DONNIE DARKO -- Disussion Thread
 

This was a good movie, but I just didn't get the ending. I really wanted to love this movie, but the total confusion that it left me with is a little frustrating and disatisfying. There are so many plot points that I just don't understand. Did all of the characters go back in time, or just Donnie? or just the jet Engine? What was the point of Drew Barrymore's character? What was the point of the chubby Asian girl? What was the significance of the letter to the old woman, and her waiting for it, and so on. The questions go on and on. Can someone please give me your thoughts?

Like you, I really wanted to like it too but I just cant shake the feeling that the director was trying way too hard (this was his first film, no?) and should have left some things out. I want to "understand" the movie but I cant help but think it's one of those trying-to-be-deliberately-confusing-so-as-to-seem-deep type films. Of course, I'm probably wrong, I dunno.

Listen to the lyrics of the brilliant Tears For Fears cover because it explains an awful lot:

"I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
That the dreams where I am dying are the best I've ever had"

This is how I interpret the film:

I have felt the itchings to write an essay about the thematics at work in the film.

Suffice it to say, I recommend you read about Nietzsche's theory of Eternal Recurrence. That may make you think about it in a new way. Or not.

I rarely bump my own threads, but I really want to hear some more opinions on this movie. I guess I am still looking for some more interpretations.

Just watched this movie the other day, and WoW!

I really dug it. If you want answers, the film was left open-ended on purpose...but if you want to know what the director intended watch the DVD with the commentary track. Very interesting.

Really? The commentary track was interesting? You could have fooled me because that was the one element of the disc that I was sorely disappointed with. I listened to the first half hour, got tired of the inane "you remember when we shot this scene? it was like 2 a.m. in the morning, dude!!" comments and shut it off.

I was hoping for some more substantive discussion of the themes of the film. Do tell whether this discussion magically appears towards the end of the commentary?

Well there were two commentaries actually. The one with the cast was pretty much filler, but I enjoyed the one with just the director and the star. It was pretty interesting, especially towards the end.

Both of the commentaries contain some pretty deep analysis of the film.

Here's what I think:

Just thought of something:

Can anyone explain the fat guy in the orange jumpsuit???

Hey Lothaerius, good points. I just thought of something. You said that the old lady didn't play a part. I hope I am recalling correctly (it's been a while now), but if you think about it...



Could this be significant?

I was lost at the end of this one too. can someone tell me how to unblacken the blacked out parts to this thread?

I read an interview with the director where he stated that the philosophy of time travel book explains what he intended the logic behind the story to be. That's why it's on the DVD and the website. Unfortunately, the print is so small on the DVD that I can only make out bits and pieces of it and I can't seem to get the website to come up. If it's not a violation of copyright laws and someone with a good, big television wanted to, it'd be great to see the contents of the book posted on here in spoilers. I did get the gist that it tried to address the paradoxes within the film.

Philosophy of Time Travel
 

Here are the book's contents, transcribed from the website:
Foreward
I would like to thank the sisters of the Saint John Chapter in Alexandria, Virginia for their support in my decision.

By the grace of God, they are:

Sister Eleanor Lewis
Sister Francesca Godani
Sister Helen Davis
Sister Catherine Arnold
Sister Marry Lee Pond
Sister Virginia Wessex

The intent of this short book is for it to be used as a simple and direct guide in a time of great danger.

I pray that this is merely a work of fiction.

If it is not, then I pray for you, the reader of this book.

If I am still alive when the events foretold in these pages occur, then I hope that you will find me before it is too late.

Roberta Ann Sparrow
October, 1944

Chapter 1
The Tangent Universe

The Primary Universe is fraught with great peril. War, plague, famine and natural disaster are common. Death comes to us all.

The Fourth Dimension of Time is a stable construct, though it is not impenetrable.

Incidents when the fabric of the fourth dimension becomes corrupted are incredibly rare.

If a Tangent Universe occurs, it will be highly unstable, sustaining itself for no longer than several weeks.

Eventually it will collapse upon itself, forming a black hole within the Primary Universe capable of destroying all existence.

