Damn Dirty Apes

I have spent at least seven hours of my week watching apes mutate into incredibly intelligent life forms. Why? Well because Planet of The Apes. That's why.

Forewarning: I am about to sum up three movies in shitty little paragraphs and leave a lot of details out, but they do contain spoilers (!!). So just in case anyone was wondering, this franchise is 46 years in the making. Starting in 1968 when director Franklin J. Schaffner brought this magnificent story to life, we are introduced to the species that is smarter than the average man. After Charlton Heston's spacecraft crash landed on what is 3879 New York City: a world where humans scavenge like animals and apes study how these beasts work. 

So all of these new Planet of the Apes movies that are being released are considered prequels to this classic. The 2011 film Rise of the Planet of the Apes (WOW SO MANY PREPOSITIONS) introduced us to the character of Caesar. A genetically mutated chimp who contained genes that were affected by practice drug that was supposed to cure Alzheimer's disease, Caesar is far more than your average primate. He learns sign language easily and finds it easy to communicate and empathize (never understood the science behind the empathy) with the humans around him. The drug increased his brain power, as it would do to an Alzheimer patient, and because there was no brain damage to repair, it only made him stronger. He grew up with a loving family and was sent away for simply trying to protect his loved ones. While with animal services he is treated like a lesser being, instead of the loving family member he was at his home. This makes him hate humans, and teach the other apes to rebel and break out, and then roam free. Thus the rising. 

In the third and newest installment of this franchise, the apes that broke out of the animal shelter and everywhere else they were being held captive live a happy and carefree life, where everyone bows down to Casesar because he was smart enough to teach them that they were their own person and not just some pet for a human. A little self-respect never hurt anyone, honestly. Meanwhile in the human world a virus accidentally created by the "father" of Caesar has spread and killed almost every single human being on the planet (THIS WAS NOT THE APES' FAULT, remember that. "Ape good"). The apes have created a colony in a deserted town/forrest. The few remaining humans in San Francisco are running out of power FAST and they need to use the dam within the ape colony to generate power for their itty bitty city. Caesar, who is basically king of this colony tentatively allows the humans to use the dam under constant supervision, and on the condition that they hand over their guns. One ape, Koba, rebels against his leader Caesar because he was a lab ape, and only knows humans have the power to hurt apes. Koba ends up betraying Caesar by using a gun to try to assassinate him, and then blaming it on the humans. The apes then have reason to believe that they should attack all of the humans and follow only Koba's orders. They attack the city of San Francisco with stolen guns and tanks and whatever else an ape might find "cool."Unfortunately for Koba, Caesar lived through the attack, knew he was betrayed, and rose back to power, setting free all of the humans that Koba thought were evil, and taking care of Koba (hopefully) once and for all. (Wow, what a weird saying. )

YAY LET'S ANALYZE NOW

So there are a lot of really obvious juxtapositions in Planet of The Apes, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. The humans are kept in cages and medically tested instead of medically testing the apes. The apes think that humans are the lesser species, where we think that apes are less intelligent. The ape that did really well in her testing was nicknamed Bright Eyes, just as the blonde hair, blue eyed, intelligent human was called in the original. At one point there is a newspaper shown with the headline being something along the lines of losing track of a spaceship, around the same time that the original spaceship in The Planet of the Apes would have gone missing, which just reiterates that although these two worlds look completely different they are the same storyline. 

Loyalty was a big theme in the third movie. Chimps have to ask their leaders for permission or forgiveness whenever want/say something that the leader might disagree with. Caesar has a large following of apes that all agree that he knows best. He taught them sign language, and how to treat themselves. He also tried to teach them that apes do not kill apes, and that apes are good. The idea that apes do not kill apes stems from the idea that no matter what apes had to stick together. They were brothers, and they always stood as one against everyone else. However Casesar realized that loyalty does not depend on species (or race?? hmmm think about that), but on those who treat you with the respect that you deserve. At the end of this movie Caesar pushes Koba off of a ledge to his death. A scene almost IDENTICAL of Koba's last appearance in the Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  (These images aren't exact, but you get the gist.)

