by Allan Fish
(USA 2000 113m) DVD1/2
Discount Inn, room 304
p Suzanne Todd, Jennifer Todd d/w Christopher Nolan story Jonathan Nolan ph Wally Pfister ed Dody Dorn m David Julyan art Patti Podesta cos Cindy Evans
Guy Pearce (Leonard Shelly), Carrie Anne Moss (Natalie), Joe Pantoliano (John Edward Gemmell), Mark Boone Jnr (Burt), Stephen Tobolowsky (Sammy Jankis), Callum Keith Rennie (Dodd), Harriet Sansom Harris (Mrs Jankis), Jorja Fox (Leonard’s wife), Larry Holden (Jimmy Grantz), Russ Fega (waiter),
“Let’s start at the very beginning” Julie Andrews once famously sung. Well, I never did like that film very much. Chris Nolan, the mastermind behind this psychological tour-de-force, seems to believe the opposite might be best, starting his cult classic at the end, and literally letting his narrative run in reverse, beginning with the ending. Sounds confusing? In truth it often is, but on reacquaintance the film makes more sense, not just in terms of its plot, but in terms of the reason for this narrative approach.
Leonard Shelly is a hot shot insurance claims investigator from San Francisco whose wife has been raped and murdered. He spends his days living in and out of the same room at a shabby motel trying to trace the man he believes is responsible. The problem he has is that he has suffered from short term memory loss ever since the murder of his wife, and thus has to write things down or have them tattooed onto his body to remember them. Two people seem most willing to help; a mysterious girl from a bar and an over-talkative fellow who seems to follow him wherever he goes and who Leonard is generally mistrusting of.
The idea behind the narrative structure thus becomes clear, as Nolan gives the closest approximation of the protagonist’s condition for the audience. We can’t remember what’s gone before, because what we’re actually trying to remember is what comes afterwards. It’s a dizzying experience for sure, but quite an intellectually exhilarating one, and one which dares to shatter audience’s preconceptions of cinema itself. As the film begins to come together in the final, or should that be first, act, one begins to feel the futility of it all, as Leonard descends into a sort of recurring, circular nightmare scenario, but one into which he eventually happily descends. “We all need memories to remind ourselves who we are”, he says. He just needs a reason to go on living, however futile it may seem. “I use habit and routine to make my life possible”, he says, and he’s willing to go to any lengths to maintain the illusion.
If this might seem a very cold premise for a central character, Nolan is not out for sympathy, and nor does Pearce play him for any. The ending/beginning may seem awful, but any other ending would have been a cop out in retrospect; only this ending could apply to this character. Pearce is nothing short of sensational as Leonard, equally at home with the subtle changes in temperament that come with a sudden memory loss and the endless monologues into a telephone. Moss as a real black widow and Pantoliano in a not quite trademark role offer sterling support, but it’s rather Ned Ryerson – sorry, Stephen Tobolowsky – who really touches the heart in one of the great vignettes in modern cinema as the unfortunate (depending on whether Leonard’s tale is to be believed or not) Sammy Jankis. The scene where he unwittingly kills his wife with repeated insulin injections is one of the most heart-rending in recent years. Tributes are equally due to cinematographer Pfister, whose contrast between the sunny colour of the outside world and the sinister monochrome of the motel interiors in stunning, and editor Dorn, whose work is often worthy of the adjective ‘miraculous’. The real miracle here, though, is Nolan’s, who manages to create that true rarity in modern cinema, a bona fide 110% original film in a time when originality is looked down upon as not financially viable. His film knows that the best intentions in the world can result in the most insane situations, and that Leonard was right when declaring that “just because there are things I don’t remember doesn’t make my actions meaningless.” Just try and erase it from your memory.
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Wonders in the Dark 
Lastly, I want to know why you said the ending was in any way awful, I thought it was a nice ‘twist’ ending, even though that word is so demonized nowadays, if it’s as well made as it is done in this movie, it works a lot.
I think that with the time I started to live his life, maybe helped by the editing and construction of the facts in the movie, but I started to learn the tricks, how to remember stuff if you lost your memory every now and then, live his uncertainities and the routine.
Wow, I love this movie, and the placing is just about perfect, great addition man!
Now, where was I?
