about this, and they agreed after some heated discussion not to do it again. This story was relayed by Jonathan in a Creative Screenwriting podcast. —Viriditas | Talk 04:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I also read about that in Mottram's making-of book, but I didn't think it was worth including. I mean, what does it add to knowledge about the film?--Dark Kubrick 15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

From listening to the interview (I need to listen to it again), it sounds like they wanted to maintain an aura of ambiguity around the film, leaving the interpretation up to the audience, so it gives some insight into the type of reception they were looking for, which is in sharp contrast to most films. The current article also neglects to mention that they had difficulty finding an initial distributor for the film, probably for the same reason. —Viriditas | Talk 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "Neglects to mention that they had difficulty finding an initial distributor for the film..." What about the second paragraph of the Releases section?--Dark Kubrick 22:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, it looks like you added it four days ago.[1] Good work.—Viriditas | Talk 00:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy/Pyschology/Neuroscience

Here's some more draft material that might interest you: Memento explores the philosophy and psychology of memory, concerning itself with issues related to moral psychology and personal identity like Blade Runner (1982) before it, and more recently Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004). In the film, the character of Lenny claims to have experienced a traumatic brain injury resulting in anterograde amnesia, a neurological disorder that prevents Lenny from storing memories for more than fifteen minutes. Anterograde amnesia may be caused by a stroke, illness, or head injury that effects the hippocampus. The study of retrograde amnesia has allowed scientists to theorize about where the brain stores memory and how it creates long term memory, but the actual causes of amnesia and the inability to store or retrieve memories is still being studied.

This should also include a discussion of Lenny as the unreliable narrator (which is covered in many good sources) and the flawed nature of memory: "Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation, they're not a record, and they're irrelevant if you have the facts."[2] —Viriditas | Talk 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the material again.--Dark Kubrick 23:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more where that came from.... :-) —Viriditas | Talk 00:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable narrator

Where do you stand on discussing Lenny as an unreliable narrator in the article? It seems to dovetail nicely with a discussion of "Memento Mori", so if possible the two should be in the same section. The only problem is that it is a major spoiler that will ruin the film for some people. —Viriditas | Talk 23:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be glad to discuss Leonard as an unreliable narrator if there are sources for it. I'm not sure what you mean about "Memento Mori". The spoiler thing is not a problem; you come to an encyclopedia about a film, you should expect as much information as possible about the film, not select information that will avoid ruining your movie experience.--Dark Kubrick 00:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Wehner pretty much covers all the bases in Who Wrote That Movie?: Screenwriting in Review: 2000 - 2002. He also makes some good comparisons with Nolan's earlier film, Following (1998). There's a lot of information here, but the spoiler is the most difficult to write. I'm not sure which section we should add it to right now, and I would really like to get my hands on a transcript of Nolan's comments at the Venice Film Festival. What did Mottram say specifically about Nolan's explanation at the VFF? —Viriditas | Talk 00:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite confused by your comment. "Covers all the bases"? Why is "the spoiler" the most difficult to write? As for Nolan's comments at the VFF, Mottram says that Jonah was "flabbergasted" by Chris' comments, and took him aside to tell him to divorce himself from interpreting the film for the audience. Chris agreed, but said that his answer to the question could be interpreted different ways. Honestly, I don't think it's that important an event.--Dark Kubrick 01:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that in the podcast. In other words, Mottram doesn't say anything about what Nolan actually said at the VFF. This is why the spoiler is so difficult to write; it is one thing to quote film critics about what really happens in the film, and its another thing to have the Nolans on record agreeing or commenting on it. That's why a discussion of the short story is also important in this context. It's an important event in the sense that without Nolan going on record talking about the film, a lot of the audience and even film critics were confused. You can get a sense of this in the negative reviews. Most people don't want to do the "work". They go to a film to be entertained, not to think. And leaving the film for the audience to interpret for themselves, and encouraging ambiguity is notable. And the way that Jonathan described it in the CS podcast, made it sound like they were treating the film as a work of art, such that the bridge between the artist (writer, director) and the audience is crossed only by those willing to invest a little time and energy into appreciating the work itself. As for Wehner he covers all the bases in relation to a discussion of an unreliable narrator. Have you run into the topic of Leonard as an unreliable narrator before? There's a reason I'm asking. —Viriditas | Talk 02:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Nolans' opinion doesn't matter. Hell, they intended for the film to be open-ended and ambiguous. And it's going to be near impossible getting a transcript of that press conference at VFF, so why worry about it? I still don't see why the short story is relevant to discussing the film's themes too. And no, I haven't run into the topic of Leonard as an unreliable narrator, because I haven't actually been looking for anything yet. I haven't even glanced at the sources Erik's so generously provided. Just a little too busy in real life.--Dark Kubrick 02:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not that they intended the film to be open-ended and ambiguous; that's why Jonathan told his brother to shut up. What they intended was for the audience to figure it out for themselves. And, the opinion of the writer and director always matter. We often discuss these things in production and theme sections. If you read the short story and relevant material on the matter, and then read about why Leonard is considered an unreliable narrator, you'll see the big picture. This is actually the most important part of the article, but as a I said previously, it's difficult to write about and discuss. —Viriditas | Talk 02:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Responding to your second addition to the post two posts above, leaving a film open-ended is not that notable. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article about the film. What's more important are the film's themes and ideas, not that it has those elements.--Dark Kubrick 02:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall stating that film was left open-ended; in fact you said that. I said that they left it open for the audience to interpret. That's why Jonathan told Christopher to shut his mouth at the VFF. And as for notability, there are several film sources that describe the unconventional narrative structure. You see, the ambiguity reflects Leonard's state of mind; it's up to the audience to put the pieces together, just like Leonard. Many critics have followed this up by pursuing the unreliable narrator angle which has some very surprising results and explains the film in a satisfactory manner, in parallel with the short story. I can't stress this enough; it's the most important part of the article, but without the Nolan's on record agreeing or disagreeing (as Christopher did at VFF) it's still an interpretation. —Viriditas | Talk 02:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I think we're agreeing with each other but not knowing it or something. I love the idea of including the idea of Leonard as an unreliable narrator in the section, but I don't like and don't care for Nolan's comments at the VFF. I don't think we should include at all the artist's interpretation of his own work (intentional fallacy).--Dark Kubrick 11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you are hung up about Nolan's comments at the VFF. I stated very clearly that the filmmakers "intended for the audience to figure it out for themselves", in other words, we're not concerned with what the filmmakers think, and that's precisely why Jonathan asked his brother to keep his mouth shut. I'm repeating myself again. I'm quite familiar with the intentional fallacy as it pertains to literary criticism and I honestly don't see how the values of the New Criticism school are at work here or are important to film criticism - never mind the fact that these values were in vogue forty years ago. More importantly, film criticism is not literary criticism; we aren't dealing with text, with words and their meanings, unless you are focusing on the writing, the script, or an adaptation. We are in the dynamic world of visual images, metaphors, and symbols - there are no static words sitting on a bare page. The intention of the director brings the words to life; it is what it is, as we see it, hear it, experience it with all our senses. A discussion of the filmmakers intent in this context deals exclusively with production values, and can even crossover into themes. But, this is really meta-intention - and can be found in just about every great essay about film; we are not actually concerned with the meaning intended by the writer and director - directors like Kubrick (and many others) will come out and say just that: "You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point..." I really don't see how the 20th century philosophy of "intentional fallacy" is even relevant to 21st century film criticism. It's a particular POV espoused by a very small group of people who use it as an artificial, ideological restraint to pretend that the work and the creator are unrelated. An encyclopedia article has no such pretensions nor should it. We are free to explore ideas without the shackles of a self-imposed ideology that serves no useful purpose. Death of the Author? No. We aren't talking about what the Nolan's ate for breakfast on the set during the first day of shooting, what religion Christopher practices, or how Jonathan's experience growing up in the U.S. influenced the film. We are talking about a film made by filmmakers; their intention is translated into development, casting, and production values, which is useful information about the film - this isn't biographical data. As for Christopher's comments about the film, and his explanation at the Venice Film Festival, this revelation is notable in a section about the release, not about the meaning of the film. Sorry, I really don't see how the intentional fallacy applies at all. —Viriditas | Talk 13:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had no idea you felt strongly enough about this point to write a mega-paragraph about it. If you want it included in the article, just add it and cite the podcast.--Dark Kubrick 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I tend to agree that it is borderline trivial. I just think it is important to flesh these things out, and I can't find anything on the topic other than a podcast interview with JN and Mottram's book. —Viriditas | Talk 09:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

