In this blog post, I’ll examine the film ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ to explore whether love is a form of self-hypnosis achieved through the learning of memories, or whether it persists due to some force that cannot be explained by memories and hormones alone. I’ll also consider, from a psychoanalytic perspective, whether the erasure of memories can lead to the erasure of love.
Love Is Self-Hypnosis Through the Learning of Memories!
There’s a term called “long-time lovers.” Two people meet and fall in love. As time passes, they come to know each other incredibly well. They know her musical tastes, her manner of speaking and body language, whether she likes her coffee sweet, and even how her dimples appear when she smiles. Sometimes, they reaffirm their love through memories, strengthening their bond by reminiscing, “That’s how it was back then,” and thus sustaining their love.
Butterflies in the stomach give way to familiarity, and the intense feelings of love experienced at the beginning gradually transform into something different as time goes on. Nevertheless, the relationship continues under the banner of love.
Some analyses suggest that love is a phenomenon akin to a temporary illusion caused by an excess of hormone secretion. While it is true that various neurochemical and biological processes—such as dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin—are known to be involved in love and attachment, it cannot be concluded that a single hormone determines the “expiration date” of love. In the past, it was widely believed that feelings of love naturally fade after a certain period due to hormonal changes, but current research does not explain love and attachment in terms of a single hormone or a fixed timeframe. While changes related to oxytocin do occur when we start a new relationship, these levels do not simply disappear after a few months; they are linked to various factors, such as relationship dynamics and the formation of attachment.
So what is it that allows the long-term couples we commonly see around us to maintain their relationships? How is it possible for love to last for such an extended period that it cannot be explained solely by hormonal changes? Is there truly a “shelf life” of love determined by the secretion of a specific hormone, and if we can continuously stimulate that secretion through physical affection or other methods, does that mean we can freely determine the shelf life of love? Is the true nature of the love we dream of really nothing more than a chemical game orchestrated by our genes?
There is a theory known as “memory theory.” It is a perspective that views memory as playing a crucial role in understanding human identity. The memories we acquire enable us to use language, choose what we like, and even play musical instruments. Much of what defines where I live and who I am is shaped by past experiences, memories, and repetitive learning.
Based on this perspective on memory, I would like to propose a hypothesis to refute the claim that “love is simply a chemical trick.” That hypothesis is that love is the result of self-hypnosis achieved through the learning of memories.
During the time we are in love, we learn about the object of our affection, and we even learn about the version of ourselves that loves that person. That learning is then stored and accumulated within us in the form of memories, and these memories are continuously repeated, surfacing in our consciousness and emotions. The feeling that “I love this person” is a process of self-hypnosis, in which I continuously remember and reflect on the version of myself who loved that person in the past.
The beautiful moments we refer to as “memories” cause me to recall how things were back then. And thoughts such as “We were happy back then,” “We were in love,” and “I love her” become imprinted on us as a form of self-suggestion, acting as a force that sustains love. From a perspective that accepts this hypothesis, we can further establish another premise: erasing the memories that trigger this self-suggestion could make it possible to completely erase love itself.
Through ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’, I seek to explore the validity of this hypothesis and find an answer to the question, “Does erasing memories mean erasing love?”
Memories Are Selfish
First, let’s examine what “memory”—the foundation of all these hypotheses—actually is, using examples depicted in the film.
The film’s protagonists, Joel and Clementine, are an ordinary couple like those we commonly see around us. They loved each other passionately, but their love gradually faded, and they eventually broke up due to frequent arguments and personality clashes. Joel goes to see her to apologize, but finds that she no longer recognizes him.
In this scene, we can observe the attribute of memory’s “weight.” While a single event leaves some kind of mark on the people who shared it, people do not remember it in an objective or complete form; rather, they recall it based on their individual impressions and experiences. Therefore, simply because two people shared an event does not mean they remember it identically. This nature of memory explains why the “weight of memory” differs from person to person. In other words, even the same event may be meaningful to one person, while to another it is merely accumulated as disposable information or forgotten; what is a happy memory for one person may be a source of pain for another. These personal interpretations of the same phenomenon demonstrate just how self-centered memory can be. This is because we do not remember everything in the same way; rather, we focus our memories on what was important and meaningful to us.
Joel and Clementine shared the same experience—the time they spent in love—but the weight of those memories differed for each of them. The difference in the weight of memory for the two is revealed in the fact that she decided it was acceptable to erase her time with him, while Joel sought to restore their relationship. Here, we also realize that Joel’s sense of betrayal upon learning that she had erased her memories does not feel like someone else’s story.
The More He Tries to Erase Her, the More She Remains
Joel decides to delete his own memories, now tainted by betrayal and pain, and it is only then that we truly begin to see, on screen, the nature of memory and the impact it has on us.
