FAQ for
Memento (2000)

The following FAQ entries may contain spoilers. Only the biggest ones (if any) will be covered with spoiler tags. It is assumed that no one who is diligently avoiding spoilers will be visiting this page in the first place.

For detailed information about the amounts and types of (a) sex and nudity, (b) violence and gore, (c) profanity, (d) alcohol, drugs, and smoking, and (e) frightening and intense scenes in this movie, consult the IMDb Parents Guide for this movie. The Parents Guide for Memento can be found at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/parentalguide.

There is some debate on what we are supposed to believe happened at the end of the film. Is Teddy lying/truthful? How did Leonard's wife die? Was there a 2nd attacker? Is Teddy the 2nd attacker? etc, etc.

In most regards it does not matter what we believe happened in the backstory. The "twist" is independent of all of that.

The twist in the film is that at the end that no matter what is the truth, Leonard believes that Teddy is not the 2nd attacker. If Leonard believed that Teddy were the 2nd attacker, he would kill him then and there. Even though he does not believe Teddy is 2nd attacker (whether he is or not) he still decides to set him up. Leonard even indicates in the voice-over before setting up Teddy that he does not even think the Teddy could be the 2nd attacker: "You think I just want another puzzle to solve? Another John G to look for? You're a John G. So you can be my John G. Do I lie to myself to be happy? In your case, Teddy, yes, I will."

We can argue why and/or how moral/immoral his actions are, but his actions demonstrate he does not believe Teddy is the 2nd attacker and is abandoning any quest for the 2nd attacker. Whether this means that Leonard believes him to be dead or "unfindable" is unclear.

Writing down Teddy's license plate indicates that Leonard believes that the 2nd attacker is already dead (or unknowable) and is choosing to set himself up to kill Teddy, a man he does not believe to the be the 2nd attacker. So he chooses to create what he believes is a "false quest" to seemingly give his existence some sort of purpose.

For the general overview of the conventional understanding check http://www.christophernolan.net/memento_un.php

This explanation comes from believing Teddy in his exposition which is the conventional thought. The events leading up to and through the movie are with this presumption (this also includes added "facts" from the supplemental material)

Leonard is an insurance investigator. One of his early cases is Sammy Jankis. Leonard relates how Sammy was in a car accident and acquired "anterograde memory dysfunction" (AMD). Leonard studies up and learns about this condition, and investigates Sammy and his testing.

Sammy is not married and he is eventually discovered to be faking his condition. [It seems that the big "giveaway" to the audience is due to Sammy's incorrect assumptions on this condition. He did not pretend to learn through conditioning and kept getting shocked by the same electrified objects instead of learning to avoid them, as someone with AMD would do.]

Later (Feb 24, 1997) Leonard and his wife, Catherine, were attacked. His wife was raped. Leonard killed one of the attackers, but he was smashed in the head by the 2nd attacker. Catherine did not die in the attack.

After the attack, Leonard (ironically) got AMD, the same condition he studied about earlier. Leonard was not focused and was content to just pretty much do nothing. He had no goals to drive him to do anything.

[There are many possibilities about what happened with this investigation, most likely the cops took an easy way out (as Leonard suggested) and never looked for a second attacker...]

His wife tried working with him, but eventually got "sick of this" and decided to try to snap Leonard out of it or just wanted to die. She used her diabetes to "test Leonard" or have him assist in killing her in Nov 1997 (probably before the 4th) and was killed by an insulin OD.

At this point, Teddy is brought in to investigate Leonard's wife's death. Leonard, on some level, "remembers" killing her and starts to become more "focused". Teddy and Leonard piece together what happened to her and do some investigation on finding Leonard's new quest, the hunt for the 2nd attacker. They eventually discover a partial name (John G), which coincidently also matches Teddy's name.

Leonard eventually is found "not guilty" of the death (most likely due to his condition) and is placed in a mental institute on Jan 16, 1998. During his stay, he learns to cope better with his condition, through notes and photos. He has a focus and a goal (finding and killing John G). He becomes a little paranoid in the mental hospital, keeping a hidden second set of notes that continually drives him to vengeance.

Leonard escapes from the institute sometime in Sept 1998, and hooks back up with Teddy. Teddy and Leonard track down and kill the 2nd attacker. Leonard gets his picture taken with his finger pointing to his chest. Leonard's quest is complete, Teddy is happy to have helped in the vengeance...

BUT, the "killing" does not "stick". Leonard does not believe it as well as some other elements of the truth, and starts to "delete items" from the file. Teddy leads Leonard along, continuing the investigation for some time. Eventually Teddy reluctantly decides to try and make Leonard happy again, by finding some "bad guy", killing him, and also making some money. He decides on Jimmy Grantz. He feeds info to Leonard to indicate that the first name may also be "James" (not just "John") and begins the feeding to Leonard of the information.

The movie takes place around Oct 1999, a little over a year since the killing of John G. Jimmy is killed, Leonard discovers the truth and decides to setup Teddy. Like the items in his file that do not match Leonard's belief of what happened, the evidence that he has already killed 2 "John G"s is destroyed, and Teddy is "marked for deletion" by Leonard with the "fact" of the license plate.

Leonard finds a note from Natalie (meant for Jimmy) and thinks it is for him. He meets Natalie at Ferdy's bar. Natalie tries using Leonard to kill Dodd, Jimmy's partner, who she wants out of the picture because she says Dodd may come after her looking for the money. Leonard is only capable of killing a man he believes is John G and he won't kill him only runs him out of town. Natalie takes pity on Leonard and helps him in his quest by running the license plate for him.

Leonard then meets Teddy after convincing himself that Teddy is John G, and kills him.

Leonard probably killed the first John G right after escaping (which was "over a year ago" as Teddy said in the film).

This explanation appears to fit all the data available, and leaves few holes in what we know, though it is not "provable" (since no theory is). Other theories are less "plausible" due to being more complicated or because they leave too large of plot holes, or can not explain all the evidence as well.

In Andy Klein's Salon Article "Everything you wanted to know about 'Memento'" http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/06/28/memento_analysis/index.html Klein discusses this idea. He indicates:

---

Is there an answer? I don't know. Christopher Nolan claims there is one. In an article in New Times Los Angeles on March 15, [2001, when the movie was released in the US] Scott Timberg writes: 'Nolan, for his part, won't tell. When asked about the film's outcome, he goes on about ambiguity and subjectivity, but insists he knows the movie's Truth -- who's good, who's bad, who can be trusted and who can't -- and insists that close viewing will reveal all.'

(note for context: Klein also goes onto say that he believes Nolan is not being totally truthful about this, but Klein admits that does not know.)

---

---

I believe the answers are all there in the film, but the terms of the storytelling deliberately prevent preople from finding them. If you watch the film, and abandon your conventional desire for absolute truth - and the confirmation of absolute truth that most films provide you with - then you can find all the answers you're looking for. As far as I'm concerned, my view is very much in the film - the answers are all there for the attentive viewer, but the terms of the storytelling prevent me from being able to give the audience absolute confirmation. And that's the point.

From James Mottram's "The Making of Memento", 2002, Faber and Faber Limited, page 26.

---

Chronologically, the black-and-white sequences come first, the color sequences come next.

The color sequences are alternated with black-and-white sequences. The bw sequences are put together in the correct chronological order. The color ones, though shown forward (except for the very first one) are ordered in reverse.

