Eternal Sunshine

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

In modern science, it is becoming more and more possible to erase bad memories with a scientific process of pharmaceuticals and machinery. It has become a topic in my OPAR Study Group, since David Croft is studying neurology. We recently watched a movie about this called Eternal Sunshine, and here is my review.

$$$$$$$$

Here is a movie on that topic:

http://www.eternalsunshine.com/

David and I watched this movie on his NetFlix Internet subscription service for his TV. But while it is a very neat service, I can't say the same for the movie. If you wouldn't know it was about memory manipulation and erasure, it would come across as a totally bizarre movie, because the transitions for real life versus the main character's mind are not done very well. Like a dream, you only suspect it is not real life because things happen that cannot happen in reality, such as buildings and people disappearing right before one's eyes. Also, the total lack of seriousness of the characters doing the memory erasure led me to think that the entire thing was a spoof of real scientific possibilities, and there was no real serious trauma trying to be erased, just a bad relationship.

So, I don't know. One aspect of the plot was enacting the feeling that you are nothing to me after a bad breakup, and in this movie one can literally make that happen in a science fictional kind of way. On the other hand, it tried to demonstrate that once the bad memories are erased, the character going through the process will try to preserve the good memories of his once loved one.

The movie did demonstrate that all aspects of consciousness are interconnected, and kind of went into the dismay of erasing too much as the machine went everywhere in the man's consciousness that he went in trying to preserve the good memories.

My main gripe against the movie is that it wasn't presented clearly. This process, once it becomes perfected, might -- and I stress might -- become useful in helping people to recover from post traumatic stress disorder if they cannot deal with those bad memories psychologically. But, in part for reason presented in the movie, I'd be hesitant to use it for that purpose, because I don't think they could quite precisely erase only bad memories and not the whole kit and caboodle related to those memories. And even in the movie, the people going through this process were not shown to have been happier after the process, so what was the point?

Sorry, but I have to rate this movie at a C- or a D at best, but perhaps that was because I was expecting more.

[Myself]

Sorry Thomas, but I think you kind of missed the point of this movie. Eternal Sunshine is not a movie about memory manipulation. That's only the premise used to explore the two main themes. Sort of like how The Fountainhead isn't a novel about architecture or Atlas Shrugged isn't about railroads.

Eternal Sunshine's two main themes are the fragility and preciousness of love to human life and the role of volition in relationships. A consequential theme is the futility of trying to fight reality - both literally and emotionally. The plot-theme is

a man and his girlfriend have their memories erased of each other after a bitter relationship, but by chance, meet and find themselves falling in love again. Can their love survive or is it doomed to fail because of their forgotten past?

There's also a subplot about the technicians

performing the memory erasure

that reflects on and underscores the main themes. Technically the screenplay was brilliantly constructed, looping and coiling in around itself to provide a shocking and emotionally devastating conclusion. The score, cinemtography, and direction were also top notch.

Overall, I would rate it one of the best movies of the past decade, if not of all time. Hollywood needs more screenwriters like Charlie Kaufman, to remind us what innovative and original films look like, in order to tide us between the comic book movies, tired remakes, and the fourth-rate plagiarism that fills movie theatres 95% of the time.

[TheEgoist]

In 100% agreement with Myself. It is one of my favorite films that explores various themes of romance with a very compelling plot, however odd and abstract it may have been.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

In 100% agreement with Myself. It is one of my favorite films that explores various themes of romance with a very compelling plot, however odd and abstract it may have been.

The movie definitely tried to cover certain important aspects of being in love, but I don't think it did it very well. Notice that by the end of the movie, yes the two main lovers found one another again, after their memories of each other were erased, but once they discovered the memory erasure interview tapes, that love abated. So, the question is, does love remain even after one gets to know more facts about the potential lover? If the facts are in favor of what you are looking for, yes; if those facts are contrary to what you are looking for, no. I think there is such a thing as love at first sight (or at first meeting), but one needs to go by the facts rather than one's emotions when one is getting to know the potential lover.

Some of my favorite movies, shows, and novels are the ones in which there is a strong love interested between a man and a woman, and all of the positive emotions are there, and yet, say when the man finds out he has been deeply betrayed by her, he doesn't hesitate to go by reason rather than emotions. Probably the most famous of these stories is Mickey Spillane's I the Jury. Mike Hammer is definitely in love with the psychologist, but when he finds out an important fact about her, he doesn't hesitate to enact justice based on that betrayal. Similar themes have been presented in NCIS and other detective stories.

