|
Post by EricDraven on Nov 5, 2003 22:19:19 GMT -5
Pax....I like that thought about maybe thats an FAA agent,it just goes to show, theres countless possibilities,I like that one, thats awesome and it really fits.
|
|
|
Post by darkmystic on Nov 5, 2003 22:34:10 GMT -5
Pax, if it says on the DVD that red jogging suit guy is from the FAA then I stand corrected. Its too bad though, it would be so cool if that was him. Anyway, this doesn't null the theory that Donnie traveled to 1988 from the present. There's still the very first scene. Check out where he is.....on the exact same road where he time travels at the end of the movie. Check out his reaction, he smiles as if he knows what just happened. The reason he forgets can be explained by the fact that time travel is like a dream, remembered very clearly at first and then forgotten.
Concerning Roberta Sparrow. Consider this. She is saved from death by her 'frank', closes the portal, and then chooses not to die after her journey. She abandons God. What is she to do with the rest of her life? Maybe, write a book about her experience so that if it happens to someone else they know to make the right choice and die, as Donnie does.
All this led me to the conclusion that Donnie does not have to die. If fact he is given a clear choice. But he knows that not dying now mean dying alone later, so he makes his choice. Check out the obituaries on the web site. The science teacher dies, survived by a wife and 3 kids. A lady right below robertas obit dies survived by 7 grandkids. Both clearly not alone. Then check out roberta's obit.....no know relatives...She clearly died alone.
|
|
|
Post by darkmystic on Nov 5, 2003 23:30:00 GMT -5
Eric....lmao "oh,you shot me in the eye in the future,by the way that really hurt" Imagine if that's what he says? Not quite so scary a scene then is it? This brings up a good point though. In most time travel movies..."Back to the future" for instance which is actually talked about in the movie. In most of these movies, a person goes back to the past and what he does can change the future. In this movie what you do in the future can change the past. Pretty original idea.
|
|
|
Post by Chris T on Nov 6, 2003 9:26:01 GMT -5
Mystic, I had also thought that maybe she(sparrow) just chose not to die and was forced to see the consequences of her doing so, but in donnies case, if he guided the engine to his room in the first place (the beginning crash) he was given a chance to live and see why ... then when the chance "comes around" (the ending) again to instead die and avoid the events of the tangent, if he had chosen not to die, wouldnt the cycle just repeat itself?
|
|
|
Post by Jose Luis on Nov 6, 2003 9:37:36 GMT -5
Hi guys,
This is an amazing thread.
There is one point that you´ve missed. In the DVD there is a cut-scene of Donnie after he's smashed by the engine and.... HE APPEARS IN A CRUCIFIX just as Jesus.
Hence this proofs two facts:
1. He had to sacrifice to save the world 2. The obvious parallelism of the movie with Christ
Anyways, great comments y'all!
JL
|
|
|
Post by Chris T on Nov 6, 2003 12:42:39 GMT -5
Yeah, it makes sense that the jogger is an FAA agent sent to keep tabs on donnie. The joke is that the disguise was horrible. He was to fat to be a jogger, and he was smoking. Anything else is just wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by darkmystic on Nov 6, 2003 13:04:32 GMT -5
Chris T,
The cycle would not have repeated itself and here's why. Frank gets Donnie out of bed so that he can close the tangent universe. A universe that Donnie himself created when he traveled back in time from the present. Once the plane engine from the plane Rose and Samantha were on goes through the wormhole, this closes the portal, and ends the tangent universe. Its gone now. The plane engine that lands on Donnie at the end is just a relic of that universe, all that is left to show it existed. So if Donnie simply gets up and goes for a jog, this won't mean the world will end. So why doesn't he do this? It is implicitly shown that to do so would mean ending up like Roberta Sparrow, and of all the things that scare him, this is the worst. So the ending is actually a happy one. He dies, but not alone.
(*edit) I just watched the DVD again with the audio commentary from Richard Kelly on. I would highly suggest you do this. It told me a couple of things that are worth noting.
1. Its Donnie who actually rips the plane from the engine and sends it through the portal. He does this even though he knows his mother and sister are on it. If he does not die in the primary universe he will be haunted by this fact in his dreams. He will also be haunted by the other things he has done such as killing Frank, burning the house etc.
2. The beep of the horn from Frank after he drops Elizabeth off is a subconcious signal to Donnie to get out of bed. In Richard Kelley's words "Its Frank saying, 'hey, we did it man. Get up.'"
3. At the very end notice Frank lying in bed with the drawings of the bunny suit on his desk. According to RK, he has a vague recollection of what has happened and touches his eye.
4. Jim Cunningham at the end when he is crying has a recollection of what has happened as well. This is why the website shows that he kills himself a few days later.
5. Yes, the red jumpsuit guy is an FAA agent. They are so mystified by what has happened with the engine that they follow Donnie around.