Overall this gives the film a "hairpin plotting" alternating from "reverse flowing" pathway to "forward flowing" pathway.

Using the numbering scheme suggested by Andy Klein in his article (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/06/28/memento_analysis/index.html) who took numbers from 1 to 22 for the bw scenes and letters A-V for the color ones the plotting of the film as presented is: Opening Credits (shown "backwards"), 1, V, 2, U, 3, T, 4, S, ..., 22/A, Credits.

There is a smooth transition from BW sequence 22 to color sequence A and it occurs during the development of a polaroid photo.

The chronological order of the story is (and can be viewed as a "Hidden feature" on many of the DVDs) Credits (run in reverse), 1, 2, 3, ..., 22, A, B, ..., V, then the Opening title run "backwards" to what was shown (the opening title sequence is ran in reverse during the actual film, so it is shown in the correct way in this version)

A table showing the contents of each sequence can be found at http://www.designpattern.org/wp/?page_id=13

Stefano Ghislotti also has an article called "Backwards: Memory and Fabula Construction in Memento by Christopher Nolan" (http://wwwesterni.unibg.it/fa/fa_mem01.html) which discusses how Nolan provides us the clues necessary for us to decode the plotline as we watch and help us understand the story from it.

The non-linear plotting serves several purposes within the film:

1) The reverse color sequencing puts us into Leonard's mind. We have to "go with the flow" like Leonard does and try to understand what things are with little or no context. We get confused a little and must make assumptions and deductions, just like Leonard must do. But unlike Leonard, we can see how well we "guessed" what was going on, since we can put the events more into context when we see the later movie scenes (earlier story scenes)

2) It puts the twist at the end of the film instead of only 1 third of the way into the story

3) It allows Nolan to play with our perceptions of the characters. We initially see (in movie order) Teddy as the villian, Leonard as the hero, Natalie as the helper when we first meet them. But during the picture we quickly see through Natalie and see our error. Leonard we don't discover about his immorality and how he is using himself to continue until the end of the film. And even at the end of the film, we struggle with seeing Teddy as "victim-like": it is just too difficult to change our perception of someone, once viewed as "evil". But it is easy for a helper to be changed into "bad".

4) The hairpin narrative of the plotting alludes to a spiral. This, with a measure of "looping" and repeating it is suggested that Leonard must do to move "forward". How many times must Leonard read a note and give himself directions before his task is carried out?. There is a constant "do over" feel as he forgets where he was and must repeat. The hairpin plot and repeating theme in ways suggests Leonard's life after his wife's death as a spiral, a whirlpool, the events in the past have happened similarly before [He finished his quest, but he continues the hunt for the 2nd attacker], and they they will happen again [we see him consciously choose to continue and now start a hunt for someone who is not the 2nd attacker]. The structure of the film foreshadows the twist: Leonard starts out as a "moral avenger" but has been on a whirlpool path growing tighter and tighter as he slides into evil and we see at the end he has become an immoral killer. The path Leonard has chosen will ultimately drag him down and destroy him.

While some may believe anything we see may be subject to interpretation and none is objective facts (only subjective) this analysis leads to an infinite number of solutions for an answer and allows any interpretation to be valid which does not seem reasonable.

It seems more likely that we should accept the events that we see occur during the film to be true. Most people seem to believe that the events we see occur in the movie are facts. For example, we see Leonard kill Teddy. This then becomes a fact. The reason he did it, what he believes at the time can all be conjectured, but they will never be facts. On the other hand, the "Sammy Story" or the recollection of the attack that Leonard tells to people, are not composed of facts. It would be a fact that Leonard stated these things, but the events we "see" Leonard tell us about, we did not see happen: Leonard may be lying or just mistaken.

We can conjecture things that do not agree with the what Leonard says, but those conjectures must be supportable by being able to explain why Leonard is lying or how he becomes mistaken. There must be a motivation for someone to lie (not simply that he is lying, since he is a liar) that is part of the theory.

When the story is broken out (with no other conjectures) we can see the events we would then judge as facts:

The chronology starts with the second scene in the film (the first Black & White scene). The BW scenes are in order and go thru the initial chronology.

Leonard is in the hotel talking on the phone, explaining about Sammy and shaving his leg. The person on the phone (presumably Teddy, though we are never shown for sure who it is http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.15) is giving him some info about the case.

Leonard tattoos fact 5 ("drug dealer") and eventually meets Teddy and goes to meet a man (Jimmy Grantz) who Leonard thinks killed his wife.

Leonard meets and kills Jimmy and takes his picture. As his picture develops we move from BW to the color sequences.

[Note these sequences while shown forward, are ordered in reverse order and alternate with the BW sequences]

Teddy comes (pretends he does not know Leonard, though Leonard is aware that they have met due to his note on Teddy's picture) and Leonard gets angry with him. Leonard is also upset that Jimmy seemed to know about Sammy which means he also must have met Jimmy before now.

Teddy tells Leonard that Sammy was a faker with no wife and that Leonard's wife was diabetic. Leonard decides to set Teddy up as his next victim by writing down Teddy's license plate as "fact 6" and also indicating that he should not believe Teddy's lies. Leonard tosses Teddy's keys, steals Jimmy's car and leaves Teddy trying to find his keys.

Leonard goes to Emma's and gets fact 6 tattooed on his leg. Teddy finds Leonard there. They argue, Leonard sneaks out the back, finds a note that Natalie gave to Jimmy in the clothes Leonard stole, and thinking it is meant for him, goes to meet Natalie at the bar.

Natalie seems suspicious and a little afraid of this man in Leonard's clothes and car and tries to figure out what is going on. Leonard tells her about his condition and she tests him with the "spit drink". Later they leave the bar and go to her house.

At Natalie's Leonard explains about the attack and Natalie eventually leaves Leonard alone in her home. When she returns she comes back acting upset, hides all the pens, and tries to convince Leonard to kill Dodd. She even tells Leonard that she is going to use him. She gets Leonard angry enough to punch her. She then leaves.

She waits in her car for some time, presumably giving time for Leonard to forget, and then returns pretending that Dodd beat her up. She gives him info about Dodd and how Leonard can find him. Leonard leaves.

Teddy is waiting in Leonard's car and tries to convince Leonard that Natalie is not to be trusted. Leonard writes this on her picture, but after Teddy leaves the "don't believe his lies" convinces him to cross it out. Teddy also told him to get a room at the discount inn, which he does. (and Burt gives him a new room)

At the motel, he calls an escort and "relives the attack". He then leaves with the items from the motel and burns them during the rest of the evening.

In the morning, Dodd finds Leonard and tries to kill him. Leonard escapes and using the note from Natalie, waits for Dodd in Dodd's motel room. Leonard showers and eventually beats up Dodd and ties him up in the closet. Not knowing what to do later he calls Teddy. Teddy and Leonard "run Dodd out of town".

Later Leonard finds the picture of Dodd and Natalie's note and confronts her about Dodd. Leonard spends the night at Natalie's.

In the morning Leonard and Natalie setup a meeting when they can meet and Natalie can provide info she will get from her friend at the DMV about "John G"s license plate.

Leonard leaves, Teddy is waiting and they go to lunch. Leonard then goes back to the Discount Inn but has no key. Burt takes him into his old room and tells him about renting more than 1 room. Leonard sees the note about his meeting with Natalie.

