No, there is only one erasure process for each of the two main characters. All of the other jumps are just playing with time.
Kaufman claimed (both in an interview and a Q&A following the Kaufman Retrospective at the Arclight) that he worked very hard on the structure of the film so that viewers would understand the chronology. Then, when he got the script into what is roughly the shooting script form, Momento came out, using a similar chronology (for a similar reason) and he wanted to throw his script away.
The chronology in Eternal Sunshine starts out after the erasure, and then, twenty minutes in (right after Patrick knocks on the car window the first time), cuts to the titles and has follows him after he leaves the doctor’s office (just prior to erasure). Once they start the erasure process, the perspective splits between present time in the real world (with the the techs, Mary, and Dr. Mierzwiak) and Joel’s memories, which are being erased from most recent backwards, starting at the Lacuna offices and going back to his first meeting with Clem on the beach in Montauk. (I love the effect, BTW, of the beach house coming apart as Joel’s last memory of Clem is erased.) Once the erasure is complete, the “memory” perspective is eliminated and you’re left in the present, with Patrick knocking on the car window (repeated) and Joel and Clem’s discovery of the erasure, thanks to that no-good manipulative bitch Mary. In an earlier draft it is revealed that Mierzwiak caused her to have an abortion before her erasure, which makes her distress more palletable; as it is, she just seems vindictive and heedless of the pain she’s causing the Lacuna patients.
Stranger
I had assumed that they got back together at the end of movie, with the point being that in every relationship there are some things you’re just going to have to learn to live with. Nobody’s perfect, and in a relationship with two people in it, there is even more imperfection. I think both of the characters have grown, and I don’t think they’ll erase their memories again. That’s one of the reasons I love this movie so much–it’s a more realistic and nuanced view of relationships than your normal romantic comedy. If you love someone, even if they’re your “soul mate,” the match is not perfect and it’s never going to be. If the good outweighs the bad, you just have to stay with them and learn to accept the bad. And the characters realize that it’s not always the fault of the other person–that sometimes it’s your own character that colors your perception of the other person, and that you just have to accept that, too.
Anyways, I think the ending is ambiguous enough to also be interpreted as “They didn’t get back together” or “they keep getting back together and breaking up and having their memories erased and getting back together again until their brains turn to mush and their genitals fall off.” I just like the happy ending, because I’m a sucker like that and because I believe the meaning is more profound that way.
This is what confused the heck out of me:
Present time > Patrick talks to Joel in car > Past time, just prior to erasure.
You see Patrick talk to Joel in present time and then, almost immediately, you see Stan and Patrick following Joel, apparently in the past, and THEN the erasure.
If you don’t catch that sutle timeline switch, and you believe that all events/memories of the past are shown only AFTER Joel starts the erasure, then the only only conclusion that can be drawn is that there have been TWO erasures!
I realize, now, that this didn’t happen, but it really threw me for a while. Amazing that a movie can be interpreted in such a radically diferent way than the norm. Bravo Charlie Kaufman.
Well, this thread makes me have more respect for the movie now. It sounds like we’ve reached some consensus that the point of the final scene was that they had seen their incompatibilities played out and knew that they were going to have problems with each other, but decided that it was worth the risk.
My interpretation had been that the movie was overwhelmingly telling us that they were “meant” to be together. So no matter how annoyed they got with each other, they were going to weather it out. Your interpretation was that the movie was showing how incompatible they were, so they would go into it knowing that they would eventually realize they’re incompatible, but enjoy the time they had together until then.
I hadn’t thought he ending was that ambiguous, but now it seems obvious that that’s the whole point. We can’t conclude how their relationship is going to turn out any more than they can. But they don’t need to know what the ending is going to be; what matters is that they try it and experience it as it happens, without looking for an easy way out. It’s not as simple as “we’ll live happily ever after,” or “we’re just not right for each other.” And you can’t keep “rebooting” until things play out exactly the way you want them to or expect them to; you have to just go with it and see what happens.
