"I'm voting for Dukakis!"
October 27, 2004 9:01 PM   Subscribe

Donnie Darko in his mind's eye. (One little boy, one little man) A pretty rad article on Donnie Darko, one of my favorite movies.
posted by hughbot (29 comments total)
 
While I personally prefer Richard Kelly's more sci-fi take on the movie, Emerson's take is pretty cool. I like his point about art standing on its own.

Donnie Darko is such a strange, dense movie. It's the sort of thing, that if you like it, you want to tell all your freinds about it, and at the same time, you want to keep it all to yourself.

I think that people feel a certain level of ownership to it (especially on the Internets), as if they discovered it, and no one else gets it like they do.
posted by hughbot at 9:33 PM on October 27, 2004


I read this the other day. It was really in depth and outstanding. Who knows how close Ebert's theory is to unlocking the secrets of the movie, but it does shine a little light on parts that confounded me for the last couple years.

I still don't get the part where Donnie can see where people are going to walk to with the Abyss-like things shooting out of their chests.
posted by graventy at 9:33 PM on October 27, 2004


I think that people feel a certain level of ownership to it (especially on the Internets), as if they discovered it, and no one else gets it like they do.

I see that quite a bit. It's the 'hip' movie to like, like Trainspotting and Fight Club before it. To be Frank, I've been pretty damn tired of hearing about Donnie Darko, but after reading Ebert's take on the movie I'll probably pick it up again just to see what I had missed before.
posted by graventy at 9:36 PM on October 27, 2004


Ebert didn't write this. Jim Emerson, the editor of rogerebert.com did.
posted by hughbot at 9:43 PM on October 27, 2004


I really need to watch this film again. and again.

fate, up against your will...
posted by dorian at 9:51 PM on October 27, 2004


Great, now maybe he can explain Primer.
posted by euphorb at 12:22 AM on October 28, 2004


Great, thorough Salon piece (reg req'd) on DD, that lays out the whole time-travel/alternate reality aspect of the film. The director's commentary on the DVD is pretty much required listening/viewing.

What is, IMHO, the best thing about the movie is also its most maddening- on its own, the movie makes little sense as a complete work. You can certainly appreciate it- the direction, acting (except Drew Barrymore), and general uniqueness of it all, but the gist of the plot is never explained. To understand the core work, you have to delve into the periphery (the web site, the director's commentary). It's not simply a movie, but an entirely new kind of fiction that crosses several media.
posted by mkultra at 2:07 AM on October 28, 2004


Really good piece, thanks for posting it. I'm going to have to go back and watch the original again pretty soon.
posted by davebushe at 2:38 AM on October 28, 2004


The concept of Gretchen being an imaginary friend is interesting. I'll have to watch again for that, but the rest of this just shows that some people are waaaaay too fixated on sex.
posted by twine42 at 2:38 AM on October 28, 2004


Listening to this with the FoxyVoice firefox extension and Ennio Morricone's Moses Theme playing in the background is a very very strange experience.
posted by nthdegx at 4:03 AM on October 28, 2004


Well the first three pages of that Salon piece are just a regurgitation of the story... skip to page 4.
posted by nthdegx at 4:38 AM on October 28, 2004


I enjoyed his take on the movie. The whole idea that he's obsessed with his sister never occurred to me before. There are a few scenes that I want to take a closer look at now.

One minor issue - he kept referring to Grandma Death as "Rebecca" Sparrow. Wasn't her name Roberta?
posted by MsVader at 5:24 AM on October 28, 2004


Eh, interesting theory, but I don't buy it.
posted by ashbury at 5:24 AM on October 28, 2004


It's not simply a movie, but an entirely new kind of fiction that crosses several media.
posted by mkultra at 10:07 AM GMT on October 28


Much as I enjoy the film, I can't see that it's a new type of fiction. It is merely a film that is not as formulaic as many other mainstream hits, one which doesn't resolve all its plot lines and over-simplify all its themes.