Leonard meets Natalie at the cafe, where she gives him the license plate info which is Teddy's driver's license info (exactly as Leonard intended when he wrote it down). Natalie gives Leonard an address/directions to an "abandoned place outside of town" where her boyfriend did "bigger deals". They both leave and Leonard goes back to the Discount Inn.

Back in his room, Leonard looks over his facts, calls Teddy, notices that Teddy is the man on the license photo, realizes what the facts indicate had occured, adds the note to Teddy's picture "He is the one" and then "kill him".

Leonard meets Teddy in the lobby and they drive to the abandoned location where Leonard shoots Teddy.

While this description details what happens in the film it really does not explain anything. It is like a mystery movie, we know the facts of what happened and who was killed, but we want to know the details of what happened. Why did the events occur as they did. Are people lying, when and why? There are all sorts of questions that are raised during the film. A listing of the facts is just not enough to satisfy us. We must analyze the film to try to understand it ...

Jonathan Nolan's short story Memento Mori was inspired by an idea he had about a man with AMD obsessed with revenge. The same idea (not the short story) inspired Christopher Nolan's script for this film]. It can be found at http://www.impulsenine.com/homepage/pages/shortstories/memento_mori.htm

Christopher Nolan (from an interview originally on the March 22, 2001 episode of the Independent Film Channel's TV-series "Independent Focus" (Season 5 - Episode 2) from the 1-disk US DVD) explains:

---

It was based on a short story that my brother, Jonah, was writing that's just been published* in Esquire Magazine and he told it to me about 3 years ago while we were driving from Chicago to Los Angeles. He said I'm working on a story and it's about this guy with this condition, he can't make new memories, and he's looking for revenge. He's looking for the guy who killed his wife.

I just thought it was such a fantastic idea, such a way into the film noir genre, a way to kind of reassess some of the overfamiliar tropes, really. And I said to him, can I take it and write a screenplay from it while you work on your story and get it the way you want. And he said yes, which was lucky because in the end it actually took him as long to finish the story as it did for us to finish making the film.

*It was published in the March 2001 Volume of Esquire

---

The Region 1 US single-disc: Website; IFC interview with Christopher Nolan; Tattoo gallery; Short story "Memento Mori" by Jonathan Nolan; US trailer; Bios of the actors

The Region 1 US 2-disc Limited Edition: Menu system that is a puzzle in itself; Audio commentary by director Christopher Nolan with different endings; "Anatomy of a Scene" featurette; Director's script; International poster art gallery; Short story "Memento Mori" by Jonathan Nolan; Stills/production sketches gallery; Trailers (US and international)

Unadvertised features: "Chronological edit" of film; Bootleg cover art; Concept art gallery; Journal; Props gallery

Review:http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/m/memento_le.shtml

Region 2 UK 3-disc: Audio commentary by director Christopher Nolan with different endings; Interview with director Christopher Nolan; Interview with star Guy Pearce; Cast and crew Biographies; "Anatomy Of A Scene" documentary; Easter egg - reversed version of the film; Shooting script split screen; Reading of the short story "Memento Mori"; Production stills and sketches gallery; Props gallery; International poster art gallery; Concept art and bootleg cover art gallery; Leonard's Journal; International theatrical trailer

Review: http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2004/12/15/memento_se_2004_dvd_review.shtml

The Blu-Ray edition of Memento was released in August 15, 2006. It contains the following features:

- HD Video in 1080p resolution

- PCM 5.1 Audio

- Director's Commentary by Christopher Nolan

- Featurette: Anatomy of a Scene

Review: http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/memento/3877

How to watch the movie in chronological order

For most versions see: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/alternateversions

For the R2UK 3-disc edition

According to http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=55610:

"When you pop the second disc in, you'll be presented with a very sparse selection of extras, which should clue you in immediately to the fact that there is something else rather large hidden on this DVD. Nor would you be wrong; if you move the selection line down to the bottommost option, 'Biographies', and then press that ever-useful right arrow button, you'll be taken to the chronological version of Memento, and in glorious Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1 to boot!"

Note: The US single-disc version does not have this feature.

What is the story with the different commentaries?

The Region 1 US 2-disc Limited Edition has four different endings to the commentary track. (This seems to also be the same for the R2UK 3-disc edition, though it is not confirmed)

You MUST have comments on "COMMENTS" from main screen and do NOT change the audio (LISTEN on main screen) when you make the transition right after Chapter 13 to get the alternate commentaries. You can display the current title/chapter to know which one you are on.

The film is "Title 1" on the disc. At the end of Chapter 13 in this title (at ca 1:33:50 mark) the commentary/film will branch if you're listening to the commentary track (=soundtrack #4) at that moment.

If you have changed the audio settings to listen to the OTHER soundtracks (DD 5.1, DD 2.0 or DTS 5.1), your commentary will not "branch" and you will continue to Chapter 14 of Title 1. If you turn the commentary on AFTER this branch point you will ALSO stay in Title 1.

This commentary track AFTER chapter 13 plays normally until ca the 1:37:15 mark, when it will slow down and then reverse and run backwards and pretty much sound like gibberish.

If you are listening to the commentary track as you cross the 1:33:50 mark, your player will randomly switch to title 2, 3 or 4, and it will stay with that one branch every time you go over the branch point until you eject and reload the disc.

Then you can go to COMMENTS (to put on the comments) from the main menu, then CHAPTERS from the main menu, choose chapter 13, fast-foward to NEAR the end and let it play through the transition. Check the title-number to see what commentary you're listening to, and if it is one you've heard, STOP, EJECT and try again!

Each of these titles contains the final three chapters of the film encoded with a different version of the commentary (ca the last 20 minutes, otherwise they are pretty much the same.

Title 2 is the title 1 commentary without the reverse and backwards playing. It is like the rest of the commentary and deals with movie making and is pretty generic.

Title 3 states the Teddy is LYING at the "movie's end" and gives the reasons.

Title 4 states that Teddy is being TRUTHFUL at the "movie's end" and gives the reasons.

How to navigate the R1US 2-disc Limited Edition

Disc 1 has these features:

1) turn on/off subtitle 2) change audio options 3) play the movie 4) select scenes 5) turn on commentary - by selecting the appropriate menu item. There is a different one in each column that gets to an item and if you read the actual words, it is relatively obvious (ie. "WATCH in column 3 is to play the movie).

The second disc has all the other goodies. It is set up like a psych exam - the main menu is the center of wheel and each of the answers moves you out from the center along "spokes". The cards with only opinions (along the spokes) do not affect where you go. When you get to a card with a "puzzle", answering the puzzle correctly gets you a "special feature". The puzzle with the tire changing pictures has 2 "correct" answers: the "correct answer" and the "anti-correct" (the answer in reverse), each will lead to a different feature.

If you answer a puzzle incorrectly, you move off a spoke, heading around in a circle to a different spoke. The answers on this circle "between spokes" are opinion questions. The ones on the left take you "counter-clockwise" the ones on the right take you "Clockwise" towards the next spoke.

MAJOR PUZZLE SPOILER

The puzzles are not difficult, and they have made it especially easy that all the ones with A-E have "C" as the answer (for the most part just selecting "C" will navigate fine.

A "printable" DVD navigation guide is at http://world.std.com/~trystero/Memento_LE.html

The outerpack of the DVD case is light blue cardboard and made to look like a "file folder". In the original packaging there is a sheet of paper glued to the back. It contains a picture of Guy Pearce as "Leonard Shelby" and the contents of the 2 discs and credits, etc (like the info on the back of most DVDs). This can be easily removed as it is only stuck with a glob of glue in the center so may easily be missing.