More on narrative per Fulton et al. Narrative and Media, 2005: The narrative of Memento relies upon postmodernist plotting. The order of time as measured by the narrative and the story is characterized by the use of flashback, as the story proceeds in reverse order; The narrator of Memento is best described as homodiegetic: an involved narrator. This type of narration is most similar to the type of narrator found in Fight Club (1999) and The Usual Suspects (1995). The narrative relies almost entirely upon Leonard's POV, communicated through tattoos, commentary, dossiers, and Polaroid pictures. —Viriditas | Talk 03:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Setting

There's a discussion about design in the Marketing and DVD sections, but nothing about Patti Podesta's design (per Mottram) in the production section which concerns the function of setting. Using Motram as a reference, Pramaggiore and Wallis make a connection between Leonard's "struggle to remember his past" and Podest's "motif of wavy glass and translucent plastic" that we find in the mise en scène. —Viriditas | Talk 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok...um, Podesta's design might've gone into the underway Analysis and Themes section, but I'm trying to avoid overusing Mottram as a reference. And, uh, who are "Pramaggiore and Wallis"?--Dark Kubrick 01:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pramaggiore and Wallis are authors of Film: A Critical Introduction (2005) which discusses how to write about film. They cite Mottram in addition to commenting on the motif. It's always a good idea to have at least two sources for every piece of information, although that isn't always possible. It's an easy way of verifying the veracity of claim and also seeing if it has any weight. These authors found Podesta's design notable enough to include it in their book and referenced Mottram in passing. —Viriditas | Talk 02:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh. But are they the only authors who mention Podesta's design?--Dark Kubrick 02:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Podesta's design is tied into the dominant motif of the film. That's notable in and of itself in a discussion about setting, which incorporates all of these elements. The fact that two of the most reliable sources on the subject discuss this in technical terms is sufficient. Have other authors discussed it? I would have to look, but it won't matter. Two books, one about the making of the film and a book about film criticism are about as good as sources as you can find. —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you think it's that important I'll incorporate it into the section.--Dark Kubrick 11:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you like. Last time I checked, this was supposed to be a collaborative effort, but don't worry, I don't plan on doing too much to this article. My only purpose here is to get you to think about what is missing, and there's quite a lot. —Viriditas | Talk 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary 2

It would be a lot better if the plot summary were in the order it is in the film. Though this is trickier to write, it doesn't really make sense to write the plot any way other than the way it was presented in the film. Also, the note is an annoying break from character. Atropos 06:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Writing a summary in the order of the film would just make it more confusing for the reader. We would have to jump back and forth between every color and black-and-white scene! Plus, the note is there to warn readers that the order is different than the film. Wikipedia is giving them all the information about the plot in a way they can understand; if you want the plot in its structured order, they should watch the film.--Dark Kubrick 11:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dark Kubrick. The plot summary is only supposed to serve as an aspect of the larger topic, the real-world context of Memento. There's no reason to capture the style of the film in the summary, when the style is described in the article. Kubrick is also right that the transitions between the color and B&W scenes would be too numerous (and create a lot of stubby paragraphs as well). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care enough to take sides here, but there is a third choice that should be considered carefully. It is entirely possible to include both the A-Z and Z-A plot styles in the same section, and this is easy to source as it appears in a number of different publications. —Viriditas | Talk 01:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to source it, but regardless, I don't like the third choice either. I mean, think about it, the whole section would be awkward and redundant, repeating the same information in just a different order.--Dark Kubrick 01:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is great merit in allowing for a flexible, yet unconventional solution to a conventional disagreement. Several sources make the point that when viewed in parallel, the A-Z and Z-A stories leave the viewer with a different interpretation of the film, and are interesting (and notable enough) to portray: the filmmakers obviously agree as they allow one to watch the film in chronological order on the DVD. —Viriditas | Talk 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But this is a plot summary-an encapsulation of the events that occurred in the film, without interpretation or bias on what happened. The Z-A story occurs exactly as the A-Z story, and is therefore not necessary. And the filmmakers don't agree, as I remember reading in Mottram's book about the Nolans being a little disgruntled about that extra DVD feature.--Dark Kubrick 11:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your deleted comment, I don't understand how there is any bias or interpretation in the current summary. If there is, post it here and I'll delete it.--Dark Kubrick 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It can hardly be called a plot summary if it tells it in backwards order. Rearranging the plot summary is practically writing in-universe. That is, this section should describe what the film portrays, not what happens in the fictional world of the film. Atropos 05:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:MOSFILMS#Plot. —Viriditas | Talk 09:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. Though the plot summary would be of far higher quality written in the order it appears in the film, the guideline makes it clear that the current version is acceptable and I'm not interested in rewriting it myself. Atropos 23:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree, but thank you for speaking up.--Dark Kubrick 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit to not reading the entirety of the above section, but according to narrative theory (Bordwell and Thompson, as a basic source), "Plot" is how the film presents the story to us. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head perfectly. If in retelling the events of the film we reorder them then it is no longer the same plot. It is still a description of the same events, but the way they are told is changed dramatically. Memento in particular is an excellent example of this; without the bizarre chronology the events in the film seem somewhat unremarkable by film standards, and the motivation behind Leonard's actions harder to understand. While it may make the plot summary difficult to write it is nonetheless necessary to adequately convey the context of the events, a key part of the plot. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm starting to see your points here. But does anyone like the idea of two synopses, one telling the story in chronological order, one telling it as it appears in the film?--Dark Kubrick 17:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the title of that section from "Plot" to "Synopsis". To me, they mean the same thing in an encyclopedia, but perhaps it's more accurate with the chronological plot summary.--Dark Kubrick 19:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

This doesn't have any major problems and meets all criteria. I am passing it. Vikrant Phadkay 16:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoofs

I tried to add a link to a Memento spoof hosted on Google Video and it was removed. The user who removed it said that it was "not relevant in an encyclopedia".

I disagree, mostly because other articles about popular films have entire sections referring to spoofs and parodies (for an example, look here: [3].

Spoofs are relevant because they show the cultural impact that a film such as this has made...thoughts?

216.175.75.173 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that those spoofs are notable. Memento has not had the impact that Star Wars has had and has not been extensively spoofed, making a link to a single spoof inappropriate. Atropos 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"...his real being John E. Gammell."