So, my overall point and grievance against the movie is that it proposes that it is no big deal to want to erase the bad segments of a relationship, which comes across to me as being evasive about the facts of the matter. Sure, if you didn't know how bad she was, you could fall in love with her again, and might even want to defend her; but those facts about her character and how they are against your principles are an important (and sometimes overriding) consideration.

Go by reason and not emotions, which means get the facts and then evaluate your potential lover based on those facts.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Probably the most famous of these stories is Mickey Spillane's I the Jury. Mike Hammer is definitely in love with the psychologist, but when he finds out an important fact about her, he doesn't hesitate to enact justice based on that betrayal. Similar themes have been presented in NCIS and other detective stories.

This principle of going by reason instead of emotions can be done the other way around, of course, whereby, say a man hates a woman until he meets her and gets to know her. Actually, in a way, The Fountainhead does this with regard to Howard Roark versus Wynand (though that is not romantic love). Roark had every reason to despise Wynand until he got to know him better and realized he was mistaken. Dagny, in Atlas Shrugged, wanted to shoot John Galt on sight, until she met him and realized what the strike was all about. But I think one reason Miss Rand did these contrasts is to show that love is rational (or ought to be); that is, one going by the facts and making a rational evaluation of someone can fall in love with them after the full context is known, even though he may have been indifferent or hostile to that person for a long time.

Getting to know a potential lover is the best approach; that way one can have the facts and can be cognitive about them, rather than merely going by a positive emotional reaction. Without the facts or further facts to back up a positive evaluation from the past, let's say, a man cannot fully claim to be in love with a woman in the present; and if she won't provide the facts, then he has to go by what he knows and wonder why she isn't forthcoming, which can lead to a negative evaluation of her.

I still say that open communication is the best means of evaluating a potential lover; without that means of getting the facts, one has no grounds for love.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Here is an interesting follow-up news story about how it is that experiencing either love or hate turns off parts of the cerebral cortex. In other words, emotions become the guidelines according to this report which scanned brains during episodes of love and hate. I don't agree that love and hate are similar in terms of what they refer to in reality, but evidently the same brain circuitry is being used in either case. Which makes sense, since both are strongly evaluative. However, I don't think one can be confused with the other in terms of what it feels like to love or to hate.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444435,00.html

Turn your brain back on when you love or hate, and go by reason!

[Myself]

Go by reason and not emotions, which means get the facts and then evaluate your potential lover based on those facts.

That's terrible advice. Your whole post implies that reason and emotion are separate and clashing faculties. Reason and emotion should be integrated. Being in love is sailing a ship. Your Emotion is the wind in your sails -- Reason a steady hand at the tiller.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

That's terrible advice. Your whole post implies that reason and emotion are separate and clashing faculties. Reason and emotion should be integrated. Being in love is sailing a ship. Your Emotion is the wind in your sails -- Reason a steady hand at the tiller.

No, I'm not trying to say there is necessarily a conflict between reason and emotion, what I'm saying is to make sure your emotions are in line with the facts of the case. In other words, do you have any reason (or facts) to love her (or to hate her)? Often times people think that because they feel some strong emotion (love or hate) that it is unerring because it is such a strong emotion. I'm saying no, if you don't have the appropriate facts, then what is that emotion based upon -- fantasizing, wishful thinking, projection? What I'm suggesting is to make a cognitive evaluation, since that is the only way to be rational. Otherwise, you are saying that there is a conflict between reason and emotion, which is not my position. But I'm not saying interview her thoroughly before acting, as in 100 questions, but at a minimum discover the facts and the evaluative principles that are behind the emotional reaction. Otherwise, you are just going on autopilot, which I think many people do, and then they can't explain either why they fell in love or why it is over.

The characters in this movie, Eternal Sunshine, showed no ability to do this, and so they opted for memory erasure and evasion.

Memory erasure might be good for some extreme tragedy that one cannot get beyond, but falling out of love is not one of those.

[Myself]

Is there a reason why you keep writing spoilers in your posts without regard to people who haven't seen the film? There are spoiler tags for just that purpose.

As for the rest, I disagree with your assessment of the film and maintain that you've still missed the point. Your evaluations of the characters' motives and actions has nothing to do with the value of the film or the message it's trying to communicate. Just because the story is about confused people doesn't mean the film is.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Is there a reason why you keep writing spoilers in your posts without regard to people who haven't seen the film? There are spoiler tags for just that purpose.

Sorry about that, didn't realize I was potentially ruining the movie. It's not very clearly presented, and I don't I think would have understood it until near the end of the movie, which makes the plot unintelligible. Anyhow, I couldn't figure out what was going on, so I'm glad the people I saw it with filled me in every once in a while. I can't go back and edit my posts, so I can't do anything about it.

Maybe I'll forget that part of my posts and that will make it all better