The DVD case proper slides out from the cardboard case and has a plastic paperclip on it (there are various colors. This may be easily lost.

The cover of the DVD case has "PSYCHIATRIC REPORT", and is a flipcase. The cover is opened to the left and the right side has a yellow "post it note" with the word "WATCH" and a drawing of an open book (again something easily lost).

The flipcase is then open upwards and the top section contains Disc 1 and the bottom section contains Disc 2.

On top of Disc2 there are several loose pieces of paper keeping with the "psych folder" theme (This theme is also is carried onto the disks and menus of the DVD). They are (in no particular order):

A "POLICE DEPARTMENT" sheet with the main title screen from disk 1, with "WATCH" circled and note on how to "PLAY MOVIE"

A filled in formsheet for marking the "CONDITION OF ADMISSION" including drawings of front/back male for marking injuries

Blank "MENTAL HEALTH BATTERY" "ANSWER SHEET"

A blank sheet with lines "AL SUMMARY AND DIAGNO" / "RECOMMENDATION" and a place for "PHYSICIAN'S SIGNATURE"

The movie does not explicitly indicate when the movie takes place. James Mottram in the book "The Making of Memento", Faber and Faber, 2002, p. 147 indicates: "For those interested, the action - barring flashbacks - takes place over three days and two nights." [Mottram discusses how it was essential for Cindy Evans, the costume designer, to have Nolan provide this information so she could determine the number of clothing changes a character would need and also to "age them" properly for the required scenes.]

From the website (www.otnemem.com) version and extras on some of the DVDs we can get additional info:

I. The pre-history:

The website is clear (if you want to believe that the items in there are "canon") that Leonard was in an institute. A timeline from the website info:

The attack was Feb 24, 1997. [Website (HTML or Flash) or Copy of website on the DVD: Newspaper article - "revenge" first item is a "Police Department death report"]

Leonard's wife died Nov 1997 (probably before the 4th) [From copy of website on the DVD: newspaper article - "Forgetful" - 7th item is part of psych evaluation with the comment: "he[Leonard] demanded to see his wife (deceased 11/97)". He also has a note to himself (on website and DVD copy) newspaper article - "Leonard" 3rd item dated 11/4/97: "She's gone, Leonard. Gone for good."

[There also is a newspaper clipping (on DVD and both website versions: newspaper article - "Leonard" - first item) that indicates that his wife "was listed in critical condition". This is presumably the day after the attack]

Leonard's "initial diagnosis" at the institute was Jan 16, 1998 [Website (HTML or Flash) or Copy of website on the DVD: Newspaper article - "forgetful" - 6th item is his "initial diagnosis" with the date.] He escaped from the institute Sept 1998 [Website (HTML or Flash) or Copy of website on the DVD: the Newspaper article states this this at the start of the 3rd column]

The movie takes place around Oct 25 1999 [Website (Flash) or Copy of website on the DVD: the Newspaper article - "suspicious" - 4th item is a "police department officer's report" on an interview with emma the tattooist which has dates.]

Leonard probably killed the first John G right after escaping (which was "over a year ago" as Teddy said in the film)

II other clues:

The website is clear: "Shelby suffers from severe anterograde memory dysfunction as a result of head trauma sustained during confrontation with intruder (Feb '97). Shelby has recovered almost none of his ability to convert short-term experiences into long term memory" [Newspaper article - "forgetful" - 5th item]. This indicates that Leonard is not faking and that he can convert some of his memories to long-term memory.

III. Teddy's license

name: John Edward Gammel city: San Francisco plate number: SG13-7IU (seven-i-u). Note the tattoo has 71U and the car changes from 7IU to 71U in the movie - a hint of how treacherous the memory is!

There are 3 different versions of the official memento website. At www.otnemem.com there is a flash and an HTML version. On the R1US single-disc DVD there is a copy. [There is also a copy on the R2UK 3-disc DVD which is presumed to be the same as the US edition, but has not been confirmed].

All three start out with the "Memento" scraps and the "Some memories are best forgotten" segments and go to a newspaper article which was presumably written after the events of the film ("Photograph Sparks Murder Investigation").

On the Flash/DVD (not on the HTML) version the last word "Questions" in the Subtitle is also a link. This link leads to a scrap of Paper that states "WHO DID I KILL?". In the Flash if you enter type in "Teddy" in the second scrap and click on it, you will get a short film of clips from the film. On the DVD, if you click on it you get a list of names and if you choose "Teddy" you will get credits for the DVD.

All three have links based on certain words: Column 1 Paragraph 1: "body" Paragraph 1: "foul" Paragraph 2: "suspicious" Column 2 Paragraph 2: "Leonard" Paragraph 3: "photographs" Column 3 Paragraph 5: "forgetful" Paragraph 6: "local" Paragraph 6: "revenge"

The body link takes you to the picture of dead Teddy. On the Flash version it changes to a shot of Leonard's wife taking a breath under the shower curtain and then back to the original. If selected on the DVD, the picture is changed to the Leonard's wife taking a breath and then back to Teddy's pic. The HTML just returns to the article.

The foul link in all 3 versions has 4 items. In the Flash/DVD version the first one (the Dodd photo) transforms into the pointing Leonard photo.

The suspicious link on the flash/DVD has 5 items and on the HTML there is only 4. The HTML does not have the "Police Department" report where an officer interviewed Emma. Like in the 2 previous words the first item on the Flash/DVD version transforms. It changes to a shot of Leonard creating tattoo fact 5 and then back again.

The Leonard link has 4 items in all 3 versions. The first (a newspaper article about the attack) is transformed in the Flash/DVD version to show a closeup of Leonard's eye, then his wife taking a breath, then back to the article.

The photographs link is much different in the Flash/DVD than in the HTML. The Flash/DVD have pictures of Marko, Noam, Teddy, David, Dodd. The Flash also ends with a picture of Miquel which the DVD does not have. Other than Teddy and Dodd, none of the pictures were props shown in the film.

[The may have been created by and are pictures of the website designers. The website indicates: "Site design by Webflow Solutions and Musth Design. For design information, please call (212) 750-0996 or email marko@webflowsolutions.com"

So Marko seems to be one of the designers]

The HTML version from the photographs link shows only photo props from the film: dead Teddy, Natalie, jaguar, Dodd,Teddy, truck, burned dead Jimmy pic, Discount Inn.

There are 11 items in the forgetful link. The 7th item in the DVD is slightly different from the current Flash/HTML version. It is a scrap of paper from a "Clinical Record" of Leonard's "Initial diagnosis". In the scrap there are a couple of paragraphs. At the end of the first paragraph in the Flash/HTML is the sentence:

"I asked if anything was bothering him and he demanded to see his wife (deceased)"

And in the DVD version the same sentence states: "I asked if anything was bothering him and he demanded to see his wife (deceased 11/97)"

The HTML version currently matches the Flash version, but before the summer of 2001 it matched the DVD. Sometime in the summer of 2001 it was changed online to match the Flash version.

The local from the Flash/HTML versions are identical and contain 5 items. The DVD version contains only 4 items, the scrap of paper with the photocopy of Teddy's driver's license and the note from Natalie is not on the DVD.

All versions have the same items from the revenge link. The order of the items on the HTML version of a couple of the items is different than on the Flash/DVD versions.

