I fully agree. I would much rather walk away scratching my head, then later (via a website, say) find some clarification for my questions than haven been beaten over the head with obvious exposition during the movie. That’s screenwriting at it’s worse.
Plus the longer I’m forced to ponder over a movie the more I feel I’ve gotten my money’s worth.
I had not seen the other (previous) thread before I posted. So now my initial questions seem naive. BUT redemption is on the way.
Just for the heck of it I’ve put together a timeline, a list of ‘facts’ about the movie and rented it again and have got a theory of my own that’s different from what’s been posted so far. As soon as time allows I’ll put it all together and post it.
And await the hellatious backlash… 
Based on lots of help from all involved, here’s my shot at it.
NOTE: This is filled with speculation! I use it to explain things we see on film.
Sammy tries to scam the insurance company. Lenny learns about brain disorders, including the physical and psychological differences, and exposes him.
The attack happened on 2/24/97. There are two attackers. This is backed up by the newspaper story. The last thing Lenny sees (before passing out) is his wife dying. This implies to him she died. But she lives.
The physical trauma and emotional stress cause Lenny to crack. He forms an alter ego to help himself cope. The evidence of this is the two different styles of hand-writing he exhibits in the hospital, even the self-referencing sentence, “You recognize this hand-writing, don’t you?” And he says ‘later’ how important it is to have notes in his own handwriting. The ‘good’ Lenny and the ‘bad’ Lenny now exist. Good Lenny is repressed and made to believe (by b/Lenny) that he has Sammy’s ‘condition’.
Though his wife is alive, b/Lenny pesters the lead cop (Teddy) to help him find the ‘killer’. Though I think revenge for the rape is reason enough for him to help.
Sympathetic, but wary because of Lennys condition, Teddy gives Lenny a doctored version of the police report.
Now on the trail, b/Lenny lets g/Lenny take over. This is why the Lenny we see seems sincere (he wouldn’t talk to himself the way he does otherwise). It’s also why he has a ‘condition’.
This dual personality explains some apparent contradictions in the movie such as remembering his condition, writing “FACT 5:…”, etc. He wouldn’t be able to remember what fact he was up to or even that he had a list of ‘facts’ if he had a real condition and were it not for b/Lenny nudging him on these matters. But it’s subtle so g/Lenny doesn’t notice.
He begins to write notes on his body, leading him towards a suspect. This is revealed by his snapping remark to Natalie, “Haven’t you ever written a phone number on your hand?” But it’s not a good system. The notes wash off. This is alluded to several times buy watching him try to wash the ‘Sammy’ tattoo off. This is why he says later he needs a better system. His wife is growing frantic but continues to try to help. He transposes this onto the Sammy story.
Meanwhile, his buddy, the cop (while undercover) sees a way to use Lenny to kill a drug dealer and pocket the cash, and does. Teddy takes the photo. Lenny writes, “I did it” on his chest. This explains the scene towards the ‘end’ of the movie, he and his wife together with the ‘I did it’ written on his chest. He is remembering back.
Realizing what he has done (because of the ‘I did it’ scrawl), his wife is now a threat. B/Lenny uses her diabetes as a weapon against her and purposely injects her and kills her. B/Lenny twists this around and also works it into the Sammy story inflicting ‘his’ contrived ‘memories’ onto unsuspecting g/Lenny.
This turn of events causes Lenny to be hospitalized for observation in Jan of ’98. Trapped, b/Lenny reveals himself to g/Lenny through a set of letters to himself and coaxes him to escape. The evidence for this is the use of the “we” and the second-person style of writing. And we know it’s the b/Lenny because ‘he’ keeps re-enforcing to g/Lenny that his brain is damaged and he wouldn’t remember anything anyway.
His dual personality also explains why he sometimes asks for his wife but writes to himself she is gone.
So in Sept ’98 he/they break out.
He now resumes where he left off not remembering he was even hospitalized. Teddy lures him away from CA to keep him from being caught and to further his manipulation of him.
Lenny institutes his better system by using tattoos instead of writings.
Together, they kill several drug dealers (despite several not fitting the “facts”).
Teddy turns Lenny on to Jimmy and sets a drug buy. G/Lenny kills Jimmy. B/Lenny greedily takes his clothes. Teddy shows up for the money temporarily bringing out the g/Lenny again. He confuses and angers him with the truth. Head spinning, g/Lenny gets into Jimmy’s car to leave. Realizing what is happening, he asks himself, “Can I afford to forget what you’ve just told me?” b/Lenny grins and says, “For you, Teddy. I can.”
