Abi
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by Abi on Sept 18, 2004 17:40:40 GMT -5
I've read a lot of posts on here that say Grandma Death went throught the same experience as Donnie (she was the Living Receiver), but she decided not to die and now she is paying for it by dying alone. Other posts then said it was her fault Gretchen died because Frank had to swerve to miss Grandma Death and consequently hit Gretchen, killing her. So, maybe those 2 ideas are connected? Grandma Death was the cause of Gretchen's death to make sure that this time the Living Receiver did die (i.e. Gretchen is killed, Donnie realises to save her he must die). And it had to be Grandma Death, not just any random loner who could be manipulated into walking back and to her mailbox all day. In someway Grandma Death is paying for her survival by making sure Donnie won't. Did that make sense? It's kinda hard to explain what I mean. What does anyone think?
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Sept 23, 2004 12:17:04 GMT -5
What you're postulating definitely makes sense, Abi. But the part I get snagged on is the idea that Donnie was shown things in the future that helped him understand that he would need to sacrifice himself to save his loved ones (as when you said, "Donnie realizes to save [Gretchen] he must die"). It looks from my perspective like Donnie has in fact already saved everyone the moment he wakes up again in his bed at the end of the movie. If we believe his purpose was to send the engine (the "artifact" described in The Philosophy of Time Travel) back, then his mission is complete the evening before, when he stands on the hilltop and rips the engine from the plane and sends it into the vortext. So, at the end, were he to have gotten out of bed (maybe in response to Frank's carhorn) instead of laughing until the engine fell, it appears he could have gone right on living. His death doesn't at all seem to be necessary to save the lives of his loved ones ... using his 4th Dimensional powers to return the engine does that. But I really like the ideas you're exploring about Grandma Death's purpose, and offered some parallel thoughts posted here: darkomovie.proboards24.com/index.cgi?board=ending&action=display&thread=1095872475 Edit: added quote mark and corrected a misspelling.
|
|
|
Post by rightfielder21 on Sept 23, 2004 14:18:42 GMT -5
What you're postulating definitely makes sense, Abi. But the part I get snagged on is the idea that Donnie was shown things in the future that helped him understand that he would need to sacrifice himself to save his loved ones (as when you said, "Donnie realizes to save [Gretchen] he must die"). It looks from my perspective like Donnie has in fact already saved everyone the moment he wakes up again in his bed at the end of the movie. If we believe his purpose was to send the engine (the "artifact" described in The Philosophy of Time Travel) back, then his mission is complete the evening before, when he stands on the hilltop and rips the engine from the plane and sends it into the vortext. So, at the end, were he to have gotten out of bed (maybe in response to Frank's carhorn) instead of laughing until the engine fell, it appears he could have gone right on living. His death doesn't at all seem to be necessary to save the lives of his loved ones ... using his 4th Dimensional powers to return the engine does that. Edit: added quote mark and corrected a misspelling.I agree with everything you say here... I have a problem with Kelly's own explaination with the car horn at the end... He said that Frank was beeping the horn to warn Donnie to get out of bed... I would buy that and may actually like that, but Frank also beeped the car harm in the beginiing of the movie too... Therefore, I don't think Frank is beeping the horn to warn Donnie... EDIT: BTW, I would like to go out of my way to thank you for joining the board, you are very insightful, respectful, and a pleasure to have around...
|
|
|
Post by gretchen on Sept 23, 2004 15:04:22 GMT -5
EDIT: BTW, I would like to go out of my way to thank you for joining the board, you are very insightful, respectful, and a pleasure to have around... yes. i quite agree... especially after some issues we've been having...