6. What Donnie says to the punk at the end is duex ex machina, latin for "the god machine". This was a construct in which seemingly impossible situations in ancient Greek and Roman plays were solved at the end by what amounted to an act of the gods. Basically, Zeus would come down from Olympus in the form of a bull or something and rescue the hero. In the novel Watership Down, it is a deux ex machina which saves the rabbits. The events which lead to Donnies destiny, his saving of the world, are in fact a 'god machine'. It is interesting to note that most modern writers look at the deux ex machina as a cop out, something never to do in the resolution of a story. In contrast, Richard Kelley makes this his entire story.
|
|
|
Post by JoseLuis on Nov 7, 2003 5:42:29 GMT -5
Hi Chris, Great email summarizing the important points told in the comments. However I have a couple of questions/comments 1. I think that the fact DD dies at the end is by an act of sacrifice (and that's the reason why he was presented in the cross in the deleted scenes). Therefore, it's not just because he wants to but he HAS TO. 2. I've read your comments in other threads but I'm still exceptical about your theory of DD coming from the future in the beginning. DO YOU HAVE ANY SOLID FACT FOR THIS? The only thing that would support that idea is the first scene when he smiles but it could just be that he was sleepwalking. PLEASE I NEED EVIDENCE ON THIS to believe it Anyways, thanks Chris for sharing your views with us. JoseLuis
|
|
|
Post by darkmystic on Nov 7, 2003 14:27:46 GMT -5
Jose, (Its darkmystic, chis is another poster You've asked 2 interesting questions about the movie and I'll attempt to answer them below. The first is what I think about the Christ parallel and whether he had to sacrifice himself. The second is how I come up with the conclusion that he traveled to 1988 from the present. First off, Richard Kelley states (and I agree with him) that every movie made about time travel will have inconsistancies and paradoxes that cannot be readily explained. Even 'Back to the Future' has these. Check out the part in the movie where the picture of himself and his siblings slowly fades out when McFly isn't dancing with his future wife. What exactly is the construct for this? No one knows. The difference is that that movie at least gives the illusion of wrapping it all up at the end. Ok, so to analyze any time travel movie (Donnie Darko especially) we must 1. Identify the things that cannot be explained. 2. Form some sort of hypothesis. 3. Make assumptions. 4. Test the hypothesis against these assumptions. We must do this over and over until we have the best fit. We will never have a perfect fit. The Christ scenario: I had considered the scenario that he is a Christ figure and rejected it and here is why. First off, in the scene where he is impaled I don't see a clear parallel. He has been impaled throught the chest be a piece of the plane and his hands are by his side, not up as you would expect from a Christ figure. Also, there are no wounds on his hands or feet, or at his side, and he has died instantly, not suffering for hours as Christ did. Next, I see no reason that he has to die. The tangent universe is closed, everything is cool. Richard Kelley basically says this in the commentary. So with no reason to die, there is no sacrifice to be made. The only sacrifice he actually did make was Gretchen, his mom and his sis. But that is over now. If you chose to go with the Christ scenario that is totally your choice, and the beauty of the movie. No hypothesis will be perfect so none can be completely right. However, if you go this route you have some tough questions to answer. What happens if he gets out of bed? How does the world end again? Is a new portal opened? How? Does yet another engine come through? How is it that the universe is still around if Roberta Sparrow is still alive? How does she know about time travel etc? To answer these questions you need to make assumptions and see if they fit. Post what you come up with. Ok, so know you ask what hard evidence there is that he traveled to 1988 from the present. The answer is there is none. If there was we wouldn't be asking questions on these threads. However, there is 'soft' evidence. (I already mentioned the smile and location at the beginning of the movie), but basically its an assumption. Its one that I believe to most closely deal with the movie inconsistancies. It creates a reason for the portal to have opened in the firstplace, and thus a reason for the phantom engine to have come through. It creates a reason for the time period. (1988, of all times). It creates a motivation for Donnie and explains much of Gretchen's dialog. Don't forget her line about going back and replacing darkness with something better is repeated twice. It does a lot more things as well that i've explained in earlier posts on this thread. In the end however, its really up to you to decide how to wrap up these loose ends for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by joseluis on Nov 7, 2003 17:06:13 GMT -5
Darkmistic, Yeah! Sorry I said Chris... I meant Darkmistic (lol) I just screwed with the names Great email again! Appreciate your effort to share your view and your very valid interpretation of the movie. I reckon you have a point with the "coming from the future" approach but I just refuse to believe that. It's too much twisted and IMHO I think RK would have left more hints in the case that this was the real plot. Also, it's very importat to note what RK answers when asked about why he chose 1988 as the date for the movie. He says that 198x was the time when he was the same age of DD. He explained that in these years they were flodding schools with new psychological ideas and personality tests and all kind of crap a la Cunningam and the fear/love stupidities. He lived that nonsense when he was young and wanted to show it as a very important part it in the movie. That's why he chose that date. (I personally think that it was in order to take advantage to play Duran Duran and Tears fo Fears lol) So, IMHO the movie is as complete with or without the "future" interpretation. I think your reasoning is just too far fetched although somewhat valid. I'm sticking with the "normal" plot so far In any case I agree with you that this is the beauty of the film. It makes you think and all interpretations are good. There are friends of mine who didn't really understand the movie but loved it anyway. All in all I think it's the best movie ever made. It´s just impecable and specially the score which chills down my spine every time I see the movie. BTW please check the movie Cypher if you haven't yet (by Vicenzo Natali the director of The Cube) It is almost as good as DD and the music is also composed by Michael "God" Andrews. Both movies are in my top 5. JL
|
|
|
Post by darkmystic on Nov 7, 2003 18:35:26 GMT -5
Jose,
Nice post. And your right any excuse to play music by 'The Church' and Duran Duran is a perfectly valid reason to set the movie in the 80s. In fact the original cut had music by INXS and 'The Pet Shop Boys' as well. But here's the beauty of multiple theories. It gives you a reason to watch the movie again and again, each time with a different thought in mind. Just for kicks watch it again, seeing Donnie as a traveler from the present. (Suspend your disbelief). I'll be sure to watch it seeing him as a Christ figure.