In addition many other films, books, etc are illuminated by additional critical material released by the author, director etc.
posted by johnny novak at 6:12 AM on October 28, 2004


In addition many other films, books, etc are illuminated by additional critical material released by the author, director etc.

I disagree with this point, or at least challenge you to back it up. There are, to be sure, plenty of works that benefit from additional knowledge gleaned from outside the work itself- the endless references of The Simpsons are a good example. But I'm not aware of another single work that is impossible to understand without looking outside itself.
posted by mkultra at 6:17 AM on October 28, 2004


I thought it was fairly easily understandable. I've never read the website, or listened to the directors commentaries. Its hardly that oblique.
posted by ZippityBuddha at 6:50 AM on October 28, 2004


I just watched Donnie Darko for the first time two weeks ago. It was good. I think the psycho-sexual subtext is more interesting than either the mental illness or sci-fi time-travel readings of the film. So, I liked this article.
I can't believe they cut Echo and the Bunnymen from the opening scene.

To paraphrase Mefite #1, It's always about Chicks.
posted by putzface_dickman at 7:02 AM on October 28, 2004


But I'm not aware of another single work that is impossible to understand without looking outside itself.

Repo Man gets pretty incomprehensible, at the end.

l'Age d'Or would also be somewhat difficult to comprehend without knowing a thing or two about surrealism.

It's not unusual to enjoy films without understanding them.
posted by sfenders at 7:14 AM on October 28, 2004


..actually, further random web surfing tells me that l'Age d'Or was originally accompanied by a written manifesto. So, that's not exactly a new idea.
posted by sfenders at 7:21 AM on October 28, 2004


Off the top of my head both Lanark by Alistair Gray and ASWOHG by Dave Eggars include critical sections about the main work. Many writers and directors write and talk about their work.

I'm not sure what you mean by impossible to understand, but have you tried reading Finnegan's Wake?
posted by johnny novak at 7:31 AM on October 28, 2004


I should say that after I saw it I didn't care to sort out the film methodically like this article did or the Salon article did. Although, knowing that other people had is why I wanted to see it in the first place. I'm more impressed by the artifact than its interpretations.

Finally, apropos of nothing, Lost Highway is much better than Mulholland Drive.
posted by putzface_dickman at 7:37 AM on October 28, 2004


I actually didn't hate the Directors Cut as much as I expected to. (see also: previous posts)
posted by shoepal at 8:03 AM on October 28, 2004


(p.s. interesting article, but that guy needs a copy editor.)
posted by shoepal at 8:15 AM on October 28, 2004


I tried to post this last night at about 3am but was getting JRuns:

I thought the article was terrible. Seems like it was written by a 16 year old.

The author pulls the theory that "everything's in Donnie's head" out of his ass and then runs with it as if just saying it makes it true. Then he feeds that interpretation by taking things from the film and saying they're what a nerd thinks (he's the sexual savior, etc etc).

Where is he getting his information from? I haven't seen the re-released version but I thought it only had minor changes. I haven't committed the film to memory or anything but these claims seem preposterous to me:

He's sexually fixated on his older sister and can't admit it -- even to himself.

...

"He yearns to be recognized as a sexual being, but as far as girls are concerned he seems to be flying beneath their sexual radar,"


WTF? From what I recall, the only plot line that has to do with a "girl" (as opposed to a sister) is when Gretchen comes in the class and is told to sit next to the guy she thinks is cutest and she chooses Donnie. Hardly under the radar. She then becomes his girlfriend. What the hell is this guy talking about? (Oh, wait, he just sweeps this scene under the rug by saying it of course takes place in Donnie's head!)

But look closely as Donnie examines the old school picture of Rebecca Sparrow. If that's not Maggie Gyllenhaal, it sure looks like her.

Um, no it doesn't. Doesn't look anything like her except they're both brunette.

And suggesting that Taxi Driver, Eyes Wide Shut and Citizen Kane all take place inside the protag's head...? (I mean, I guess you could argue it for the first two, but it would be a pretty weak argument.)