People with this condition sometimes do know they have this condition. The "classic example" is a case study of a man called "HM". There is much online about him, google on "antergorade amnesia" "H.M." to get a number of hits and info.

HM's was a "pure case" caused by surgery and not an accident. He had epileptic seizures and the doctors believed that if they removed some of his temporal lobe (including the hippocampus), then he would no longer get them. The doctors were correct: they cured him of his seizures! He also got this condition since (it was later discovered) that the hippocampus is important to the "consolidation" of memory (converting the short-term to long-term memory).

HM does know he has a condition. This is from http://richardhhall.org/neuroscience/06_complex_learning/amnesia.pdf

"In case you're wondering, he was aware of his condition as illustrated in his often quoted statement: 'Every day is alone in itself, whatever enjoyment I've had, and whatever sorrow I've had. Right now, I'm wondering. Have I done or said anything amiss? You see, at this moment everything looks clear to me, but what happened just before? That's what worries me. It's like waking from a dream; I just don't remember.'"

(Milner, B. (1970) Memory and the temporal regions of the brain. In Biology of Memory, K.H. Pribram and De.E. Broadbent (Eds.). New York: Academic Press., p. 37)



Perhaps even more explicit, is this a quote from "Neuroimaging H.M.: A 10-year follow-up examination" by D.H. Salat, et al (http://web.mit.edu/bnl/pdf/Salat_2005.pdf)

"His [H.M.] insight into his condition is excellent. He is always aware that he has a memory impairment and does not confabulate to conceal it."

Clive Wearing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Wearing, who has one the most severe cases of this condition, seems to be aware of his problem and will speak about it. Dr Michael Oddy, Neuropsychologist, Ticehurst House Hospital (where Clive stays) indicates: in THE MIND, 2nd EDITION. The Clive Wearing Story, Part 2: Living Without Memory (Part 2a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9UY8Zqg-Q):

"We try to train the staff so that they don't ask Clive questions or begin discussions which put a load on his memory. For example, if you ask Clive: 'How are you today?' There's an implicit demand on 'Well, I'm better today than I was yesterday' and he gets quite upset and he will then start to talk about how he's been ill and how he can see and hear for the first time."

The "Remember Sammy Jankis" tattoo is also an aid to Leonard to associate his "problem" with his real investigation of Sammy and his learning about this condition. He realizes he has a problem and can then deduce what it is from the clues at hand.

Both from the point of view of movie consistency and judging by the information offered by the film, in spite of possibilities of various interpretations, most believe Leonard is not faking and really suffers from the anterograde amnesia.

There are several things which really demonstrate not faking:

1) Why would Leonard "fake" even when he is alone: who is he faking for (us, the viewers of the film)?

2) Why would Leonard put himself in danger by "knowingly" chasing after a man (Dodd) who has a gun and trying to kill him?

3) Why would Leonard put himself in danger by showering in the room of a man (Dodd) who wants to kill him?

4) Why does Leonard need to "lie to himself" (since if he were faking, he would not be lying to himself, he would know that Teddy is not the John G.) to set Teddy up for killing. If he decided that he wanted to kill Teddy, why not just kill him? Why would he need to "fool himself" (which again, he is not doing) by tattooing the license plate?

5) Another indication is while in the bathroom, Leonard tries to wash off his "remember Sammy Jankis" tattoo. If Leonard were faking he would know it was not written on, but tattooed so he would have no reason to try to wash it off.

Also if Leonard were faking, when and why did he even start to fake it? Why would he start faking after the accident? If his wife died in the accident (as some believe) why pretend to fake the condition, it would be so much easier to get vengeance without doing it.

If his wife died "testing the faking" with the insulin (as others believe), then Leonard "knowingly killed her" - which then begs for a motive of why did Leonard decide to kill his wife?

There are some questions on things he seems to remember which can be explained by editing. It is clear we do not see Leonard 24 hours per day / 7 days a week. We only see him for a total of about 2 hours over the course of presumably about 3 days. There is a lot of information that we do not see and we would be bored if we did see. The FAQ at http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.26 has additional details and explanations on these items.

There is also a FAQ on Leonard's ability to create new memories http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.29.

- ...Burt's name when Burt is showing him the wrong room?

- ...the note on Natalie's pic about helping out of pity?

- ...to Lock the car doors after Teddy tells him to?

- ...that he is on Tattoo Fact 6?

These are some questions that come up periodically and seem to indicate to people that Leonard must be faking despite the other evidence/facts in the film that clearly indicate that he is not faking (see the FAQ at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.5).

While it is possible that all of these instances are just goofs in the film, all of these can be explained by editing. There does not seem to be any reason to presume errors, when editing explains things very well.

It is clear we do not see Leonard 24 hours per day / 7 days a week. We only see him for a total of about 2 hours over the course of presumably about 3 days. There is a lot of information that we do not see and we would be bored if we did see.

It should be clear that just because we do not actually see Leonard (or anyone else) do something that not seeing it does is not meant to indicate that it is not done. While we see Leonard go to the bathroom, we never see him have a bowel movement. That does not mean we should presume that Nolan is indicating that this condition makes Leonard no longer able to have a bowel movement or that the condition allows him no longer to need bowel movements? These parts have been edited out as they are in most movies, even when people do not have a mental condition.

Also if we see Leonard at point A and then we see him at point D, barring other info, it can be presumed that he went thru points B and C. It does not prove that he went thru points B and C, but there is nothing to indicate that he did not so it is a valid presumption.

- Knowing Burt's name

In the case of Leonard knowing Burt's name, we are shown on different occasions (in the lobby, on the phone, etc) that Burt tells Leonard his name. it is almost as if he is "amazed" that Leonard can not remember him. When Leonard and Burt go from the lobby to Leonard's old room, there is a cut and we do not see, nor do we hear their conversation. It is not improbable that they talked during this time and Burt could have mentioned his name again.

Thus when Leonard referred to him by name, he could have just heard it.

- Note on Natalie's pic about helping out of pity

This is another that can be explained easily by editing. Natalie tells Leonard she lost someone, then stuff happens/time passes. Leonard gets up in the middle of the night and writes on Natalie's pic that she will help him out of pity. This is a long time for him to remember if he is remembering when we saw them discuss it.

But it is not hard to imagine that Leonard had repeat conversation on many subjects. Nolan wisely does not show us all this repetition. The fact is that we do not see or hear the conversation that took place while they were in bed, immediately before Leonard gets up. It is possible that this was the very conversation that they were having. Supporting this is the sorrowful look on Natalie's face. Her face is consistent with someone who had just been speaking about someone they had lost recently.

- Locking the car door

This seems to have been put in by Nolan as a "red herring" to give people a "suggestion" that he may be faking, while providing other clues to indicate that he is definitely not faking.

The facts are that we see Leonard lock his car everytime (at least everytime we see it on camera, we don't know about times he may not have done it while we do not see him) after he he finds Teddy in his car and Teddy tells him to lock his car. Leonard even does this even when it makes no sense, since much of the time the window is broken.

But just because we see him lock it afterwards, is in no way proof that he did not lock it before. Many people lock their car doors and make it a habit. [Many parents try to to instill the habit in their children even before they drive: you get out of the car, you lock the door, just like the habit, you get in the car and you buckle the seatbelt]

So even though Nolan made a point of showing him lock his car after Teddy told him to, does not mean that Leonard did not do it before Teddy told him to do it.