And I agree about your feeling about the movie. In case anyone was wondering why I post here so much, its because Donnie Darko is my absolute favorite movie of all time. And that's saying a lot. And your right, it has a quality of truth even though the first time through it makes very little sense. Logically, it might not, but it just feels true somehow. The characters, situations, etc just come across as true. That's why we keep discussing it, when a lesser movie we would just write off.
PS. Watched the preview for 'Cypher' today. I'm totally going to rent it this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by black bile on Nov 7, 2003 22:56:14 GMT -5
Like many here expressed, I think there are too many answers that fit many different questions, and that may be what the "purpose" of the movie is. Kind of like David Lynch's movies.
And from this point of view, I don't think there is enough data in the movie to provide a single answer nor that the movie is "tight" in logic. That is, logic fits under a different number of models that are thought by the viewer/speculator, and becomes hypothesis.
Thanks to Jose Luis for providing the extra bit on the cut-scene, but i disagree that an image of him crucified at the moment of his death "proves" anything. It may suggest or hint at certain directions, but with open interpretations. (And as further down the thread is stated, it doesn't sound like the image was that of a crucifixion in the first place, maybe you're pushing the "christian view" a bit too far).
If you were attracted by this particular characteristic of this movie (i.e. the arisen "feelings" that there is one logical explanation, even though there probably isn't), I would definitely recommend you - if you haven't already - to check David Lynch's movies. Some of them, like "Lost Highway" for example, have exactly this "openess" for interpretation inherent in it. Something that draws you to watch it again, to try to make complete sense of it, although that's never reached. In my opinion, in "Lost Highway" there is ultimately no sense to be made. The art is in the form of making the plot look like it closes in a perfect circle, if you look hard enough, even though it doesn't.
So, I'm also an adept of the idea of this film being, like Lynch, another mindfu*k (which is good, by the way).
|
|
|
Post by darkmystic on Nov 8, 2003 2:30:25 GMT -5
Black Bile,
You are right on. As an analogy, think of a painting painted by an artist, a landscape for instance. You are shown the painting but half of it is covered up, and you are asked to paint what the other half is. I guarantee, not one person will paint what the artist actually had, but does that make it wrong? No, it just makes it a different interpretation. Now there are some that would draw things pretty unlikely, but provided the lines line up at the point we see, that's ok. There are certain things in this movie that we are allowed to see and most will agree on.
1. A tangent universe is created somehow. 2. Donnie is chosen to close this universe 3. All characters help Donnie in the task 4. He closes the tangent universe
Very simple, but the how and why of a lot of things are not given to us. And there a lot of subplots that are also only half explained. So we must simply come up with a solution by painting a picture of what is missing. This is why the lack of evidence does not discourage me at all from thinking Donnie traveled from the present. To me it simply extends the existing story, without contradicting it.
|
|
|
Post by joseluis on Nov 8, 2003 6:53:41 GMT -5
Agree with you guys 100%...
BTW black... Lost Highway is also an amazing movie I agree. However it's the only movie from Lynch that really has a "understandable" plot. Mulholland Drive was totally CRAP. It's impossible to understand that movie without extra help. IMHO a movie should be understandable (at least partially) as it is... That´s why its called cinema. I think that Lynch sometimes just wants to laugh at the audience...
Mystic.... don't forget to report how much you liked Cypher! I bet you'll like it! (although it is not that mystic as DD but great atmosphere, Jeremy Northam rocks!)
JL
|
|
|
Post by Chris T on Nov 10, 2003 9:53:40 GMT -5
Mystic, I dont understand. So, Donnie didnt have to die? thats not very heroic. If he isnt making the ultimate sacrifice the symbolism is greatly reduced. And why is it that Roberta Sparrow was afraid that her book was nonfictional? Wouldnt she be aware of the truth? Im just pissed cause I thought I understood it all for the most part.
|
|