The second one image shows that their law "apes don't kill apes," can be changed based on the way someone treats someone. The first image shows Koba throwing the human who was in charge of him off of the Golden Gate Bridge. The second image shows Caesar, the leader of Koba, throwing Koba off of the edge of a tower. "My my how the turn tables" -Michael Scott. Loyalty to fellow apes only works when apes respect each other.

The movie ended with the theme of forgiveness. Every ape bowed down to Caesar and held out their hand for him to forgive them. Kind of an odd theme to end with when you are making sequels? Because forgiveness normally indicates closure, but, whatever; I'm not complaining.

Caesar does say at the end of the movie that the war has already started. Ape will forget, but human will not. (So true.) Also interesting was the fact that this took place in America, specifically San Francisco. I know it makes sense geographically because of the last movie, but if the virus originated in that city and potentially wiped out almost the entire human race, how did a colony survive in the place it first started? That made me think that a lot of the underlying themes were about how Americans treated outsiders, and is a country that doesn't take the blame for their mistakes. We teach other people that they should be dependent on us, as Americans: that they aren't as smart or capable as we are. It was only a matter of time before they revolted. 

All in all, they are a great movie series. I would recommend them to anyone who wants to watch seven hours of apes destroying humans. I will leave you with this image of an ape on a horse with two machine guns. AMERICA.

My Opinion is Irrelevant, BUT I State It Anyway

Okay, so recently I watched the movie Stuck In Love. Basically, I chose it because Nat Wolff was bringing back his acting career, and I was the biggest Naked Brothers Band fan growing up--no shame. We've met before, it's casual. I was feeling unsure about watching the entire movie on Netflix, because let's be honest Netflix is best used for catching up on TV shows that were popular four years ago. However, as soon as Lily Collins appeared, I was more interested (she dated a Jonas Brother, you know?). And then the opening credits rolled in with Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros song Home, and I was hooked. I loved it. And I'm a girl who hates love stories. Nicholas Sparks makes me barf. So I raved about it to all of my gushy-boy-obsessed friends, and then casually checked the rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and disappointingly found it at a measly 59%, and to that I say boo. Let me tell you why.
So Josh Boone makes his hollywood directing debut with this movie full of parallels, and cycles, and love and loss. We start with the family traditions of Thanksgiving, the routine that this tight knit family must do every year. The family is a common 21st century family: single dad, with his college student daughter, and stoner son. However, there are four places set at this table, which is beautiful cinematography foreshadowing to the ending scene. Okay but please, just remember this scene in your head. Imagine it.
So the syhuzet is fairly simple. The three members of this family all fall in love within the course of a year. Three types of love: unrequited love, young love, and an odd sort of unconditional love. Basically three simple love stories, intertwining in one movie, making it one very dynamic love story. And of course, as any typical Hollywood love story, they all go through a traumatic argument, but not everyone gets back together. Which brings out the harsh reality of love: sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't. And yeah, being surrounded by happy people sucks, but you learn to be happy for them, instead of sad for yourself. However, that is not the only lesson in this movie, because that's only one outcome from the love stories. The other meanings are just as simple: no matter how hard it is, you never give up on the person you love, and that loving someone means putting their needs before yours. All beautiful and useful themes, that come into play in every love story, overlapping, to show the importance. I think this is important, because you can write it off as just another love story, with a sorta-kinda-allaround happy ending, but there is a lot of deeper meaning. And love sells. Look at all the desperate teenage girls flocking to the movie theaters to see Endless Love this weekend, and we all know that's going to be a shit show.
So back to the cinematography. This movie was just so nice to look at. The rule of thirds came into play  with shots of settings and props. My eyes were drawn towards what the director and cinematographer wanted me to look at. Not only that, but I watched this movie once, three weeks ago, and the first and last scene have been stuck in my head. Remember the image of the three people at the Thanksgiving table? Well, the movie comes full circle, and we're back at Thanksgiving dinner, but the end scene ends with five people at the table. Not an even six, because not every couple ended up together. The image itself made me realize how much can change in a year, for better and for worse, but some things stay constant. Like the love of your family. It's always unconditional.