Ya know, thanks Mr Grundy. That sums it up real well and I hadn’t thought about it like that before. I was sure that my interpretation of the end was the right one, but it may very well be the point that we just don’t know. You, sir, have opened my mind a bit. Neat!
You know, it’s amusing. I’m sure most of the people who posted on this thread would have said that before this thread was created. Hell, I was sure my interpretation was the right one beforehand.
I’ve never really seen a movie that had such an effect (an ambiguous ending, but no one sees it as ambiguous… until they are confronted with someone that sees it a different way). Maybe that was the point. Our personalities lead us to different conclusions…
But perhaps I’m talking out of my ass… that too ;).
I think you’ve got something there.
Probably no one will respond since this is an old thread , but here goes anyway. I have this movie but I watch it anytime it’s on because I love this movie! I also think they get back together and then split, as well.
However, I have a question. If he is boring to her, why does she even approach him? He’s away from the crowd at the beach, not mingling at all ,and admits to her he is not good at talking. Why, if she wants a more exciting man, is she even attracted to him from the very start?. And if he wants a more intellectual mate, and it’s obvious from the start that she is not part of the intelligentsia, eventho she has cool hair and is talkative and funny. What attracts these two to each other in the first place, especially him to her? TIA
Thanks for reviving the thread. I haven’t seen this movie in a long time and now I want to see it agian.
For her it could have just been curiosity. I know I’ve seen a woman off by themselves and sometimes I want to go over and strike up a conversation out of simple curiostiy.
For him if he’s the shy introvert type it could be she helps him open up and have fun in the world instead of just hiding away. I’m like that. I’m reserved but if I’m with someone who is really open and a free spirit it helps me to open up and be more of a free spirit too.
My interpretation isn’t that she finds him boring per se, but rather that she gets bored with him. That that in fact is in fact one of her character flaws - she’s one of those people that cycles rapidly through friends and lovers, embracing them wholeheartedly when they are new and discarding them when they become sufficiently familiar.
I’ve met several people that are like that to varying degrees. They ( often ) fall in love easily and fall out of it just as quickly. She’s a more real ( self-aware and fucked up ) version of the standard TV/movie “manic pixie dream girl” trope.
Yeah, I see now that she’s intrigued by his being on the outside of the crowd and different, but like everyone else she dates, he" becomes" boring to her.
He is attracted to her “craziness” which brings out his personality, but when her craziness gets drunk and accidentally rams his car then she’s gone too far and becomes a problem. Thanks!
ps Some people actually don’t get any of this movie and consequently, hate it. I absolutely find it one of the most original, thought provoking movies I’ve ever seen.
OK, probably no one will agree with me but I think this producer/director/writer put down their story on film. Could be worse; but I see the tech memory wipe as lots more than a prop for the film to get them on a more understanding basis; I see it as horriffic abuse. Why then is it glossed over so lightly? Well, part of that is a way to mention and then forgive previous sexual encounters but I see it as a huge expose of using people in a sexual way and passing them around due to being able to use ‘key’ emotional triggers and place events.
I was astounded that the movie presented this abuse and just zoomed right by it. Why present it at all? Well, a bit was justification of sexual partners, but more was an indictment of a common misuse of psychological information from supposedly protected sources. And society is just not going to say you are going to be used sexually if you trust a ‘professional’ with your life events.
So the film says this and EVEN has the multiple abuse victim send a tape to the rest of the ‘clients’ to alert them which is promptly ignored as the main actors complete their scene. Why? Because the film maker seems to know that is what would happen. No body would pay attention.
What do you think?
Haven’t seen the movie since it first came out, but…
I think most people don’t see it as “horrific abuse” because it’s voluntary, and because we live in a society where many people would just take a pill for that sort of thing if they only could. Far too many folks expect instant gratification, and want to be able to reinvent themselves whenever it suits them to do so.
The Lacuna doctor even admits that the procedure is a limited kind of brain damage, but he gets ethically-acceptable informed consent every time. You pays your money, you takes your chances.