Well, I guess this one had to show up somewhere. Unfortunately its in the top 25. This film is all about style and no substance. The plot holes and logic-loops are apparent the more you think about it and, for the most part, its the kind of film that comes off cool but really doesn’t hold up the more you see it and think about it. Its an interesting early work for Nolan (who scores so much better with BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT). This film is a lot like Lynch’s MULHOLLAND DRIVE. Its the kind of film you feel cool about saying you like when, in fact, aside from its slick style, it really has nothing much to offer. I got a funny feeling I’m causing a war on this one. I also got a feeling we’re gonna see, and I’ll suffer through, see MULHOLLAND high on this count. I like MEMENTO, just LIKE, to me its just passable. I can’t stand MULHOLLAND. Go ahead guys. FIRE AWAY!
I’d say that you did all the ‘firing away’ at yourself, Dennis, in bashing Mulholland while simultaneously praising the likes Batman Begins and The Dark Knight! Those two Nolans are passable enough, but not even near the same level as Mulholland.
But, as you say, we’ll have plenty of time to debate Mullholand Dr., as it is certain to pop up in the near future, so let’s save it for then.
As for Memento, I do like it, but the more times that I have watched the less impressive it has become. I just have too much of a THE USUAL SUSPECTS feeling after it, which means the gimmick ultimately just plays for too big of a role for me. Still, a very well made movie, that works at least the first time around. I do like it, but not as much as I once did.
Yeah, I gotta say I’m kind of surprised you don’t like Mulholland, though come to think of it I’m not really sure how you feel about Lynch in general. To me, Mulholland Dr. is the one stone-cold American masterpiece of the decade, a film that affects me like a dream, much more powerfully than most movies, even the ones I love. Even if you don’t like it, after perusing the various readings of the film and the intoxicating effect it had on those who were swept away, you’ve got to admit it’s got at least a little bit to offer. I think Allan will place it quite highly indeed – maybe #1 though I kind of hope he doesn’t for his sake; it would be nice to end the countdown on a note of accord, then again it may be more telling to end it on a note of lively (but hopefully civil) debate.
Hey, you’re hardly alone though – it’s always been a very controversial film! (Which ain’t bad when you consider some of the other classics it shares that distinction with – L’Avventura was booed at Cannes!). As for Memento, I’m not far from your opinion. Very clever writing and a firm control of style deserve a tip of the hat, but said hat’s resting on a head that received a headache in this case.
Being booed at Cannes is like a seal of approval in many cases.
As for Mulholland, do you HONESTLY expect me to say anything? Sam tried re 2046 yesterday.
Great film, much, much better than The Dark Knight. One of the most interesting thrillers I’ve ever seen.
DAVE-For me, its an argument that’s all about style over substance. Here, the style is the style and gimmich are a fine coating that masks a plot so riddled with holes it resembles a swiss cheese. Now, on first view, that’s fine taking it in, its dazzles and captures interest, but the surface will soon wear thin if you revisit. MULHOLLAND, in my mind, is the same, but far too cryptic and made successful by those that adore the cryptic and the cryptic of that director. As for Nolan’s BATMAN films, gotta give, at least, THE DARK KNIGHT credit. For sure there is style to burn, but the director and writers of the film were smart enough to lace into it a political agenda that was rare for film of its kind. By using the comic-book motif, the director got a chance to comment on things wrong with this world. MEMENTO is a thriller, nothing more. Nifty on first view, tedious after that. IMO.
Anyone who thinks the “political agenda,” of all things, is what redeems The Dark Knight has a really odd idea of what “substance” means. The Dark Knight, and to a lesser extent Batman Begins, are great action movies, and great examinations of the Batman archetype as adapted from the popular comics of Frank Miller and Alan Moore (and seriously, anyone who hasn’t read Year One and The Killing Joke might be surprised by how much of what they’re attributing to Nolan is actually already there in the source material). They are not great political treatises, though the hints of political and social content they contain are welcome additions to the milieu.
There’s far more substance, however, in the inquiry into memory, culpability and conscience that is at the heart of Memento — and the ideas about gender, entertainment and desire in Mulholland Dr., which certainly belongs among the best few films of this decade, and which would top my own list without any competition.