It has been brought up, that all the times we see Leonard get out of his car, before Teddy told him to lock, we never see Leonard lock the door. This is true: we never see him lock the door. But the fact remains, we never see him not lock the door, either. We do not know whether the door was locked or not.

We see Leonard get out of the car 3 times before Teddy tells him to lock it: 1) At Emma's for Tattoo 2) At Ferdy's Bar by the dumpster 3) At Natalie's house

In not one of these scenes, is it shown whether or not he locks the car. In every case, the scene is cut before Leonard would be locking it.

It may be speculated that perhaps Nolan and Dody Dorn cut these scenes quickly for a reason and showed later in other scenes that he was locking. Their intent may have been to confuse some of the viewers and make them come to a conclusion that Leonard is faking if they do not pay attention to the other clues in the film. They are misleading by not showing us something, allowing people to believe something that may not be true.

Also, even though we do not see whether or not Leonard locked the door outside Emma's, we are shown that when he leaves Emma's he definitely unlocks the door. While this is not proof he had it locked, but if he is conditioned to unlock it, it supports that he could be conditioned to also lock it.

So since we have 3 instances that we do not know whether he locked or not, and no instances when we are shown him not locking it, there does not seem to be any proof that before Teddy tells him to, that Leonard never locks the car.

While it is a habit that people lock their car doors or that it is common sense for them to do so, people also forget to do it. Even if Leonard did lock the car door, he could forget to do it just as people without this condition would do. Even given his condition he would not be any more likely to forget since locking the door is an implicit response formed by habit and routine.

- Tattoo Fact 6

This is probably the most controversial. The editing is not really that apparent, the scene is almost cut as one long shot so a time delay is really not apparent. Based on the script, it is apparent that other scenes were to be put into the sequence. these were either filmed and cut or not filmed at all.

In either case, they are not in the film and the sequence seems to have no real breaks in the action. Many people just presume and accept that the sequence is an editing error and leave it at that. Many believe that "ignoring" of a possible clue that people have, to being disrespectful of their opinion. One needs to be able to explain the sequence in "movie terms" and not resort immediately to errors/ignoring the question.

It can still be explained through editing. We know that Leonard makes lists, he summarizes his facts for easy retrieval. It is possible (i.e. there is nothing in the film that makes it impossible) that Leonard has made a list of tattoo facts that he can refer to. if he did have a list, a good place for it would be in his pocket with the notecards so he would see it when he was going to tattoo a fact.

It is even possible that he writes the facts on a card then to make sure it is not lost, he could write the next one onto the back of this card. the later, after getting the tattoo, he would rewrite the list and place it in his pocket ready for the next one. the list is the tattoos he has, the card is the tattoos he needs.

In the sequence of events, we do not see everything that Leonard looks at, but it is clear that he looks down in the direction of his pocket. It is possible that he could pick out a card with tattoo facts 1-5 listed, he could note it goes to 5 (he would not have to read the facts), turn the card over and write Fact 6 on the card and proceed.

There are no facts in the film which make this impossible and it is consistent with Leonard's behavior throughout the film.

No, it can not be due to the nature of anterograde amnesia. Physical damage to the brain essentially can lead to the impairment in creating new memories [anterograde amnesia, which is Leonard's problem] and may even involve impairment in recalling recently created memories [some retrograde amnesia, which does not seem to affect Leonard at all].

Psychological impairment of memory (known as "Psychogenic Amnesia") is caused by some intense emotional experience. The purpose for the loss is the mind's attempt to exclude painful or guilt-laden memories from consciousness. Memory is not really lost, but is misplaced. [This is retrograde amnesia, which again does not seem to affect Leonard]. These memories can be recalled by free association, hypnosis, and other procedures.

The facts from the literature indicate: "In psychogenic amnesia, there is no anterograde memory loss." http://science.jrank.org/pages/299/Amnesia.html. Also "Psychogenic amnesia is characterized by an inability to recall information already stored in the patient's memory." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10891648?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA

So if we presume that Leonard has anterograde amnesia then it must be caused by physical trauma. If we presume that his problem is emotional (and not due to any physical problem) then any amnesia is retrograde: a failure to recall painful memories. But this presumption is not consistent with what we see in the film, since the entire plot of the film involves him seeking revenge since he can remember the attack and since he does seem to have memories of an insulin OD.

While it can not be proved whether he is truthful or not, based on the film, the probability is that he is not lying.

The biggest evidence to support he his telling the truth is that it provides an answer to the mysteries in the film.

The other fact is that Leonard is shown to believe him, which he would have no reason to do if he believed Teddy was a liar (and Leonard would know it)

If we presume Teddy is lying, we are given a mystery where we see the facts, but before the detective tells us what happened and to fit all the pieces together, the movie is ended and we are left with no conclusion or wrap up at all. The movie becomes a "shaggy dog story": a joke with no punch line.

When comparing theories, it is the general practice to choose the most probable solution: the one that provides the most answers with the least amount of holes. Presuming Teddy is lying provides less answers than presuming that he is truthful during the exposition and it has more holes than presuming he is truthful.

Well, this depends where and when and what one believes. He is definitely not ALWAYS truthful and he is shown using Leonard's condition and manipulating him.

However, in the key sequence (which occurs towards the end of the film but chronologically in the middle of the story) he seems to be telling the truth as far as Sammy, John G and Leonard's wife are concerned.

First, of most of the things Teddy says we know that they are true.

Second, Teddy's reminding Leonard of his real name (in spite of the danger connected) adds credibility to his words, as does the photograph.

Most importantly, however, Leonard's actions show that he believes Teddy and indicates to us that Teddy is telling the truth. Thus through Leonard's actions, Nolan shows us that Leonard believes Teddy, and since Leonard knows the truth about Sammy and who was diabetic, Nolan indicates to us that what Teddy stated is true.

If Teddy were lying about Sammy and who was diabetic, we do not know the truth of it, but Leonard does. And after hearing this from Teddy and being told his quest is done, Leonard is shown to believe Teddy. Leonard believes Teddy that his quest is done. If Leonard knew Teddy were a liar, he would have no reason to believe him about his quest being done.

The "proof" Teddy has could have been posed or could have even come after Teddy setup someone else. Leonard has no reason to believe him (if Leonard knows Teddy is a liar).

Leonard is shown remembering giving his wife injections (see the FAQ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.9), he is shown lying and denying it. Leonard even admits to himself he will lie to himself. He sets up Teddy (knowing he is not the 2nd attacker) and decides to make himself never believe Teddy by lying to himself and saying that Teddy is a liar.

Support is also in the structure of the film itself, Teddy being truthful is the only way the movie has a conclusion.

We are shown several scenes where Leonard is reluctant to trust Teddy. We can see a lack of trust when Teddy tells Leonard to write the note about Natalie, Leonard is reluctant, and writes it in handwriting other than his own. After Teddy leaves he sees the "Don't believe his lies" note on Teddy's picture and crosses out the item to not trust Natalie. Leonard's lie to himself to not believe Teddy is used to prevent Leonard from ever again believing Teddy...

Yes, The movie seems to suggest that he knows, on some level, that he has already killed the 2nd attacker. It is most likely a distant recollection not a conscious memory.

When Leonard starts the false quest for Teddy, he must believe that the 2nd attacker is dead since he would not abandon the real quest for the 2nd attacker. Thus it must be a very convincing belief.

Therefore, Leonard must that Teddy is not lying about Sammy being a faker, Sammy not having a wife, or that his wife was diabetic. Because if ANY of those things are lies, Leonard would have reason to doubt Teddy about the 2nd attacker and thus would not start a false quest.

