eternal sunshine de l'mind spotless..

[Ghostboy]

SPOILERS BELOW

I think Kirsten Dunst's story had some significance, even beyond the simple plot point of her sending out the letters.

Her story serves as an additional story to parallel the story of Joel and Clem.  The idea is that love always finds it's way back; those feelings never die, and if we lose the memories of our experiences, we'll still go and follow our true feelings to lead us back to what we had erased.

Mary loves the doctor.  She had their affair erased (they both decided that was the best thing to do) but those feelings never went away.  It lead her to start it up again by kissing him.  I think it's through the doctor's faith in the memory erasing that he allowed her to continue working there (otherwise, she would have been fired so as to just make a clean break).

I think that's part of the movie's ideas: that we're more than the sum of our memories, but rather, we truly have deeper emotions that could never disappear--and that partly dictates the actions that we take in our lives, and could very likely lead us back to what we tried to forget.

With Mary's story paralleling Joel and Clem's story (the romance always starts up again), it suggests that this is not unique to Joel and Clem, so it sort of broadens up this whole idea and applies it to probably nearly everyone who has had that procedure.

One interesting thing about her character -- if I remember correctly, in the original script, she learns that she also not only had an affair with the doctor, but also got pregnant and had an abortion.

[Kal]

One interesting thing about her character -- if I remember correctly, in the original script, she learns that she also not only had an affair with the doctor, but also got pregnant and had an abortion.

That would have been so sad

[matt35mm]

That's actually a good point, matt.

THANKS!!  ... you sound surprised...

[ShanghaiOrange]

I saw this.

It was alright.

Kirsten was outclassed though, I think.

[Gold Trumpet]

SPOILERS BELOW

I think Kirsten Dunst's story had some significance, even beyond the simple plot point of her sending out the letters.

Her story serves as an additional story to parallel the story of Joel and Clem.  The idea is that love always finds it's way back; those feelings never die, and if we lose the memories of our experiences, we'll still go and follow our true feelings to lead us back to what we had erased.

Mary loves the doctor.  She had their affair erased (they both decided that was the best thing to do) but those feelings never went away.  It lead her to start it up again by kissing him.  I think it's through the doctor's faith in the memory erasing that he allowed her to continue working there (otherwise, she would have been fired so as to just make a clean break).

I think that's part of the movie's ideas: that we're more than the sum of our memories, but rather, we truly have deeper emotions that could never disappear--and that partly dictates the actions that we take in our lives, and could very likely lead us back to what we tried to forget.

With Mary's story paralleling Joel and Clem's story (the romance always starts up again), it suggests that this is not unique to Joel and Clem, so it sort of broadens up this whole idea and applies it to probably nearly everyone who has had that procedure.

One interesting thing about her character -- if I remember correctly, in the original script, she learns that she also not only had an affair with the doctor, but also got pregnant and had an abortion.

I still disagree. Yes, you could say Kirsten Dunst's story is a parallel to Joel and Clem's to reinforce their type of love story, but it isn't really necessary because the conviction of Joel and Clem's story is what is suppose to convince the audience of this love. Kirsten Dunst's story just reduces this idea of love to a few emotional scenes that are quickly detailed and explained, thus giving the romance that the film was following the entire way through a thorough explanation of what it signifies when the bulk of the movie, the actual romance, is suppose to do that. Also, this idea that another story adds weight to the main one feels like the bad multiple witness idea for trials. It supposes that a witness is not good for his/her believability, but how many other witnesses they have to back them up when the believability really resides in the conviction of that one witness.

And I'm glad they dropped the abortion scene..that would have went over the edge in pandering for an emotional responce from the audience.

[matt35mm]

I'm glad that they dropped the abortion scene, too.

Well, I wouldn't say that Kirsten's story added to the weight of the main one, but rather that it reinforced the idea of people coming back to the same people.  Stories and ideas and emotions are related, but they're not the same thing.  I'd say that was an idea thing, and it has nothing to do with Joel and Clem's story, I agree.  The movie is just a little more than Joel and Clem's story, though.  That's just the choice of the filmmakers.  They could've focused entirely on Joel and Clem, but they did decide to leave that story to go to a second story.  No, they weren't related, really.

Personally, I like parallels in stories.  I like when they complement each other in terms of the ideas that they're trying to communicate.  These two stories don't have anything to do with each other EXCEPT for that they share this idea.

It worked for me, at least.  But I know how it could be weird to go from Joel's mind to suddenly some scenes that take place completely with Joel or Clem (with just the doctor and Mary, outside by the car).  I did notice that it was a departure from everything that the movie was before, but I decided that it worked for me.  But I understand how that could just as easily not work.