Chapter 2
Water and Metal

Water and Metal are the key elements of Time Travel.

Water is the barrier element for the construction of Time Portals used as gateways between Universes at the Tangent Vortex.

Metal is the transitional element for the construction of Artifact Vessels.

Chapter 4
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 occurred.

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.

Chapter 6
The Living Receiver

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

No one knows how or why a Receiver will be chosen.

The Living Receiver is often blessed with a Fourth Dimensional Powers. These include increased strength, telekinesis, mind control, and the ability to conjure fire and water.

The Living Receiver is often tormented by terrifying dreams, visions and auditory hallucinations during his time within the Tangent Universe.

Those surrounding the Living Receiver, known as the Manipulated, will fear him and try to destroy him.

Chapter 7
The Manipulated Living

The Manipulated Living are often the close friends and neighbors of the Living Receiver.

They are prone to irrational, bizarre, and often violent behavior. His is the unfortunate result of their task, which is to assist the Living Receiver in returning the Artifact to the Primary Universe.

The Manipulated Living will do anything to save themselves from Oblivion.

Chater ??
The Manipulated Dead

The Manipulated Dead are more powerful than the Living Receiver. If a person dies within the Tangent Dimension, they are able to contact the Living Receiver through the Fourth Dimensional Construct.

The Fourth Dimensional Construct is made of Water.

The Manipulated Dead will manipulate the Living Receiver using the Fourth Dimensional Construct (see Appendix A and B).

The Manipulated Dead will often set an Endurance Trap for the Living Receiver to ensure that the Artifact is returned safely to the Primary Universe.

If the Endurance Trap is successful, the Living Receiver is left with no choice but to use his Fourth Dimensional Power to send the Artifact back in time into the Primary Universe before the Black Hole collapses upon itself.

Chapter 12
Dreams

When the Manipulated awaken from their Journey into the Tangent Universe, they are often haunted by the experience in their dreams.

Many of them will not remember.

Those who do remember the Journey are often overcome with profound remorse for the regretful actions buried within their Dreams, the only physical evidence buried within the Artifact itself, all that remains from the lost world.

Ancient myth tells us of 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.

There are also news stories about how Patrick Swayze's character shot himself on the golf course and the weird religious lady took over the company.

You're right about the old lady, caiman, I'd forgotten that part. With the help of the information that jericho88 graciously posted, here are some further thoughts:

According to the director's commentary, the guy in the orange jumpsuit is one of the FAA investigators, who has been assigned to keep a close watch on Donnie in the matter of the falling jet engine...

Alright caiman, I think we're both starting to think about this a little too hard . . . but I'm having fun so how about this:

Great discussion, guys! I'd like to throw in my two cents:


I think. :)

Great discussion. I think I agree with the conclusions that have been reached in the thread. Just wanted to thank Jericho for taking the time to post the book.

I don't know about everyone else, but for me, as soon as the whole Tangent Universe explanation started getting discussed, it really took away from the film.

I haven't listened to the commentaries yet, as I haven't had the chance, but I look forward to doing so.

Nevertheless, on my own I was trying to figure out what meaning the story held and what motivated the characters. It seemed that there was a much more in depth study of the effects of post-Vietnam conservativism and how it affected the family unit. If you watch the deleted scenes, the director says that Francis Ford Coppola read the script and told him that the meaning of the story was in the line "the children have to take care of themselves," or whatever it was exactly, which eventually got cut from the movie anyway (d'oh). I think Coppola was thinking along the same lines as me.

Then all this Tangent Universe stuff comes out, which is entertaining, but not as deep as I thought. Maybe this film has what Sidney Lumet refers to as the unintended third meaning (the first 2 being what the writer and the director intended).

I don't know, it just seems a lot less complex that I had hoped.

Has anyone browsed through the Web Site Gallery on the DVD? It contains some very interesting information about what happend after

Some interesting tidbits are:



There are a few other things too. Pretty interesting.

Highlight them with your mouse, or triple-click on them.

Please explain the ending to Donnie Darko
 

It's the same EXACT ending as MULHOLLAND DR!

cheers, Tony Block

re: DONNIE DARKO -- Disussion Thread
 

rotfl

what was up with the first scene?

when the camera runs up on donnie when he fell off his bike?