It's near the end of the Plot section. Shouldn't it be "...his real name being John E. Gammell."? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reception

This flick is currentely #28 on the IMDB's top 250 list, which is really high. Worth a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.139.28 (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. The IMDb ranking is rarely referred to in WP articles because of perceived issues with reliability and methodology. Lampman (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. A few things could still be improved though, and I will - of course - review the article from the bottom up:

• "External links" - there are too many of these
• "Notes" - depends too heavily on one source, and 49 needs to be formatted
• "See also" - same as "External links", too many
• "Plot" - this is very hard to follow, and yes, I know this is practically inevitable, but I still think it could be improved

Apart from this there are no major issues. Lampman (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There are also a lot of writing/copyediting issues with the plot section. I can try to go through and clean some up later, ir there are no objections.

The Cast section needs to be trimmed greatly. Much of it is plot summary, which is not necessary here—that stuff is already in the plot summary. Much of what's in the Cast section is redundant. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible spoiler in Plot

Is knowing that Teddy /John Gammell is shot at the start of the film and that it was Natalie who provided the information a spoiler? There seems to be some concern from a User 86.49.15.141. We are shown it is Pantoliano/ Teddy / John Gammell within 1st 10 min of film. Natalie gives him the info in the first 17 mins. We learn this even before we learn about the attack itself which Leonard does not describe until over an hour into the film...AbramTerger (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't worry about giving away spoilers on WP. See WP:SPOILER. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now user 94.113.145.225 thinks it is a spoiler and has tried to remove it. I UNDID the revision. Even if WP does not care about spoilers, it is not a spoiler and I think is part of good description of the film. perhaps the question should not be whether it is a spoiler or not but whether the paragraph belongs in the description. I think it does. AbramTerger (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The point of WP:SPOILER is that even if we know it's a spoiler, or only one person thinks its a spoiler, we don't hide that information either by excluding it or putting spoiler tags around it. In otherwords, you're doing the right thing in reverting the "spoiler" removal. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New discussion started by 94.113.145.214 (talk) Above —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbramTerger (talk • contribs) 00:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Easter Egg special edition DVD

I noticed in the Home Media section that the hidden chronological vers of the movie was referred to as a "hidden feature" - would we be in error to call it an easter egg & link to that article? (Searched in the archives for this article, didn't see it addressed...) Tommyt (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think "hidden feature" or even an "undocumented feature" is more accurate than "easter egg". Easter egg seesm more to refer to hidden and linked to the developers or some inside joke, not just an undocumented/hidden item. I have no problem linking it to an article on easter eggs or even calling it that. The way the R1 LE-DVD is setup even the "documented features" are a little hidden and could also be called easter eggs...AbramTerger (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers in the article above the "Plot" section

This film achieves it's effect by revealing only small parts of the story and let the viewer create an incorrect story in his/her head. Then the next sequence comes, the story is corrected and next small part of the story is revealed. The paragraph revealing at least 2 facts from the film goes against the principle of the film. What is the purpose of telling 2 important facts which are revealed later in the film in the introduction before the "Plot" section? Is it a benefit for a person who has not seen the film and wants to look up some basic facts but not the story? I don't think so. --94.113.145.214 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

See discussion thread below from Jan 8. Wikipedia is unconcerned with spoilers and even if they were, this is not a spoiler as we learn these facts early in the film (within first 20 mins of film). The spoiler is why Leonard kills Teddy which is not until the end of the plot section...AbramTerger (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get your point. So if we spoil only the first 20 minutes of the film, it's OK? Would not it be better not to spoil at all? Can you explain why you want to include the mentioned information with all the details before the "Plot" section?--94.113.145.214 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it is the basic description of the film. It spoils nothing. The point of a film description is to give a description of the film. I don't see how it spoils anything, but the point is that my (or your) opinion doesn't matter according to Wiki policy about potential spoilers.AbramTerger (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted again. It is almost getting to be vandalismAbramTerger (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that repeated reverting of my edit with nearly no explanation can be also seen as a vandalism. I try to explain my reasons for it in detail in relation to the plot and the unique style of the film. But you revert it every time and just repeat that it is "not a spoiler". I think that we shall discuss it and cooperate on a solution.--94.113.146.252 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have explained how it being a spoiler is not a reason to remove and also that it is NOT a spoiler. You don't seem to have an issue with that section detailing that Leonard has anterograde amnesia which we learn AFTER we learn that Teddy is the dead man. And the fact that he obtained his condition from the attack does NOT occur until the movie is 2/3rds over. You are the vandal as you remove things that exist without consensus. If you want to discuss removing it, you need to convince people before removing the item. You don't have a consensus to remove the item, yet you remove it. The plot of the movie and the intro to the 3 main characters is

1. Leonard kills a man
2. Leonard has a condition: an unnamed disability
3. Teddy is the man who was killed
4. Leonard's condition is short-term memory loss
5. Leonard kills Teddy since he matches his facts
6. His facts are concerning a man who raped and murdered his wife
7. Natalie provided the information on Teddy's license plate
8. Leonard has anterograde amnesia like Sammy had

The explanation there covers the main details of the characters with no spoilers. If you are going to argue about spoilers at least be consistent from the film in your deletes. If Teddy being killed is a spoiler so is anterograde amnesia and how he got it. Please stop deleting things without justification or valid reasonsAbramTerger (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Our first goal is an encyclopedia - we are not here to try to be dramatic. Abram and I have worked the plot to still tell the story in a manner consistent with the film but neutral towards it content in order to allow the reader to understand the work and how its presented. This means that we have to reveal the whole plot in the manner that is easiest to describe. Please see WP:SPOILERS why we don't hide spoilers. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification, 94.113.145.214 is not deleting things from the "Plot Section", he/she is deleting a paragraph from the section above the plot, the general description of the plot (Leonard kills Teddy based on information from Natalie, the film is about the events leading up to this start)AbramTerger (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be dramatic and I accept the fact that spoilers don't break the Wikipedia rules. I think that the "Plot" section can be as detailed as desired. I removed the paragraph because I think that the information provided there should be a part of the "Plot" section. It is rather unusual to include parts of the plot in the introduction section of an article about a film. I'd like to know if you will allow:

1. removing some details from the paragraph
2. editing of the paragraph (reordering of the information)
3. moving the paragraph out of the introduction part of the article
4. removing the paragraph

--94.113.146.252 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I rearranged it to some degree, but Teddy being shot is less a spoiler than the anterograde amnesia or the motive for the man being shot. I think a description of Natalie's place in the film is also important as she is 2nd credited after Teddy. If you don't want it indicated that Teddy was shot there is very little in the film that takes place BEFORE this is shownAbramTerger (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Lady from Philadelphia" has resolved the issue by inserting "POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS" at the beginning of the Plot description. There. Are you satisfied? Sheesh. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

confusing statement

"Pearce was chosen partly for his "lack of celebrity" (after Pitt passed on the film, the budget could not afford A-list stars)..."

What does Pitt's passing on the part have to do with the $4.5M budget? As most A-listers would want several million dollars, there was never enough money for one. So how did Pitt get involved in the first place? This sentence needs to be rethought and re-written.

