"Remember Me" film misunderstood

Like most every other female between the ages of 10 and 60, I am familiar with the name Robert Pattinson. Most people know him as the brooding vamp from the Twilight series. What people know less of is whether or not he is just another teen idol or if he's a true-and-true Hollywood movie star. It was assumed that his new film Remember Me would answer that question. This topic has been dominating the movie airwaves as of late.

However, interestingly enough, the screenplay for this particular film was the thing that got the critics talking (or should I say yelling and screaming). It had an ending that was so polarizing that after watching about two hours of footage of Pattinson, co-star Emilie DeRavin (Lost) and Pierce Brosnan (Bond series)... the actors were the least important thing on everyone's mind.

Warning! SPOILERS! I'm going to attempt to break down why I believe this script is one of the more thought out pieces we've seen in a while, and why reading reviews on this movie makes me take the cliched response of, "they just don't GET IT!"... which I say petulantly and with great fervor. If you are interested in seeing this movie and haven't, I would advise skipping this post altogether.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ok, so what's with the ending anyway?

I should say ahead of time that I read the script for this movie prior to its release in theaters. That happens a lot, actually. So I went into this movie knowing what was going to happen and taking note of all the foreshadowing. My first reaction after reading the ending was this is either the most offensive or the most brilliant ending I've ever read. I'm going to assume that my reading reaction is the same as people's viewing reaction. So why was it offensive?

Critics that hated the film are saying they felt cheated. I think that's an ironic choice of words, considering that it proves the film accomplished exactly what it intended to accomplish. This movie was about 9/11 from the beginning. In the opening shot when you see Ally and her mother with the two towers in the background, there aren't two characters in that scene... there are three. New York City is treated as a character element throughout. There are other elements as well that foreshadow Tyler's eventual death (i.e. Greek Mythology book = Greek tragedy parallel). But the point is, none of the foreshadowing is obvious enough to an unknowing viewer to make them aware that Tyler will be in the WTC when the planes hit. They will be shocked, angry and surprised.

But here's the thing... those are the very same emotions that people felt on Sept. 11. They were shocked, angry and surprised. In fact, they were CHEATED. We as a viewer come to care for Tyler. We want him and Ally to work out and we want his relationships with his parents to continue to improve. That is essentially the purpose of every film, to create an emotional attachment to the characters. Usually when you kill that character, there is a negative response from the viewer who believes he is in good hands and then loses their tie to the movie. Audiences and critics felt cheated when they suddenly had to deal with the unexpected death of Tyler... just like thousands of New York families were cheated out of the lives of their dead loved ones.

So was it the right thing to do? Who knows. But the point I'm trying to make is that liking or hating it shouldn't be about whether the ending "makes sense" or is "fair." No, it isn't fair, and it was an unfair surprise. In doing that, though, the writer perfectly recaptured the feelings of the day and paid a tribute to what Gen. X and Y went through on that day. Sure, there were parts in the dialogue and the romance section that felt contrived and cliche. But to me, even that feels OK because in the high teens and low 20s, most students ARE contrived. Before 9/11, the youth of America felt untouchable, safe, bored and (for the most part) predictable. The dialogue could have improved, but it also served its purpose for creating a seemingly untouchable 20-something romance ready to be destroyed, true to a real Greek tragedy.

Unfortunately, even understanding that fact doesn't guarantee that you like it. You can get the point of the script and understand what it's doing and still hate having to be there. That's understandable too. There were people that turned off the news that day and people who kept it on all week. In a way, being a successful script in this case is almost a detriment to its box office staying power.

When I walked out of the movie (even knowing what had been coming), I couldn't help but think... but this could have been so much better if he had died some other way/if 9/11 hadn't been involved/if he hadn't died/etc. But by better, of course, I meant happier and something I would want to watch over and over. I don't want to watch this over and over. But I don't want to watch YouTube videos of the WTC crushing to the ground either. Only a few days after watching the movie, I revisited the script I had read months in advance and remembered how it made me feel that first time. I even remember looking up news coverage from that day on YouTube after I finished reading.

This film is unlike any other 9/11 film that has been made. Unlike World Trade Center and United 93, the viewer doesn't necessarily know what they are getting into. It isn't a tribute to the firefighters, deaths, heroes, etc. It's a tribute to the emotions and the lessons we learned. I learned my lesson, and whether you like or hate the movie you re-learned yours too.