The very concept of erasing someone from your memory raises a very intriguing set of problems. First of all, logistically, the holes in your memory, thought process, and very self would be astronomical. A person that you have spent that much time with clearly has had an effect on your personality and shaped in part who you are, everyone who you have interacted with shapes you in some way. Imagine for a second forgetting someone completely. The resulting gaps in your memory your brain would probably connect, like your brain connects images to make a dream. But it would also permanently damage your psyche.
Perhaps the biggest message that the movie sends about the dangers of such as a process is the inevitability of repeating those same mistakes. It is logical that without the past experience of having already experienced what to some sense you may be determined to experience, you are doomed to repeat your mistakes. Without the experience, you could not learn from that experience. This becomes clear when Joel and Clementine, after getting their memories’ erased, fall for each other again. The same thing occurs with Mary, a worker for the company that erases memories, falls for the doctor that runs the company again.
Another large problem that arises in the film is the question of whether anyone would actually want their memories erased. Joel, partway through the process of erasing Clementine from his memory, realizes that he does not want to continue, even though he cannot stop it. He desperately tries to save some memories, knowing that even though some of the memories hurt, he also was erasing many good memories, memories that shaped him.
In the end, the movie has a very negative view about erasing people from your memory, a view that I think makes logical sense in cases like Joel’s and Clementine’s where those were memories that had good along with bad and shaped who they were. Without those memories, they may be doomed to just repeat past mistakes. But I think the place of such a technique that could erase people from memories could actually have a place. Imagine instances of rape or molestation, where those memories were not the fault of the victim, little if anything could be learned from them, and they negatively effect the psyche of the victim.
Richard Taylor, in his essay “Space and Time”, discusses the various views of time and it’s relativity. He ends his discussion still mystified, “time remains hardly less puzzling than when St. Augustine tried, in vain, to comprehend it”. Despite this concession, he introduces some intriguing concepts. He states that “if every process were reversible, then there would be nothing to suggest any inherent direction of time”. The core concept ofEternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind is that time can be reversed. Taylor says, that once you start going down that road where you can go backwards in time, time does not have to have any direction. That would have huge implications obviously. Could I already be affected and changed by the future?
I think this film and your discussion of the film here also lends itself towards our theme of identity from last week. If we accept Locke's understanding of what makes up identity-- that it is a stream of a single conscious-- would erasing a series of events from one's memory not fundamentally alter one's identity? You start to touch on this when you ask whether or not a person would really want to erase whole pieces of their memory and how memories shape who we are.
ReplyDeleteLucy, I think you're right that this discussion lends itself more towards the identity themes of last week, but I want to address his final questions in the post. Could you already by affected and changed by the future? It completely depends on how you believe time functions as an entity. If you believe time is solely experiential in nature as we constantly perceive it and live as, then no, the future cannot technically change you. On the flipside, however, if you believe that the time is comprised not of cause/effect relations, but rather, distinct points on the field of events that we travel in between, then yes, it is very possible for the future to have an effect on you, even though it would not be recognized as the future.
ReplyDeleteI would think that Matt is right - especially in regards to one of Taylor's main points. That is, what is worth noting is an object's relationship to another in space and time, rather than viewing time and space as real beings. We change (and see other things changing) relative to the relationship we have with other objects/beings that are within this single canopy of space and time. This could not be more true with Joel and Clementine's relationship - since they no doubt change after seeing each other. Therefore, I wouldn't think Taylor would spend too much time on memory - since "change and time seem inseparable" and obviously not remembering something does not mean it hasn't happened (484). Their identities indeed change, as they choose to accept each other despite realizing together of their previous engagements.
DeleteI think that this movie gives an interesting scenario about how events occur. In a lot of cinema you hear a phrase like "If we met in different circumstances we could have been friends". I think that this movie at least sets up such an event. Both the characters have met each other in a certain "time period" and things did not work out. By having their memories of each other erased and meeting each other once again, it is as if their same relationship occurs in a different "time period". If the movie continued, maybe the relationship would turn out very differently. Because of this I wouldn't exactly say that time is reversed, even personal time. They both are aware, and there are others aware too that they have had 2 years erased. I would rather say that they have been given a second chance with each other.
ReplyDeleteMatthew, I do agree with your idea of the film as a poignant and moving portrayal of contemporary yearnings to turn back time, yet I cannot empathize with your suspension of disbelief or feelings that the film lacks credibility. In fact, one of the most compelling aspects of the film for me is that it is deeply grounded by scientific research completed two years before the film's release. Joe Ledoux, a neuroscientist at NYU responsible for the work, was able to selectively erase memories from a variety of test subjects using a protocol strikingly similar to the one presented in the movie. His work was so promising that he even exported this process to helping victims of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with patients reporting less anxiety and grief when thinking about their most difficult memories. Much like you hoped, clinical application does exist for memory erasure, a fact which makes the film all the more chillingly real.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat is super interesting and I think makes it necessary to look at this movie in a completely different light...I bet everyone can think of a time in his or her life that we wouldn't mind forgetting forever. Is that one time we tripped in the Rat really necessary to always remember? The lessons we learn from our experiences are vital...don't run stop lights because you will get a ticket or severely hurt yourself, but are the memories themselves important? I imagine permanently deleting someone from my memories would not affect me all that much in my day to day life, because I'm assuming that the experience and lessons are separate from the memories themselves.
DeleteWhat sort of social affect would transpire if everyone could erase unpleasant memories?
The thing that i think is most interesting about your post is the fatalistic attitude which you seem to feel the movie conveys about the inability to change the past. For instance, you not the fact that the two protagonists of the film "repeat the same mistakes". While it is clear that the characters in the film do in fact ultimately make the choice to be together after their memories have been erased, I dont know that it is that they are repeating the same actions as before simply because of their personality dispositions. I would argue that instead, what the movie actually attempts to show is that removing memories from someone's mind, or at least those deep rooted and essential memories.
ReplyDeleteThis is demonstrated by several scenes in the movie, but particularly the one with Patrick and Clementine when they are stargazing on the frozen lake. As we know, Patrick, who works for Lacuna Inc, attempts to seduce Clementine by using the memories collected from her and Joel. When he attempts this, Clementine's reaction is one of startled disconcern. It is clear from her expression that there is something not quite right about these words and so she eventually becomes so upset that she returns home. What this scene shows is one of two things, ether Lacuna isnt able to fully erase her memory (perhaps she circumvented the procedure during its execution like Joel) or there is something about memories that linger regardless of any inability to access them. More to the point, perhaps once the slate is written on it cannot be wiped clean, as Locke suggests.