So I mean I'm really excited to see what Josh Boone does with Nat Wolff in The Fault In Our Stars, and if this is a precursor to the cinematography in that movie, I am so excited.

OKAY THAT'S IT GO WATCH IT.

Argo: Not So Long Ago, In A Galaxy Not So Far Away

            Cast members of the movie Argo have won many Oscars for their performances as the American hostages. The hostages are the escaping underdogs in a bloodthirsty nation. In the time frame of this movie, Iranian students were holding around fifty Americans hostage, which made all Iranians public enemy number one. In the beginning of the movie, director Ben Affleck as Tony Mendez, emphasizes the ignorance that government officials show towards Middle Eastern countries. He humanizes the enemy, by finding common ground. What is one thing that all humans understand? According to Affleck, it’s Hollywood: movie making. However, as the film progresses and the concept of a movie, taking place in Iran becomes reality, the East becomes noticeably juxtaposed with the West.

            In the beginning of the film, when the CIA is just deciding on how to save these six hostages, they start discussing their best ideas. Their best idea is to send the hostages bicycles to travel to the Turkish border after the weather clears up. A ridiculous feat considering that there is snow on the ground, and the journey is 300 miles—300 miles with no cover of security. The men in this room all agree on this idea except Tony Mendez, who knows that the Iranians will realize that six people are missing before there is any chance of weather clearing up. He distinctly points out the ignorance of the members of the CIA, and what their perception of Iran is. All these men seem to know about the Iranians is that they are looking to kill Americans; they are the face of terrorism at this point. They have a certain depiction of what the Middle East is like, but they’re just making assumptions. It’s a classic case of Said’s Orientalism. Mendez has thought of a different approach however, because “they understand media. They’re not monkeys. The same men you see holding guns have cousins selling eight tracks on the street.” Instead of making assumptions about Iranian culture, Mendez convinces the men to focus on something that is universal: media.

            At this time, all American news stations were giving updates on the hostage situation in Iran. In Argo, many of the scene’s transitions were done by a showing of clips from news stations, reporting on the hostage crisis as it was happening. Said alluded to this same happening in the article “Islam As News;” the media in America created the image of the terrorist[1]. They showed angry men with beards and guns, much like the opening scene of Argo shows the angry men chanting “Death to America!” However, the idea of media also helped to get the plan to work. Perhaps the hostages were held so long because it kept America’s attention for so long. While watching a broadcast of a hostage update John Chambers says, “Do you ever think this is all for the screen?” They know how much the West covets their media, and suddenly the East has taken over that.

            Filming a movie for an exotic land in the Middle East is not a new concept, so it was the perfect disguise. The ideas for movies were a constant flow when Mendez asked John Chambers for his help. Once Chambers had agreed there began the process of choosing a script that would be popular enough to be convincing. They are looking for a movie that would make sense to shoot in the Middle East, which is stereotyping the Orient already. Lester Siegel, the producer for the fake film shoots down a suggestion of The Horses of Achilles, because nobody shoots Westerns anymore. The West is old news; it’s all about the exotic places. It doesn’t matter what the movie is about, the fact that it has horses in it mean people associate it with a Western film. It is a simple statement that shows exactly how susceptible Americans are to stereotyping. We have this depiction of what a terrorist looks like because he’s from a different country and plants a bomb in a big city, but a white man who kills over 30 kindergarteners is labeled as insane. However, when Mendez reads the first words of the script for Argo: “fade in on a starship landing. An exotic middle eastern vibe,” it seems as though the perfect fit. Where better to shoot a movie about a fantasy than a country that is so mysterious to Americans. When Hollywood’s Middle East comes to mind, people think of the Orient stereotypes: men with beards, tan skin, magic carpets, something along the lines of Aladdin’s home. Somehow this country makes for the perfect location to shoot a movie about aliens and women offering goods—or possibly themselves—up to the gods. At this point in the movie, Affleck’s character is no longer trying to humanize the people of Iran, but instead use America’s perception of this otherness that we know nothing about, to trick us all into believing there will be a movie.

