Well considering that Lenny pretty much forgot about Dodd the moment he left Natalie’s means he had a big disadvantage. He almost got killed by Dodd because he forgot he needed to be careful. I just can’t believe Natalie had any confidence in Lenny after sending him out after Dodd. I wonder if people aren’t glorifying Natalie’s intentions too much…after all she was no angel, dating a drug dealer, facilitating drug deals at the bar she worked at, manipulating Lenny…
This is my interpretation. I’ve often wondered what happens to Leonard after he kills Teddy. I think it’s quite possible that he gets another freaky tattoo, the killing stops, and he tries (as much as possible) to go back to a normal life.
In the movie’s final scene, Lenny says something like, “I have to believe in a world outside my own mind.” This says to me that Lenny wants to live in reality, as opposed to maintaining the fantasy that he is still pursuing his wife’s murderer.
I agree with you about the glorification of Natalie. In addition to all the charming attributes you mentioned, she also wasn’t the smartest cookie in the bag. I think she thought things about Lenny that weren’t or couldn’t be true (like being able to remember her just because she gave him a passionate kiss). I don’t think Lenny had much of a chance either (despite pulling it off), I was posting from Nat’s POV. I believe * she* thought he was capable.
I just want to know how Leonard can remember that he can make no new memories after his wife’s attack…
Well, PunditLisa, he did say something to the effect that he can become aware of things through routine and repetition. But also, although this wasn’t mentioned in the film, the affliction Leonard and Sammy Jankis suffered from is a real one, called “anterograde memory loss,” and in real sufferers of this condition such inconsistencies aren’t uncommon.
I think Lenny gets nabbed by the cops at some point after the movie ends (begins, whatever). He’s carrying around a picture of a dead guy, plus enough body art and documentary evidence to tag him as the killer. He’s driving a stolen car, with a trunkful of cash and a gun. He has written down the address where the bodies are located, and he is wearing a dead man’s clothes. He is a sitting duck.
(On the DVD, isn’t one of the special features a series of documents -police reports, medical records and such- and isn’t one of the documents a newspaper clipping about the cops finding a picture of a dead man in a motel room? More evidence that Lenny gets nabbed.)
Now just imagine Lenny’s murder trial…
You’re a lawyer, spoke-. Would a trial even be possible for someone in Leonard’s condition? I’d think he wouldn’t be competent to stand trial.
Lenny is not legally insane. He was perfectly capable of forming the intent necessary to commit murder. In fact, working within the very short time frames permitted by his memory, he planned the murders very carefully, and carried them out very deliberately.
A good lawyer might make the argument that it was a crime of passion, since Lenny’s condition never allowed him to “cool down” from the memory of his wife’s “murder.” It was always very fresh on his mind, as if it had happened only minutes before. Even if that were argued successfully, it would only get the charge reduced from first degree murder. He’d still go to jail.
Caveat: I don’t do any criminal defense work, and the above is based upon ancient memories of law school.
And we know how tricky memory can be…
I don’t do any crim def work either, but I think competency is different than insanity. Insanity is a legal test as you describe (different in various jurisdictions), but competency to stand trial is the ability of the defendant to aid the defense counsel in trying the case.
Clearly, Lenny couldn’t help try the case. Heck, he’d be introducing himself to the lawyer every five minutes and trying to tell him about Sammy jankis.
I saw this movie the other day, twice, and still have lots of questions about it. One main question that sticks in my mind: Did Lennie kill his wife or not? Also, who was Lennie talking to on the phone all those times? Was it Teddie?
watsonwil:
Exactly. This is what I was thinking; I never meant to suggest Leonard was insane, just that he wasn’t mentally competent in the way the Constitution requires.
I’m midway through watching the movie chronologically on my DVD player. It’s a great DVD. I’m a little disappointed that it didn’t come with “view chronologically” as a menu option, but I figure Nolan has a parochial view of his work and doesn’t want us to watch it except in the way he presented it to us.
But the DVD plays with the audience’s perceptions the same way the movie did in the cinema. When you go to the actors’ biographies, the image “blinks” every few seconds, and each actor’s name is replaced with his character’s. It’s done in such a way that if you’re not paying attention you won’t notice.
Similarly, the menu option for the website appears variously as “Memento” and “Otnemem.” And sometimes, when you press the down arrow the cursor goes up and vice-versa.
Speaking of the DVD - this movie has the coolest DVD menu I’ve ever seen. 
Until I get the DVD, refresh my memory (insert obligatory joke here).
I recall being puzzled by the fact that Leonard tells Natalie that polaroids have to be burned as she tries to rip up the one of Dodd. Now, clearly this could be knowledge that he had from before the accident, but why? I’ve never in my life taken the time to sit and contemplate or carry out experiments in destroying polaroids. Thus, I think Leonard must be remembering that he has burned polaroids before, in fact I think he is shown earlier in the storyline, later in the film, burning some.
But how does he remember that polaroids should be burned, when he can’t form short term memories?
Or did I miss something?
And what are your thoughts on this humble opinion of mine? Like “Pulp Fiction,” once this movie is put into sequential order (which I’ve only done mentally), it just ain’t nearly as good as the artificial reverse order.
Or in other words, gimmick accounts for about 50 percent of its popularity and resonance with filmgoers. IMHO.
Sir Rhosis
What actually occurred in this movie really doesn’t matter. I found that immediately after the movie my wife and I were in disagreement about things we had just seen, and that, I think, is the ultimate point. All of our individual realities are based solely on what we remember about past events in our lives. I think the director’s point is that memories are untrustworthy and fleeting and as such they alter what we really are. The deliberately confusing storyline not only conveys to the viewer the same feelings that Guy Pearce’s character must be feeling, but it also makes us question our own memories. I found myself thinking, “if I can’t be sure of things I just saw an hour ago, how can I be sure of things that happened to me years ago” and I base a lot of what I am today on those past events. Memento made me question my own life if only for a moment and that is freakier than any surprise ending could ever be.