“By using the comic-book motif, the director got a chance to comment on things wrong with this world.”
yeah, and he used it to endorse these said ‘bad things’ (domestic spying for one).
Ed: great comment, I don’t read a lot of graphic novels so my opinion isn’t vast, but a friend did give me ‘The Killing Joke’ after i commented how great I though Dave McKean was, it is a pretty good quick read.
Jamie: The Killing Joke is pretty good indeed, and a HUGE influence on The Dark Knight, but that’s a really odd thing to hand someone who’s expressed admiration for McKean, one of the best artists in mainstream comics. McKean’s amazing, I wish he would work more in comics. Cages, his only solo graphic novel, is a masterpiece, and all his work with Neil Gaiman (especially Violent Cases) is phenomenal as well. I’d be more inclined to point someone who liked McKean towards some of the more avant reaches of comics rather than a decent Batman book.
Ed, if you have a chance, we’d be honored and grateful to have your own 2000’s list here at the site, if you were figuring on doing one for this decade.
re: The Dark Knight
“The Killing Joke” gets referenced quite a bit, but in my opinion, “Batman: The Long Halloween” by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale is the more essential companion to Nolan’s vision of “The Dark Knight”.
Ed: Yeah I knew all that stuff of his, or at least what was/is on his website.
http://www.mckean-art.co.uk/
I must say the ‘Cages’ stuff looks great, I’ll have to look for it and purchase it.
Sam, the reason I haven’t done a 2000s list for my blog is that I feel I haven’t seen nearly enough from the decade for it to be very valuable. I may put something together just for here, but for the same reason I may abstain… I’m just not well-versed enough in recent cinema.
Ed, I’m certainly not as well versed in graphic literature as you are. But I’ve read The Killing Joke and absolutely loved it. I wrote a piece on it here – http://culturazzi.org/review/literature/the-killing-joke-alan-moore-brian-bolland. Do have a look at it, and I’d love to know how you like it.
A girl I had a class with in college said I should read Dave McKean’s “Cages”. She was tattooed, pierced and wore here partially shaven hair in different shades of dyed colors– more or less the stereotypical poster child cover-girl for what you’d expect from a fan of Neil Gaiman, who often works with artist McKean on the former’s “Sandman” comics. So at her behest, and hoping, I’d have something to talk about with her, I picked up “Cages”– thick and heavy as an AP history textbook, sketchy and roundabout inside as your average underground comics but not quite as fun, and about thirty-dollars more expensive than it had any right to be. But still, it was interesting to read, and by the time I was finished, I figured I could chat the girl up on it, and maybe get something out of the whole affair.
So the next time I see her, I mention that I just finished reading “Cages”, and guess what? She’d never read the damn thing herself. She just wanted to see if she could convince somebody else to read the book, since she thought it was too fucking big, pretentious and expensive to actually bother with herself. Ever since then, I don’t even know why I keep it with the rest of my graphic novels. What started out as a mere bit of college-socializing homework has become a big, ugly albatross on my bookshelf.
Oh, and yeah– “The Long Halloween” blows just about any other Batman story on page or screen out of the water, including TDK. At least Loeb & Sale bothered to get Two-Face right, instead of just killing him off as soon as his wounds started to cauterize.
Bob, hilarious story. I’d be more then willing to take ‘Cages’ off your hands if you want to clear bookshelf space. I’ll compensate you with a fair price.
Shubhajit, thanks for the link to your Killing Joke piece. I’ve just read it and commented over there, so as not to derail this thread even further with my comics banter.
That said, I’m going to derail this thread even further with my comics banter! Bob, I think the word you’re looking for with regard to Cages is not “pretentious” but “ambitious.” It’s always a red flag to me when any artist who tries something different and personal and creative gets dismissed as “pretentious,” as though he’d be better off sticking to straightforward superhero comics or whatever. Cages is a brilliant and multi-layered work, and I don’t see why someone who’s never even read it should have any influence on your feelings about it.
The Long Halloween is like a guide book to the Batman universe, and it’s kind of fun at that, but it has all the depth and substance of a kiddie pool. Hell, it barely has a story, just a flimsy excuse to trot out one Batman character after another. I like it well enough, and Sale’s gorgeous noir-influenced art is reason enough to check it out, but beyond that there’s really not much there. With all the substantial Batman stories that have been told, I don’t know why that one of all things gets recommended so often.