When Donnie taunts Elizabeth about how to "suck a f---k" while miming that he's "all ears" -- well, whether he knows it or not, he's conjuring up a prescient image of Frankenbunny, whom he no doubt imagines engaging in all kinds of polymorphously perverse activities with his sister.

Please. It's theorists like this that made me hate film theory at school. He's reading so much into the film that he's starting to think he's not touting a theory but explaining what everyone saw.
posted by dobbs at 8:20 AM on October 28, 2004


that guy needs a copy editor

Ironic, since I believe he IS an editor.
posted by hughbot at 8:25 AM on October 28, 2004


Yeah, this guy makes a lot of fodder out of nothing. He's listened to the DVD commentary, so he knows that the "Married....with Children" reference only made it in because Alyssa Milano (of the decidedly more S&M psycho-sexual reference "Who's the Boss?") wouldn't allow her name to be used. One gets the feeling that no matter which tv show/teenage actress had been referenced, he would have found a way to spin it into his sister-theory, which pretty much de-bunks any relevence it might have. Elizabeth's Halloween costume was actually replica of the outfit worn by Claire Quilty's girlfriend in Kubrick's Lolita. I can't seem to make that jibe with the sister theory - and perhaps the author couldn't either, since he doesn't mention it.

I agree with mkultra - the gist of the movie isn't explained in the film itself. At the end, there's no way you can say, "Oh yeah. Donnie used his telekinesis to rip the engine off his mother's plane and save the world." Even if you think Donnie's imagining his telekinesis, or dreaming his telekinesis - there's no way to understand what's happening.
posted by junkbox at 10:02 AM on October 28, 2004


The things coming out of people's chests: Blatant reference to Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5, the aliens that can see in four dimensions see humans as something like a centepede.

I disagree with mkultra actually. I think it is Umberto Eco who talks about the difference between closed narratives and open narratives. Open narratives are more demanding on the audience because they don't tie everything up into a neat little package, but potentially are more rewarding because you can develop multiple interpretations of what is "really" happening. I think the question of whether we are seeing actual time travel, or a redemption fantasy that happens in the seconds before Donnie dies (ala Lulu on the Bridge or Jacob's Ladder), is not that important.

I didn't find that the additional material was all that helpful, and I didn't find it to be particularly hard to understand.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:08 PM on October 28, 2004


on its own, the movie makes little sense as a complete work

i disagree completely. it made pretty good sense to me, and i've only seen the original version once (years ago)

in brief: Donnie accidentally slips outside of "God's time channel" and throws current events into turmoil, which is only resolved by his acceptance of death. very good movie, somewhat ruined (imo) by the lame-ass musical montages.

i've never heard the director's commentary. this analysis is OK, but stretches quite thin in lots of places. one gaping hole: if Gretchen is imaginary, why does she exist at the end (or the beginning, timewise), when Donnie's dead?

everything is open to personal interpretation, however. whatever works for you.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:37 PM on October 28, 2004


Donnie accidentally slips outside of "God's time channel" and throws current events into turmoil, which is only resolved by his acceptance of death.

Erm, no. The jet engine slips from the Primary Universe, not Donnie.

There doesn't seem to be any reason why Donnie had to die for the engine to be returned (though the same can't be said for Frank's Ensurance Trap, aka Gretchen). He could just as easily have gone to sleep in the golf course after returning the Artifact to the Primary Universe. Like everybody else, he probably thought he was waking from a bad dream when the engine finally hit him, and so become just one more piece of collatoral damage from the Primary Universe's repair process.

Then again, The Philosophy of Time Travel does indicate that the Mayan Warrior and the Noble Knight were slain by Artifacts, and that "these things occur for a reason." It could be construed that the death of the Living Receiver is the final element of the repair job, though I'm not sure why this would be so (the Manipulated Dead and the Ensurance Trap seem to be allowed to live, for example), and I'm not sure that the Receiver's acceptance has a lot to do with it, either. See here.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 7:07 PM on October 31, 2004


« Older Boston Red Sox 86 their curse   |   I have a feeling we're not in Christchurch anymore... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments