joeydaninja

i haven't had time read all the other posts yet
but here is my answer to the question



the old lady

maxfisher

If you look at a lot of good science fiction, it's based on science fact and/or theory that the average person probably isn't familiar with. I don't think Donnie Darko was based around a fictional book. I believe it was based on a mixture of current theories on time travel. I think the director put the book together so that those unfamiliar with the theories could read over it and get the gist pretty quickly instead of having to go out and do real research to get the movie. I haven't heard of the manipulated living or manipulated dead, but I had heard theories about the other things in the book.

Anyway, in the commentary the director states something to the effect that he understood when making the film that it had multiple interpretations. The "clue book" is handy if you want to know what the director's interpretation is, but you can come up with your own, that's just as valid, simply by watching the movie itself.

fmian

I just have to add to this thread to put in my own thoughts on things people have said.

Geoff H

I picked up something interesting with regards to the purpose of the Drew Barrymore character after seeing this for the first time last week.

Consider the three teachers that are seen in the movie: the Noah Wyle (sp?) science teacher, the somewhat fanaticle gym teacher (with the Fear-Love spectrum thing), and Barrymore's English teacher.

One of the most interesting bits of dialogue in the film, I thought, was when the science teacher refused to discuss religion/time-travel with Donnie for fear of losing his job (I assume he felt he couldn't conitnue the discussion any further because he would have to delve into personal beliefs, which, I suppose, is kind've a no-no for high-school teachers).

On the other hand, we have the gym teacher, who seems to be trying very hard to inflict her own personal views of the world onto her students (by using the Fear-Love spectrum and the Cunningham videos).

I saw these two teachers as almost polar opposits, existing ironically within the same school. And to an extent, I think Barrymore's character kind've provides a 'link' between these two other teachers, in that one of her biggest scenes involves bringing up the concept of 'irony'.

I dunno, perhaps that's not an entirely sound interpretation, but I found that interesting nonetheless...

The Bus

First, I think that needing a book to really explain what is going on in a movie (especially when that book doesn't exist) is really dumb. I don't think Donnie Darko really falls in that trap.

Here's something that really hasn't been talked about... When Donnie is talking with Noah Wyle's character about

Tesiae

I'm hereby resurrecting this thread.

I just saw the movie twice this week, and I'm still pondering it. Sorry if anyone else has brought up this point.

I've seen it mentioned here that Frank saved Donnie's life by beckoning him to come outside right before the jet engine fell on his room. But see, the thing is that Donnie ALWAYS sleepwalked, even before the Tangent Universe was created. Chances are, Donnie would have been outside anyway.

Frank took the opportunity to "convince" Donnie that he had saved his life and make him more receptive to his commands. Frank used Donnie to set in motion the events seen in the film, which in the end compel the action that was needed to end the Tangent Universe: Donnie had to decide to be in his room.

Jeez, I have to think about this some more.

jim_cook87

I saw it last weekend and was intrigued by the movie. Halfway through I was really into it and thought it was on the way to being a great movie, but by the end my opinion had changed. Why? Because it leaves so much unanswered.

After looking at the supplemental material and reading this thread it all begins to make sense, but without this material there is no way of making the story make much sense. I agree, Magnolia, Animal Farm, et. al. do rely on some external knowledge to fully appreciate the movies, but it is not mandatory to understand the story. And the external material they hope you will bring into the film with you is real world information.

In the commentary and deleted scenes they explain many things that help make the movie make more sense or close some loose ends, terrible editing choices when you take out key information for the sake of time...

And I found that the "Philosophy of Time" book made the entire story make sense. But, that was a fictional work created for the sake of this movie. I don't think the Receiver, Manipulated, Endurance Trap, etc. has any basis in real world science or theory. It appears to be a construct to allow the plot, if not it is such esoteric knowledge it needed to be explained in the movie. I think little more time could've been spent on exposition , maybe reading that book, discussing what it said, having a conversation with Grandma Death, anything to give those few pieces of the puzzle that exist nowhere but in the director, writer, and actors heads...

