But doesn’t Teddy say that Sammy Jankis did exist, he was just a con man who was faking his own amnesia? (And had no diabetic wife.)
So, if Teddy is telling the truth–at least in that one scene at the end/beginning–Sammy Jankis was a real person, but bore very little resemblance to the “Sammy Jankis” whom Leonard is always talking about.
I think Leonard really did meet a guy named Sammy Jankis who really did try to get insurance coverage for his memory problems, and Leonard really did turn him down. Whether Sammy was a con man or not, we don’t know. But it seems clear that Sammy didn’t have the diabetic wife, Leonard did.
If we go with the theory that Leonard’s problem is psychological not neurological, then it makes sense that Sammy’s (supposed) condition was the inspiration for Leonard’s condition. He was presented with a situation that he couldn’t bear…but he had amnesia like Sammy then he doesn’t have to deal with it. So if we go with the psych theory then it doesn’t matter if Sammy was a con man or had physiologic amnesia or psychological amnesia. What matters is that Sammy’s case triggered Leonard’s case.
The biggest problem with the theory that Leonard’s case is physiological is that he can remember that he has amnesia. Yes, he can remember Sammy Jankis’s case, but he wouldn’t be able to remember why it is important. Take a look at Oliver’s Sack’s book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. He describes a case of a man with this condition, and he constantly forgot what his problem was. He could understand and appreciate what the trouble was and why he was in the hospital when the doctors explained it, but he was always forgetting what they told him.
Anterograde amnesia is not providing Leonard with an escape from his situation, it is forcing him to remain in it. An argument could be made that Leonard’s problem is that he doesn’t want to move on after his wife’s death, but I don’t think it makes any sense to claim that he is avoiding dealing with his situation. He can’t stop dealing with it, because his inability to form new memories or be aware of the passage of time means that his pain is always fresh.
I think you’re right. I forgot about that. But now I wondering how Teddy could know this. Maybe Leonard’s tale of Sammy kept changing through time?
Dangnabbit, I gotta go buy that DVD…
Wasn’t Teddy one of the cops who investigated the assault on Leonard and his wife to start with? He’s been around this situation for a while, and has been in a position to check stuff out. If Leonard was talking about Sammy Jankis, who he remembered from before the attack, Teddy could have checked out the story.
Absolutely nothing? Seems a little extreme to me.
The fact that Teddy reveals that Leonard’s been going around, killing lord-knows-how-many people (and the first one was actually his wife’s killer, according to Teddy) is an utter shock to Leonard. Teddy tells him that his own wife had diabetes, not Sammy’s. Leonard realizes that it’s not important whether it’s true or not…what’s important is that he doesn’t remember, that everything that Teddy’s suggesting could be entirely true…the idea that his perception of reality is forever detached from the truth.
Then he goes outside, throws Teddy’s keys into a bush, burns the Polaroids that depict memories he doesn’t want to remember, and carefully writes down a clue that he knows will lead him to Teddy eventually, a clue that’ll lead him to kill an innocent man, just so that his sense of reality can be preserved.
That’s what I found most significant about the movie, and it’s true whether Leonard is Sammy or Sammy was faking or whatever. It’s about a man forever detached from real emotions, from real social interaction, from reality in general. And it raises questions about what we are willing to do just so we can maintain our sense of reality, to feel normal. Does morality apply anymore if you’re no longer human?
Maybe that’s just my interpretation, but it’s an example. Clearly the critical issue can’t be Sammy’s existence or lack thereof, because we all seem to derive enjoyment from the movie regardless of our individual stances on this issue.
I liked your post a lot, andrew, but I have to question this characterization, and it seems to be a common one, of Teddy as “an innocent man”. While he may not be guilty of the particular murder Leonard believes him to be guilty of at the beginning/end of the movie, he did murder Johnny – even if it was Leonard who pulled the trigger.
I think Leonard’s decision to trick himself into eventually killing Teddy has a more complex motivation than just a need to believe what he wants to believe. That’s a part of it, but I think Leonard is also sickened to realize that he’s been used as a tool, as a human murder weapon. Leonard isn’t sacrificing Teddy to his self-delusion, he’s having his revenge on him.
I do agree that to focus on such details as whether Sammy Jankis was real or how Leonard’s wife died is to miss the meaning of the movie. Christopher Nolan designed this movie so that the audience would share some of Leonard’s predicament. The scenes play out in reverse order so that (at least upon first viewing) we, like Leonard, know what is happening in the “now” of the movie but do not know what events came before chronologically. He also leaves many questions unanswered. Was Sammy Jankis real? Was he a con man? Did he have a wife? How did Leonard’s wife die? How honest is Teddy? We can never know, just as Leonard can never know, because we do not have the facts. As I understand it, this is the point of Memento: we can NEVER be sure that the things we believe are the truth, because our memories are faulty and we don’t have access to all relevant information.
I agree with all of your points–Teddy is certainly not entirely innocent himself, but the fact still remains that tricking himself into killing Teddy is not exactly noble on Leonard’s part. Not something he’s proud of, even he would admit.
What’s disturbing is that lack of memory = lack of guilt. Leonard can copy down a licence plate number and know that it’s a lie, but he also knows it doesn’t matter, because he’ll be doing what he thinks is right. It’s an admission on his part that morality doesn’t really apply to him. And with all the pages missing from his file, with however many people he’s killed, it’s possible that he’s made this admission many, many times before.
What’s tragic about Leonard are these moments in which he realizes that what he thinks is reality is just a ruse–but nevertheless acknowledges the ruse and even takes control of it.
I think it’s very interesting that Nolan has Leonard kill Teddy, because it highlights something very important about Leonard’s character. He is someone who is willing to kill for revenge. This is of course the premise of the movie, but because it is the premise of the movie the audience might be inclined to take it as a given and not consider the moral implications of this. It’s a chilling moment at the end/beginning when we realize that Leonard is really a killer. He didn’t kill Teddy by mistake, it was by his own design, even if he later forgot that he’d ever made the plan.
I’m not sure that it’s shame that makes Leonard trick himself into killing Teddy rather than leaving notes explaining the real reasons why he wants to do it. It may be that in the short time he had to set up his plan Leonard realized that the easiest way to make sure he later did the job would be to make himself think that killing Teddy would fulfill the mission he’d already set for himself. But whether Leonard is a cold-blooded murderer, an insane vigilante, or a decent man trying his best to put things right is another mystery that’s left unresolved.
I think it’s very interesting that Nolan has Leonard kill Teddy, because it highlights something very important about Leonard’s character. He is someone who is willing to kill for revenge. This is of course the premise of the movie, but because it is the premise of the movie the audience might be inclined to take it as a given and not consider the moral implications of this. It’s a chilling moment at the end/beginning when we realize that Leonard is really a killer. He didn’t kill Teddy by mistake, it was by his own design, even if he later forgot that he’d ever made the plan.
I’m not sure that it’s shame that makes Leonard trick himself into killing Teddy rather than leaving notes explaining the real reasons why he wants to do it. It may be that in the short time he had to set up his plan Leonard realized that the easiest way to make sure he later did the job would be to make himself think that killing Teddy would fulfill the mission he’d already set for himself. But whether Leonard is a cold-blooded murderer, an insane vigilante, or a decent man trying his best to put things right is another mystery that’s left unresolved.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I won’t do it again. Unless I forget not to do it again.
