Skip to main content

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Do Clementine and Joel Stay Together or Not?


                Maybe. The answer is maybe.
            Not wanting to be that guy who teases a definitive answer to a difficult question and forces you to read a ten-page essay only to cop-out with a non-committal excuse of an answer, I’m telling you up and front the answer is maybe. Though nations have long warred over this matter of great importance, the film itself does not answer once and for all whether or not Joel Barrish and Clementine Krychinzki find lasting happiness together at conclusion of the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I cannot give a definitive answer as to whether Joel and Clementine’s love will last until the stars turn cold or just through the weekend. This essay cannot do that.
            What this essay can do is explore the in-text evidence the film gives for either side to help you, the reader, understand the mechanics, merits, and blindspots of either interpretation of the ending. It can also reveal the underlying assumptions of either interpretation and whether your preferred ending actually aligns with your core beliefs, whatever shape they take by the time we're done. So maybe stick around ...

            Rewinding a little, the focus of today’s essay is a breakout indie film from 2004, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Though director Michel Gondry had little experience outside of music videos in directing, the film was met with tremendous critical success consummated by Oscar-nominations for best lead actress and best original screenplay, winning the latter. The film received widespread acclaim for its stunning portrait of the human psyche. That's the kind of praise normally applicable to any movie with sharp dialogue and a novel premise, but in the case of this movie, there's an added element seeing how half of the movie literally takes place in the mind of the main character.
           
The film follows two former lovers fresh out of their breakup, Joel and Clementine, 
portrayed by Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet. Frustrated, the two undergo a medical procedure to have each other erased from their memories. In doing so, however, they come to realize that while their relationship eventually came crashing down, they once had genuine love for each other, and the possibility of losing that love forever becomes unbearable. The bulk of the film has Jim actively try to combat the procedure and hold onto his memories of Clementine before they're gone forever, but he is ultimately unsuccessful, and they are erased from one another’s memory. Later they meet again as complete strangers and their love is reborn. Things become complicated when they learn that they once had a history together. Even so, they decide to pursue a relationship, and they are granted another chance at happiness together.
           For reference, here are the final lines from the film:
         Joel: I can't see anything that I don't like about you.
           Clementine: But you will! But you will. You know, you will think of things. And I'll get bored with you and feel trapped because that's what happens with me.
Joel: Okay.
Clementine: . . . Okay.
                So, the film ends with them back together, but it what it doesn’t say is whether or not Joel and Clementine will eventually come to the same conclusions they did before and ultimately break up again. They’re rebuilding a relationship, they aren’t picking up where they left off, and where they left off wasn’t exactly assuring. They aren’t guaranteed a happy ending, which has caused a division between lovers of the movie on what they look like five years down the road. I've seen and heard very compelling arguments for both sides.      
    But the fact that their relationship could go either way doesn't take away from the necessity of unfolding the ending and speculating whether Joel and Clementine do have a future together. In that spirit, we're going to track the two main interpretations of this film's ending and examine some of the textual, contextual, and paratextual evidence supporting both claims. Do Joel and Clementine actually stay together? Who knows? But looking at the film and its main thesis, you get the idea that whatever your reading, that's kind of the point in the first place. 