            Argo is a story about saving Americans, but also a story about tricking the Iranian nation.  It turns into a story about America, the great superpower, pulling one over on Iran. The image of the stereotypical terrorist is ever present throughout the film, and that of the classic Eastern Orient. Although it’s an exciting story, it’s an inaccurate depiction of all Iranian citizens.

---

[1] Said, Edward W.. "Islam As News." Covering Islam. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981. 169-194. Print.

Persepolis: Becoming A Hero--Film to Book Comparison

           There are many scenes in both the movie and the novel Persepolis that show acts of heroism. Heroism is laced throughout the entire story, because terrorism is a constant theme in the life of the author, Marjane Satrapi. Although some scenes from the movie differ from the book, heroism and terrorism are never mutated. A scene of terror that was almost as identical in the movie as it was in the book was directly after Marji’s family attended the party where the electricity went out. The family is being pulled over by the police. In this scene in the novel, Marji learns from her grandma how to be a hero in the face of terror.

            On the way home from a forbidden party, Marji’s family comes face to face with the police. In the novel, the only objects in sight in this scene are the car, and the characters. There is nothing in the background to distract my attention, as a reader, from the conversation and the faces of the characters. At first the only things that can be seen are silhouettes of the policemen running at the car at night. In this panel, Marji is clearly snooping by looking over her father’s shoulder with wide eyes, full of terror. The policemen are dressed in all white: stark contrast to the dark night. The brightness of their uniform interrupts the dark. Darkness allows you to cover your secrets, but the luminescent white of the officers uniform shows that nothing is private anymore. Once the policeman has ordered Marji’s father out of the car, Marji’s eyes are suddenly visible: peering over the backseat—observing with a look similar to that of a deer’s in headlight. The policemen are angry. In every panel of the scene the policeman is frowning, with his eyebrows arched. His features are over exaggerated, so that we know in what tone to read his lines. The face is not friendly, nor does he look negotiable, and Marji is terrified as she watches this man interrogate her family.

            On the contrary, Marji’s family is frowning in all panels, and look as if they’ve been caught red-handed. Their eyebrows are high; their eyes are wide, like scared little kittens. It’s not until the car pulls up to Marji’s home that her expression is visible, and she is completely terrified. Her eyes are huge: her mouth is quivering. Her grandmother is guiding her into the house. She has put all of her faith in her grandmother’s experience. She knows that these men could decide her entire future, and she has anxiety over doing something illegal.

The irony of the entire situation is that earlier in the novel, Marji so badly wanted to defy the government to become a hero. Now that she is faced with the opportunity, she looks sick to her stomach. When the policeman asks Marji and her grandmother where they are going, the grandmother says—with what appears to be a shaky voice, to match her shaky mouth—that she has diabetes and needs some syrup. Immediately the man’s face softens as he mentions that his mother also has diabetes. Marji’s grandmother has successfully humanized herself in the eyes of these brutal men. Suddenly Marji no longer has a look of fear, but of appreciation. This change in Marji is apparent as she walks ahead of her grandmother to their apartment, with a look of determination in her eyes. She knows that taking care of the alcohol is her duty in the family, and that she will be regarded as a hero for saving her parents. However, the end of the scene is very anti-climactic, for the people at the door are not the policemen she had anticipated, only her distressed father who had learned how easy it is to pay off a noble member of the government force.

            There are only minor differences in this scene in the movie. The facial expressions are not as big because you can now hear the tone of their voice. Here the only face visible in the car when her father gets out is Marji’s. She’s just observing, as her eyes did in the book. Her father gets mad at the officer, after he is accused of drinking. His tone with the officer is unclear in the book, because his mouth is hidden under his moustache; he looks more afraid than angry. On their way home, the grandmother smiles and tells them that she has dealt with this kind of behavior before; she knows how to handle it. In the scene where the officer questions Marji and Grandma on where they are going, Marji’s eyes go wide, giving away her terror, while Grandma keeps her steady gaze and smile. She calmly explains that she has diabetes—not with a quivering voice, like the book—but with confidence. Notice that throughout this entire scene the grandmother has a smirk on her face. She has been here before; she has lived through revolutions. She was a rebel. For this reason, Marji is always looking up to her grandma.

