Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman and director Michel Gondry are the gifted duo behind the arresting Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the new film about lost love and memory erasure. It’s a surprisingly moving tale that bears all of the offbeat originality of Kaufman’s other sublime works and an unexpectedly bittersweet dimension that sneaks up on you. Music video director Gondry’s visual innovation is off the map in the film as is his effectively against-type casting that evokes sublime performances from Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet.

Lee Shoquist, Reel Movie Critic: Can you talk a bit about the idea for this film, how the two of you got on board together after Human Nature?

Charlie Kaufman, Screenwriter: Michel had a friend who had an idea, an artist, who had an idea of sending cards to be people saying that you’ve been erased from somebody’s memory, and ‘don’t call them anymore.’ And Michel came to me with that idea and asked me if I was interested in working out a story with that, and we did and we pitched it around town and we sold it, and I had to do another script first, so in the interim Michel was interested in directing Human Nature and so he did, and that was the start.

S: Michel, talk about the visual side of the film – it’s a departure from your first film, Human Nature.

Michel Gondry, Director: I always try to go into a direction that’s new for me and I don’t want to be attached to a visual style. I hope I have more to say that just something visual. There are a bunch of lessons I got from my first experience that I wanted to apply to this shoot. And we wanted to talk about- I wanted the memory to feel real.

This is why I decided to work with the DP, Ellen Kuras, because I saw this quality in her work, how she could capture very precise moments. I remember watching this movie she did about two killers; black and white; Swoon. I was not a big fan of the film, but I noticed a couple of shots- I felt I was there with them. It’s very difficult- maybe there is a bit of wind in the leaves. It’s very hard to define, but she really had it. And when I started to talk to her, I realized it’s because she was caring for the story, for the character—a lot of elements that are not directly related to the technique of the camera. A lot about what we all wanted to share, meaning the story of those two people. I spent maybe six weeks in New York, taking pictures in the suburbs, to know how people live.

S: Is the intention between the two of you to push the boundaries of reality each time out? Is there ever a point where anyone puts up the red flags and says ‘Hold on a minute. This is too out there, we can’t quite go there.’

G: Even between us it’s a conversation we have: How far can we go? Where do we lose the meaning? It’s hard to know. It’s a fine balance. I like to try different things every time I do something. But sometimes we are reminded that maybe people won’t understand. It’s an interesting process.

S: Charlie, is there an onus on you as a screenwriter since what you’ve done has really sort of revolutionized the definition of the Hollywood screenplay and what it can achieve? Do you feel you have to top yourself or do something that will shake up people’s expectations each time out?

K: I’m not really interested I topping myself. I’m interested in challenging myself. I’m not interested in the idea, ‘well, now I’ll do something to screw them up by doing something really straight.’ I don’t even think about other people when I’m writing. I think about what I’m interested in and how I can struggle with this idea to do something honest to me with it. And however that comes out, it comes out. I’m perfectly happy failing in my attempt, in fact I welcome it because I think you have to if you want to do something that’s original you have to embrace the idea of failure. So I do.

S: How about casting Carrey and Winslet? What were the deciding factors, and what are the specific challenges to making a film compelling when it’s told in such an unpredictable, non-linear fashion?

G: First for the casting. Jim was first interested in the script. Clementine was clearly the character I was like- we needed somebody that would have the strength to face Jim. So we met a lot of different actresses and it seemed that when I met with Kate, she had this energy, or determination to kind of not fight by like be there, and I really responded to her energy. She is a great actress. She doesn’t act- she doesn’t seem to be part of the movie star- it doesn’t make the movie look like a star vehicle. For some reason, with her she feels more real. And she’s very funny. I remembered her in this movie Holy Smoke, and she was really driving this guy nuts. After thinking of her and reading the script again and again, it seemed that she had to be Clementine. Jim, I really thought he was great because I believed him as being a child or an adult at the same time, and he doesn’t have the macho syndrome that a lot of these actors (have).