SCENARIO 1 Joel and Clementine do not end up together
    Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman explained part of his motivation in writing Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as a response to his experience watching romantic comedies, saying: 
Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)
“They’ve 
been very damaging to me growing up in that in that I had these expectations in what I thought my life was going to be like and what my romantic life was going to be like, and as I got older and I realized my life wasn’t like that, you know, it became kind of depressing and I thought [...] real life was more interesting and I should try to explore that and not put more damaging stuff in the world.”
          Kaufman does not specify exactly what tropes or ideologies he was trying to rebuff, but we can definitely guess at some of them. Romantic comedies by design tend to place the union of the starring pair at peak importance, subscribing to a belief that just because two people had a spark, they are owed a happily ever after, whatever the circumstances. And if pursuing this relationship elicits agony and turmoil for all involved parties, all the better. 
            You can see up front how Kaufman might position these two as a rebuttal against this trend. After all, Joel and Clementine are in many ways polar opposites. Joel is prudent and introspective. Clementine is vivacious and spontaneous. If you didn’t know that they were the leading couple of a romance, you wouldn’t naturally pair them together. A second chance can’t save a relationship where two individuals have no common ground.
            An early version of the script actually explored the idea of these two ill-matched individuals continually bound to each other. This ending took place far in the future with a much older Clementine undergoing the procedure to erase Joel for at least the fifteenth time. This ending was scrapped, but from what I’ve researched, this basic concept was a part of the workshop vision of the film for quite some time and was only discarded shortly before production began. Though his idea is not canonized by the finished film, it does introduce the idea of cycles and repeated errors.
         The idea of Clem and Joel following a cycle is expounded upon in great detail in this video essay by The Take. The short of it is that Clementine’s everchanging hair color follows a seasonal color scheme that mirrors the status of her relationship with Joel. Green/spring/new love, red/summer/matured love, orange/fall/dying love, blue/winter/dormant love. This observation claims that like the seasons Clem and Joel’s love will follow an unchanging pattern. Maybe once, maybe many times over a lifetime. The connection between Clementine’s hair color and the seasons could have been a deliberate creative choice, leftover from an earlier vision of the film, and an indicator separation is inevitable for Joel and Clementine.
            Perhaps now would be a good time to clarify some things. The argument favoring Clem and Joel separating isn’t so much about shutting down the idea of lasting love. Rather, it might be about championing the idea that you can exit a relationship and still come out in one piece. Most who subscribe to the reading of Joel and Clementine eventually breaking up aren’t out to punish them or deny them happiness, they simply don’t think they belong together. Proponents of this reading usually aren’t out to undermine the value of fighting for true love or anything like that. Rather, they are promoting a different value, one that says the experience of love is more important than its permanenceTheir victory isn’t necessarily in staying together, but by not undergoing the erasure procedure after their break-up and discarding all the good they gained from their relationship. 
    The standard model for romantic films places paramount importance on the union of the leading couple, implying that if Meg Ryan ends up with anyone but Tom Hanks then romance is dead. It’s easy to see where adhering purely to this logic can have dangerous real-world application, and it’s easy to see why a person like Kaufman may feel the world needs more films that acknowledge this. Outside of the Hollywood umbrella, much of life is moving in and out of relationships, and the end of any one of them isn’t the end of the world. Maybe this is a film about two lovers who have to move past one another but learn to appreciate what they did for each other anyway.

SCENARIO 2 Joel and Clementine do end up together
            As the erasure procedure nears completion, Joel has the following exchange with a mental replication of Clementine.
            Joel: It would be different, if we could just give it another go-round.
            Clementine: Remember me. Try your best. Maybe we can.
         "Maybe we can," doesn't sound like a couple ready to shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, we did our best." This interaction instills a hope in Joel, and the audience, that reconciliation is possible.
            While much of the conversation around Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind celebrates its creative avant-garde approach to the craft, the film still follows a fairly straightforward character arc for Joel. His motivation is always clear, for example, as is the want vs need dichotomy. 
            
Traditional narrative follows a character’s progression from needing something to getting something, and the something they get is usually an internal awakening or realization and is probably not the thing they thought they needed. Achieving this awakening is typically blocked by a fallacious belief that needs to be resolved across the narrative. Rocky has the titular character fixating on whether he is strong enough to outbox a celebrity fighter, and his character arc is about him recognizing that what makes him special is that his fighting spirit does not waver and is not dependent on "winning" by any official measure. He doesn't back down from unbeatable odds or powerful opposition, and that's something he can be proud of.
    Joel has almost the exact opposite character flaw: he is overly averse to vulnerability or risk. His unwillingness to confide his deepest thoughts to Clementine is a large part of what drove her away. Joel letting Clem leave without putting up any kind of fight led her to undergo the procedure in the first place. The film then presents Joel’s timidity as the thing standing in the way of him being with Clementine; consequently, shedding himself of this timidity clears the way for him to regain her love.
           Joel’s behavior after the erasure suggests that possibility. Immediately after awakening from the procedure, Joel skips out on going to work to head to Montauk beach, an act of spontaneity that he certainly never would have done before his time with Clementine. He seems to have carried some of her daring with him. Joel has learned to break out of his comfort zone, thereby shedding the character flaw that was keeping him from maintaining a relationship with Clementine.
        But one of the special features of this narrative is that the bulk of the character development is erased from the minds of the characters: at the film’s ending, Joel does not remember Clementine at all, let alone his decision to try to win her back. Any rediscovery of his love for Clementine won’t matter if he can’t take it with him. The question of whether Joel can really move past his insecurities and be with Clementine comes down to whether he carries his character development with him.
          Let’s return once more to the film’s final scene. After Joel and Clementine come to terms with their shared history, Clementine apologetically walks out of Joel’s apartment. This is an echo of all the times Joel let Clementine slip through his fingers, including Joel and Clementine’s last argument before they underwent the procedures and their very first interaction when Joel deserted Clementine in the beach house. These encounters all ended with Joel shying from doing the hard thing (apologizing to Clementine, staying with her at the beach house, etc.), and if Joel was truly that same shy would-be-suitor, he would do the same here, but he does not. Against his nature, Joel reaches takes the plunge and pursues Clementine.
            This represents a significant shift in Joel’s character, evidence that he is not doomed to repeat the mistakes of his first relationship with Clementine. Even if Joel cannot remember his relationship with Clementine, or how he fought to preserve his memory of her, an imprint of that experience remains with him, an imprint that could very well make the difference between whether they remain together or not.
            