            According to the linear novel, this is the first scene in which Marji is confronted with the terror of an oppressive government. Her entire life she had believed that heroes are people who stand up and fight the government. It is apparent in the beginning of the scene that she is apprehensive, and completely terrified. In both the movie and the novel, there is a definitive change in her feelings towards the policemen, after she watches her grandmother stand up to them. Her entire life Marji has been looking up to her Uncle as the hero in the family, without even realizing that it is her grandmother she takes after.

Changes to Changez: The Reluctant Fundamentalist

After reading The Reluctant Fundamentalist, and then reading the film, the biggest contrast I see in character’s relationships is the one between Changez and Bobby—formerly known as the “American Stranger.” One of the key elements we discussed while close reading the book was the importance of the stranger. We never knew his back-story: he wasn’t even given a name. The stranger was anonymous so that we could picture being in his shoes. There was always an air of uncertainty when it came to his motive.

            Now, I know that in the world of film, having the name of just one real character may bore the audience. However, it has worked before with adaptations of books, such as the book (and now movie), Buried. The entire book takes place inside a coffin. He has memories, that include the names of people, but you only see from his point of view. Very similar to how we only saw from Changez’s point of view in the novel. We are introduced to Bobby early in the film when he gets a phone call, presumably from the people in the scene beforehand. The call led up to a meeting with Changez, however in the book the man who Bobby portrays ends up having a meal with Changez only by chance—or so we are lead to believe. The Stranger has no reason to tape what Changez is saying, it’s just friendly conversation. However, Bobby needs to hear his every word. With this in mind, Changez could have cut things out of his story. It’s no longer immediately a friendly vibe like in the novel, but more of a nervous one.

            Bobby also has power in his hands, while in the book Changez was more dominant. Changez was comfortable in his own country, helping out this man foreign man. He kept calm, and tried to keep the Stranger at ease throughout the meal. However, in the film, the stranger talks back to Changez. He has control over what is happening to Changez’s family, and the safety of his students. Changez on the other hand has obvious henchmen in the film. They work hard to make Bobby feel uncomfortable, any chance they can. It’s like watching a duel the entire time; who’s going to shoot first.

            Is there a misconception of the American director’s interpretation of the film? That’s a big issue. In the book the entire time you are humanizing Changez. He might look the part of a terrorist, but you’re learning that he lived the American dream. He was at the top of an American firm, making bank—if I may—and scoring the girl of his dreams. He is an innocent man, who walks up to a lost American and tries to comfort him, because he too is a lover of America. Here, however in this “appointment” with Bobby, Changez defensively tells him, once the phone starts recording, that he is a lover of America. The movie’s audience gets the idea that Changez may be involved in some sketchy stuff; after all the first thing we see is this man getting kidnapped by men in beards, and suddenly it turns into his problem. Who do we trust? That issue came out only towards the end of book, because Changez was walking the stranger home in the dark—a gesture friendly enough, but too friendly perhaps. But again, right off the bat, we are unsure what this foreign man is involved with.

            The concept of the “American Stranger” was completely lost in the film. I’ve said it once, and I just said it again. The tone set between the two at the café was completely different than it was in the book. Sure, the reminiscing followed the same basic plot line, but the outside world, which was normally just Changez reassuring the stranger, or trying to grab his attention, was suddenly way too intense. It was not as easy to watch, as it was to sit back and read. 

In the span of two weeks, my film studies class has watched the movies Beasts of The Southern Wild, and Moonrise Kingdom. Personally, I loved Moonrise Kingdom: one of the best movies I've seen in awhile.