Also, Leonard must NOT be able to spot any indication of falsehood in Teddy saying that the 2nd attacker being dead.

But even with all these things, Leonard would know that just because he could not spot Teddy lying, does not neccessarily mean he was being truthful. So the question is would a man obsessed with vengeance, be convinced that the 2nd attacker is dead with just the word of Teddy? Given that Leonard didn't even completely beleive Teddy when he was truthful about warning Leonard about Natalie, makes it seem even less plausible. When told about Natalie, Leonard wrote the note in handwriting to show his future self the statement is in doubt and was written "under duress". But we see indication of any doubt or duress in Leonard's belief of Teddy.

And if there is ANY DOUBT, there is no reason to start a false quest. Thus we are lead to believe that Leonard has NO DOUBTS that the 2nd attacker is dead. Thus in addition to knowing Teddy is truthful about the Sammy and insulin things and seeing no falsehood in statment that the 2nd attacker killed a year ago; Nolan also indicates that we should also conclude that, on some level, Leonard REMEMBERS that he killed the 2nd attacker (even if is it a distant memory, like a dream, or feeling of deja vu...).

Some have argued that this is one of the biggest "holes" in the conventional theory of this film, though the "hole" stems from misunderstanding about AMD.

Presuming Teddy is truthful denies one of what some see as a premise of the film: Leonard can not remember anything after the attack. This is the simple explanation of what anterograde memory dysfunction is - the inability to remember new things. One can argue with how accurately AMD has been portrayed in the movie (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.30 for discussion on this), but Nolan clearly has given us the "ground rules" of his movie portrayal.

For Teddy to be telling the truth, we must accept that Leonard is able to make new memories and that he can make them selectively: he only remembers what Nolan wants him (and needs him) to remember, just for the plot twist.

Some ignore the "hole" and just presume it "somehow happened" and just explain Leonard's need to repress the memory and somehow "condition" himself to remember it differently. This idea not only ignores the "hole", but is inconsistent with this real condition. Conditioning does not work to create memories of new facts, these are explicit memories. Conditioning creates new implicit memories.

But the perception of the "hole" is created by ignoring the real facts of this real medical condition. The creation of new memories is possible by this condition (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.29). Amnesias are never absolute: "Amnesia is not an all-or-nothing condition, and even H.M., from time to time, has meagre conscious recollections of information encountered postoperatively". (http://web.mit.edu/bnl/pdf/Corkin2002.pdf).

[Note: H.M. is a "classic example" of a man with AMD. There is much online about him, google on antergorade amnesia "H.M." to get a number of hits and info.

HM's was a "pure case" caused by surgery and not an accident. He had epileptic seizures and the doctors believed that if they removed some of his temporal lobe (including the hippocampus), then he would no longer get them. The doctors were correct: they cured him of his seizures! He also got this condition since (it was later discovered) that the hippocampus is important to the "consolidation" of memory (converting the short-term to long-term memory).]

Nolan also suggests (provides us a clue to) this fact when he shows us a shot which may be interpreted as a memory of Leonard in a mental institute: a memory he could not have if the condition were absolute (yes there are alternate explanations for the scene, but alternate explanation do not negate this explanation).

Nolan does suggest how it is possible and why this type of memory is retained. The flash of Sammy turning into Leonard in the mental institute suggests to me a "projection" of Leonard implicit recollections onto explicit Sammy memories. The anchor of the recollection is the Sammy memory.

It is important to realize that this condition does not force Leonard to start with a "clean slate". His memories are not "erased". The short term memories are just typically not consolidated into long-term memories.

But, Leonard does have experiences after the attack and "on some level" bits are recalled: though maybe only subconsciously, and some relegated to show up only as "conditioning" (some probably to his surprise - when did I learn to do that?) other things only "recalled" as only distant memories. These are the implicit, non-declarative memories.

For example, in Oliver Sacks' book: The Man who Mistook his wife for a Hat, he has an entire chapter on a man named "Jimmy G." who got this condition (anterograde memory dysfunction) from chronic alcoholism (this is termed "Korsakoff's syndrome"). Sacks states:

"He [Jimmie] sometimes retained faint memories, some dim echo or sense of familiarity. Thus five minutes after I had played tic-tac-toc [sic] with him, he recollected that 'some doctor' had played this with him 'a while back' - whether the 'while back' was minutes or months ago he had no idea."

Also, this condition does allow you to learn thru conditioning (as mentioned many times in the movie), but some things may "break thru" that "typically won't". "Jimmy G" is also discussed online and this is from http://peace.saumag.edu/faculty/Kardas/Courses/GPWeiten/C7Memory/Amnesias.html

"Jimmy was stuck in the year 1945, it turned out. He only remembered one or two events since that year. (One was the death of his brother, which says something about the relationship of emotions and encoding.)"

It appears that Nolan is suggesting that Leonard can recall his wife's death (to some extent). It seems that Leonard has a unique perspective. Before Leonard got this condition, he studied and learned about this condition, he observed a subject (Sammy) being tested. Then when he was tested and for other items that are only "vaguely recalled" he is better able to "project/transfer" those implicit recollections onto his actual explicit (declarative) memories of Sammy.

His memories of Sammy's life becomes a mixture of "just Sammy" items (Leonard's actual memories), items that (more or less) relate to both Sammy and Leonard, and items that are "wholly Leonard" that are projected onto Sammy. It even will contain some confabulations (common among people with memory problems) of items that have nothing to do with either one of them, it is just Leonard filling gaps in the story.

It is a way of his mind finding an alternate method of storing these memories. Leonard is unable (due to physical damage) to put them directly into long-term memories, so the mind "finds an alternate path" through other sections of this brain and "projects" them onto Sammy-memories.

These recollections are essentially misremembered. It is unconscious not conscious: Leonard believes these things are true. When confronted with facts which dispute it he can realize the problem but it can be confusing.

This type of mechanism can be supported by the facts of this condition.

Declarative memory can be created by non-declarative means "Thus, factual information, which is ordinarily learned as declarative (conscious) knowledge and with the participation of the medial temporal lobe, can be acquired as nondeclarative memory" (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/13/5741) which is a means of saying that explicit memories can be learned from implicit memories as has been hypothesized as a mechanism for what Nolan seems to be suggesting.

As stated, this is enhanced by Leonard's knowledge of Sammy and his explicit memories of Sammy. It has been pointed out in the classic AMD case of H.M. (http://web.mit.edu/bnl/pdf/Neuropsychology18(4)756-69.pdf) that "experiments demonstrate that H.M. is capable of learning some new factual information when it can be fixed to already acquired knowledge."

This paper even the suggests that this can lead to false memories due to incorrect anchoring. H.M. seems to have anchored some of the Challenger explosion (which happened after his AMD) with his memories of the Titanic disaster.

This seems to be a misconception among many people and the question is flawed. The movie actually shows that Leonard does have memories of her being diabetic, so the real questions should be:

If Leonard's wife was diabetic why does Leonard deny it? and If Leonard's wife was not diabetic why does Leonard have memories of her being diabetic?

