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: The Fall Guy

     Someone show me another business as enthusiastic for its own self-deprecation as Hollywood.      From affectionate self-parodies like Singin' in the Rain to darker reflections of the movie business like Sunset Boulevard , Hollywood has kind of built its empire on ridicule of itself. And why wouldn't it? Who wouldn't want to pay admission to feel like they're in on the secret: that movie magic is just smoke and mirrors? That silver screen titans actually have the most fragile egos?       But these are not revelations, and I don't think they are intended to be. Hollywood doesn't really care about displaying its own pettiness and internal rot because it knows that all just makes for good entertainment.  A t some point, this all stops feeling like a joke that we, the audience, are in on. At some point, it all stops feeling less like a confession and more like gloating. At what point, then, does the joke turn on us, the enablers of this cesspool whose claim to

Finding Nemo: The Thing About Film Criticism ...

       Film is a mysterious thing. It triggers emotional responses in the audience that are as surprising as they are all-encompassing. As a medium, film is capable of painting stunning vistas that feel like they could only come to life behind the silver screen, but many of the most arresting displays on film arise from scenes that are familiar, perhaps even mundanely so. It’s an artform built on rules and guidelines–young film students are probably familiar with principles like the rule of thirds or the Kuleshov effect–but someone tell me the rule that explains why a line like “We’ll always have Paris,” just levels you. There are parts of the film discussion that cannot be anticipated by a formula or a rulebook, and for that we should be grateful.         Arrival (2016)      But the thing about film–and especially film criticism–is that film critics are not soothsayers. Their means of divining the artistic merit of a movie are not unknowable. There are patterns and touchstones that

REVIEW: All Together Now

The unceasing search for new acting talent to mine continues with Netflix's new film,  All Together Now, which premiered this week on the service. This film features Moana alum Auli'i Cravalho as Amber Appleton, a bright but underprivileged high schooler with high aspirations. Netflix's new film plays like a trial run for Cravalho to see if this Disney starlet can lead a live-action film outside the Disney umbrella. Cravalho would need to play against a slightly stronger narrative backbone for us to know for sure, but early signs are promising.  All Together Now follows Amber Appleton, a musically talented teen overflowing with love for her classmates, her coworkers, and her community. Amber reads like George Bailey reincarnated as a high school girl, throwing herself into any opportunity to better the world around her, like hosting her high school's annual for benefit Variety Show. But Amber's boundless optimism conceals an impoverished home life. She and her moth

American Beauty is Bad for your Soul

  The 1990s was a relatively stable period of time in American history. We weren’t scared of the communists or the nuclear bomb, and social unrest for the most part took the decade off. The white-picket fence ideal was as accessible as it had ever been for most Americans. Domesticity was commonplace, mundane even, and we had time to think about things like the superficiality of modern living. It's in an environment like this that a movie like Sam Mendes' 1999 film American Beauty can not only be made but also find overwhelming success. In 1999 this film was praised for its bold and honest insight into American suburban life. The Detroit News Film Critic called this film “a rare and felicitous movie that brings together a writer, director and company perfectly matched in intelligence and sense of purpose” and Variety hailed it as “a real American original.” The film premiered to only a select number of screens, but upon its smashing success was upgraded to

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Clash of the Titans

  Anyone else remember the year we spent wondering if we would ever again see a movie that wasn't coming out in 3D?      T hat surge in 3D films in the early months of 2010 led to a number of questionable executive decisions. We saw a lot of films envisioned as standard film experiences refitted into the 3D format at the eleventh hour. In the ten years since, 3D stopped being profitable because audiences quickly learned the difference between a film that was designed with the 3D experience in mind and the brazen imitators . Perhaps the most notorious victim of this trend was the 2010 remake of Clash of the Titans .        Why am I suddenly so obsessed with the fallout of a film gone from the public consciousness ten years now? Maybe it's me recently finishing the first season of  Blood of Zeus  on Netflix and seeing so clearly what  Clash of the Titans  very nearly was. Maybe it's my  evolving thoughts on the Percy Jackson movies  and the forthcoming Disney+ series inevit

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 guide its output. The film imagines a world where fantasy creatur

REVIEW: Belfast

     I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the world needs more black and white movies.      The latest to answer the call is Kenneth Branagh with his  semi-autobiographical film, Belfast . The film follows Buddy, the audience-insert character, as he grows up in the streets of Belfast, Ireland in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Though Buddy and his family thrive on these familiar streets, communal turmoil leads to organized violence that throws Buddy's life into disarray. What's a family to do? On the one hand, the father recognizes that a warzone is no place for a family. But to the mother, even the turmoil of her community's civil war feels safer than the world out there. Memory feels safer than maturation.      As these films often go, the plot is drifting and episodic yet always manages to hold one's focus. Unbrushed authenticity is a hard thing to put to film, and a film aiming for just that always walks a fine line between avant-garde and just plain

The Great Movie Conquest of 2022 - January

This fool's errand is the fruition of an idea I've wanted to try out for years now but have always talked myself out of. Watching a new movie a day for one full year is a bit of a challenge for a number of reasons, not in the least of which being that I'm the kind of guy who likes to revisit favorites. As a film lover, I'm prone to expanding my circle and watching films I haven't seen before, I've just never watched a new film every day for a year. So why am I going to attempt to pull that off at all, and why am I going to attempt it now? I've put off a yearlong commitment because it just felt like too much to bite off. One such time, actually, was right when I first premiered this blog. You know ... the start of 2020? The year where we had nothing to do but watch Netflix all day? Time makes fools of us all, I guess. I doubt it's ever going to be easier to pull off such a feat, so why not now?       Mostly, though, I really just want to help enliven my

Nights of Cabiria: What IS Cinema?

  So here’s some light table talk … what is cinema? What is it for ?       On the one hand, film is the perfect medium to capture life as it really is. With the roll of the camera, you can do what painters and sculptors had been trying to do for centuries and record the sights and sounds of a place exactly as they are. On the other hand, film is the perfect medium for dreaming. Is there any other place besides the movies where the human heart is so unfettered, so open to fantasy? If you’ve studied film formally, this is probably one of the first discussions you had in your Intro to Film theory course, in a class that may have forced you to read about Dziga Vertov and his theory about film and the Kino-eye (another day, another day …)      In some ways, we could use basically any of thousands of cinematic works to jumpstart this discussion, but I have a particular film in mind. The lens I want to explore this idea through today is not only a strong example of strong cinematic cra

Mamma Mia: Musicals Deserve Better

       Earlier this week, Variety ran a piece speculating on the future of musicals and the roles they may play in helping a post-corona theater business bounce back. After all, this year is impressively stacked with musicals. In addition to last month's fantastic "In the Heights," we've got a half dozen or so musicals slated for theatrical release. Musical master, Lin Manuel-Miranda expresses optimism about the future of musicals, declaring “[While it] hasn’t always been the case, the movie musical is now alive and well.”      I'm always hopeful for the return of the genre, but I don't know if I share Lin's confidence that the world is ready to take musicals seriously. Not when a triumph like "In the Heights" plays to such a small audience. (Curse thee, "FRIENDS Reunion," for making everyone renew their HBO Max subscription two weeks before In the Heights hits theaters.) The narrative of “stop overthinking it, it’s just a musical,”