In these weeks, we have been studying "Mise en Scene" which pretty much means the way that a movie is set up. The movie Moonrise Kingdom is very calming. It's dry, but still entertaining. I think that the cast's acting was a big role, although not in the way you would expect. I mean, the parts were fairly simple, almost too simple, but the choice of actors was really important. It was like the director put these big actors in the movie to draw people in, and when they got there it was nothing like you expected. Bruce Willis didn't blow anybody's brains out. In fact he was scared to even do his job as a cop, the Khaki Scouts did it for him. Bill Murray was a lame lawyer who didn't even sleep in the same bed as his wife--didn't bust up one ghost, might I add. These actors did their job perfectly, just the right amount of blandness in their character, without the character seeming empty. If you wanted an empty actor to play an empty character he would have just cast Nicolas Cage.Think about it, if Wes Anderson had cast a group full of nobodies, would this movie have been as notable? Maybe, maybe not, but the acting and the character choices definitely helped to improve the film.

Another thing that Wes Anderson is famous for is his scene composition. Imagine how clean cut his storyboard drawings were. We discussed in class that generally straight lines give people a feeling of calmness. That feeling was intermingled throughout the entire movie, from the tone of voice the actors took, to the straight lines in the blankets, or the stairs, or any of that. He definitely played up the rule of thirds. The whole, "what draws your eye" kind of thing, like in the scenes where Suzy's sitting on the window seat while her brothers play beneath her:

The whole thing just puts you at ease; it's simple, like the rest of the film. All very surreal, I give it five out of five cups of tea. 

\

The other movie we watched was Beasts of The Southern Wild. The movie was pretty good with a lot of freaky metaphorical diegetic scenes. Maybe it's just because I'm a girl, but one of the first things I noticed about the movie's mise en scene was the costume's and props that the actors had. Instead of a boat, they used an old broken truck bed, tied to barrels to help it float, and I mean when you're living in the Louisiana bayou  what else can you use? It really helped to put things in perspective. They couldn't afford a boat, and they had no where to try and build one. They made do with what they had, and that's the way they liked it. The other thing I noticed was how simplistic the costumes were. The leading actor--a little girl--wore almost the same exact thing in every scene, up until she is sent to the mainland for help. She always wears a white shirt, which is stained a very light brown, giving you the impression that she is obviously dirty. The lack a clothing change shows how poor of hygiene the poor girl has, and she never wears pants. At one point she wears just a shirt and underwear, but you can tell even the underwear are worn out. Not only that, but the other characters dressed so simply. It was as if I could have grabbed the clothes off of a rack in Wal-Mart, and we would be set for the entire movie, which is how it should be. These people are not well off, and their limited supply of outfits helps to show that. Even the hookers in the ladies bar wore slips as lingerie, because they couldn't afford anything else, and the men weren't complaining.

I think that the most amazing part of the film was the setting. Every single one of their settings was really from Louisiana. Like hello, that's America. And that's what some parts of America look like. While the rest of us are out worrying about how much cell phone service we have at our house, they're wondering if they can get any clean water. The houses that they created on the bayou were also intricately unique, again emphasizing the point that they work with what they have. Not only that, but the fact that these little girls have to swim to a boat in order to go anywhere, just shows how secluded these parts of America are. No one really notices them, unless they want to be noticed. And these people know that their life won't get any easier, but they choose to live this way. In a way, the bayou seems like a completely unfit place to raise a little girl, but by the end of the movie, you see how much she has grown as a character. She has to grow up a lot in a short amount of time, and you realize that all this time she's spent living this hard life will only help her when she gets older. 

It's a great film, with a good lesson, and had I not watched Moonrise Kingdom right before, I probably would have liked it even more. Four out of five cups of tea. 

