First of all, compliments on the article (and your impressive diligence in watching the movie all those times).
Leonard makes a point of stating that an individual with a physical form of the disease can form learned responses to stimuli (such as pain). In fact, in one of his memories we see the test being performed with an electric shock. My theory is that Leonard has done just this, formed a learned response (altering his pre-accident memories) in response to the painful stimulus of the knowledge that he killed his wife.
I realize that such a killing would have come after the accident, and therefore be "unrememberable," but if you add in the fact that he is an escapee from an asylum, and previously possessed the full police report, it becomes possible that he would have spent a period during which he was constantly reminded of the death of his wife.
The destruction of the pages becomes consistent with his ability to trick himself (à la killing of Teddy).
With this additional bit, I think the remainder of your analysis is dead-on, and explains exactly who the good and bad guys are.
-- L. Stephen Bowers
One of the things I was hoping your article would answer, but didn't, was where Leonard got the name John G. from. I don't think that's ever explained, is it? It can't be the police report because Lenny tells us that the police don't believe in the second person who he claims hit him on the head. Have you ever come across an answer to this question?
Regarding the end of your article, which basically asks what is the truth, what really happened, I have a theory that was not mentioned in your article -- but of course, me not being Nolan, is purely conjecture:
I believe that Lenny was never an insurance agent. Instead, he was the person that he claims Sammy was, with one little addition. By this, I mean that Lenny suffered (perhaps) a blow to the head when he discovered his wife being raped. He then had this memory condition. However, one of the issues in the black-and-white segments is whether or not Sammy is faking the condition. I believe that Lenny is faking his condition (or, more accurately, that he was faking his condition). He wanted the insurance money and was determined to get it. In order to do so, he had to fool his wife. He loved his wife, but didn't want to get caught in this lie. Breaking his condition would have revealed his ruse and broken his wife's heart. So when confronted in such a way that he must either reveal the truth or hide behind it, he hides, and kills his wife.
Now, I realize that this is a stretch on my part. However:
How do you interpret the black-and-white scene where Sammy is replaced by Lenny? I believe that this says absolutely that Lenny is Sammy. (Further proof of this, in my opinion, exists in one other moment of the film that I've not seen any critic mention: Lenny tells the story of how Sammy kills Sammy's wife. Well, unless Lenny is Sammy, how would he know what happened in that room? He wasn't there and certainly Sammy wouldn't have recalled it later.)
I think that because he killed his wife over greed or insurance (another film noir theme), this drove him crazy. Rather than admit that he'd do such a thing, he convinces himself that he has this condition and then uses it to go about living the rest of his life. In the film, everyone uses Lenny to get what they want. At first, we feel sorry for him because of this. However, what's ironic is that he was the person who started it -- he lied to himself before any of them lied to him.
Anyway, that's my take on the film.
-- Lincoln Stewart
Lincoln: Where did Leonard get the name John G. from? Now there's the $64,000 question!
As for the issue of how Leonard could know what transpired in the Jankises' living room on the fatal day, I've always assumed that Mrs. Jankis wrote a note in advance of her "experiment." Wouldn't you have done so under those circumstances? So there wouldn't be any chance of Sammy being suspected of simply deliberately murdering her? (Also, if she truly misunderstood the insurance company's position, she might have thought that Sammy's accidentally killing her would at least result in a reversal of its decision on his claim.)
Great article dissecting what is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting films of recent memory, "Memento" (pun intended). I too have found that all of the negative reviews of the film were written by people who really didn't get it. However, I would like to point out a couple of key pieces I noticed that were not mentioned in your article:
I think that Sammy's story is essentially Leonard's story, and that Teddy was telling him the truth (more or less) at the end. The clue that leads me to believe this has to do with the watch. When Sammy's wife decides to shock him out of his condition by having him give her a number of insulin shots in succession, she continually turns back her watch before saying, "It's time."
The first time I saw the movie, this struck me as stupid. Why would she turn back her own watch? Sammy never looks at the watch. In fact, no one ever looks at someone else's watch -- it's a personal item that is usually only seen by the person wearing it. Now, if it was a clock on the fireplace mantel or on the wall, that would make sense. Turning back a public timepiece would certainly assist her in the attempt of fooling Sammy into thinking that it was time for a shot. But a wristwatch? No, that just doesn't make sense.
Next page: The clock is the clue!