Thursday, April 24, 2014

Memento


            Memento, in my eyes, was an incredible adaptation.  It managed to take the concept from the short story, and presented it in a way that was far more engaging than the source.  Though the short story is still fantastic, the film’s odd progression created a longer lasting experience for the viewer.

          

            One thing I found to be one of the most entrancing features of the film, was the backwards progression.  The experience would be completely different if presented in chronological order.  It’s not just that it forces you to pay closer attention, or that it takes advantage of your impressions, but it also helps make Leonard more relatable.  I’d like to start by looking at Natalie’s character specifically; our first impression of her would have been completely different in chronological order.  Taking a look at the clip below, what do you think of her?  She has a few jokes that seem mean spirited, but overall she comes off as a sympathetic person that could be trusted.  As we learn by the end of the film, that is far from the case.  Did anyone have a negative first impression of Natalie?  Since we’re thrown into the events, we don’t know what to think, which gives the movie more power to shatter our expectations. 



            I think the out of order progression also added to the experience by throwing us helplessly into the middle of things.  Since we don’t really know what’s happened leading up to what’s going on, we’re in a similar position as Leonard.  The only advantage we’re given is that we figure out the context of the previous scene by the end of the current scene.  We’re slowly able to piece the entire story together, which Leonard isn’t really able to do.  Because we are in a similar position as Leonard, it’s easier to sympathize with him.  Look back at the clip with Natalie, like Leonard we don’t really know who she is, but we have no choice other than to trust her since Leonard does.  We put faith into Leonard since we don’t know any different.  By the end though, clip provided below, we find out that maybe he isn’t as reliable as we thought.  We’re left unsure what to believe about Leonard.  Now imagine if we saw that sooner?  In chronological order, that would have taken place somewhere in the middle.  Would you have trusted Leonard in chronological order? 



            There are many other things that I think made the film more interesting, but does anyone have any reasons they felt were more prevalent?  Does anyone feel the short story was better?  Or are there any disagreements with my thoughts?

3 comments:

  1. I completely agree with your point that the backwards telling of the story makes helps us to identify with Leonard. The revelation involving Natalie's character is a great example of that. For most of the movie--and really, even after it ends--we are just as confused as he is. It's one of the few movies that can really be called an "experience."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I did my paper on a lot of the topics you were going over. I agree on how you said the order of the scenes makes you pay more attention a lot more. For example you explained how the audience must pay attention to the characters more so we can understand the confusing arrangement of scenes. I also liked how you related the film's order of scenes to how we can relate to the Leonard of being thrown into scenes just how Leonard was due to his mental condition.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that the backwards plot is more intriguing to the audience. I think that the character identification is completely subjective, as you pointed out. Our opinions about the characters in film or literature tend to be skewed by the perspective of the narrator or main characters.

    ReplyDelete