And just to clarify, they didn't have to put all the information into one neat package and spoon feed the audience, they could have dropped a few extra crumbs throughout the movie and allowed the audience to connect the dots...

I don't need or want movies spelled out for me, I like a good movie that makes you think. But don't cheat by failing to provide the necessary information in the movie, unless the necessary pieces are something real or readily accessible like Russian History and the Bible...

Tesiae

Jim: I agree with you. The movie should have dropped hints as to its own philosophy about time travel. But alas it didn't and the poor viewer was left adrift in utter confusion. Regardless, I still liked the film. There are tons of little details you only catch upon second viewing.

One very, very loose thread that's simply left hanging is what the hell was the deal with Gretchen Ross' storyline? So her stepfather stabbed her mother in the chest four times, and now they change their names and move to another state. Okay. So on the night of October the 30th, she arrives at Donnie's house since her own home has been ransacked and her mother is now missing. Are we to assume her stepfather found them? How does he fit into the whole sheme of things?

Even though Gretchen survives in the end by product of never having met Donnie, isn't her stepfather's arrival and inevitability?
Wouldn't there exist the possibility that her life would be in greater danger because she would have no where to turn to?
I'm lost. Either this is a subtle statement about fate and paradoxes, or a half-baked ill-conceived plot thread.

Jericho

I think there's a simple answer and a more complicated answer to Donnie Darko. The Simple Answer is:

When the airplane engine traveled back in time it created a tangent universe (basic time travel theory). Donnie is selected to get everything back to the original tangent point (Oct 2) before the universe collapses on itself. Most of the stuff that happens just aids him on that journey.

The more complcated answer helps explain things more, but isn't 100% Logical

blkdragon6

Personally, I find nothing wrong with an enigmatic ending. Maybe the viewer really isn't supposed to know what's going on? Maybe the viewer is expected to use his or her own imagination while watching the film?

jim_cook87

You know I'd agree with you if it weren't for the information in the commentary track, the deleted scenes, and the "Philosophy of Time Travel" extra on the DVD.

hime

As for Gretchen, I can't tell you what happens to her, but looking at the bonus stuff on the DVD, Noah Wyle's teacher dies, Jim Cunningham disappears, things like that... so maybe she comes out OK, maybe she doesn't.

Here's something I've never seen you guys mention, but makes me smile - in her first meeting with Donnie, she says his name sounds like the name of a superhero - shortly after she tells him SHE PICKED "Gretchen Ross" because SHE THOUGHT IT SOUNDED COOL!

I think Richard Kelly is a damned genius. I'm reading _The Lovely Bones_ right now - he should totally direct a movie version of it, though it might get people thinking he can only do retro movies. I really can't wait for him to do another movie.

Also, is it me, or is Jake Gyllenha-whatever the new Parker Posey?

the aftermath

Here is my simple interpretation of the movie.



I'm probably talking out of my ass

Tesiae

hime: Interesting about Gretchen. I wonder what her real name was. I wish I would have known more about the circumstances surrounding her family.

aftermath: Why yes, yes you are. But your ass seems to be right.


Here's something to chew on: Although Donnie Darko does have a superhero sounding name ( first and surname beginning with a consonant ), there is another character in the film with a similar name: Cherita Chen. But her name oddly sounds more like an alter ego. I think that there's more to her that we saw in the movie. As if she were meant to be a backup in case Donnie's destiny never panned out.

hime

Why does Cherita speak such good English EXCEPT when she says "Chut up"? When she reads the love/fear card, she rattles it off without thinking. Bad acting or is she perhaps not from "China, bitch"? And why is she in love with Donnie? I mean, I guess he's cute enough for chicks in movies, but usually they're older.

One little goof - in the handwriting sample scene, the list is clearly in alpha order, putting Cherita just before Donnie, but that doesn't match with what we see.