I believe he had been sleep bike riding and that is him waking up in the morning.

Do you think Donnie chooses things to end that way, or it just does end that way? Because we never actually see him travel through time on his own...

I'm not a huge fan of the Waking Life theory, but it's plausible.

Hmm. Having read the book now, here's my thoughts:



Just a theory. This movie definitely has a lot going on besides being the ultimate 80s film that could not have been made in the 80s. I really wish I had seen it in 2001, it deserves a spot on my best of 01 list. There's a lot of stuff in there to be thought about.

And I have to love the Magnolia lift at the end of the book - confirms my thinking that the movie was trying for the slightest bit of that. Aren't a lot of movies doing that lately? It even seems like foreign films are reaching for it.

I don't know this for sure, but I would guess the director set it in 1988 only to use the soundtrack, and interwind it with the story.

Somehow kid rock raps probally wouldn't have worked.

Set in the 80's
 

The movie was set in 1988 for a variety of reasons, among them:

1. That's the era that the director grew up in.
2. Not many movies have been made recently that look back at that era (both to poke fun and try and recreate the attitudes).
3. 1988 was a significant year, as we saw Regan's time in office end (and really saw the 80's end as well).

The decision to use the music in the film was a result of picking 1988 as the timeframe, not the other way around.

I just listened to the director's commentary on the dvd and I still dont know what the hell is going on in the movie.

Re: Set in the 80's
 

Was this on the commentary? I'd be interested to know why they chose 1988.

I was 18 at that time...hearing some of those tracks brings back alot of memories....(especially the Church song).

and kudos for not overdoing the style of the 80's, like that horrible 80's show.

I had seen the cover and read the blurbs about this movie for a few months now. I've never heard of it before, and now that I've seen it: HOW DID THIS GET OVERLOOKED! Where did this movie come from? (and the first person who says a tangent universe gets smacked!) This is probably the most original movie that I have seen in some time. It was not at all what I expected.
<P>Here are some random thoughts and answers:
<P>Grandma Death, AKA Ann Sparrow: Besides the observations already made, without her, Donnie would never have figured out what was happening. She is integral in telling Donnie (when he and his dad almost run her over), and through her book. As for the letter, maybe without it she wouldn't have kept checking the mailbox. As we see at the end, the characters do have some form of residual memory from the tangent universe (waving).
<P>Drew Berrymore: Who cares why she's in any movie? I love her! Seriously, she also helps Donnie to realize what is happening. She connects to him through the short story "The Destructors" which helps to lead into the whole spiral of events. As she is leaving she also provides Donnie with the final clue in the most beautiful phrase in the English language.
<P>IMDB: Why is Planet of the Apes (2001) listed as an "If you liked this one . . . " I would compare this more to "Frequency" than any other movie.

not terribly insightful, but didn't barrymore look like a young julian moore?

Interesting points some of you made.

I just watched this movie and I never thought any part of it was Donnie's dream. Also, at the end, I didn't think (and still refuse to believe) that Donnie went back in time. Anyway, I think we all agree on that. But what did he do? And why did the tangent universe/black hole/whatever look like a tornado? Was it a tornado?

This certainly was an interesting film with some genuinely creepy and thoughtful ideas, but all in all, it had so much that led nowhere that it became quite unfulfilling, especially at the end. Basically a case of being less than the sum of its parts...

I don't think that it was a dream or time travel. I think it is more of an alternate/divergent universe situation. At the point that he falls asleep two universes diverge (a choice is made). At the end, he manages to return to the "primary" universe (maybe by time travel, I guess).
<P>Without one small part at the end, I may have had the same opinion as you (that it was build up to nothing). You think that we just went through this whole scenario for no reason since we end up negating everything that happened. But this isn't so. The meaningful bit at the end was his girlfriend and his mom waving at eachother with some bizarre sort of recognition. This shows that even though we have returned to a universe (as opposed to a multiverse), he had still impacted these peoples lives somehow, even though they don't know it and never will understand it.