Ed, I completely understand what you are saying, and it makes sense of course. The site has much appreciated your past submissions in other decades, where you felt more comfortable putting a list together.
Ed, “pretentious” wasn’t my word, but that of the Gaiman-fangirl who baited me with the book. I thought it was okay, but not good enough given the circumstances. If I’d gotten somewhere with that chick, I’d probably feel completely different about it. And yeah, TLH is mostly a great introduction to Bat-lore, with most of the rogue’s gallery being treated to mere sideshow status. That doesn’t really bother me, however, for the most part– were characters like Poison Ivy or the Mad Hatter ever really all that interesting? What Loeb & Sale set out to do right, they do nearly perfectly– the old-style mafia underworld of Gotham’s past is explored and dispatched with classic style, Batman’s hazy relationships with characters like Gordon and Catwoman are embellished with subtlety and cool, a couple of villains are treated to clever chapters (Solomon Grundy’s Thanksgiving Day parade is short but sweet, the Joker’s Christmas/New Year’s rampage is fun, and the Riddler’s April Fool’s Day brainstorming is inspired), and most of all, Harvey “Two-Face” Dent is given full room to shine in the spotlight. Even if most of the book is merely a training-wheels starter course for DC comics mythos, Loeb & Sale assign depth to the parts that really deserve it. Granted, that follow-up with Robin was crap, but the work they did here was magnificent. I believe in “The Long Halloween”.
As for Jamie– unless you’re in the NY metro-area, I don’t know what to tell you.
Allan, did you know that I was never a fan of this film? Ha!
I was never wowed by this film either, I do agree with Allan and others here that it has more going for it then the clever ‘backwards’ plot. But two films I like quite a bit do this also (PEPPERMINT CANDY and IRREVERSIBLE), and IMHO do it more effective and intriguing.
Though both of those films Allan may actually consider better too, so I’ll bite my tongue. And if he doesn’t no biggie.
I would watch this 10 times again before I’d revisit THE DARK KNIGHT.
as I said above, Jamie, Peppermint Candy is 1999, it’s ineligible.
right, but PEPPERMINT CANDY didn’t even place in the 90’s then… this is 25.
This is a film I feel that I need to re-visit. Its placement here seems oddly high–above No Country for Old Men and Of Time and the City! Scandalous!–but Allan does like to stir the pot…
One thing I’ve always appreciated about Memento is how the scenario allows Pearce some wonderful dialog about memory, dialog that would sound pompous and unnatural coming out of another character’s mouth. However unlikely Leonard’s condition might be, it does ingeniously allow for a character who can credibly spout lines like “Just because there are things I don’t remember doesn’t make my actions meaningless.” Partly due to the Nolans’ story and partly due to Pearce’s battered, nervy performance, I totally buy into the notion that Leonard’s obsessions have turned him into a flea-market philosopher on the nature of memory.
ED-No, no odd, just PREFERRED. That Nolan decided to employ any of the politics running through the comics into THE DARK KNIGHT is admirable as opposed to guys like Tim Burton who just made live action cartoons. As for MULHOLLAND DRIVE (this goes to JOEL too), two things: 1. NOTHING IS SET IN STONE (one mans garbage is another mans treasure) 2. This is MY personal take on that Lynch film. As for the film reviewed above, I have stated that I enjoyed a first run through it BUT, upon repeat viewings, found the logic and the plot so shot full of holes that it became annoying. I admire the style and the neat gimmick but, for me, I’d rather spend time with the Joker.
Hmmm… Dennis I do think your comment on the first Burton Batman to be somewhat correct (‘live action cartoon’), but I think his second one remains the most intelligent and subversive comic book film to date. Not a masterpiece, but for the genre it’s brainy stuff somewhat.
I don’t get the distinction between style and substance in the first place, they really are two parts of the same whole.
ALSO… As for “STONE COLD MASTERPIECES”, there are none. I’ve been shot down here many times for holding firm on certain sacred cows I believe exist within film and I feel the same shooting applies here as well. Look at it this way. If there are, indeed, irrefutable masterpieces that should be populating all lists then we should, apply that attitude with the critical responses and viewer reactions. If we were to do that, then we all better have films like RATATOUILLE, CHILDREN OF MEN, TALK TO HER, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, UN PROPHET, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, THE RETURN OF THE KING and, particularly, THERE WILL BE BLOOD on our lists. We don’t, of course, as the definition of masterpiece varies from person to person. So, save the Lynchian pleading for MULHOLLAND with me. As for Joel’s question on where I stand with Lynch? I like him well enough, admire most of his films (BLUE VELVET is tops with me), and look forward to his next production. I don’t know, like MEMENTO, MULHOLLAND never grabbed me.
dennis, I applaud this viewpoint from you. sacred cows do not exist across the populace, but are individual things to individual opinions. bravo.
In case it’s not clear, I certainly agree that there are no unassailable masterpieces, and it should be obvious that anything I say here in disagreement with anyone else is just my own opinion – which I’m not saying is right or absolute by any means. We all have opinions, so there’s no need to keep reiterating that I’m only expressing mine.
That said, of course you’re still wrong about Mulholland Dr. Heh.
Aye Ed! Well said. Although I don’t have MULLHOLLAND DRIVE in poll position among my own decade favorites (indeed it didn’t get into the top 10) it’s still a cryptic Lynchian masterpiece, and absolutely ONE of the best films of the 2000’s. And by quickly scanning through the submitted ballots so far, it seems to e doing quite well. Dennis and I have similar taste, but with this film we are not in agreement.
Oh Ed of course I agree, I think there are works in every field that should be pretty universally called ‘masterpieces’… but with the invention of the internet I’ve been baffled quite often with what people try and make a name off of by tearing down. I understand what I’m saying here is a slippery slope where lesser opinions can try to slide, say, Thomas Kincaid alongside Robert Rauschenberg but I also don’t want people to not try. Then we can sort out the bodies later. If the individual makes the art the individual should hold it dear, nothing more.
I agree with this, Dennis… so whenever I refer to something as a MASTERPIECE or STONE COLD MASTERPIECE, I assume that everyone knows I’m referring to it as such just for myself. I’m not questioning your opinions at all, just arguing the opposite or disagreeing.
Well, I kind of mixed & matched a couple terms there – “stone-cold masterpiece” which suggests objectivity, and “to me” which is a subjective caveat, so mea culpa I guess. That said, I’m not comfortable throwing any notion of objectivity to the wind, so that there’s no grounds on which to call Citizen Kane a better film than Fantastic 4, just one that one “prefers” – but I’ve been over that with Stephen ad nauseum so I won’t get back into it here! For more recent years, without the benefit of hindsight, it becomes harder to say with certainty which films have “legs” so it’s all a bit of a guessing game. Suffice to say that of the American films I’ve seen/admired/enjoyed/been impressed by, etc. from this decade, Mulholland Dr. stands in a class by itself. My gut says that decades from now it will still stand tall as one of the finest, possibly the finest, American films of the decade.
I fall on the side of the fence that strongly believes Memento is a great movie and hence ranks among the best films of the decade. A brilliantly twisted & utterly engaging take on memory and whether it is reliable on the first place, this exceptional mind-bender managed to bind technical virtuosity and narrative audacity with a great script. And yes, as Allan noted, the movie is indeed 110% original.
In fact, I’d have given it an even higher number for its originality. I happened to have read the short story Memento Mori by Jonathan Nolan (that’s Christopher Nolan’s brother) on which the movie was based, and it certainly took a fearless director like Chris Nolan to turn the rambling yet addictive prose into this hyper-kinetic feature film. His first film Following showed what great promise, which was fully realised with Memento.
Well said, Shubhajit. One of the most common criticisms of this film, including in this thread, is that its structure is just a gimmick. I don’t agree at all; its structures is perfectly united to its themes. The film stresses just how crucial a sense of continuity with the past is to our notions about self-identity, guilt and innocence, and moral culpability. The film posits a character who has a very unusual relationship to cause-and-effect, and because of this the film’s structure, in which effect precedes cause, encourages viewers to think carefully about the issues being raised by Leonard’s condition.
Granted I’ve only seen this film once (and as I said don’t consider it ‘just a gimic’), I remember wishing the time idea was pushed to the border–or even over– of incomprehensible. This could have been a mess or very experimental but that’s what I generally liek with films like this.
