Very good movie. It is interesting how Kaufman trades off believability for weirdness. Like, to get the payoff of a movie where a person is running through memories trying to save them from deletion, and all the fun you can have with that (and all the poignancy), you have to suspend disbelief in a number of matters:
1) That a memory-erasing service really exists and works (like a person's friends would go along with the service rather than try to satisfy their curiosity about why the person did it, as one example.)
2) That such a service can be so quick and affordable that the characters can do it on a spur of the moment whim.
3) That the receptionist at the memory place could have had an affair with her boss erased (um...how odd would it be for her to go to work with all memories of her boss erased? How would that even work? It wouldn't, even if you can accept that such a memory erasing service could work.)
Anyway, it is a recurring gimmick, to trade off some original, trippy approach to story-telling for a certan level of belief-suspension. I mean, I still like it.
Like Human Nature was amazing, a great approach to a commentary on human nature (maybe my favorite Kaufman movie still). But it asks you to suspend disbelief that a boy left alone in the woods in North America could grow to adulthood in the wild, that such a boy could then be taken by a scientist and used as an experimental subject, could learn complex civilized speech and behavior patterns in a matter of months just from basic negative reinforcement techniques (electroshocks), could get a hearing before Congress to lecture them on how civilization has turned people immoral, etc. But suspending your disbelief on all the stuff that obviously is phony is worth the payoff.
It is also sort of a shell game. If the setting is weird enough, you will be so off base you may not notice all the phoniness that would otherwise stand out like a red flag. So Kaufman uses sleight of hand by making his scripts weird enough that you fail to notice the parts of the story that are fundamentally dishonest. I suppose he is trading surface dishonesty for deeper honesty in commenting on life and people and relationships.
I wonder if he could keep the weirdness and lose the dishonesty? That would be quite an achievement (Adaptation might come close.)
~psychoblast~