There's an episode of Home Movies (TV Series) in which Brendon decides to film a script backwards. One of his friends says this is something done only by "hack directors", and another character explicitly mentions Memento. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If the film would have been a "Brad Pitt film" it would have been "a much bigger film, and a bigger budget". Without Brad Pitt they "decided to eschew the pursuit of A-list stars and make the film for less money by using an affordable quality actor" [both quotes from Mottran's book referenced in the article]AbramTerger (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Leonard's wife

Added a line in the plot summary regarding Teddy's statement that Lenny killed his own wife. From what we see in the film, one cannot be certain whether Leonard killed his wife or whether Teddy is lying to him. Stile4aly (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the statement as it draws a conclusion. Though we see 2 versions in Leonard's mind, we don't know if that means he is unsure as he has forgotten this element of his past, purposely altering his memories to "remove" the truth, or some other interpretation. As to whether Teddyis lying or not, there is no conclusion about this in the wiki plot, it only lists what occured in the film.AbramTerger (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree - the movie is very unclear if Lenny is misrecalling, misinterpreting, or whatnot. We can't trust Teddy's words, only that Teddy claims these things. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the way I'm reading it is that the summary is presenting Teddy's explanation as correct, when in fact the film makes it impossible to know whether Teddy is being truthful or not. Should something be included about this ambiguity? Stile4aly (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the summary presents anywhere that what Teddy says is correct or wrong. It only states what people say and what people do in the film. It is a summary of what the film presents. Any interpretation is left to the film viewer. What in the summary do you think in the summary suggests a lack of ambiguity?AbramTerger (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the trouble is saying "Teddy claims..." in the second to last paragaph. There is nothing to challenge Teddy's claim even though the film leaves it deliberately uncertain. Ultimately, I think I'm probably too hung up on a relatively minor semantic point. Stile4aly (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oddly, I'm having the opposite interpretation to yours, but over the same word. To me "claims" implies that Teddy is NOT being truthful. Perhaps if we just changed it to "says" it were have fewer implications of any kind? Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Claims" or "says" does not matter to me. The summary tries to use all sorts of synonyms to ensure having it indicated that these are what Teddy says and thus may or may not be true. But as to Stile4aly the problem in the film is that Teddy makes many claims and the film offers nothing to really "challenge Teddy's claim" and thus the summary has nothing to detail about a challenge.AbramTerger (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Tattooes

Someone added a list of tattooes and I made some corrections to it. I question the need for this type of trivia in the article. Should this really be included?AbramTerger (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's pure trivia. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure and did not want to delete without some more "approval".AbramTerger (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations Needed in Plot description

Are citations really required for descriptions of actions that took place on the screen or are summaries of what characters describe in the film? With this logic it would seem to require no plots listed in any wikipedia articles, just a reference to a description that someone else created elsewhereAbramTerger (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Memory lapse bookends

I added a statement that was removed [4]; the statement explained that the color scenes are bookeneded by Leonard's memory lapses. Now, I don't disagree with the statement in the removal comment, that memory lapses happen throughout the color scenes and not just at the ends - I'd have to double check but I believe that is true. But my specific point is that the color scenes are specifically scripted to occur on certain (not all) memory lapses.

This point is a fundamental way the color scenes are structured, as we the audience are just as confused as Leonard is at the start of each scene (at least, in the early part of the film). I can't say that in the article, of course, but it is part of the narrative structure.

The point I'm making is that my statement did not claim that every memory lapse Leonard suffers in the color scenes is the start or end of a scene, but that every scene starts and ends on a memory lapse. This is true. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There are lapses within the color sequences, which made the statement as written (IMO) inaccurate. But the ends of the color sequences are not always at a lapse point. Lapse points are a continuous process and sometimes the color sequences are large amounts of time. For example after getting rid of Dodd, Leonard gets into Teddy's card, we cut (w/in color) and then we see Leonard in his car at Natalie's house and the sequence ends. Leonard's train of thought of "Who is Dodd" progresses through the transition, he pulls up with that question in mind and the scene transitions, it then starts with that same train of thought, so there is no "lapse"...I have not thought about other transitions, but one exception seems to me to make it not a rule. Though perhaps I don't understand the point you want to add [Though on some level we need to try and remove things not add things, the article seems too long...AbramTerger (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the spoiler

2nd paragraph: "During the opening credits, which portray the end of the story,...", thanks for ruining the film for me :P - 87.202.55.133 (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That the opening credits portray the end of the story is Not a spoiler. We are meant to understand the non-linear sequencing early in the film. The sooner one understands it the better.AbramTerger (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't matter on Wikipedia; we are an encyclopedia, not an entertainment wiki. Our job is to summarize the plot, not to pick and choose which bits should be left out for the sake of some future viewer.--TEHodson 09:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Memento Visual Maps

A new "Visual Map" of the Memento structure was added to the structure section and the previous Fabula vs Sujet plot was removed. I like the new one, but it seems less about what the structure discusses. I re-added the FvS plot in the structure and moved the Visual Map to the plot section. I think we should discuss whether the article needs both of them? If not, is there a consensus of which one to keep? I think both can stay, the film is complex enough to look at in different ways, but I will stand by whatever the consensus of the editors is.AbramTerger (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as both are free, we can include both. My only problem with the visual map is that most of it is unreadable - not specifically the text, but how it is to be read. Perhaps the editor that created it can provide a slightly simpler version without the scene descriptions - thus allowing for larger fonts on the other parts, such that its clear at the smaller scale on the page. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Visual Map was moved to FvS section, but it seems clunky to have both there. I moved it back to the overall plot section since it is a visual map of the plot. the relationsip between Plot and Story is what the 2nd chart is about and what the structure section deals withAbramTerger (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the visual map twice today. The first was deleted since it indicated that the map was "original research". I restored it since I do not consider it "original research". It is not source material, but a visual summary of the film. What are the other opininons?AbramTerger (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Masem - the visual map simply isn't readable. When completely blow up to full scale it's problematic. As presented in the article it's just taking up space and distracting the reader. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I also agree it is not readable unless enlarged. To read it must be poster-sized. That could be a reason to eliminate it. But it is not original research. I personally don't find it distracting, though its usefulness on the page I think is questionable. What is the consensus: Keep or delete. I think it could be kept, but I have no strong arguments for itAbramTerger (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Visual map is original research

The visual map is original research because it is a fan-created image for the purpose of illustrating an interpretation of the events of the film and does not derive from a reliable third party source. If necessary, I will take this to the original research noticeboard. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you make a good point, but I don't see any reason to keep the image regardless. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it is "original research" per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_research#Original_research. Original Research is listed as "a primary source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).". It does not produce "new knowledge". The map does not interpret the events of the film, it is a summary of the sequences in the film [Like the more legible "Fabula vs Sujet plot" in the structure section]. And it does "derive from a reliable third party source" as the summary is based on articles from Andy Klein as well as Stefano Ghislotti and even the "chronological restructuring" on some of the DVDs. I don't have a problem if we choose to eliminate it (as discussed in an earlier section) due to it being too small [which would allow it to be fixed and re-added later], but it does not seem to me to be "original research" any more than the text of the article is "original research".AbramTerger (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The map is definitely not original research: several third-party, secondary sources have described the format of the film, there's no guesswork to the order of the scenes and its presentation. Making a graphical representation of established data is not against any WP policy as long as it does not push a specific POV.