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Sept 23, 2004 15:47:47 GMT -5
Very kind of both of you to say so. If it seems like I'm post-following both of you, it's because I feel the same way!
|
|
|
Post by gretchen on Sept 23, 2004 17:46:57 GMT -5
awesome. our very own forum stalker! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Oct 4, 2004 19:07:51 GMT -5
I don't really think that Sparrow actually was once a living reiceiver, I think that she was just "insighted" by god and well things happened because god made them happen so, so she had to go crazy and writte the book and be there checking the mail for donnies letter at that time for gretchen to be killed.
|
|
¤(ø[¤-{cellar door}-¤]ø)¤
New Member
Sleep is lovely, death is better still, not to have been born is of course the miracle
Posts: 24
|
Post by ¤(ø[¤-{cellar door}-¤]ø)¤ on Jan 1, 2005 8:36:18 GMT -5
god? it's about fate not god. donnie doesn't believe in god, he believes in frank the rabbit. dont bring so much religion into it, it's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Jan 4, 2005 14:08:11 GMT -5
[quote author=¤(ø[¤-{cellar door}-¤]ø)¤ link=board=psych&thread=1069002456&start=37#2 date=1104586578]dont bring so much religion into it, it's wrong.[/quote] There are pretty explicit quotes in the movie that indicate otherwise, cellardoor -- for instance, Donnie's discussion with his science teacher on the topic of "God's path."
What makes you say "bringing God into it" is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Elwood on Jan 5, 2005 2:36:42 GMT -5
The commentary during the extended scene on the dvd where Donnie first meets Frank provides a good deal of insight to Kelly's thoughts regarding the role God and religion play in the film.
He explains why he made the decision to remove the parts of that scene that explicitly identify God as motivating Frank by saying:
"it is, to me, a story about divine intervention, but you don't want to hit the audience over the head with it"
He goes on to say that he thinks that the question of who is communicating to Donnie through Frank is open to interpretation. It was "better to leave it more open ended", and that it was "ultimately more powerful to leave the mystery [of what Frank's voice represents] intact".
Kelly even goes on to say "I can't explain it, what the voice [ie, Frank's voice] is", which seems to contradict his earlier statement that to him Frank is ultimately an instrument of divine intervention.
My understanding from this is that Kelly is stating his vision that God is actually driving things, but also saying that other interpretations could be equally valid, and his particular view shouldn't be the only "accepted" view.
P.S. So when does this initial phase of obsessing over understanding DD wear off? It's 2:30 in the morning, and I've just got to get more sleep...
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Jan 5, 2005 10:10:00 GMT -5
So when does this initial phase of obsessing over understanding DD wear off? It's 2:30 in the morning, and I've just got to get more sleep... It wears like permanent ink on your hands -- slowly, and unaccelerated by any soap or scrubbing. And I don't believe it ever fades completely ... especially while people like you are contributing so thoughtfully to the discussion and the mythos. You're very welcome here, Elwood. Regarding the ambiguity in Kelly's "meaning" for the film: we had an extensive discussion somewhere on whether a director's commentary is cannonical in interpreting a movie -- whether his vision trumps the audience's reading when the two are at odds. Like any good debate, I don't believe we reached a resolution, in large part (I believe) because of two factors: 1) Kelly seems to contradict himself when faced with the idea that fans may see something in a different light than he meant it; and 2) he may not have had the budget or the creative control to make the movie the first time the way he envisioned it. If we can dig up that thread, I'd love to hear your perspective on the topic.
|
|
h4m
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by h4m on Jan 15, 2005 0:08:18 GMT -5
the conversation about god made me think about the movie theater scene. frank says he is frank because his fathers name was frank etc.. maybe thats a reference to god having so many names.. or maybe im just real tired
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Jan 17, 2005 0:23:01 GMT -5
[quote author=¤(ø[¤-{cellar door}-¤]ø)¤ link=board=psych&thread=1069002456&start=37#2 date=1104586578]god? it's about fate not god. donnie doesn't believe in god, he believes in frank the rabbit. dont bring so much religion into it, it's wrong.[/quote]
Actually eventhough Donnie oftenly refers himself to an Athious, in the deleted scences on Dr. Thurman's last visit with Donnie, she tells Donnie he is not athious, he is agnostic (belives in god but believes there is no proof to conclude that). So it is about god and fate both at the same time. How god maneges fate and destiny. Also Frank in another deleted scene says "God loves all his children" foreshadowing Donnie's sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Jan 28, 2005 13:01:38 GMT -5
I don't think it can be Goad and fate. In fact I don't like the idea of fate at all.