As explained earlier, memory is personal and self-serving. Joel’s memories, too, belong solely to him. The items Joel brings to Lacuna Inc. to have his memories erased are also things that have taken on meaning through his own choices. Lacuna Inc. constructs a mind map based on these items and enters Joel’s memories in the form of a dream to erase them. This process of memory erasure is projected to Joel as a dream, and within it, he finds himself in a state of conscious awareness, watching his memories being erased.
As he experiences the memories being erased—not as an individual subject but as a character within those memories, thereby taking on a distinct personality—Joel experiences the memory erasure even more vividly.
Clementine, whom he hates so much. Yet, the more his memories are erased, the more Joel recalls his feelings of love, plunging him into a profound sense of loss and regret. He eventually tries to escape the relentless process of memory erasure.
Clementine appears to possess a consciousness of her own within Joel’s memories. She tries to escape with him, and the Clementine in his memories still loves him and grieves over being erased. What we must keep in mind here is that the Clementine in his memories is not the real Clementine. The real Clementine is living her own life, having already erased her memories of Joel. So who, then, is this Clementine who refuses to be forgotten and grieves alongside Joel?
From a Freudian psychoanalytic perspective, Clementine can be seen as a projection of Joel’s repressed emotions and desires. She—who flees with him and grieves as her memory is erased—is precisely the image of her that Joel desires and wishes to remember; in other words, she is another Clementine reconstructed within Joel’s memory. Although Freud’s theory posits that experiences or emotions we cannot consciously recall may emerge through unconscious processes, this does not mean that all memories are perfectly preserved.
Let’s revisit the “learning hypothesis of love memories” mentioned earlier. We can see evidence supporting this hypothesis even in this memory-erasure process. Joel is clearly someone who, by erasing his memories of love for Clementine, resolved to erase love itself. Although he declared a complete end to love, he finds himself caught in the irony that, as his memories are erased, conflicting feelings of love resurface.
We can analyze that the regeneration of these feelings of love shown here stems from the contradictory situation in which Joel, during the process of memory erasure, is actually undergoing the process of learning memories all over again. The memories projected into his dreams remind him once again of how deeply he loved Clementine. If we assume the hypothesis that love is a form of self-hypnosis achieved through the learning of memories, then this manifestation of memories can be seen as being imprinted on Joel once more in the form of self-suggestion, leading him to realize that he is in love again.
It can be argued that the love, which was inadvertently re-imprinted upon him in the very act of erasing memories to eliminate love, is both the reason Joel refused to have his memories erased and the principle of love we discussed earlier.
If the film were to end this way, my hypothesis would hold weight—at least within the context of this film—but the film soon begins to reveal another hypothesis of love that refutes this one.
Hormones, Memory, and Destiny
The full-scale clash of hypotheses is expressed through the character of Patrick, who appears in the film alongside the vision of love advocated by ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’. Patrick works as a technical assistant at Lacuna Inc. and falls in love at first sight with Clementine when she arrives to have her memories erased. Aware of Joel and Clementine’s relationship and the fact that they erased each other’s memories, he absorbs Joel’s words and the locations tied to their memories. He then attempts to make Clementine fall in love with him by leveraging the image of Joel that remains in her memory. However, she senses something amiss in Patrick’s actions, which are designed to induce relearning through memories of love. Patrick tries to recreate experiences similar to those she had with Joel by using words and actions reminiscent of him, but that alone is not enough to make her fall in love with him.
According to my hypothesis, she should react to Patrick’s actions. This is because Patrick’s behavior, reminiscent of Joel, is meant to serve as a catalyst to trigger her memories and induce her to relearn the emotion of love. Yet, it does not work on her. Here, the film demonstrates that love is not formed solely by specific actions, words, situations, nuances, or atmospheres, but rather by the subject itself—the idea that “it’s because it’s that person” or “only that person”—thereby making what could be called a “fatalistic” argument.
The clash between my hypothesis and the film’s argument feels much like the opposition between empiricists and rationalists. Humans think and accumulate knowledge through experience; however, unlike the empiricist perspective—which viewed humans prior to experience as beings close to a blank slate—there is also a perspective that holds humans possess a rational and inner structure that cannot be explained by experience alone. The film applies this contrast to love. It suggests that love is not explained solely by hormones and learned memories but is formed by something from another realm. “How romantic is that?”
Just as the claim that humans are noble beings with souls resonates more deeply with people’s emotions and hearts than the explanation that they are simply living organisms composed mostly of water and countless bodily organs, the film also defends love by appealing to the audience’s emotions through a deterministic view of love.
