|
The Unofficial Christopher Nolan Website / Movies / Memento / Analyses / Etymology of the names |
||
|
An etymology of the names in Memento by Guy Kananen Dear Mr., Johannes Duncker, Dear Andy Klein, Leonard Shelby: John, Edward, (Theodore), Gamal, Gammall: Natalie:  Jimmy Grantz: Dodd: Sammy Jankis: And now: Some general comments and observations: 
Leonard. He is a hard man. Is he hard like a Lion? I don’t know, but he does appear to be very much like the Devil that Peter describes as a ‘lion going around looking for someone to devour’. Shelby: a shell is an empty casing; a spent round. As for a Leonard being a shell, one could argue he is a shell of a man. From the numerous homicides he has committed, he is indeed spent shell; that is continuously being reloaded. However, it seems that he may be even more of an empty munitions shell, for he himself may be loaded and reloaded in another sense. Perhaps he is a shell that has been emptied. Emptied of what he was, and has been refilled with what he is. Jimmy Grantz is a case in point. The scene near the end of the movie (at the beginning of the story), where he kills Jimmy Grantz, is interesting. Here we see Leonard killing a person for the reasons we have been lead to believe, but no apparently consistent reason we then see him putting Jimmy’s clothes on. Asides from everything fitting: shoes, shirt, tailored suit, etc., this is quite astounding. There is no good reason for Lenny putting Jimmy’s clothes, aside from the practical and normal ones: greed, gloating, he likes the suit. There cannot be any strategy or tactic, he can’t remember anything temporal and complex as that. There are however many bad reasons to put his clothing on: the blood on the clothes, evidence complicit to the crime, etc. The same goes for the car, and for visiting Jimmy’s girl friend, Natalie. One could speculate that Leonard is a representation the Devil, who at that moment he enters Jimmy Grantz body, kills his soul, and possess his life. Accordingly, the movie then becomes a dialogue between Lenny and Teddy, as they wander through Jimmy’s life. While this dialogue is always cordial, it borders on the surreal. It is almost like an interior monologue between one’s own conscience (Teddy), and one’s alter ego or the Id (Lenny). Another strange bit of dialogue, when Lenny call, Gammall Teddy. Don’t call me Teddy, my mother calls me that”. Who’s Teddy’s mother? 
The hotel where he is staying seems to be a metaphorical machination representing the way we think; the way we process thoughts, store memory, recall events, edit or memory etc. The attendant is Burt. Both he and his motel appear to be a stylized representation of a Robert-Burton-like psychiatric representation of memory recall. A different room each time; his homemade map of town; and many of the black-an-white scenes take place in a motel room. These motel scenes may be representing the mechanism of the thought/memory process of Leonard/Jimmy. In one of the motel room scenes, we see Lenny searching the motel room, where he finds in the bedside drawer the ever ubiquitous copy Gideon’s Bible, and then says to himself in interior monologue, ‘Gideon’s Bible, yea, like I read that’, then before retiring he places his gun on top of it. This is more than just mere symbolism; here inside Lenny’s mind, we see that the sword rules over the holy word of God. If you look at Lenny, in his current state, that which we the viewer are watching him, he is by his actions: a merciless man, a liar, and a murderer. Regardless of o what he was, or the pity we may have on him, or his compassion for Sammy Jankins, he is still a murderer. The police report appears to be Lenny’s memory, which he continually edits and modifies. The report was written by the police (Lenny’s conscience?). The police report, Lenny’s real memory, is the closest thing to reality in this machination of Lenny’s mind. Yet he, Lenny, the alter-ego/Id, continually modifies it to suit his own immediate misperceptions, and his own non-rational animal motives. Also, as one goes forward through he movie, and backward through the story, the truth is apparently clearer: license plate numbers, the note that Natalie wrote to him on the back of the coaster, and the ending where we find out why he kills John Gamal. 
In terms of reality, I am convinced that Nolan is not making a movie of reality in the usual Hollywood manner, in that the scenes are not abiding by the laws of reality. Three cases in point: The license plate number changes, between scenes, and it is in the movies script. See ChristopherNolan.net website. The message Natalie writes on the back of a coaster, and the coaster appears different in two different scenes. The Tattoo. While the other two violations of reality are subtle. Nolan bring this directly to or attention both in the black and white scene in bed with wife, and in the final argument with Teddy. I am not sure if he editing memory of reality consciously of subconsciously. The scene of the pin-prick turned pinch, given Andy Klein’s expert dissection of this scene, is an obvious “white” lie he creates for himself . But he final scene of the movie, where he lies to himself about Teddy and sets Teddy up as his next victim, is clearly an example of Lenny consciously editing his memory.. Regarding the reversing of the order of scenes (aka: backwards) I think that the there is good and solid case for reversing the scenes of the movie. This is not just a trick. This IS how we perceive reality. An event happens. We see it. If it is important, we review and reconsider it; but by doing so we miss t he present, as we are like Burton asserts, looking backwards while still “rowing” forwards, We do this to the detriment of missing what is now presently happening. Just analyze your own thoughts, such as you listening to someone talking to you. After you review it again you may determine if the event, as you saw it, is worthy of memory. If is, then why is it important. Whatever the reason you choose, this then becomes the criteria for editing out the non-relevant parts of the memory. You then remember the important part or the part you particularly liked, hated, etc. and to a degree neglect and edit out the other parts of reality. The point to remember is, this is a movie about the perceptions, memories, grief, of a mentally ill person. As such, I am not sure which scenes are hard –reality, and which are memories. Regarding the scene of Lenny interrogating Sammy and accusing him fraud, I have no idea what is going on here. Is this a real event from the past? Is this reality, fantasy, or a symbolic representation of what is going on in his mind? At best, it is a perception and memory of reality suspect of all the degradations we have mentioned. Maybe it is something different. Maybe it is another scene in his head symbolic of his thought process. It is strange, or at least inconsistent, that Lenny, who tells that memory is unreliable and that fact are the only this that can be trusted, should so confidently rely upon hi gut judgment. As if he has an infallible method of lie detection. He is accusing him based on his, Lenny’s, own gut feeling that Sammy is lying. Lenny, playing the role of accuser, judge, and jury, sentences him to no money. We should remember, emotionally, Lenny is the Accuser in this scene. It is also somewhat strange that Sammy is in more serious trouble with an insurance corporation, but than he is with the authorities. It is as if Lenny’ own role insurance investigator ins more important than the police. In terms of Lenny’s story being culpable, that he knows of a person who had this condition prior to himself being afflicted with it is highly improbable. Even more so if the writer of the script would hinge the main characters psychological profile on this improbability is even more unbelievable. Therefore the conclusions are limited: 1) There is no Sammy Jankins, or 2) There is no Leonard Shelby, or 3) Sammy and Lenny are the same person. This leaves us wit the possibility that the plot is either based on split personalities, or upon an entirely different mechanism of representing interior monologue and thought process. I tend to dismiss the multiple personality view, because the movie appears to be to complex and well thought out to just be about a man with split personalities. Nolan I believe is trying to expose the way we think and perceive reality. As far as Memento goes, I am long way from solving the puzzle. It takes a lot of time. I have put this brief conjecture forward not as an explanation, but more as effort to stimulate and perhaps assist others in their attempts. As for myself, I am close to believing this whole movie may be taking place completely inside one person’s mind; perhaps in the mind of Sammy Jankins himself as he is sitting the insane asylum.
In any case, one of the greatest movies ever made. |
              
| |
|
Website created and maintained by Johannes Duncker (
) | ||
