Endless Sunshine on a Spotless Mind (ESoaSM for short)

(this is long, first is a bit of theorising, which may be fiction but is my analysis based on my minimal knowledge of film-making history, but I like the writing which provokes thinking, and then after all that, there is a review of the movie itself)

The end of the 20th century might be noted for a change in the key players in movies. In "arty" movies of the past, the director was key. Looking at such movies, you might not note any star actor. Hollywood movies were the opposite, the director is just a hidden man behind the stars who are the ones you remember about the film. There were a few blips in the past of course. Stanley Kubrick movies were clearly his. George Lucas also became a famous name Maybe they were the leaders.

But later, in the 1990s, "Hollywood" directors seemed to become more prominent. They seemed to want the movies to be identified as their own, and in that way reduce the importance of the stars. Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg are directors that easily come to mind. Tarantino's style was clear but Spielberg's movies are varied in their style though, and the content still not particular to his (this is not to detract from the quality of his movies, but to say that they are not uniquely his in style). M. Night Shyamalan began created movies with a particular distinct style. He was also brave enough to make his name bigger on the advertisements for Signs, than Mel Gibson (!). This seemed a big statement to me. Perhaps, there is now an trend towards bringing "Hollywood" and "arty" together. Or at least fill in the middle-ground. More arty movies are showing at Village Cinemas, which could be showing that they are becoming more financially rewarding.

I like this trend. 
  
Charlie Kaufman, like M. Night, has created a genre of films that are virtually identifiable as his own. They usually are bound to an unlikely, unreal pretext. Take Being John Malkovich where there is a porthole to a particular person's mind. They often contain eccentric characters seemingly unrealistic characters, take Adaptation's lead brothers. His movies are all swathed in complex formats, with flashbacks, circular plots and voice-overs (which as one of his movies intones, is a movie-making sin!). But soon as these factors are set, he sets about making all the characters and the film as serious as possible. Any parody or irony is done with deadpan seriousness. All plot-tricks are done with pinpoint precision. All oddities are applied consistently.

(the following is the review section, there are spoilers in it)

ESoaSM seems to be a distilled pure form of his previous movies. It is much more simplistic than Adaptation in format and concept, but still is delightfully complex (if you can understand that).  The concept is flawlessly pulled off. The concept being: Joel's girlfriend impulsively gets her memory wiped of all her memories of you after a tiff, so he does likewise but in the middle of the procedure finds he wants to keep the memories and tries to fight the treatment, trying desperately hide his memories of her wherever he can.

The lead actors Jim Carrey (Joel) and Kate Winslet (Clementine) are wonderfully in with the spirit of the film. Carrey shows again that he can act very competently outside of the realm of facial and scatiological humour. Of course, he has his chance to show that experience in that form of humour can pay off in other movie types. When his childhood bully picks on him, it is just hilarious. Kate is just awesome to watch. She has distinguished herself as a capable actor in all the films I have seen her in. But this might be her best. I might see Iris another day to see her act there.

Frodo (read: Elijah Wood) also appears early, requiring a double-take, in the beginning and through the movie. And so does the technique that made Frodo look so small in the LOTR trilogy. I just love the size of that cookie toddler Joel was holding!

The format is a jumping timeframe with flashbacks and the present time spliced, which at first is disorientating, but is easy to follow once you observe the cues. The dent in his car and their "second/first" courtship serve as signposts to align the timelines correctly. Of course, many of his memories are jumbled and the timeline can be filled in. And the movie wouldn't work without the jumping timeline, and it serves as part of the magic of the film.

Also interesting is the fact that there is a nice moral to the story. Memories, painful or not, are important. If you wipe them from your mind, you are almost bound to do the same mistakes. The ending is smooth too. It doesn't try to make things sweet and stick them back together. The reality of their past is too much to keep them together. Forgetting their differences doesn't make them any more compatible.

I got into the film for $7.50 because I am a poor beneficiary and got in before 5pm on a Friday. I would say this ranks equally exceptional with Adaptation. Adaptation had more variety and was more witty, but ESoaSM was clinically done and done with simplicity that I enjoy. (For the record, I only ranked Being John Malkovich good but with aspirations for exceptional, while ranking Confessions of a Dangerous Mind as mediocre, with aspirations for craphood)

And that is the end of my film watching spree. I won't watch one till I use my free ticket sometime between now and mid-September. I must say that this has been an enjoyable set of movies.

MISTAKE: Sorry, Charlie Kaufman is the scriptwriter not the director, but is the scriptwriter for all the other movies too. I think my point in the theorising part is even more compelling if you think that even scriptwriters are being identified through their work!