Donnie Darko question

[shiznitz]

Is this movie just about a kid with strange powers of perception, or does his death actually accomplish anything? Is he laughing at the end because now he knows he is not alone? He didn't die to save Gretchen since she wouldn't have died in the first place.

I feel like the movie tried to appear more clever than it actually is. I just don't get what the deus ex machina was trying to accomplish with the time loop.

[Ironwood]

Oh God, why not just post about 'does God exist' ?

It's far easier to answer.

I came up with 3 interpretations of the film myself.  There are thousands more on the net.

I like to think that Noah and Drew were Angels.  Makes it easier.

Also, you can't really take the 'did he save anyone' tack at all, since the time in the movie is Moebius.  Kind of.

Arg.

Child Molestors for teh win.

[shiznitz]

Ok that is actually very helpful. Basically, the writer/director came up with a cool idea and ran with it, leaving it purposefully vague as to what the hell he was doing. In fact, he probably didn't have anything specific in mind himself. Got it.

Very enjoyable movie, though. Good performances by all and some interesting camera/lighting work.

[Rasix]

He didn't die to save Gretchen since she wouldn't have died in the first place.

Umm, she did get ran over by a Camaro (or was it a Firebird).   I'm pretty sure she would have died from that.  It's not like it ran over her foot, it plowed over her abdomen.

[Samwise]

Donnie's death saved the universe.

It's all in Roberta Sparrow's book.

[HaemishM]

I haven't seen it yet, but the director's cut is supposedly easier to follow. Also, try listening to the commentary from the director on either version, it could give you a lot of clues about what he thought when making it.

[shiznitz]

He didn't die to save Gretchen since she wouldn't have died in the first place.

Umm, she did get ran over by a Camaro (or was it a Firebird).   I'm pretty sure she would have died from that.  It's not like it ran over her foot, it plowed over her abdomen.

Obviously.

I meant she wouldn't have died at all if Donnie wasn't pursuing the phenomenon in the first place. I originally saw the time loop as purposefully imposed for a reason I could not fathom. Now I see the time shift as an anomaly that DD was chosen to repair. In that light, her death is not an event imposed by omnipotent design which DD's death pointlessly corrects (since it wouldn't have happened without him in the first place) with his own, but a result of DD's efforts to correct the original displacement.

[MaceVanHoffen]

I haven't seen it yet, but the director's cut is supposedly easier to follow. Also, try listening to the commentary from the director on either version, it could give you a lot of clues about what he thought when making it.

I loved the theatrical release.  It creeped me out so much that I had to watch two or three more times.  However, the director's cut left me flat.  Part of the appeal to the movie (for me) was its vagueness and ambiguity.  The director's cut removed some of each, making it less enjoyable.

[Samwise]

I agree, Mace.  I liked some of the bits they added, but they were for the most part present as deleted scenes on the original DVD anyway.  The original version just "flowed" better.

Re: Gretchen's death, I think it was necessary insofar as it pushed Donnie to do what had to be done.  Just like Frank's death was necessary so that he could go back in the time loop and appear to Donnie as the giant bunny rabbit.  (See "Manipulated Dead" in Philosophy of Time Travel.  Frank created an Ensurance Trap for Donnie that Gretchen was an integral part of.)

[voodoolily]

I'm frankly surprised at all of you, having this discussion so late in the game.

Gretchen doesn't die, because she is run over by the bitchin' camaro in Donnie's afterlife reality. His afterlife is strangely similar to his actual life, which is why he didn't know that he was already dead. Hell, the whole movie could take place in the split-second between when his ass passed through his brain and when his brain died (the "whole life passing before one's eyes" bit).

Obviously, how could his mother and sister be on the plane that destroyed his house? The time loop thing makes the movie wonderfully oblique, hence the culture of analyzing Donnie Darko. Killer soundtrack, too, but doesn't actually have any of the music from the movie (it's the theatrical score). I ran out and bought the Tears for Fears record the next day.

[Samwise]

Donnie wasn't killed by his ass going through his head, he was impaled through the chest by a piece of falling debris (deleted scene from the DVD).   

The jet engine that fell on the house at the end of the movie was an artifact from the Tangent Universe, which Donnie had to send back in order to save the Primary Universe.

The Artifact and the Living

When a Tangent Universe occurs, those living nearest to the Vortex will find themselves at the epicenter of a dangerous new world.

Artifacts provide the first sign that a Tangent Universe has occured.

If an Artifact occurs, the Living will retrieve it with great interest and curiosity. Artifacts are formed from metal, such as an Arrowhead from an Ancient Mayan civilization, or a Metal Sword from Medieval Europe.

Artifacts returned to the Primary Universe are often linked to religious iconography, as their appearance on Earth seems to defy logical explanation.

Divine intervention is deemed the only logical conclusion for the appearance of the Artifact.

The Living Receiver

The Living Receiver is chosen to guide the Artifact into position for its journey back to the Primary Universe.

So even after Donnie preserves the Primary Universe by preventing the vortex from happening there (which prevents the jet engine from being torn off the plane, which prevents the crash), the jet engine remains as the sole artifact from the Tangent Universe.  The website goes into a bit more detail by showing the FAA report (hinted at in one of the early scenes in the movie), which indicates that the jet engine was shown to match exactly an existing engine on an existing plane, which never suffered any mishap.

