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 this case, 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.
            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. And this imprint 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.                 
 --The Professor
               


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"When Did Disney Get So Woke?!" pt. 1 The Disney of Your Childhood

  So, I’m going to put out a somewhat controversial idea here today: The Walt Disney Company has had a tremendous amount of influence in the pop culture landscape, both in recent times and across film history. Further controversy: a lot of people really resent Disney for this.  I’ve spent a greater part of this blog’s lifetime tracking this kind of thing. I have only a dozen or so pieces deconstructing the mechanics of these arguments and exposing how baseless these claims tend to be. This sort of thing is never that far from my mind. But my general thoughts on the stigmatization of the Disney fandom have taken a very specific turn in recent times against recent headlines.       The Walt Disney Company has had some rather embarrassing box office flops in the last two or three years, and a lot of voices have been eager to link Disney’s recent financial woes to certain choices. Specifically, this idea that Disney has all the sudden “gone woke.”  Now,...

"When Did Disney Get So Woke?!" pt. 2 Disney vs the 21st Century

  In the first half of this series , we looked at this construction of the Disney image that the company has sold itself on for several decades now. Walt himself saw the purpose of his entertainment enterprise as depiction a happier world than that which he and the audience emerged from, and that formed the basis of his formidable fanbase. But because the larger culture only knows how to discuss these things in the context of consumerism, a lot of intricacies get obscured in the conversation about The Walt Disney Company, its interaction with larger culture, and the people who happily participate in this fandom.  Basically, critics spent something like fifty years daring The Walt Disney Company to start being more proactive in how they participated in the multi-culture. And when Disney finally showed up in court to prove its case, the world just did not know what to do ... The 21st Century          With the development of the inter...

The Earthling: Some Observations on "Natural Masculinity"

I’ve talked quite a bit about “toxic masculinity” across his blog, but I want to talk for a moment about a companion subject–“natural masculinity.” I’ve heard several other names and labels assigned to the idea, but the general concept is this idea that men are disposed to behave a certain way and that sOciETy forces them to subjugate this part of themselves. Maybe some of us were raised by someone, or currently live with someone, who buys into these attitudes. Maybe they’re perfectly fine most of the time, but once they meet up with Brian from sophomore year and go out into the mountains for a “weekend with the guys,” a sort of metamorphosis takes place. Jokes that were unacceptable to them become hilarious. Certain transgressions lose their penalty. Gentle Joe kinda mutates into a jerk. This is all propelled and reinforced by the idea that this is how men just are , and that entitles them to certain actions. And who are these women to infringe upon that God-given right? Gladiator (2...

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: ONWARD

     The Walt Disney Company as a whole seems to be in constant danger of being overtaken by its own cannibalistic tendency--cashing in on the successes of their past hits at the expense of creating the kinds of stories that merited these reimaginings to begin with.       Pixar, coming fresh off a decade marked by a deluge of sequels, is certainly susceptible to this pattern as well. Though movies like Inside Out and Coco have helped breathe necessary life into the studio, audiences invested in the creative lifeblood of the studio should take note when an opportunity comes for either Disney or Pixar animation to flex their creative muscles.       This year we'll have three such opportunities between the two studios. [EDIT: Okay, maybe not. Thanks, Corona.] The first of these, ONWARD directed by Dan Scanlon, opens this weekend and paints a hopeful picture of a future where Pixar allows empathetic and novel storytelling to gui...

Tangled: Disney Sees the Light

On November 21st, 2010, The LA Times ran its article “ Disney Animation is Closing the Book on Fairy Tales .” It pronounced that although the Walt Disney company was built on films in the style of Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid , that form of Disney magic was history, reporting, iCarly (2007) “Among girls, princesses and the romanticized ideal they represent — revolving around finding the man of your dreams — have a limited shelf life. With the advent of ‘tween’ TV, the tiara-wearing ideal of femininity has been supplanted by new adolescent role models such as the Disney Channel’s Selena Gomez and Nickelodeon’s Miranda Cosgrove.” “You’ve got to go with the times,” MGA Chief Executive Isaac Larian said. “You can’t keep selling what the mothers and the fathers played with before. You’ve got to see life through their lens.”    Th e same day this article ran, the executives at Disney disavowed the viewpoints expressed and assured the public that Disney was NOT in fact s...

Do You Hear the People Sing?: "Les Miserables" and the Untrained Singer

          Perhaps no film genre is as neglected in the 21 st century as the musical. With rare exception, the o nly offerings we get are the occasional Disney film, the occasional remake of a Disney film, and adaptations of Broadway stage shows. When we are graced with a proper musical film, the demand is high among musical fans for optimum musical performance, and when a musical film doesn’t deliver this, these fans are unforgiving.  From the moment talking was introduced in cinema, the musical film has been a gathering place where vocal demigods assemble in kaleidoscopic dance numbers in a whirl of cinematic ecstasy too fantastical for this world. What motivation, then, could Tom Hooper possibly have for tethering this landmark of modern musical fandom in grounded, dirty reality?       This movie’s claim to fame is the use of completely live-singing, detailed in this featurette, something no previous movie musical had attempted to...

The Banshees of Inisherin: The Death Knell of Male Friendship

           I’m going to go out on a limb today and put out the idea that our society is kind of obsessed with romance. In popular storytelling, t he topic has two whole genres to itself (romantic-comedy, romantic-drama), which gives it a huge slice of the media pie. Yet even in narratives where romance is not the focus, it still has this standing invitation to weave itself onto basically any kind of story. It’s almost more worth remarking upon when a story doesn’t feature some subplot with the main character getting the guy or the girl. Annie Hall (1977)      And it’s also not just the romantic happy ending that we’re obsessed with. Some of the most cathartic stories of romance see the main couple breaking up or falling apart, and there’s something to be gained from seeing that playing out on screen as well. But what’s interesting is that it is assumed that a person has a singular “one and only” romantic partner. By contras...

Meet Me in St. Louis: The Melancholy Window of Nostalgia

I don’t usually post reviews for television shows, but it feels appropriate to start today’s discussion with my reaction to Apple TV+’s series, Schmigadoon! If you’re not familiar with the series, it follows a couple who are looking to reclaim the spark of their fading romance. While hiking in the mountains, they get lost and stumble upon a cozy village, Schmigadoon, where everyone lives like they’re in the middle of an old school musical film. She’s kinda into it, he hates it, but neither of them can leave until they find true love like that in the classic movie musicals. I appreciated the series’ many homages to classical musical films. And I really loved the show rounding up musical celebrities like Aaron Tveit and Ariana Debose. Just so, I had an overall muddled response to the show. Schmigadoon! takes it as a given that this town inherits the social mores of the era in which the musicals that inspired this series were made, and that becomes the basis of not only the show...

REVIEW: Mufasa - The Lion King

    To get to the point, Disney's new origin story for The Lion King 's Mufasa fails at the ultimate directive of all prequels. By the end of the adventure, you don't actually feel like you know these guys any better.           Such  has been the curse for nearly Disney's live-action spin-offs/remakes of the 2010s on. Disney supposes it's enough to learn more facts or anecdotes about your favorite characters, but the interview has always been more intricate than all that. There is no catharsis nor identification for the audience during Mufasa's culminating moment of uniting the animals of The Pridelands because the momentum pushing us here has been carried by cliche, not archetype.      Director Barry Jenkins' not-so-secret weapon has always been his ability to derive pathos from lyrical imagery, and he does great things with the African landscape without stepping into literal fantasy. This is much more aesthetically interestin...