[modage]

i just saw the movie for the second time and i agree with matt 35.  although some may think the mary/doctor storyline or the patrick/clem storyline are superfluous or unneccesary, i dont think so at all.  if the movie focused entirely on the joel/clem relationship it might seem to be saying that only THIS is some sort of true love.  but adding those storylines really enforces what the movie is about and thats you can erase someone out of your mind, but getting them out of your heart is another story.  just as, in marys story it re-inforces that you will fall into the same traps if you cant learn from your mistakes.  and in patricks, even though he tries to MAKE clementine like him by doing all the same things as joel, there is no formula to love/attraction.  saying the same things or giving her the thoughtful presents dont mean anything if there is no love there.

[matt35mm]

i agree with matt 35.

     

I like when people agree with me.

[mutinyco]

It does what subplots exist for: to add another layer. The Joel/Clementine romance didn't fizzle because of the subplot. It fizzled because the couple was miscast.

Compare the assembly cut of Alien 3 to the theatrical version. Think: the Golic subplot where he worships the Alien as a god. It was cut from the movie, but it actually adds a greater weight to the film's theology, and generally speaking its sense of dread.

[modage]

another thing i noticed this time around: there are a lot of thematic similarities between this and Vanilla Sky, which is interesting considering the intense hatred/love for the two.

[Gold Trumpet]

if the movie focused entirely on the joel/clem relationship it might seem to be saying that only THIS is some sort of true love.  but adding those storylines really enforces what the movie is about and thats you can erase someone out of your mind, but getting them out of your heart is another story.

*Spoiler*
Thing is, the Dunst subplot may not even have been about true love at all. All she says is that she was attracted to him and couldn't help herself and then she finds out they had a "history" together. Nothing more.

So, it serving as a relationship to parallel Joel and Clem's is unsubstantiated given the information in the film. It could maybe say that  attractions can't be withhold even if our memory is erased. It touches the Joel and Clem story only superficially because we are told Joel and Clem are fully in love.

Also, is the fact that so many other films indirectly claim a new idea to the meaning of "true love", that bold and wonderful idea fit for the movies because movies envision our hopes and desires and little of our reality. Audiences identify with these movies and identify with certain films, films usually about one couple. Its not the number of relationships in the film that make the idea true for people, but what the people take back personally from the film.

[matt35mm]

Vanilla Sky was okay.  I don't hate it.  But Eternal Sunshine, to me, is a far better movie.

Ultimately, with both movies, it's the love story that bears the weight of everything.  The love story in Vanilla Sky was sorta weak, and thus it kinda only had a "cool factor" and pop-culture references (which is sorta facile, now that I think about it) to carry the movie.

See, if you think that Joel and Clem were miscast or whatever problems you might have, then the love story doesn't work.  If the love story doesn't work, then the entire movie doesn't work.  So the question is: Did you buy the love story?  I did.  So with the roller coaster nature of the story, really being rooted in the love story and being emotionally invested is what made the movie work for me.  If I had not liked Joel and Clem so much, I wouldn't have cared enough to like the movie.

So for all the creativeness and inventiveness of the movie, it's ultimitely just a good ol' fashioned love story, and a damned good one at that.

[mutinyco]

GT, it's not there to reaffirm "true love." It's there to show the negative consequences of loving the bomb. Giving complete faith to a mechanism. In this place, the memory erasing procedure. It's straight-up Anthony Burgess. Kirsten ultimately feels betrayed. The Doctor was lying to her every day since her operation. It shows the negative side-effects of erasing part of yourself. We are the collection of our memories. She, and everybody else, are no longer all of themselves. And they DON"T EVEN KNOW IT! This realization is initially upsetting for Joel and Clementine, but then they decide to give it a go anyhow. Do they last? I don't know. Perhaps the ending was dreamlike for a reason.

[Gold Trumpet]

GT, it's not there to reaffirm "true love." It's there to show the negative consequences of loving the bomb. Giving complete faith to a mechanism. In this place, the memory erasing procedure. It's straight-up Anthony Burgess. Kirsten ultimately feels betrayed. The Doctor was lying to her every day since her operation. It shows the negative side-effects of erasing part of yourself. We are the collection of our memories. She, and everybody else, are no longer all of themselves. And they DON"T EVEN KNOW IT! This realization is initially upsetting for Joel and Clementine, but then they decide to give it a go anyhow. Do they last? I don't know. Perhaps the ending was dreamlike for a reason.

I'm not even the one who began this "true love" idea, I'm merely arguing it. Your idea is interesting, but I still don't see how it can't be conveyed by the Joel and Clem situation. Both people seemed aware of outside doings when under the memory loss and both were cracking through the system to actually break it. Clem was even sabotaged by Elijah Wood, a person working on the system and trying to take over Carrey's role. Its a perfect set up for things to happen and for the system to be really revealed.

[modage]

I'm not even the one who began this "true love" idea, I'm merely arguing it.

for the record, neither am i.  i said adding the subplots helped to defeat the idea that it joel/clementine's story was unique, one of a kind, a 'true love' tale.  it was more about human nature than a fairy tale about these two.