The problem is that at the thumbnail size, its impossible to read or make sense of the film. With the other graph (the line-line chart) the concept is easily seen at the small scale (even though clicking through provides more information). The new figure is, in fact, redundant to that figure in the purpose that it serves and while free, is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 10:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Without getting into whether or not it's original research, it adds nothing to the article. Hot Stop 12:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and removed it per the multiple comments that it is inappropriate for the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Movie Order or Logical Order

There should probably be some sort of consensus on how the plot is presented. A while back I wrote up a chronological account that began with the movie's ending and worked backwards - while inverted with respect to the movie, it was pretty easy to understand (a note was included at the beginning indicating everything was inverted). However, the current plot description tries to follow the actual events as presented in the movie and, as in the movie, it is incredibly confusing to parse on the first read through (and even on subsequent read throughs). For the sake of understanding the actual plot of the movie, I think its easier to lay the plot out in its logical order, as opposed to the movie order. Before changing stuff though, I'd like to see where people stand on this. Thoughts? Pagemaster146 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

After actually looking through the edit history, it turns out the plot rewrite only occurred a couple days ago, written by an anonymous user. I'd like to think this means my original write-up was satisfactory. Again, thoughts? Pagemaster146 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So, after going through the actual discussion Archives, it appears this topic has been broached before, a couple years ago. However, it seems to me that the fervor has died down over the article. If no one opposes, I'll revert to the chronological plot in a day or two. Pagemaster146 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be left in movie order.Halbared (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes leave it in the order shown in the movie. It's easy to read the text backwards anyway, so someone looking for the chronologically correct story can read the paragraphs from bottom up. Arnavion (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, and think we should put it in the logical order. A separate heading discussing the form of the movie would be nice, but the events should be told in the way they actually happened. Otherwise, this article is a *scene for scene* retelling of the movie, not a plot summary. It is furthermore quite cumbersome to read events that happen in non-chronological order. I'm with you, pagemaster. 72.83.86.247 (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is going to be described in the "logical order" instead of the "movie order", it does stop being a "Plot". The plot is how the story is presented. It becomes an interpretation of the story from the plot presented and that should be reflected in what the section is titled. 192.122.250.250 (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pagemaster146 for writing the chronological plot. I read it from this previous revision. Now I understand the gist of the movie. This should be the plot summary in my opinion: Leonard and his wife has been attacked by two criminals. Leonard's wife has died. Leonard killed one of the criminals during the attack. A cop called Teddy helped Leonard to find the second criminal (and killed him or brought charges against him, it's not important what exactly they did when they found him), which is not shown in the movie. The movie is then about how Leonard is manipulated by Teddy and Natalie to kill or attack two unrelated people. And how Teddy after that is killed by Leonard through a twist of events. The role of Sammy is not critically important for the story. And it's not critically important for the story if Leonard's wife died as a direct result of the attack on them, or if she had diabetes and died later from an overdose, perhaps indirectly caused by the attack through the neurological condition that the attack brought upon Leonard. In either case Leonard has the incentive to find the second criminal and possibly go as far as killing him. And through his tattoos and notes setup the prerequisites for the manipulations and twists that is the story of the movie. -- John S. Peterson (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to put back the compromise of the plot that seems to balance chronological order with plot order after it had been edited to be in chrnono order. Does this need additional discussion and debate? I think detailing the plot as it unfolds will not work, but wholly chronologically is not the plot of the film. I think the compromise scheme works, and keeps the revelations at the end of the plot.AbramTerger (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot vs Story Order (REVISITED)

I know there was an earlier debate on this, and thought I would restart a fresh one. I treid to create a plot -order version that is shorter than the other. I think it works and allows the climax of the movie at the end of the plot section instead of the middle.AbramTerger (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the change, albeit I did a bit more reordering and rewriting to combined it into a more traditional "three act" approach. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I kept the "three acts" but added the opening credits as something different. I also put "act 2" in plot order and away from the chrono-order you were leading to. I think if the color sequences are in chrono order it becomes "Story Act 3" and the climax should come between them as "Story Act2" which is more what it was before the re-edit. I think the color should be plotted as an "act2" and thus it should go in "reverse", matching the opening in reverse. I did get rid of elements in the color unrelated to the hunt and conclusion to kill Teddy (no Dodd, no escort, etc), just the tattoo to kill.AbramTerger (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(Updated remarks on new edit, previous remarks are no longer valid) I liked your suggestion of the 3 acts and if done that way I don't think the order Opening, BW, Color, Climax works. All acts have BW and color. Act1: intro to AMD/Sammy, etc (BW) and Teddy matches the facts from Natalie(color). Act2 is about the insulin OD (BW), attack details (Color), Lenny not being believed / suspicions of being setup (BW and Color), being setup by Natalie (color),etc) and finally the climax in BW going to color. I tried to rework it with the 3 Acts. Let me know what you think. It probably could use some editing I can babble at times.AbramTerger (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The last change you made is making it worse - mixing the events of the b/w and color scenes as their own acts is a lot more difficult and requires interpretation - which we can't do, that would have to be based on a secondary source. We've established that the film has an unusual order, and yes, part of its dramatic flavor is some of the juxtaposition between the b/w story and the color events, but that is not plainly obvious from viewing the work, and so we have to be extremely careful about creating original research. Remember that we're not trying to write this creatively, but to a point to make sure that an encyclopedic reader can understand the plot; we should avoid trying for fancy revelations and the like. The three-act approach is still fine - first act is setting up the condition and who Sammy is, the second is Teddy's death and what leads up to that, and the third is the revelation on Leonard's motives. A lot of the other plot details (like Natalie and Dodd) are minor but need just enough mention to drive the second act to understand how the license plate tattoo leads to Teddy's death. (as such, the third act when he consciously aims to get that tattoo is highly significant). --MASEM (t) 14:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see where it could be seen as "worse" (and I can't say I completely disagree) but I do disagree that "interpretation" was done. The most interpretation I think is where to place the start the 2nd Act. I tried (and some is to a fault) to just state what is know without interpretation. [part of the reason this becomes so long is the need to add "he said" or "he claims" and other "weasel words" to not write it as "fact" since we can't interpret.] But I have no desire to start an editing war and I am not trying to push any agenda. I can live with this 3 act approach for its clarity. I would like to see a 3 Act truly based on the film and what we are presented during the film, but I see the complications and an initial draft may be (perhaps no maybe about it[smile]) beyond my talents. I think this is a good compromise between a "true" 3Act plot vs the 3act (chrono)story with the climax in the centerAbramTerger (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem to experiment (I wouldn't call this an editing war). It is likely possible to find sources that break down this movie well to explain that there is a awkward symmetry between the b/w and the color scenes - but we need a reliable source to say that. As such, we basically need to make sure this plot is reasonably clear to a reader that may have never seen the film, which is why it is important to establish the movie's odd structure, and avoid too much detail of the telling of events out of order - though again, I do agree that as the most dramatic scene is the final as shown but middle in the chrono order, we can work around that and order the plot as we have done currently. (eg see The Usual Suspects for how Kasier Soze is handled - it's given as shown in the movie). --MASEM (t) 16:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you don't feel it was editing war since that was not my intent and I saw no intent on your part - just trying to be clear. I wasn't even attempting to form an "awkaward symmettry". I was just breaking down the film as shown into the opening credits and then 3 acts. I broke the 1st act after the first 30 since at this point we have the intro to the condition and Sammy in the BW and know how the plate leads to Teddy. The middle hour is the conflict: the inconsistencies in Sammy's condition, the insulin OD, the doubt Lenny talks about, the setups we see, and Lenny's description of the attack with the 2nd attacker not being the murderer. The climax seems straightforward as the last BW and color seq (final 20 mins) with Teddy's exposition and the twist that Lenny set himself up. As I said other than the placement of the acts, there is no interpretation, just what happens in those times: What happens in credits what happens in first 30 mins, what happens in the next hour, what happens in final 30 mins. I suppose a less interpretative (but no 3 act would be to split into quarters (4 Qtrs) where Qtr1 = Act1, Qtr2 raises questions about Sammy, Lenny wondering about being used and getting rid of Dodd. Qtr3 has Insulin OD, Lenny's description of attack and getting tattoo fact6. Qtr4 = Act3/Climax. Again no interpretation (don't discuss acts or quarters) just indicating what happens in those film segments. But the problem I see (and you pointed it out) is it becomes less "narrative" and more "table-listing of the opening +44 segments" or "table-like" (opening + 22 portions each in BW and Color)" which seems a poor way to present it. [I am not sure this type of "table" (whether 1 col or 2 cols) would even be appropriate in another section it just seems too detailed for "Wiki's intent" - the film structure section I think has about the right amount of detail...]. Just some thoughts and ramblings for discussion...AbramTerger (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am adding a note here as well since this is the later Plot vs Story debate thread. I reverted a story order to put back into the compromise plot order. I think it fits better for the film.AbramTerger (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