I can understand where the idea of fate comes from in the movie, Frank's circular existence/causal loop, the 'Gods path' quote and the conversation about Frankie Fiedler being 'doomed' (doom just being another word for fate) for example.
But if everything is fated, it would mean that there is no such thing as free will, and if that is the case why is it necessary for the Mover (God or scientists or whatever) to 'manipulate' events at all? I mean if it's Donnie's fate to return the engine to the TU, he could just have well spent the month watching telly, then troop up the hill to send the engine back - he'd have no choice in the matter after all.
If you accept that God is the Mover, you can also argue that while it is generally accepted that God's Will is irresistable, it is also generally accepted that His greatest gift to Mankind was free will. So He has influence, through Frank (who could be seen as an Angel - 'Angel' literally means 'messenger' after all), the ML (I think although they are reduced to thier baser instincts of survival, and were in more suggestable state, that they all still all have a measure of free will.), and by bestowing 4D powers on Donnie. But this influence is not a direct exertion of His irresistable will, and does not preclude the free will of mankind.
I personally don't subscribe to God being the Mover, in which case an omnipotent will isn't an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Jan 28, 2005 19:02:39 GMT -5
I But if everything is fated, it would mean that there is no such thing as free will, and if that is the case why is it necessary for the Mover (God or scientists or whatever) to 'manipulate' events at all? I mean if it's Donnie's fate to return the engine to the TU, he could just have well spent the month watching telly, then troop up the hill to send the engine back - he'd have no choice in the matter after all. That is why, the "fate/destiny" of the world was for donnie to die and for the world to continue, so when there has been a currpency (don't know if it is a word, but when it is coruupted) in the "fate/desitny" the Tangent Universe arises and a Living Reiciver is appointed...etc. in order to restore the Universe into it's original "fate/destiny" And we know through POTT that when the 4th dimension barrier (aka time) is corrupted, the TU is formed. So there is a corruptence of time which contradicts pre-determined "fate/destiny" which is laid out by (god?). That is the whole point of Dr. Monotoffs conversation with donnie. "Donnie Darko: Well could these portals erm… could these portals just appear anywhere, anytime? Kenneth Monnitoff: I think that’s highly unlikely. No, I think what you’re talking about is umm… an act of God. Donnie Darko: Well if God controls time, then all time is pre-decided. Kenneth Monnitoff: I’m not following you. Donnie Darko: Every living thing follows along a set path. And if you could see your path or channel, then you could see into the future, right? Like err… that’s a form of time travel. Kenneth Monnitoff: Well, you’re contradicting yourself Donnie. If we were able to see out destines manifest themselves visually, then we would be given a choice to betray our chosen destinies. And the mere fact that this choice exists would make all pre-formed destiny umm… come to an end. Donnie Darko: Not if you travel within God’s channel. Kenneth Monnitoff: Umm… I’m not going to be able to continue this conversation. Donnie Darko: Why? Kenneth Monnitoff: I could lose my job. Donnie Darko: Okay." Also about your pre-determined no will comment. In my opinion, fate/destiny is pre-determined to a certain extention. I beleive certain facts or events are to happen, but we have descisions that are possible to make within a range of destinies. I probably don't make sense. Hope this anology makes sense: It's kinda like god puts us on a certain free-way, and then from there it is our choice where to exit or how to get to another freeway. So we basically have choices within the possible ranges of fates/desitnies. And when one of them happens that is not meant to be and it corrupts the 4th dimension time barrier, the TU phenomena occurs and so on and so forth. Let me re-state that, God gives us a certain range of choices to pick from (which is free-will) and if somethingn Large that does not satisfy him, or whatnot or he thinks it will ruin his whole plans, he will fix it. Then that leads to other debates because he is supposed to know all events and so on and so forth so why does he not change things before they happen, maybe while it is in the range of choices he gave us, he can not interfeer with them. And because any time before the event that defies his plans takes place is still within the limits of choices, he can not do much about it.
|
|