Trigger

I kinda liked the movie... I'm gonna be a d*** and not read any of your posts and just say that I liked it except I didn't like that it ended up being about god. bleh.

Tesiae

hime: You know. I was wondering about that myself. But I guess it happens alot with non-white students of immigrant parents. A bit of their parents language slips in here and there when speaking English. That "ch" in place of "sh" occurs quite frequently in the "Spanglish" some Hispanic kids speak.

As for Cherita, I'll say that since I consider her to be a sort of potential sidekick, that little verbal faux pas is her kryptonite.




Trigger: Well, if you had bothered to read the other posts, you would have noted that it's not really about God.

Trigger

Well I figured some of you would've said that it's not about god and rather than arguing with each person individually, I thought I'd just say you're all wrong. The director pretty much said flat out that it was about god, but he removed some extended scenes that beat the audience over the head with it so it could be a little more open-ended.

sfsdfd

I just saw the film, and I've got mixed emotions. I can tell already that I'll be musing about this one for a few days, which is certainly a refreshing sign! I sure as hell didn't muse after seeing Men in Black II or the other 800 crap films that Hollywood has put out recently.

But in the greater scheme of things, I feel my mind tipping toward the "failed effort" category.

The reason is simply this: I appreciate films with multiple explanations. Had we been left to consider the options - was it a dream, or was it time travel? - that would've been just fine. But the director has clearly tipped toward the time travel explanation, which only makes sense if you read and accept the whole book. From a directorial standpoint, that is a cheat. You can't endorse an interpretation that requires the audience to seek out a separate fictional work that you created in order to understand it.

How many good or great films have been botched by an awful ending? Why do directors do this? I guess that's one of Hollywood's greatest questions.

- David Stein

Shonn

Didn't see this mentioned, when Donnie and Gretchen go to the movies the sign shows Evil Dead and The Last Temptation of Christ. The Last Temtation of Christ is obviously not a Halloween movie, so I took it as the director either hinting at it all being a dream, like in Last Temptation, or that Donnie would soon realize that the world would be better off with him sacrificing himself.

uteotw

Just saw this myself and half liked it, half didn't. I like movies that make you think (e.g Mulholland Drive), but this one just didn't do it for me. I felt irritated when it was over, and even more so after reading these posts... Just not for me.

DeputyDave

Thread, back from the dead.

I just re-watched Donnie Darko and was playing around with the special features. I never actually read "The Philosophy of Time Travel" off the DVD because my TV was too small. I've only read the text that was posted in this thread. Now with a big screen TV I decided to see this movie again.



Anyway, sorry to rehash old discussions but this makes me re-evaluate what may have been going on in this movie.

lesterlong

SOME SPOILERS

I just saw this the other day. And something I don't think anyone's brought up yet is whether or not Donnie had a choice. I believe Donnie did have a choice whether or not to save everyone. The scene in the classroom where the teacher was telling the class to chose Love or Fear, and where Donnie blew up is pretty much the choice Donnie had at the end of the movie. It was his decision because he could change is his destiny. He saw what would of happened if he had lived, and if he had never fell in love with the girl, he probably would of been saved again and the time loop would of kept going on and on. But Frank was there to throw some obstacles at him, if he never flooded the school, Donnie would of never met the girl, thus never falling in love, thus not having any reason to sacrifice himself. I really don't think you need a book to understand this movie. I understand all that tangent universe is part of the book and not really explained well but its just an extra part of the movie.

Tesiae

DeputyDave:

Think of it this way. The events leading up to the dissapearance of Gretchen's mother are unconnected to events in the movie. We can assume that it was indeed Gretchen's father who is the perpetrator and had she not met Donnie, she would have have had no where to go and would been home when the tragedy ocurred. So it's somewhat sad that Gretchen's fate was always to die.. just like Donnie. Hmm.

psulion01

I haven't seen this mentioned in the thread just yet, but more food for thought...



~mike