interpretation section

I feel that it would be interesting to have an interpretation section: the first obvious one is that Teddy's explanation (Leonard keeps killing people he thinks are his wife's murderers) at the end is right. Is it worth adding this section?Juancitomiguelito (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Interpretations are original research and are against Wikipedia policy. You may link to published articles on the subject. There are already some in the links section.AbramTerger (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Interpretations are only original research if it is the editors coming up with their own interpretations. This film has been analyzed by academics, though, as evidenced by the "References to use" section at the top of this talk page. American Beauty (film) has such a section. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to have Interpretations, but we need other sources to state what those are. Without any source, any statement of interpretation will be removed as noted that these fail Original Research policy. (eg what Erik said). The problem is people adding their own "version" of events. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Who's Lenny?

In the first sentence of the second to last paragraph of the "synopsis" section, the name "Lenny" suddenly appears. This is the first mention of the name and it's in a very critical sentence, which is written very poorly anyway. The "Lenny" should be "Leonard," but in general the sentence is vague and borderline incomprehensible.

I must say in general that the plot synopsis is very, very, very hard to understand, even for someone who's seen the movie multiple times. Cleaning up the above referenced sentence will probably help, but overall I think it needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.103.173 (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

omg i dont know wtf this movies about. It lost me at the end. What if teddy ended up being the murderer and like the guy he was chasing the cop. May be solve the problem with the non-sequential themes. Harder to read then a frank miller comic book without the comic imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.193 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Cultural References

There are 2 items listed as "cultrual references" for Memento. A weeklong backwards comic strip nor a reference to the film in a web series does not seem to me to be that "culturally significant" and the whole section removed. But then I may be outside the current mainstream zeitgeist. Any thoughts / discussions pros or cons on it? AbramTerger (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove. My metric when these should be included should be if a secondary source, independent of either, notes the reference as to otherwise avoid WP:TRIVIA.. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And just to note [5] this edit is fine to source the referencing work, but not the type of reference that I think is sufficient to include as a cultural reference. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

At this stage I haven't heard any arguments against removal, so I removed the section. If someone wants to discuss re-adding it, it can be done. [BTW, as you probably surmised, I only included a citation for completeness since it need one, but I didn't agree with even adding it, but if that had been the consensus the citation would have been needed]. Thanks for the reply.AbramTerger (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, that made sense to do, just being clear we'd have needed more to keep :) --MASEM (t) 00:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this an anterograde amnesia joke?

LoL: The article has two 'Release' sections with exactly the same contents...1812ahill (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't intention, looks like some accidental duplication. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks pretty deliberate to me. I think ip 174.117.115.116 is pulling our legs. Quite a good joke though :)1812ahill (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Template Box Gross Number of figures

Is there really a need for the Box office (and or gross) to be the nearest dollar ($39,723,096) in the infobox. I have put it to nearest 10th of a million (39.7 million) instead it has been reverted with no apparent reason other than the abusive comment "every film article has its full box office total. don't just remove it and say that it's not needed. explain your reason, idiot". I assumed the phrase "summary no need for gross to the dollar" was a reason and if not enough than a discussion should be started, perhaps even pointing to a policy or asking for a discussion on the topic. Can someone point me to the wikipedia policy for when a number may be rounded and when it should not be. Some infobox round and others do not (despite what was stated in the abusive comment). It seems to me to be especially pendantic to have that many figures and it does not convey any more useful information than just the 3 rounded numbers.AbramTerger (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:LARGENUM allows you to round up since there's no way that this number is exact to the dollar. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And even if it WERE that exact, it still does not need that many figures for the infobox...AbramTerger (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I had to revert the undo to Masem's reversion. There has been no discussion or reason given for why all the figures are needed for the summary. The 8 digits do not convey any more useful information than the 2 digits.AbramTerger (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Again I changed the gross to reflect MOS:LARGENUM. I see nothing in the style to indicate that it does not apply to gross as the unnamed poster (who continues to border on the abusive) suggests. Can anyone find a reason why this doesn't apply to gross? It seems perfectly applicable to me (and I presum Masem as well). Regarding other comments not made here but in the edit comments: the logic to keep all the digits is spurious and not true. Not all film use all the digits, not even all Nolan films use all the digits. And just because some films have not been edited to the wiki style (for whatever reason) is not a reason that this film should not adhere to style guidelines. I haven't seen a compelling reason to not adhere to the wiki-style, nor have I seen a consensus of opinion that we should not adhere to the style. The consensus of the named contributors (Masem and me) who have expressed an opinion are to stick with the wiki style of rounding per MOS:LARGENUM. Any other discussion?AbramTerger (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Subsequent remakes

The article should mention Ghajini (2005 film), a Tamil film starring Surya Sivakumar and Asin, directed by A. R. Murugadoss and Ghajini (2008 film), the Hindi remake of the Tamil film starring Aamir Khan and Asin, directed by A. R. Murugadoss. In a remakes section? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But is not a remake of Memento any more than Memento is a remake of Clean Slate.AbramTerger (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually "inspired by" is the way it's described in both articles (though would have to check WP:RS for exact wording) and obviously they go with straightforward looking for murderer plot rather than more convoluted one of Memento. Since tens of millions of English speaking Indians might not check production dates or facts they might get the idea Memento was inspired by the other two movies. But I'll let other more frequent editors decide on whether to enter this factoid in the text. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to add this "factoid". I see no reason to include references to similar plot ideas unless there is some definite connection. The author claims it was NOT inspired by Memento, but a remake of a different film. I have seen both films and see little connection between them. There are all sorts of films about amnesia, it is common movie device and several films have anterograde amnesia in the plot. At most if you found an article that detailed all the films that may have been inspired by Memento and/or the films that possibly inspired Memento you could reference that article or even an article about film coincidences (similar plot, similar casting, similar techniques, etc), but on its own it seems irrelevant.AbramTerger (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed an "Influence" Section dealing with this factoid. Is there any need to include this type of information? I see no need to include anything and everything that could have inspired a work.AbramTerger (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed influence section again. I don't think this type of original research of influences does not seem to be needed. Nearly every blockbuster has this type of film and many end up on the SyFy channel on Sat nite (I am Omega, The day the earth stopped, etc]. As mentioned before the author of the films claims it was not inspired by Memento. I am sure that the Beatles have inspired many artists, but should every song that was inspired by the Beatles be listed? This is the same type of request in my opinion.AbramTerger (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed inspiration section again for the same reasonsAbramTerger (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I Removed the section on remakes as the films listed are not remakes as was discussed here earlier.AbramTerger (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed it again, those are not remakes.AbramTerger (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Credit listing