How exactly did that bit of their past relationship survive? Again the film doesn’t specify. This movie celebrates the mysterious nature of love. The part that isn’t logical and doesn’t play by the rules. The film says that love doesn’t always make sense, but that doesn’t mean it's not an active force in our life. Somehow, Joel’s internal victory wasn’t just washed away in the erasure, and because of it he has a second chance to find happiness with Clementine.
            The argument favoring lasting love for the two of them isn’t so much about playing into
sanitized and groomed concepts about love and relationships, but rather about believing in the capacity for two people to be happy together despite not being perfect themselves. By the film’s end, Joel and Clementine have learned to not be deterred by each other’s imperfections. Both Joel and Clementine are flawed individuals, and that sometimes creates friction, but mature love doesn’t abandon ship anytime there’s stormy weather. Real love is about continuing to care for your partner even through the stress and coming out stronger together. Maybe this is a story about two lovers who despite the odds learn to move past their individualistic impulses to create a something beautiful.

So Which is it?
            The frustrating thing about this film is that whatever side you’re on, there’s just enough textual evidence supporting your stance to make you invested in it, but not quite enough to make you feel secure in it. Do Joel and Clementine have lasting love? They could. They could.
                A viewer’s reading of the film comes down to whatever he or she felt was the limitation Joel and Clementine needed to overcome, whatever the viewer feels is most important. Is the film about learning how to make peace with lost love, or is it about learning to fight for love? There’s roughly equal evidence for either reading, and that’s okay. Where stories are concerned, one interpretation does not invalidate another. The film is whatever its audience needs it to be.
           We often come to movies wanting to hear our own predispositions recited to us, assuring us that, “yes, my worldviews are right.” It’s a natural tendency, but a limiting one. We do this because we don’t like the insecurity of walking without a safety net. But very few of life’s experiences come with that safety net, and if we spend our efforts exclusively on those that have a guaranteed favorable outcome, we run the risk of never really participating in anything—much like Joel at the start of the film. It’s fitting that the audience coming to terms with the film’s ending echoes Joel and his development past needing that safety net. Therein lies deliberate, authentic living.

                                                                                                                              -The Professor
               


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REVIEW: ELIO

    Here's a fact: the term "flying saucer" predates the term "UFO." The United States Air Force found the former description too limiting to describe the variety of potential aerial phenomena that might arise when discussing the possibility of life beyond earth.      There may have to be a similar expansion of vocabulary within the alien lexicon with Pixar's latest film, Elio , turning the idea of an alien abduction into every kid's dream come true.      The titular Elio is a displaced kid who recently moved in with his aunt after his parents died. She doesn't seem to understand him any better than his peers do. He can't imagine a place on planet earth where he feels he fits in. What's a kid to do except send a distress cry out into the great, big void of outer space?      But m iracle of miracles: his cries into the universe are heard, and a band of benevolent aliens adopt him into their "communiverse" as the honorary ambassador o...

JAWS: The Father of All Blockbusters Turns 50

  The saga of Hollywood lives and dies on the ripples of a thousand different choices. Hundreds of movies each year from hundreds of artists serving hundreds of markets creates a complex, interconnected ecosystem that can never really be explored in its totality. Still, if there was one film, one moment, that trampolined Hollywood from one era into the next, it was in 1975 with Steven Spielberg’s Jaws .      Moviegoing had naturally been a part of the global industry since moving pictures stole everyone’s attention at the start of the century. Tentpole films were also very much a part of the program. But the treatment of movies like The Sound of Music and Ben-Hur was done with an eye for prestige, more comparable to how Oscar hopefuls handle things today.  Theaters at this time were still generally accustomed to having sporadic releases across the country over a period of several weeks. Limited roadshow releases were how you signaled that a movie’s importanc...

REVIEW: Jurassic World - Rebirth

     I had a mixed reaction to  Jurassic World: Rebirth,  but it did make for one of the most enjoyable theater experiences I've had in recent memory.      I have to imagine that a part of this is because my most common theater appointments are matinee screenings, but I had the opportunity to see this one at a fairly well-attended midnight screening. And there's nary a film more tailored for surround-sound roaring and screens wide enough to contain these de-extinct creatures. ("Objects on the screen feel closer than they appear.") It was natural for me to cap the experience by applauding as the credits stared to roll, even if, as usual, I was the only one in the auditorium to do so.     Yes, I am that kind of moviegoer; yes, I enjoyed the experience that much, and I imagine I will revisit it across time.      That's not to imagine the movie is beyond reproach, but for I suppose it bears mentioning that, generally , th...

