Mr. Martin and Memento, Part 1

The statement that “our conception about narrative…depend[s] on a shared set of assumptions about causality, unity, origin and end that is characteristic of Western thought” (Wallace Martin 85) greatly connects with the way that the film, Memento (2000), is presented to its audience. Most people watch movies with the preconceived notion that it will start at the “beginning” and “end” accordingly. Memento could not be farther than that assumption.

Memento’s sequence of actions is told unconventionally. Though it doesn’t start at a prototypical beginning, it does not completely start in medias res either. As the movie progresses, the audience gathers that Memento actually starts closer to the film’s end rather than “in the middle of things.” The events are exposed in a reverse chronological order, overlapping only slightly to bring the audience back to what would happen next (or rather, what happened before).

The “temporal arrangement of the story line and the ways in which point of view control the perception of the action[s]” (110) allow viewers to engage in ideas of causality. The audience already knows that Leonard (the main character) kills the man he believes murdered his wife and lost him his memory. They are now interested in “back story” (Why is he running? Who’s Dodd? What lies did Teddy tell to make us distrust him?). Keeping to the notion that people are constantly looking for meanings in motifs, characters and connections when reading texts, Memento’s protagonist and viewers both evaluate the situation(s) forward and backward (though the former must do so because of his “condition;” the audience does because the narrative’s point of view is set up that way).

Between the string of (disconnected) events, there are additional scenes of Leonard “remembering Sammy Jankis.” These particular occurrences “fill in facts about the past” (128) and are examples of “delayed exposition.” Through these recounted memories, the audience learns more about Leonard’s character prior to his wife’s death. These flashbacks allow viewers a finer description of Leonard’s desperately meticulous personality, and the irony surrounding his memory-loss condition.

Works Cited: Martin, Wallace. Recent Theories of Narrative. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986.

Popular Mechanics for Bloggers

I save. I publish. I save again. I publish. You can call it “obsessive-compulsive;” I call it "keeping the receipts." Alas, I still manage to make room for error. I guess in all my clicky-clicks, I forgot to do one final publish. So below this post one should be able to find my life-changing Response to Dry Reading.

On a side note (and I sincerely don’t mean to sound so huffy):
If a blog draft is saved, published and saved again (but not republished), why is it still found in “Recent Posts” (under “Profile”)? Albeit my post was only an excerpt of what I actually wrote, doesn’t that defeat the whole point of choosing when to publish? Is this an ex post facto case, or shouldn’t the whole entry be recalled? The way I see it: If your car starts making funny noises, you don’t send in just your brakes, or just the steering wheel. You take your whole car in to some fix-it-up garage where a mechanic named Zeke fiddles around with it.
Ah, so that’s the difference between blogging and a transmission leak.

Response to Dry Reading

It seems almost natural for people what is "real" is based on a person's own beliefs (emerging from experience and found knowledge), as well as simple human imagination. Finding "real things" in even the most "outlandish" scenarios is a way for individuals to involve themselves in a story's plot/character/etc. One of the pleasures of reading far-fetched ideas is indulging in the "what-if;" that is, exercising various choices (regardless of risk) to see what might actually unfold. Finding "real things" in very imaginative storylines becomes almost like the reader's unspoken responsiblity. To suspend some disbelief now will have its reward in the end. Of course, there does run the possiblity that an author may take advantage of a reader's blind faith. It is at that point that "real things" become too absurd to comprehend for even the most devoted reader to enjoy.

My First Post

Yay! My blog is set up. How exciting.

Alrighty, today's topic: Anatomy of a Movie.
Case in point: Alien vs. Predator (2004)

[SPOILER WARNING]
Beginning: An international team of experts is assembled for an archeological dig in Antarctica. The most qualified member of team to lead the expedition is also the most cautious and realistic, and it is by her hesitant attitude we find she fits the role of “tragic hero.” Though she recognizes that the mission (to locate a heat source that may be lead to an ancient ruin below ground) takes many life-threatening risks, she knows that her involvement in the expedition is crucial to the survival of the rest of the group. Her ethics reflect concern for the common good; her moral character is compassionate and strong-willed. Introduction of the protagonist.

Rising action: Once in the ancient pyramid, the team of researchers stumble across room after room whose contents resemble that of sacrificial grounds. Slowly, the researchers begin to realize what exactly they've discovered. The title of the movie comes into play; the fated team find themselves in the middle of a rites-of-passage ritual that involves battle to the death between two alien species. It’s apparent that humans are inferior to both Alien and Predator, and so the audience is coddled into cheering for the lesser of two evils. The mantra, “My enemy’s enemy is my friend,” is evoked. And remembering the damage they did to Ripley, we say, “Down with Aliens. Go Predators go!”

Climax: Forced to kill the remaining member of the expedition team herself, our protagonist now finds personal vengeance in helping the Predator become an adult (kill all Aliens). She and her newfound buddy decide to blow up the buried ruins, and flee above ground. Following them to the top is the breeding machine Queen Alien, who wants payback for the destruction of all her hard, laborious work. The final battle scene is comprised of a series of tosses, jabs etc. (a la Godzilla). And so the remaining warrior Predator dukes it out, but eventually meets his demise (impalement). The focus is once again on our human counterpart, whose ability to push metallic tons in Arctic weather in nothing but a thermal undershirt is realized. Yes, she gets the job done and the Alien is defeated.

Falling Action/Ending: A Predator spaceship materializes and the body of the human-friendly Predator is retrieved. Our protagonist breathes heavily for a few moments, before the scene cuts to her running to an undisclosed place. Of course, any movie that contains the word “versus” in its title will most likely make room for a rematch. Inside the ship, we see the corpse of the young adult Predator. But wait…what’s that popping out of his chest? Ah yes, an Alien. Score: Predator 1, Alien ½…?