Dodd (Jimmy’s ‘boss’) threatens Natalie. She uses Lenny to get Dodd off her back. In return, she helps him find John G. via the DMV connection. This leads him to Teddy. He kills him.
Movie starts.
So you’d have the director spell things out for you after you’ve finished watching the movie rather than during it? (A bit of an exaggeration here, since the website doesn’t go that far.) Doesn’t seem like much of an improvement to me. What’s the point of making a movie that leaves things open to audience interpretation if you’re going to explain it on the Web? And if such an explanation is really necessary or desireable, it seems a bit unfair to the many moviegoers without Internet access.
I agree. That’s why I’d rather ponder the movie forever than go look at the website and have Mister Director Man walk me through it.
It’s more than a bit of an exaggeration, its simply not true. The website doesn’t answer any of the major plot questions brought up here.
I feel that the movie does enough to stand alone. No website or further explaination needed. Wanted, maybe, but not needed. I enjoyed the movie as it was and I enjoy speculating about possible meanings.
I do think that some of the people in the first Memento thread were being too critical of accuracy. Every fiction movie I can think of has parts that couldn’t or wouldn’t really happen. I doubt very seriously (based on the director’s interview) that all the aspects discussed here were even considered by “Mr. Director Man”. It’s just a movie!
But to answer your question, yes, I would rather wonder about a few minor details than set through clunky and distracting exposition.
Further we live in an age of a multi-media explosion. The movie is one thing unto itself. You get what you pay for (which is more than I can say for most movies these days). If you have internet access you can further your enjoyment by adding a new dimension. I see this as a positive thing and I hope more movies follow suit by providing background info on characters you might like.
Using your example is it fair that I don’t own a DVD player? I only saw the VHS re-formatted version. Or that some people don’t yet own CD players even though they could enrich their appreciation of existing technologies if they did?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lamia *
This seems strange as you’ve listed “the Web” as your first interest on your bio page. But if you want to go on pondering just don’t go to the website. No one’s holding a gun to your head.
That doesn’t mean I’m interested in every aspect of the Web. I am not, for instance, interested in online auction sites, or porn sites, or sites devoted to photos of people’s china plate collections. But I apologize if my interests have failed to meet your stringent standards of consistency.
No need to get snippy. I was just pointing out if there are things you don’t want to see on the web such as…oh, porno, plate collections, autions or movie info, then don’t go there. Simple.
Friends again?
It’s so simple that I already do it! But that doesn’t prevent other people from coming up with things like, “Oh, your interpretation of this movie is incorrect, not because it is inconsistent with the film, but because it is inconsistent with the film’s website!” Now, this sort of remark has not yet been directed at me, but I have seen it happen to other people. It is annoying.
Sure. Want to rent Memento this weekend? 
Your place or mine? 
Cool. Reading over this thread, I got as much out of the film as most. I haven’t yet watched it a second time, but I seemed to have gotten the jist of it. The next time I watch the film, I want to follow Natalie more. I want to follow WHEN exactly she decided to use Leonard (I assume it was when he drank the spit), but also the hows and the whys. I got a good idea, but I think it will be fun to focus on one element each time I watch it anew. Maybe the next time it will be on Sammy/Wife.
I am going to bring this thread back up because I just rented the movie and I have one question that I haven’t seen addressed.
First let me say that I think Teddy is telling the truth in the warehouse after the Jimmy killing about his helping Lenny for a year or more. For one, he had the picture of Lenny pointing to his chest. Also in the “First name” tattoo, it appears that “James” was added later, which I interpret as something Teddy convinced Lenny to do so he could go after more people, (ie Jimmy).
So anyway, my question: if Teddy and Lenny have been together for over a year, why doen’t Lenny already have a picture of Teddy somewhere? The “pointing chest” Polaroid seems to prove they’ve known each other for a while.
Diver
Two possibilities occur to me. First, he lost it, perhaps by leaving it someplace like the second motel room. Second, it was disposed of as part of the cover up (the missing 12 pages and blacked out files). All of the photos we see in the movie are from the current “case” Leonard is working on. Maybe he or Teddy would dispose of the evidence every time he solved the case and killed “John G.” so that he could continue his hunt. Both are shown to have motive for continuing the charade.
I agree, 6, Teddy would probably convince him to get rid of the evidence after each killing for both their sakes.