mixed reviews

[Spoff]

A friend of mine was recently bought DD as a present. Asking me what I thought of the film (before he'd watched it) I naturally replied that it was one of the best I have ever seen (if not THE best).

A couple of weeks later I saw my friend after he had watched it, naturally I asked his opinion, to which came the reply, "i've never watched a bigger pile of shit in my life".

He then ranted on about how it had "no definite conclusive ending" and how he couldn't "understand everything in it". and that there were too many "loose ends".

I was a little disappointed by his reply to be honest, it appears that many people prefer to be spoon-fed their films in easy to digest pieces, and for it to be all wrapped up in a neat double-knot bow at the end.

Is it just me, or is one of the best things about DD the fact that you actually have to do a little work as a viewer to understand it, and that you have to actually think about it, instead of everything being explained by a dude with a flip-chart and a marker pen?

And also that it causes people like us to come here and puzzle, create theories, and chat about it at such length.

I don't know about you guys, but the first time I watched DD I didn't understand it either. I just knew that I had watched a work of genius that will stay with me forever.

[ProvidencePortal]

Spoff, I do think there are divisions between people regarding what makes entertainment "successful." Some people prefer to dig around in a movie and try to unearth its meaning ... some would rather not dedicate that part of their brain to something they see as a more straight-forward proposition -- pay money, sit before screen, enjoy linear story (possibly with one twist near the end).

My own take on "people like us" is that we find movies more emotionally accessible when they're a little obtuse. We can get more immediately involved and suspend our disbelief if we feel like there's something more to the story than what we're understanding in the moment.

But I've found it useful perspective to remember neither approach is "good" or "smarter" than the other. It's really about expectations and how one watches a movie. As an example: a good friend of mine and I have had several conversations about movie watching, and he's always surprised when we talk about becoming emotionally involved in a film -- getting sad, scared, etc. To him, that's just about an impossibility. With a few exceptions, every movie he sees he watches as a guy in a seat in front of some sort of projector or screen. His mind never leaves that seat and merges into the narrative. For him, it's strange that anyone would forget they're in a theater and actually get lost in the flick. It's just how he sees it.

So I can imagine there are lots of people whose expectations are that they'll get all the answers in one run. For them, an ambiguous story is like going to a restaurant and being asked to solve a puzzle before they can hear what's on the menu -- it's inappropriate and bothersome.

Sure, it's not how we see it. And that's strange or seems limited to us ... but our approach probably seems weirdly time/effort-heavy (and maybe a little obsessive ) to them. Just perspectives -- all valid.

[Spoff]

Yeah, think you're totally right about that. Guess it wouldn't do for us all to be the same would it

[Omnipotent]

spoff said:

Is it just me, or is one of the best things about DD the fact that you actually have to do a little work as a viewer to understand it, and that you have to actually think about it, instead of everything being explained by a dude with a flip-chart and a marker pen?

Absolutely, that's why this board is here. I've never been so compelled to continue watching a movie over and over again so many times in my life. Donnie Darko was just so interesting to me when I first started getting into it. I'm not obsessed with it anymore but it's still a top 5 film to me.