Ancient myth tells us the Mayan Warrior killed by an Arrowhead that had fallen from a cliff, where there was no Army, no enemy to be found.

We are told of the Medieval Knight mysteriously impaled by the sword he had not yet built.

We are told that these things occur for a reason.

[Ironwood]

Yup, I knew this was going to happen....

[Samwise]

Clearly you are psychic.

Will you give me some stock tips?

[Ironwood]

No, you don't deserve them.

The trouble, you see, with Donnie Darko is that it's a truly excellent and thought provoking film, open to a wide variety of interpretations - as all good art SHOULD be.  The reason that's a problem is that people think it can be broken down to the simple question 'what's all that about then ?'.

I don't want to come over all 'Schild' about this (  ) but there's little to no point in jumping away to other versions of the film, or books on the film, or even websites on the film.  And yes, there was an official website that went with the film.  It doesn't add terribly much to a discussion.

My wife, for example, knows how I feel about this movie (it's staggeringly brilliant and if you haven't seen it and liked it, you should be ashamed.  Heh) and so she bought me some books and stuff on it at Christmas.  The problem was, after I'd read them I still liked my own views of the film better.  I listened to the audio commentaries too and while they were insightful I found them too full of authorial fallacy to take seriously.  Yeah, I know, four years of English at Stirling Uni will do that to a man.  Just waiting for Gulp to jump in and call me a 'wank'.

Basically, I don't think that Donnie Darko has ANY easy questions to pose.  I even have to restrain myself from jumping on the simple phrase 'time loop', since, to me, it wasn't.

But hey, Noah and Drew both looked fucking stunning, so it worked for both the wife and me....


(No stock tips - but always bet on black.  Wesley Snipes told me that.)

[schild]

You're not going to "come all over "schild"" about anything. And I'm not a verb. Nor can you make me a verb. That and everyone is passionate about something. I just happen to be passionate about movies.

Donnie Darko is incredibly good and open to interpretation. But the director did make the movie with something in mind. After all, someone had to fund the movie. That's where film and fine art (painting, etc), take different roads. Once someone with money becomes involved, the film has to serve a purpose on paper. I think what most are asking, when they ask about Donnie Darko, is "What purpose, in the director's mind, did this film serve on paper? What interesting bit got this movie money?"

We, unfortunately, may never know the answer to that question. Particularly in the case of this gem.

[Ironwood]

Donnie Darko is incredibly good and open to interpretation. But the director did make the movie with something in mind. After all, someone had to fund the movie. That's where film and fine art (painting, etc), take different roads. Once someone with money becomes involved, the film has to serve a purpose on paper. I think what most are asking, when they ask about Donnie Darko, is "What purpose, in the director's mind, did this film serve on paper? What interesting bit got this movie money?"

Really ?  I never think in terms of that.
I think it got the money because some idiot thought it would be a remake of Harvey.

 

[voodoolily]

And I'm not a verb. Nor can you make me a verb.

I love to quote this, since my favorite book by R. Buckminster Fuller is I Seem to be a Verb. That is all.

[voodoolily]

Really ?  I never think in terms of that.
I think it got the money because some idiot thought it would be a remake of Harvey.

 

Hi! Me again. I think it may partially have flown because of the aforementioned awesome soundtrack. People in our generation (and a little earlier) are whores for nostalgia for the 80s. I know that sounds a bit obtuse, but whatevs. Also, people love a good mindfuck (e.g., the success of David Lynch films).

[Samwise]

I'd like to point out here that Philosophy of Time Travel isn't something that some random fan of the movie put together.  It was included on the DVD, and sections of it are quoted directly in the director's cut.  There isn't a lot of speculation involved in connecting what it says to the movie - it's actually spelled right out in black and white.

Like I said, I liked the theatrical release better, for that reason - I enjoyed wildly speculating about the plot with my friends right after I saw it for the first time.  After you're done wildly speculating, though, it is nice to be able to answer the question "okay, so what did the author really have in mind there?"

[Ironwood]

"okay, so what did the author really have in mind there?"

Which is fine.  But it's not a valid question.  Modern Critical Theory hates you.

[Samwise]

Modern Critical Theory can suck my left nut.  ONLY the left one.  It's not worthy of the right one.

I understand the theory of taking a piece of art solely on its own merits rather than trying to deconstruct it and figure out what the author was thinking (one of my favorite professors would rail against people who deconstruct Shakespeare, saying that it makes as much sense as deconstructing a sunset), but in this particular case, I find the "backstory" interesting in and of itself.  Philosophy of Time Travel is the Silmarillion to Donnie Darko's LotR.  Except much much much shorter.

[Ironwood]

Modern Critical Theory can suck my left nut.  ONLY the left one.  It's not worthy of the right one.

I understand the theory of taking a piece of art solely on its own merits rather than trying to deconstruct it and figure out what the author was thinking (one of my favorite professors would rail against people who deconstruct Shakespeare, saying that it makes as much sense as deconstructing a sunset), but in this particular case, I find the "backstory" interesting in and of itself.  Philosophy of Time Travel is the Silmarillion to Donnie Darko's LotR.  Except much much much shorter.

You'll note that I personally am not disagreeing with you.  That said, I've read, watched and digested the 'other' material and I still think that the film stands on its own.

But enough of this.  Before too long the wife will come on demanding who the idiot was that got me watching it again and again and again.