I reverted the cast list back to the order that is listed in the ending credits. While it may be correct that the order there is 3 primary and then order of appearance, the film does not indicate this, nor do I think it is relevant. I don't follow the logic of the proposed order based on the film. I think if we are not going to go in cast list in the credits, then it should just be cast list in order of opening credits with only 8 names: Pearce, Moss, Pantoliano, Boone, Tobolowsky, Harris, Rennie, and Holden or if we want since the cast is small we could all 13 names, using the opening order for the first 8 and than the rest in ending credits order: Pearce, Moss, Pantoliano, Boone, Tobolowsky, Harris, Rennie, Holden, Fega, Fox, Lennon, Campbell, Muellerleile. Since we are listing it with the character names and are using all of them, I think the Cast from the end credits is the best. The criteria they may have used is immaterial, it is the order listed in the film.AbramTerger (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Revisited

I put the entire cast list back. I see no reason to remove just one name from the list and one credited higher than others in the list. Typically if we cut the cast list it is truncated, not just removing someone from near the start of the list. I think list of 13 people is short enough to include them all in this article. If desired to make it shorter, I would go with the 8 names in the billing order. I also prefer the direct listing of the roles from the film, and the bracketed items for additions. If desired I could live with the bracketed information being removed and just use the roles from the film. Lets use WP:BRD to come to a consensus before it is edited again.AbramTerger (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AbramTerger: You see no reason to remove a name that is both a non-notable actor and an unnamed character? Where is he billed higher? If it's in the end credits, I'm almost positive that's in order of appearance (if I remember correctly) and should not be the basis for the cast list on this article. And I think the brackets are entirely unnecessary. We are not slaves to the credit roll or the title sequence; the film itself is our source that Leonard's last name is in fact Shelby, or that Teddy's real name is John Edward Gammell (though I think removing that info would be preferable, as it's unhelpful and an unnecessary spoiler), just like the film itself is our source for what happens in it. We don't need Jimmy's full name, or Sammy's middle initial (though Sammy's last name should be included for context as to who Mrs. Jankis is). I'd say we should either remove the bracketed parts and follow the credit listing, or don't, and add the information as I did. I don't see why you're under the impression that we must use what the cast is credited as down to the letter. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 13:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe: Per WP:BRD I have made a compromise edit based on the many valid points you make, that I hope will satisfy. I don't think I made myself clear in my initial comments: I did not understand the logic of removing only 1 unbilled actors. It was not so much removing names, but more the the logic of only removing 1 name (especially, if otherwise it would be the whole cast list). There are actually 5 unbilled actors in the cast list (which are all unnammed roles as well), so I have edited the list, per the billing in the opening credits and just have the roles as listed in the cast list. I can live with this if you can. I think it hits all the points that you have raised. How is that? [Note: no longer relevant, but just for clarification, the end credit list is NOT order of appearance: Teddy, Burt, and the waiter all appear onscreen before Natalie and she is listed 2nd in the credit list. It may be pre-title stars and then order of appearance, but that is speculation...]AbramTerger (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@AbramTerger: I see what you're saying now. My primary rationale was that both his actor and character appeared non-notable. I don't usually rush to remove blue-linked actors, but when it's an unnamed role played by a non-notable actor, I tend to get rid of them. I think the new cast list reads well, it includes everyone who is essential to the plot and all can be easily identified. I'm still thinking Sammy should have his last name included to make the connection between him and Mrs. Jankis, but that's just me. Maybe if we add more information about the actors and characters in the cast (like I suggested with 12 Years a Slave, which I will get to at some point) we can say that she's Sammy's wife, but until then, I'd say we should put his last name. This isn't a huge deal if we don't, but I find it preferable. Thank you for working with me! Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 11:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe:Thanks for working with me as well! Discussion and compromise can work. As to last names I don't have a problem with including "Sammy Jankis". But then should we also include "Leonard Shelby", "Teddy Gammell", and "Jimmy Grantz" as well? Or since the 3 other than Leonard have their nicknames used for the role, do we include the full names from the film: "Teddy (John Edward Gammell)", "Sammy (Samuel R. Jankis)", and "Jimmy (James F. Grantz)". I prefer this to buried nickname form: John Edward "Teddy" Gammell, Samuel "Sammy" Jankis, and James "Jimmy" Grantz) since it keeps the role listed first. But if we do the buried nickname, I am sure someone will want to also do Leonard "Lenny" Shelby as well since it is often used in the film. There is more meaning to the "Teddy (John Edward Gammell)" than just "Teddy Gammell", but I think we should be consistent in what we do. Nickname with full name listed for all or just nickname and last name for all. [Note: I don't like the "Teddy /John Edward Gammell" form you used before since it suggests to me multiple roles (like "Hunk / Scarecrow" from Wizard of Oz) as opposed to nicknmame and full name.] Thoughts?AbramTerger (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe:concerning expansion of the listing (like your 12 Years a Slave suggestion). I have no issue with this. It was tried years ago, but if done with the characters it can become speculation and required us to draw conclusions that required interpretation. [Is Teddy a cop?, Is Mrs Jankis real?, Does Leonard have AMD?, etc] Having notes and comments about the roles and productions from the actors, etc, could be good. My thought would be to focus on the 3 stars expand that and in a list and put the remaining 5 in a paragraph form. If I get a chance I will look through Mottram and see if I can find any good quotes about them. Good suggestion!AbramTerger (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@AbramTerger: All good points, Abram! I can see why using imbedded nicknames isn't favourable, and the whole "include everyone's last name" thing makes sense. In Teddy's case, he never actually says his last name is Gammell separate from when he says his full name, so he's fine as just Teddy. I suppose we can do without them; people will know who Mrs. Jankis is if they read the plot section, and if we type this out how you suggested (3 leads get the block, 5 in paragraph form), I think it'll be plenty clear without diverting from the credits. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 12:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe:We can let it sit as is for a while, think on it and see if anyone else chimes in. As to expansion, read the Memento_(film)#Casting section. I think some of this could be moved into the cast list as items (If I understand what you are after in expanding the section), though comments on the characters themselves in the cast section and leave the casting of the actors in that section has merits as well. Just some thoughts and ideas.AbramTerger (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we can have brief (sentence fragment) descriptions of the characters in the cast list, as an alternative to embedded actor names (not that that doesn't work either), eg; "Harriet Sansom Harris as the wife of Sammy shown in flashbacks during Leonard's phone conversation". For non-notables but plot-centric roles, one can also add a paragraph after the major cast to say "The film also includes X as Y...". --MASEM (t) 13:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Chart in structure