Memories may fade, but love does not
The memory erasure process eventually concludes, and Joel is unable to prevent her from vanishing or his own memories from fading. Both Joel’s confession about Clementine—which he had fabricated—and her promise, “Remember me. Do your best. We can do this,” ultimately vanish. Returning to a state of blankness, he takes an unauthorized day off from work, driven by an inexplicable pull, and heads aimlessly to Montauk. There, he encounters Clementine. Though they do not recognize each other, they feel drawn to one another, and the audience, witnessing this, feels a sense of sadness at their repeated encounters and the fact that they truly do not recognize each other at all.
Faced with the questions of why he went back to Montauk and why he developed feelings for Clementine again, my hypothesis once more loses its validity.
According to my hypothesis, this entire situation must be a “coincidence.” This is because he has already erased all his memories and thus finds himself in a situation where he must reconstruct himself through new memories. Therefore, I must explain that he “coincidentally” went to Montauk again, “coincidentally” met her, and “coincidentally” fell in love with her all over again. In other words, even though he erased his memories and transformed into a new, blank version of himself, his behavior follows a pattern not significantly different from before the memory erasure. Since all of this must be viewed as coincidence, my hypothesis becomes trapped in a contradiction.
Regarding this phenomenon, the film argues that all of this is not “coincidence” but “necessity,” adhering to a fatalistic perspective that the two were meant to meet and had no choice but to do so. Through this, the film reaches its true message: “Even if memories are erased, love is not.”
To help achieve this goal, the film once again focuses not only on Joel and Clementine but also on the characters around them. As an example, it briefly depicts the love story between Mary and Dr. Howard. Mary, who has fallen in love with the married Howard, is a woman who has had her memories of their past relationship erased. Trapped in a tragic situation—working under Howard, the man she once loved, while her memories have been erased—she gradually begins to fall in love with him again, and eventually, their relationship unfolds in a manner indistinguishable from how it was before and after the memory erasure. Just as Joel headed to Montauk even after his memories were erased, this serves as a reminder that erasing memories alone cannot completely erase love.
Is it that her hormones are triggered whenever she sees Howard? Or is she wandering in an ambiguous state, unable to break free from a self-induced trance that is too powerful, even after her memories have been erased? All these arguments fall flat in the face of the assertion that love cannot be erased and that it is something that cannot be defined by hormones and memories alone.
Returning to Joel and Clementine, the film races toward its final climax. Due to the aforementioned leak of Mary’s secret—that is, the incident where she, having learned she herself was a victim of memory erasure, recognized the problems with the procedure and sent documents and tapes proving her existence to everyone whose memories had been erased—Joel and Clementine come to realize that they were once in love, and that it ended with them hurling insults at each other and erasing each other’s memories.
Shocked, betrayed, and hurt, Joel and Clementine seem to drift apart, their minds filled with confusion. Yet, perhaps because love is unstoppable, Joel reaches out to hold her back. In response to Clementine’s half-joking, half-serious warning—that he is flighty and headstrong, and that even if she likes him now, she’ll eventually grow tired of him—Joel smiles and says, “That’s fine.” “I’m fine with that,” he says.
These two people, who clearly loved each other in the past, broke up, and left each other with emotional scars, seem to vaguely know what kind of future awaits them. Yet, with a faint belief that “this time will be different,” they adopt an attitude of “I don’t know what the future holds, but I just want to love you.” Through this scene, perhaps we can’t yet clearly define what love is, but aren’t we at least clearly seeing how love works for us—in other words, the power of love?
That power transcends a frightening future and anxious worries, allowing us to brush them aside with a simple “Okay.” The ways of defining love are still so diverse, and no one has yet provided a clear answer. While we sometimes want to analyze love with a scientific, rational, and dispassionate standard, part of us wants to believe that love is something noble that cannot be fully explained by science. In fact, neuroscientific research on love and attachment has shown that neurobiological processes—including the reward system (such as dopamine) and substances like oxytocin and vasopressin—are involved; however, it is difficult to reduce love to a single substance or mechanism.
Reflecting this aspect of our psychology, the film gains the power to connect with audiences by presenting, in the end, the image of love we long to believe in.
Freud believed that content we cannot consciously recall in the human mind could be linked to unconscious processes. He explained that repressed experiences and emotions can surface through dreams or other mental processes. Therefore, we cannot assume that just because we have forgotten something, it has no influence on our minds. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that all experiences are perfectly stored in the unconscious in their unaltered form.
Is the rekindled love between Joel and Clementine due to memories they thought they had erased but which weren’t completely gone, and the influence of the unconscious? Or is there truly a force of fate connecting us with invisible threads? While there is no clear answer, this film makes us feel and believe once again—and makes us want to believe.
“Memories may fade, but love never does.”