REVIEW: Lilo & Stitch

       By now the system errors of Disney's live-action remake matrix are well codified. These outputs tend to have pacing that feels like it was okayed by a chain store manager trying to lower the quarterly statement. They also show weird deference to very specific gags from their animated source yet don't bother to ask whether they fit well in the photorealistic world of live-action. And combing through the screenplay, you always seem to get snagged on certain lines of dialogue that someone must have thought belonged in a children's movie ("Being gross is against galactic regulation!).      These are all present in this  summer's live-action reinvention of "Lilo & Stitch." But mercifully, this remake allows itself to go off-script here and there. The result may be one of the stronger Disney remakes ... whatever that's worth.     The 2002 animated masterpiece by Dean Deblois and Chris Sanders (who voices the little blue alien in bo...

An Earnest Defense of Passengers

          Recall with me, if you will, the scene in Hollywood December 2016. We were less than a year away from #MeToo, and the internet was keenly aware of Hollywood’s suffocating influence on its females on and off screen but not yet sure what to do about it.       Enter Morten Tyldum’s film Passengers , a movie which, despite featuring the two hottest stars in Hollywood at the apex of their fame, was mangled by internet critics immediately after take-off. A key piece of Passengers ’ plot revolves around the main character, Jim Preston, a passenger onboard a spaceship, who prematurely awakens from a century-long hibernation and faces a lifetime of solitude adrift in outer space; rather than suffer through a life of loneliness, he eventually decides to deliberately awaken another passenger, Aurora Lane, condemning her to his same fate.    So this is obviously a film with a moral dilemma at its center. Morten Tyldum, direc...

REVIEW: Materialists

      In seminal romantic comedies or dramas, the mark of great writing was in artfully burying the lovebirds' insecurities and hangups in artifice. Pretense. The lovebirds didn't know how to honestly approach their own feelings at first. The distortion revealed the personality of both the situation and the relationship. What's more, it was just fun. The film would slowly thaw this facade until Cary Grant and Irene Dunne finally had, what Materialists calls, the ugliest parts of themselves laid bare for one another. Only then were they ready to embrace.       Yet with Materialists , out this weekend, even in moments when the situation calls for vulnerability, the characters are oddly empirical and clinical with describing the things about them that they are ashamed of. These players might as well be performing a passionate reading of a Walmart receipt. Yes, Materialists is very obviously about the transactionality of the dating scene, but the movie ...

REVIEW: The Legend of Ochi

    This decade has seen a renaissance of movies claiming to be "this generation's ET ," but you probably can't remember their names any better than I can. We could have all sorts of debates why it is no one seems to know how to access that these days, though I don't think for a moment that it's because 2020s America is actually beyond considering what it means to touch that childhood innocence.      But A24's newest film, The Legend of Ochi , does have me thinking this mental block is mostly self-inflicted by a world whose extoling of childhood is more driven by a dislike of the older generation than anything else.  Fitting together narratives like How to Train Your Dragon with Fiddler on the Roof and tossing it in the sock drawer with 1980s dark fantasy, The Legend of Ochi is intermittently enchanting, but it's undermined by its own cynicism.     On an island stepped out of time, a secluded community wages war against the local population of ...

Wicked vs Maleficent

  “Witch” has historically been used as a pejorative for a non-conformist woman, someone who does not obey the expectations of her culture. It’s little wonder, then, that a society with more progressive mores would commandeer the witch archetype into a warrior for social justice, or that the most famous witch of them all would spearhead this retyping.      Yes, I am thinking of a certain Broadway musical and a fiery, green-skinned, justice-bent rebel-rouser.  Wicked is a stage musical that follows the infamous Wicked Witch of the West as featured in the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz . By shedding light on what happened before Dorothy dropped into Oz, Wicked recasts the witch as not a villain, but a misunderstood heroine. The show has been defying gravity on Broadway for coming on twenty years now, and it’s showing no signs of slowing down.   When Disney’s Maleficen t came along a little over ten years later, the shorthand description of the film was basic...

You're Not Stupid for Loving Jurassic World

        I had an experience in the comment section of a YouTube video essay back in 2018 . This was around the release of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, and the essay traced out how the original Jurassic Park developed its character arcs. I thought it was a nice analysis, and many of the comments seemed to agree. But I inevitably came across one comment lamenting how far the "Jurassic" franchise had fallen and how the new "Jurassic World" films just didn't care about things like character arcs anymore. I did a foolish thing and replied to this comment with my honest opinion, that being ... the JW films actually took a very similar approach to their character arcs, and arguments to the contrary weren’t giving the new films proper credit. One person replied directly to my comment, countering my point with “HAAHAHAHAAHA.” And, well, I just couldn’t argue with that …       The Jurassic World movies are especially vulnerable to a certa...