But this film is also very much a whodunnit so it’s probably better off for playing more conventional as a thriller.
Whether we see the memory question as a gimmick or not, it still doesn’t hide the facts that there are certain loose ends that make no sense by the time the finale strikes in a film like this. As a mystery, this is, for me anyway, too troublesome to make it a complete success. MULHOLLAND, in my personal opinion, is too Lynch cryptic. I find the first half of the film as engaging and interesting as anything he’s done prior, but the second half goes so far off the wall that I wound up scratching my head. I’ve rewatched MULHOLLAND several times, feeling I owed it that much, and I just don’t see what the big deal was. JAMIE-I don’t hate Burton’s BATMAN films, and agree with you on RETURNS as one of the strongest in the comics-to-film realm, but I had to use him to illustrate a point. FOR THE RECORD: SUPERMAN (1978) still holds my affections as the best of the best in that genre.
But Superman’s shit Dennis.
Funny, Fish, but Nolan disagrees with you. In fact, Donner’s film heavily influenced “Batman Begins”, and Nolan namedropped it when giving his pitch to Warner Bros. Granted, it wasn’t as big an influence on Bryan Singers’ “Superman Returns” or his “X-Men” films, but it’s scertainly there. It’s especially evident in “The Dark Knight”, where Nolan pulls the same trick Donner did of simply substituting a real-life famous American city for a fictional comic-book one– Manhattan for Metropolis, and Chicago for Gotham.
At any rate, on “Mulholland”– frankly, I can’t sit through it anymore, either. Primarily it’s because I’m so conscious of the fact that it began as a television pilot, and I would have greatly prefered it had gone to series instead of being repurposes as a “Wake Up, Sleepyhead!” mindfuck feature.
I said it before, but since it’s a new thread: I think Mulholland turned out better as a film than it would have as a series, but that’s coming from someone who doesn’t watch television – besides much as I love Twin Peaks, I’m far more compelled by Fire Walk With Me (not that the latter is really possible without the former, of course…).
I went through a period with Mulholland where I didn’t like it as much as I used to because the cleverness seemed a bit too on-the-nose once you get the structure – some of the unexplainable dreaminess of it seemed to be lost by Lynch’s decision to make an “explanation” available. But now I’m back to liking the structure a lot – I think the tragic power is heightened by the pyschological key without mitigating the ineffable surrealism too much. Guess I should save all this for the Mulholland Dr. thread though… (I’ll eat my hat if it doesn’t show up on Allan’s countdown, and I’m predicting top 10).
In YOUR opinion ALLAN, it might be shit. In my opinion its the best of the comics films.
Does anyone else feel that as an “auteur” Christopher Nolan is more distinctive and identifiable for his writing than his direction? I didn’t come away from Dark Knight particularly impressed with the (gulp) mise-en-scene but I was compelled by the storytelling – and in retrospect can see all the “game-playing” connections with Nolan’s other work.
Visually– I think his work is interesting, but not particularly substantive, or at times even coherent (he has absolutely no idea how to stage or shoot a non-vehicular action sequence). At the same time, however, his framings and use of color have something about them which is very cool, and at times even original– yeah, his mis-en-scene owes a lot to guys like Lucas and especially Mann, but at least he isn’t as transparently indebted as Peter Jackson. The visuals of “Memento” are primarily nice as so much of them communicate vital story details– Leonard’s tattoos, the polaroids & map– and plenty more is carefully shot and at times even color-coded so that we always can keep track of where we are in a story that’s moving backwards– I do really like the use of white and blue in the picture. I think that the better thing to say is that as an auteur, he’s a strict narrativist rather than a true director of films purely for films’ sake.
A fantastic entry to usher in the top 25! I loved this film but it’s been awhile since I revisited it.
The whole “revelation” piece near the end (or is it the beginning) where Joey Pants lets Guy Pierce’s character know how many times he has done this before (and how happy he had been that first time– and that photo of him smiling) — man, it still gives me chills just to even think about!
Nolan is a genius and the best studio driven big-budget director working today — and this thing is where it all started!
There was just something so tragic and sad and infinitely memorable about the character at the center of this all…