The first point is that on 3 occasions we see Leonard with memories of him preparing an insulin injection or giving her one. There are 2 distinct memories:

In movie sequence:

1) At 1:21:25, Leonard is alone watching the TV at Natalie's and has a memory flash of someone's hand tapping a syringe twice. It is a quick shot and we do not see who it is. It acts in the film as clue, a foreshadowing of a future truth. It is a supraliminal clue common with foreshadowing. We can see it, but tend not to notice it unless we are looking for it. When we see it, even if we would pause and review it, we still would be hard-pressed to know it is Leonard's hand. We learn it is Leonard' hand, later in the film when we are shown the more complete sequence.

[This sequence, though earlier in the film, would occur long after Leonard would have forgotten what Teddy said about his wife, so it is clear indication that it does not come from just a "consideration" of what Teddy told him]

2) At 1:42:50, Teddy says "The insulin...". At this point in the film (or in time) we (viewers or Leonard) have not heard any mention about Leonard's wife being diabetic, we have only heard the Sammy Story about the "the insulin". Yet after Teddy says "The insulin..." Leonard has that same memory we saw earlier in the film of someone tapping a syringe twice, only this time we are shown that it is indeed Leonard who is tapping the syringe to move the air bubbles to the top. Leonard denies the memory we clearly see him have, claiming: "That's Sammy, not me". We are not shown any "alternate version" of this memory like we will later with the other memory.

3) At, 1:43:23 Teddy states: "It was your wife who had diabetes". We now see a different insulin memory than previously. It is a memory of Leonard injecting his wife's leg with insulin. Again we hear Leonard deny it: "My wife wasn't diabetic".

Only this time when Teddy presses: "You sure?", we see Leonard think, and his denial is not just a lie to Teddy, but the "visualization" is essentially a lie to himself also, ignoring the memory and choosing to believe it was just a pinch and then claiming again: "She wasn't diabetic".

If Leonard's wife were not diabetic, there is no reason that he has memories (or even just thoughts) of her being diabetic at 3 separate times in the film: especially when 2 come about with no prompting about her being diabetic.

The first one seems to be most likely due to the pervasive nature of his diabetic memories. It was such a part of his life with his wife, that he is bound to, while thinking of her, to have some of these memories "pop up". If his wife were not diabetic, it seems odd for him to think about preparing an insulin injection...

The 2nd comes with just a prompting of the term "insulin". Again, it seems odd to for Leonard to have this memory if his wife were not diabetic.

The one that comes with the direct statement of her being diabetic (#3) is the one he most actively denies and the one Nolan even suggests through the "pinching visualization" that he is trying to actively deny and ignore it. It suggests the lying to himself, we will be shown explicitly later that he does do.

So since we know he does have memories of insulin injections with his wife, we can return to what should be the real questions:

If Leonard's wife was diabetic why does Leonard deny it?

This one seems pretty clear from the film. Leonard does not want to realize that he killed his own wife. He seems to have misremembered the insulin OD as a Sammy memory and does not want to acknowledge the truth.

The other question: "If Leonard's wife was not diabetic why does Leonard have memories of her being diabetic?" is something that does not seem to have an answer in the film or even through speculation. This lack of a reason makes it seem clear to many that Nolan's intent was to make us believe that Leonard's wife were diabetic. There is no reason why Leonard would have memories of a diabetic wife if she were not diabetic.

On a related subject, the question has also been raised at why we see only a small number of memories of a diabetic wife. We see only 2 memories on 3 occasions. If Leonard's wife were diabetic he would have years of memories, hundreds if not thousands of them.

There is nothing to negate the possibility that Leonard has plenty of memories of his wife being diabetic. Just because we do not see every possible memory that Leonard may have of his life before the attack, does not mean he does not have the memories. The movie is edited. We do not see Leonard 24/7 and even then we do not see everything Leonard thinks about, nor do we hear constant voiceovers to explain things. Nolan indicates things and negates other things by the film. The film is a mystery, a puzzle, you must look at multiple clues to get an answer.

We are not even seeing random snippets of Leonard's life and memories. Nolan is choosing what he presents to us. He has chosen to not show us the other memories since his goal is to surprise us. He chooses to show us memories Leonard has of his wife that do not involve diabetes and he chooses to only show us 3 select times when Leonard does have the memory. One is a very small segment, intended to act as foreshadowing the other, the second a more complete memory of the small segment so we understand the significance and the third a separate memory.

This technique serves a dual purpose: it keeps the surprise, but also demonstrates that Leonard does indeed remember his wife being diabetic which fills any hole suggesting he does not remember something so pervasive. Nolan indicates that Leonard does remember a diabetic wife.

But it should also be clear that no matter how pervasive diabetes is, Leonard will still have memories of his wife that do not involve diabetes. Nolan chooses shows us more of these memories.

It has been suggested that the film implies that Leonard may also have retrograde amnesia. If we believe Teddy's version as the truth, then it could be interpreted that Leonard has forgotten that Sammy Jankis did not have a wife.

But while it is actually common for people with anterograde amnesia to get some retrograde amnesia, it tends to block out a series of time of days to years. It would not manifest itself in being able to remember Sammy and not remember he did not have a wife. A more likely explanation is that he does "remember" Sammy having a wife due to the false memories that have been anchored to Sammy memories via the mechanism described in http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.31.

It seems most probable that Leonard is correct remembering at least two attackers. Leonard shot one attacker in the head, and the other got away.

The movie indicates that Teddy is telling the truth during the exposition, so that means that Teddy was assigned to the case, and believed Leonard about there being a second attacker. He decided to help him find the second attacker (who they discover is a white male with first name of John and last name starting with a "G". Over a year before the events of the film, they find "John G" and Leonard kills him. Afterwards Leonard decides to continue hunting for a man he already killed, which leads us a year later to Leonard in the Discount Inn.

This is a difficult question to answer, since we are not even sure of all the facts.

She could have died in the attack, though it is also possible there was not an attack or that Leonard does not even have a wife. It is all a matter of what one takes as fact and what one concludes from that fact.

The movie however indicates via the character's actions at the end that Leonard's wife died from an insulin overdose. She survived the attack/rape and went on living her life, however, she could not deal with her husbands (Leonard's) condition. She wanted to kill herself and she used Leonard as a proxy. She set Leonard up to give her multiple shots, and died from the overdose.

But even though it was a "suicide by proxy", both Teddy and Leonard believe that death was a result of the attack and thus the 2nd attacker is still culpable for her death.

There has been several minor debates on this subject.

It is clear that, if we choose to believe Teddy at the end, Sammy was a real person since Teddy explicitly indicates that Sammy was a "con-man", "a faker", he did not say that "Sammy did not exist".

In this scenario, Sammy is real and Leonard investigated him, but what Leonard says about Sammy is most likely a combination of real Sammy memories, items that combine elements of both Sammy and Leonard, elements of just Leonard items, and some confabulation.

If we presume that Teddy is lying and not providing an exposition, it is not entirely clear. Most choose to think Teddy is lying and Leonard is telling the truth, suggesting that what Leonard says about Sammy is completely about Sammy.

For Sammy to not to have existed at all, actually not only requires us to not believe Teddy, but also requires that Leonard is faking. Someone with this condition could not "create Sammy" after getting this condition. The film seems to indicate that Leonard is not "faking". (See the FAQ at http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/faq#.2.1.5

Even if the whole story of Sammy was a confabulation by Leonard, there is no way he could keep using the same name. Even the "remember Sammy Jankis" would be a constant confusing element for Leonard. He would continually wonder things like: "Who is Sammy Jankis? I don't know a Sammy Jankis, Why am I supposed to remember him?"

If Sammy does not exist, it also means that