Q: Charlie, there’s a perception that you’ve got an impressive amount of control with your work in terms of flexing muscles to be able to select directors and exert more control than a screenwriter can traditionally possess.

K: It’s not true. I saw that in some article and I don’t know why it’s there. I’ve had the good fortune of working with two directors on four movies, whom I like and like working with. But I don’t think there’s any such thing; that power for a screenwriter. I probably have more say in it than a lot of people but I certainly don’t have that control.

Q: Charlie, do you have any aspirations beyond writing into the realm of directing?

K: I think I might try to direct something. I’m not sure. I think when I was younger I saw being the director as sort of ‘the thing,’ you know? So I don’t see it that way anymore. I see what I do as important. I like what I do I guess is what I’m saying, and it’s a struggle to be good at it. And it’s a struggle that I think is of value to me. So I guess what I was going to say is rather than taking the ‘next’ step in the food chain, I would think of it as rather taking on another job for the purpose of- not so much protecting my work, although that’s important, but it’s more to sort of see what something would look like if I directed it.

Q: To both of you, how important is organization in the creative process and what role can different levels of being organized play in turning out end products that are so sophisticated?

K: I think that maybe disorganization is helpful in that regard for me, because often if you know too much where you’re going and you can do it too expediently, then you’re going to go there. Where if I’m really stuck, and this happens a lot to me, I’m really stuck and I can’t think of anything for a week and a half, and then a week and a half later I think of an idea, and it’s because I’ve been thinking for a week and a half. And it’s like ‘Oh, my God! What would have happened if I came up with another idea a week and a half earlier? This movie would have gone in completely a different direction and I’m really glad that I got stuck.’ And that happens again and again to me. So I think that the combination of disorganization and a long time, maybe in my case, comes to a reasonable conclusion; a script conclusion. But I think being disorganized and having a week to write a whole script would be bad.

G: I think if everything is chaotic then there’s no- if everything is like organized with precision then you can be too clinical. So I think it’s really a balance. My mind is really messy. When I wake up I don’t even know what I’m supposed to do in the next five minutes. But then it comes to something with the camera or the actor, I can be so focused and I can explain to twenty different people what they have to do, without thinking. So I guess it’s a combination.

S: Michel, through your work with Bjork, White Stripes and many other artists, you’ve built a reputation as a "music video visionary." What can you say about your relationship to that world and being a film director?

G: I don’t feel I belong to the music video world though I’m doing quite okay in this medium. Being there, I was always rejected. Even in the beginning it took me years and years before I got (the) job. I was showing my animation film and people would laugh at me. So it’s hard to be defined to a group that never really accepted me. So I don’t feel I represent the world of music video. Even when I work with Bjork, it’s more like we’re sharing the need to do stuff that is different from other music people. I don’t know. Maybe you can draw a conclusion. I never had a short film that was accepted into a short film festival. I never got financing to do a short film. I wrote scripts and stuff and nobody cared.

S: Obviously the idea of making a film about lost memories could go in a million different directions. Why the focus on relating lost memory to lost love?

K: Because immediately when we started talking about it that is what was interesting to us. And I kind of think, in reflection, the reason is because that’s something that’s real. And we didn’t want the movie to be a spy movie or- because then it becomes about the memory erasing. We wanted to use the memory erasing to tell a story about something that was actual, and this is something that we could identify with.

G: Before I started with Charlie I had a conversation with a couple of producers and writers and it was all about finding a plot that the guy has a secret, it has been erased, people are trying to kill him. It was like, no, that’s not what I want to do. I want to do something human. It’s fascinating to me that you can be attracted, then not attracted by the same person. I don’t know why most movies are about things that we don’t experience in life. I’ve never been faced by a gun in my entire life. We see most movies with a gun in them. I’ve seen one person dead in my life—it was my father. I see so many dead people in movies and sometimes you really, just by trying to talk about what we experience in life it can be so original.