The second time I saw the film I noticed something else. In the scene with the paid escort, Leonard hands over a number of his wife's items for the escort to set around the room, as if they were hers. (Leonard later burns the items.) A hairbrush, an old teddy bear, a worn book (in a flashback we learn that it was Leonard's wife's favorite book), a bra and ... a windup clock! Which one of these items doesn't belong? Everything else is a highly personal item, why would he include a clock? In several of the quick flashbacks in the bedroom of Leonard's house, the same clock can clearly be seen in the background, next to the bed. The scene of Leonard giving his wife her shot is in the bedroom. It doesn't take much to fill in the blanks here -- that clock must have been the clock they used to time her shots. She must have turned it back in order to fool him.
Because of his condition, Leonard isn't able to remember killing his wife, but because that act is so horrific, his mind can't completely forget it either. So he projects the story onto Sammy. Leonard does remember that his wife has diabetes, but he remembers it through Sammy's wife. He includes the bit about turning back the clock because that's what his wife did. But why does his mind project the public clock into a private wristwatch? Why doesn't his mind just transfer the bedroom clock into a living room clock? Because it doesn't make sense! It's a clue his mind is giving him (and the filmmaker is giving us) that there is something wrong with the story of Sammy as it is being told to us. It's not false, it's not a lie, but it's not quite the truth either.
With regard to the shot of Leonard and his wife lying in bed, with "I've Done It" tattooed on Leonard's chest, I've found this is the piece that confuses most people. As you stated, it's not possible that it's an actual memory. The way I've interpreted it is that Leonard, in an attempt to end this spiral of revenge he is caught in, is trying to create a kind of emotional imprint of the accomplishment of killing his wife's killer. At least that's my interpretation.
And we can take it to a whole different level and question whether that second intruder actually existed. Maybe the police were right to begin with and the whole need for revenge is merely Leonard's way of soothing his conscience about killing his wife; he is once again projecting his life onto someone else. One can actually question many of the basic premises of the entire film. The filmmaker doesn't give us enough clear information, so you have to decide for yourself at what point you are going to start believing what the characters in the film are saying. It's this aspect of the movie -- the way it forces the audience to think and engage through the entire film and beyond -- that I like best. Not many other films have such an entertaining story told in such a meticulous fashion that still leaves so much open to personal interpretation.
-- Dan Majoros
Dan: Terrific point about the clock.
Good article, but you there's one crucial action not explained at all in the film.
Why did Leonard switch clothes? Who puts on the clothes of his wife's killer prior to killing him?
Without this scene, there's no movie, but the motive is never explained.
-- Frank Showalter
Frank: In the e-mails I've received about this piece, by far the most frequently asked question is about the clothes. I've always had some (not fully developed) notion about Leonard wanting to assume the identity of his victim, though, to be honest, I can't imagine what sort of psychological sense this would make.
A better explanation is the one Leonard himself gives when Teddy tries to stop him: "I'd rather be mistaken for a dead guy than a murderer." (Of course, taking Jimmy's stuff would be more likely to make him a suspect than if he had simply left the crime scene.)
But the best explanation was given to me by Jennifer Boynton: "Are you kidding? Look at those great threads! Of course, he's gonna take them! Duh! You don't go around wondering why he took the keys to the Jag, do you?"
Er, actually, no one ever questions that one.
Interesting piece, and I, too, loved the film.
As I watching, I assumed from the beginning that Leonard had killed his wife and created a "John G." to assuage his guilt. In fact, I expected the ending to reveal this. (Remember the scene where John G's driver's license shows Leonard's face?)
I still suspect that John G. is really Leonard, that he killed his wife and that his affliction was brought on by insurmountable guilt -- he probably killed her in a fit of jealousy or some such. It would certainly explain his inability to avenge the killer. And the Polaroid could very well have been Leonard after having killed his wife, not the real murderer. It also explains the missing pages of the police report, as well as the rather extraordinary fact that a policeman is following him around.
-- (Name Removed)
Sara: First of all, John G's license never shows Leonard's face. It quite clearly shows Teddy's face. Beyond that, though, I think your theory creates way more problems than it solves -- the least of which are "Who took the Polaroid if Leonard deliberately murdered his wife?" and "Why in the Polaroid does Leonard already have the tattoo about John G. raping and killing his wife?"
Next page: Is Catherine Shelby still alive?