Incredible film, deep philosophy

Rating: 10/10 (25 November 2000)

The technical expertise brought to bear on this film has produced one of the most awe-inspiringly skillful pieces of narrative experimentation that I have ever seen (for me, it blows The Usual Suspects out of the water, though that's a more fun and stylish film than this). It is quite exhilarating.
The choices of scene order and the editing were very intelligent and always hugely effective... the opening shot demonstrates this right away (I was in love with the film immediately because of it). The plot is entirely intelligible (replay it forwards in your mind afterwards and the sequence of events is surprisingly simple), which is quite a feat, and the obvious method for maintaining suspense in a film that starts with its ending - that is to lie a lot, Usual Suspects-style! - is employed in a smart and at times cheeky and humorous manner that works really well. You never feel cheated... or if you do, it's done so well that you love it!
Philosophy really seems to be invading mainstream cinema at the moment (which is something I and, it seems, the public in general, are enjoying a lot)... first The Matrix, now Memento. These two films share two actors (Pantoliano and Moss) and they also share a major philosophical issue - the existence (or otherwise) of a consistent objective reality. Memento, though (in my opinion), tackles a much deeper and more important point. This point, revealed at the end of the film (this is an analytical spoiler, not a plot one, but skip this paragraph if you care), is not just that we carry our worlds in our heads and that they could be made up by us or someone else, but that we *need* to believe in a world that is consistent and has purpose and meaning - and that this can make us waste our life trying to get it to make sense within the context of these abstract ideas.
Life is a series of moments of consciousness for all of us, whether we have a functioning memory or not. No matter what we do in the long run, it is how happy we are in each of these individual moments that counts - a life is not greater than the sum of its parts. A great, long-term achievement only makes life better by making individual moments happier (through pride, say) but such achievements do not necessarily bring a sufficient reward to balance their cost, as was the case in the extreme situation of Leonard.
Several people have complained about the lack of an 'emotional heart' to the film but I think that (a) it was present in Sammy's story (Harriet Harris is really, really good) and (b) this is part of the point. Leonard's choice to base his actions on belief in his 'purpose' (revenge) ensures that his life is hellish and never satisfying. An abstract purpose to life that extends beyond the individual moments of consciousness (their disconnectedness emphasised by Leonard's condition but present in all of us) is what many of us seem to follow, yet we do it without any proof that it will make our moments any happier in the long run. We can become obsessed with purpose and life 'making sense' at the expense of happiness. I know that this is true of me :( my life is uncannily similar to Leonard's... umm, just without all the killing!