Let me drop some fancy film terms for you: fabula and syuzhet.
Although the words sound confusing, when you break them up you get some simple definitions. Fabula is known as the story, from beginning to end. It's explicit; it leaves nothing out. So, recently I watched Christopher Nolan's film, Memento, and boy does that movie mess with your mind.
Major spoiler alert: I'm about to explain the fabula.
So this guy, Leonard has "this condition" where he pretty much has short term memory loss. One night he wakes up to find that his wife is being raped by some unknown man. When he rushes to his wife's rescue the masked man attacks him, and Leonard can't remember anything that happens to him after that point in his life. His wife survives the attack, with no after-effects (except some emotional scarring I assume). But she has trouble handling Leonard's condition. He doesn't recognize her as his wife, and she thinks that he's just faking it. She acts as though he's a liar, and tries many cruel tactics to try and wake him up from this "condition," however, none seem to work.  Eventually she tries the ultimate test. She tells Lenny over and over again that it's time for insulin shot, hoping that he will wake up and realize that he is killing her. When she realizes that the condition really is serious, and Lenoard's doing the best that he can, it's too late. She overdoses and lands herself in a coma that she never wakes up from. Lenny however, does not remember any of this. The only thing he remembers is that someone raped his wife. And now he has convinced himself that she is dead. Not knowing any better, he sets out to avenge the "death" of his wife. He writes down everything he learns as he goes, otherwise he has no way of knowing what is true, or even remembering who people are. So he knows that this guy's name is either John or James, and his last name starts with a G.This is important, so he gets it tattooed on his arm, that way it's a permanenet reminder. He get's a number of other things tattooed across his body. Things that he will remember everyt time he looks in a mirror, such as "John G. Raped and Murdered My Wife" and "Find Him And Kill Him."

And Lenny does just that. He finds and kills the man who raped and "killed" his wife: the man that took his life away. But he doesn't remember doing it. But he develops this system where he takes pictures of important accquaintences and places with a polaroid camera, and makes note of what he knows about them on the back, so that he can remind himself every day.
On his never-ending hunt to find the John or James G. that killed his wife--who he has already killed mind you--Lenny moves into a motel room at the Discount Inn. There he talks to a police officer about his quest for this "J.G." man, however he doesn't remember talking to him. The police officer, who's real name is John Gammel, tells Lenny that his name is Teddy. Teddy uses Lenny's condition against him, convincing him that big drug dealers in the area are te man who killed his wife. He get's Lenny to kill them off one by one, because of course Lenny doesn't know that he's already killed them.
One of the "J.G."'s that Lenny subconciously kills is the boyfriend of a drug-dealing bar tender, named Natalie. Of course he doesn't remember killing her boyfriend, and when she finds out that his condition is the real deal, she too uses him for her dirty work. Teddy warns Lenny that Natalie is no good. But all Lenny knows is what he writes down about each person, and he doesn't record everything. By the end of the movie, Natalie has proved that Teddy's real name is John Gammel--another John G.--and that the police officer that's trying to bust her for drugs is really the man that killed Lenny's wife. Not knowing any better Lenny writes himself a note, telling him to kill Teddy. Right before Lenny shoots Teddy, Teddy tries to reason with him "there are a million John G's out there, and you can't kill them all," although his feeble attempt to explain to Teddy that he's arleady killed the man who raped his wife goes awry, and Teddy is shot. Lenny is left to travel to another town and find another John G.

Okay, so that was confusing. However, that was only the fabula: the story.

The other term that I dropped was syuzhet. The syuzhet is the plot in a movie. It's the timeline of events that the director chooses to show. The movie Memento was based on a book called Memento Mori, written bty Christopher Nolan's brother. When Nolan turned it into a movie he could pick and choose the aspects of the book that he wanted to incorporate in the film. The thing that makes this movie the most memorable is that it is told completely backwards. The first thing you see is Lenny shoot this Teddy guy, and it moves backward to Natalie handing him the information saying that Teddy is liar and hasn't even given him the right name. Automatically you're set up to believe that Teddy is the antagonist, and actually killed his wife. It's not until the end that you realize that Lenny has been killing people since his wife went into a coma, determined to avenge this death, that didn't even happen. And although Teddy was using him for his own dirty work, he was really trying to help Lenny understand his conidtion. Also, throughout the movie they tell the story of some man named Sammy Jankis who mysteriously has the same condition Lenny has, and ends up putting his wife in a coma with her insulin shots. It's not until the end that you realize that Sammy really is Lenny's story.

Watching the syuzhet, without knowing the fabula is sometimes frustrating, however it's a brilliant directing technique that keeps the audience on the edge of their seats the entire time.