Who is the author of the chart in the structure section? Does this derive from a reliable third-party source, or is this another piece of original research? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not original research - at least, in the form that we are not allowed to use. Anyone with a copy of the film can document the times each scene starts and ends. We have secondary sources that affirm the nature of the scene order, so a chart of obvious data (the timing) plotted in the order isn't disallowed synthesis. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What you have just described is, to my ear, textbook original research. This does not come from a reliable third-party source, it is some film fan's interpretation of events. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not though. First, it is obvious that numerous secondary sources have described the scene presentation of the film - color scenes in reverse, black-and-white in forward. At worst, we have Salon's analysis that at one point gives out the exact scene order both as presented in the film and as in chronological events. The scene timing is data you can pull off a copy of the movie just by watching it. Ergo to take that data and match it to the scene order above in a simple graphical form is not original research. Yes, perhaps that specific means of presentation is novel, but that's not necessarily a singular piece of evidence to affirm unallowable original research. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, the author of the chart is listed as "Dr Steve Aprahamian" if you click on the image. Regarding your second question, I agree with Masem it is NOT original research in the wikipedia sense. It is a graphic showing the timing of the scenes (1-22 and A-V) as described by Salon article (and others) in 1-22/A-V order vs the order depicted in the film.AbramTerger (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite, Masem, AbramTerger, with the extra sources provided, I agree the chart squeaks by WP:SYNTH on the nuanced basis which Masem spoke to, but I have a better question for everyone: does it contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic in a clear and straightforward manner or is it a convoluted mess that falls short of our quality standards? I'm not sold either way, but my thoughts are that the issue comes down to whether or not the value granted to that extremely small fraction of our readers who might actually use this in a practical context outweighs the deficit of having an eyesore that will probably only contribute net confusion for many. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 03:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a chart is useful to show how the film is structured that follows the approach is necessary - but I do think this particular chart might be too busy. A version that can be easily seen at a glance may be more useful. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Re-edited the Plot after several inaccuracies were introduced

Several inaccuracies were reintroduced that had previously been corrected. I note the specifics here in case we need to discuss individual ones:

• the color scenes in the movie begin and end at the same points where Leonard's memory relapses,

This is not true. While the color segments are all less than 10:40 min, they do not correspond with when Lenny's memory lapses. He often lapses within the 4 min avg movie segments since they are not shown in real time and some have large edits where he lapses multiple times.

• he receives a call, and implored by the caller, explains that his amnesia was a result of an attack by two men in his home on he and his wife....

Leonard does not explain about the attack to the caller. he explains about the attack to Natalie in the color segments. The viewer learns about it early, but it is later chronologically.

• Sammy claimed to have suffered from anterograde amnesia

Leonard makes no indication that Sammy made this claim. It would not make sense for Sammy to make this claim...

• There, Leonard is re-introduced to undercover officer John Gammel

It is never know is this is the first meeting or a re-introduction and his first name is not given at this point. It is not revealed (chronologically) until the color segments start.

• As Leonard struggles with Jimmy, Jimmy says comments that throw doubt at Teddy's assertion of being him being "John G.", though Leonard kills him anyway, taking a photo of the dead body; as this photo is developed, the black-and-white scenes transition to the color series of scenes.

Order is inaccurate. Leonard has no doubts when he strangles Jimmy. The doubts are after Jimmy is strangled and after the picture is taken, The doubts arise when the body is being dragged down the steps.

• Teddy arrives and reveals that Jimmy is not "John G."

When Teddy arrives he insists Jimmy is the 2nd attacker. It is later he states differently

• Teddy shows him photographic evidence of Leonard's victory

This was shown to Lenny in the motel

• Teddy admits to have been using Leonard's condition to deal with criminals in lawless, unconventional manners.

Teddy makes no such claim in the film.

• his wife, who had actually survived their home assault and instead was trying to prove if Leonard's condition was psychological.

No such claim is made in the film. Her motives are never provided.

• Leonard follows a note in Jimmy's glove compartment

The note is in the pocket not the glove compartment

• Natalie ...uses Leonard's amnesia to convince him to deal with Dodd, a man that has been harassing her due to her connection to Jimmy. In return, Natalie allows him to sleep with her, and then promises to get the driver of the license plate on his most recent tattoo; she also warns Leonard of Teddy's manipulation. Leonard is able to capture Dodd after a long chase, and with Teddy's help, see that he leaves town immediately.

This is not chronologically. Convincing about Dodd, then Dodd fiinding Leonard, then sleeping with Natalie (literally but not shown whether euphemistically as well) then offer for running plate info.

• Using an address given to him by Natalie, that of the same abandoned building where Jimmy was shot

while technically true, Natalie provided Leonard with a remote location, we do not know if she knows where (or even if) Jimmy was killed.

AbramTerger (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not saying that the version I did is completely right (and correcting it is perfectly fine), but the changed version is way too long. This is a rather "simple" film when unwound, once the bw-to-color scene is described. That scene, which sets Leonard's motives, is the most crucial to the movie, but everything before/after it is mostly filler. Describing things out of order, as long as its understood the end effect and simplified the plot, is perfectly in line with plot summaries. I'm going to revert, and will fix some of these, but be aware that we need to stay terse here. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I understood it was too long. I don't think terse needs to sacrifice accuracy which your original did. My goal was to return to an accurate account of the story and it had too many errors to just try and edit it. This last account was better and I made some edits for accuracy and you will have to check it out. I don't think I really made it longer. AbramTerger (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that plots for movies should be between 500 and 700 words - though I would identify this movie as a case where one can go over a little bit due to the need to describe the movie's structure. That said, the version I left it at is 825 words - a tad long and can be trimmed further, while your version is coming out to 1050 words - that's unusable.

The point of an encyclopedic plot summary is not to exactingly retell the story, but to give enough of the gross plot to allow readers to understand the plot per the rest of the discussion. To that end, loose inaccuracies, mostly those dealing with the order of events, or when knowledge of certain information is gained by the characters, are acceptable if it makes it clearly to the overall story. Yes, there are inaccuracies and completely wrong statements that we can't put in (eg "Natalie kills Dodds"), but we can take more summarizing ones that gloss over otherwise unnecessary details to make these brief. For example, yes, after Leonard kills Jimmy, Teddy arrives and tries to convince Leonard that it is Jimmy (likely because Teddy is unaware when Leonard's last memory flash was), after which he does admit to Jimmy's identity. But, in the scheme of things, it is only necessary to note that Teddy arrives, and as a result of Leonard's doubt, admits Jimmy isn't John G. Much of the Natalie part of the story is the understanding that she quickly figures out how to use Leonard's amnensia to her own benefit - while all the stuff about the pens and the like happens, it's not critical to understand this point. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have gotten an accurate version, now shorter than your inaccurate version (word count is 841 after more edits 800 words) I concur with the need to edit further and if you want to edit it by all means do so, but in doing so it must still be accurate to the film. You suggest people say things they did not and have things in the wrong order. You even have misspelled names. AbramTerger (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC) AbramTerger (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Christopher Nolan, this sentence "with the black-and-white sequences taking place chronologically before the color sequences." is wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduOF_sl1IQ There are are black and white scenes, scenes in color AND flashbacks, and only the latter ones take place at an undefined time in the past. The "regular" black and white are his subjective present tense view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6A:6731:B900:226:BBFF:FE17:86D5 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That video seems to support what we have already said, not a new interpretation, in that the b&w scenes are in the present and told forwatd, the color scenes falling after those on sequence but shown in reverse order, and a handful of legit flashbacks. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)