Alec
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by Alec on Jan 10, 2006 19:41:20 GMT -5
while we must credit richard kelly for the major ideas of donnie darko, he did afterall write and direct the film, many members feel he is contradictory in his interpretation of the film, or that it differs highly from their own. should we just accept kelly's responses from interviews about the film's meaning? or should we keep searching for our own? is kelly's commentary the end all and be all of donnie darko? It depends on the individual reason a person has for liking Donnie Darko. My main reason is the level of personal interpretation one can create after watching the film. It is not my only reason, and I could write a giant review stating every detail as to specifically why I love the movie, but for the sake of relevancy in this topic, I won't. So because of my main reason, agreeing with anything Kelly has to say is out of the question. I give him credit for creating this master-piece, but if he wanted to make sure his ideas were agreed with, he shouldn't have made the movie in the way he did. Having said that, Donnie Darko is one of the most abstract, thought-provoking and mysterious films I have ever seen. Going strictly by the original version, there is no way to solidly justify any interpretation a person can create for the film. Something that was apparently changed in the Directors Cut. A good film shouldn't need extra explanations like interviews and commentaries to convey it's meaning. This leads me to believe that Kelly either failed at creating the film he wanted to create, and accidently succeeded in making a great film anyway. Or that he contradicts himself by creating a film open to interpretation yet explaining the meaning of it. Explaining a film that possesses the need for personal interpretation defeats the purpose for that personal interpretation. Furthermore, the ideas Kelly states during commentaries and interviews are not specifically explained. I don't think we should agree with him when he can't seem to logically explain the film himself. I won't agree with him just because he made the film. Like I said, for all I know, Kelly didn't know what he was doing and the film turned out great by accident. The fact that he contradicts himself and can't seem to produce a credible explanation reinforces this idea. Now everything I have said relates specifically to the original version of Donnie Darko. I have yet to see the Directors Cut and only recently have I decided that I would watch it. However, judging by all the reviews I read written by people who hated the DC, I already know I won't enjoy it. The reason I say this is because nearly every negative review I read about the DC was written by people who loved the original for the same reasons I do, and dislike the DC for the same reasons I felt I would in the first place. However, I could be wrong. I am going to watch the DC this weekend. Either way I am looking forward to it. If I love it I will be glad I watched it and that I didn't miss out on something great because of my skepticism. If I hate it I will be happy in the fact that I was right all along.
|
|
|
Post by tomresurrection on Feb 14, 2006 20:14:29 GMT -5
I feel as though when he made the movie this movie he wanted to have too much going on.
He was young when he first started writing darko (22,23) and i think the concept is amazing, but he wanted to do so much with it and try to piece everything together and for the most part he did. But he created more meanings then he intended to create. Us, the viewer are picking these meanings out even more then him.
I think overall he was taken back with the blowup of his first movie. Because well, right off the bat this movie didn't exactly become a success, it barley made it to theatre and almost went straight to dvd/tape.
In the directors cut commentary he constantly says how he wanted to bring the more technological feel into the movie with the new concepts he added and the super hero thing. As he constantly talks about how while making the movie he was still piecing things together himself.
So in all respect, yeah we can believe most things he says... but i believe there is alot for us to pick up and depicate what we think.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Apr 5, 2006 6:44:41 GMT -5
I think Mr. Kelly designed this movie to be an artful form of ambiguity ... fodder for conversation for the analytical minded. For example, my wife (who lacks the analytical gene) says "It's a great movie about a guy who you have to decide for yourself if he's crazy or not. Cool. he that wasn't crazy and the rabbit really did exist. Great. I don't need to see it again." My self on the other hand believe that it could be a multifaceted representation of human behavior that allows me to despise/reject or identify/sympathize with several characters simultaneously. The lack of an easily identifiable hero or villain (Donnie plays both roles) is the beauty of ambiguity and the reason for so many viewpoints. Each time I review the movie it leaves me with a different impression about the position each personality represents.
|
|
|
Post by GUEST on Jun 18, 2006 23:57:17 GMT -5
ok, i didn't read through all of those comments, however, i think that his controdictions to himself may have been in the fact that he really had to change the film to fit into the right time limits. with such an , interesting film, you don't want people to get bored, so he had to cut out a lot of important things. so what he was trying to get accross.... like the people maybe trying to contact him from the future, or guiding him. either people from the future or "the god machine" wasn't really portrayed because he had to cut the films time down a lot.
|
|
|
Post by The Green Elephant on Aug 31, 2006 13:25:27 GMT -5
To give credit to Kelly (maybe also to take it away). Great authors have said when they "Write" a story, that they look at it in the end and realise they didnt actually write it. Like the story was there it just needed the right persont to pluck it out of the either and convey it into a form that other people can read (or view, in kellys case) This may be what has happened to him that in all honesty he doesnt know what its supposed to mean just that it came to him and he felt he needed to convey this story. Just my 2 cents
|
|
|
Post by spacecowboy on May 23, 2007 20:01:43 GMT -5
Interesting.
I suffered through a lot of film and literature classes and I thought none of these would pay off. Maybe now they will! (Yipee-kai-ay!)
A book and a movie shouldn't be compared in the same way. A book is just a bunch of words on a bunch of pages (duh!). A movie is that PLUS how a director interprets these words with images. As someone pointed out before, Richard Kelly is both. This makes his vision all the more concrete; he wrote it and then, as director, filmed it as HE wanted to be seen. DVDs have brought the "interpretation" thing to a whole new level. The deleted scenes are as important as the rest of the movie. They were cut out because of time/budget limitations or they didn't add to the flow of the story. The director's comments are also important as, in this case, it brings Richard Kelly's interpretation to a tertiary level (writer/director/commentator).
On the DVD, Kelly presents his story to us no less than THREE TIMES! So, we can't just throw that away and say that each person's interpretation is more relevant than Kelly's. This movie is also considered to be a science-fiction movie. A writer can get away with a lot in a sci-fi story.
Donnie's gospel, according to Kelley, reads like this (to me, anyway): Oops! Somebody broke the timeline and Donnie is the focus of this "mistake" and is "chosen" to repair it. Along comes Frank as a sort of guide that points Donnie to do things he must do to fix the timeline. With or without knowing it, Donnie is manipulating people with his actions. Everyone in the story is there for a important reason (if Grandma Death hadn't been there at the end, Frank wouldn't have tried to avoid hitting her and he wouldn't have killed Gretchen). At the end, all is fixed up and Donnie goes back "home" and dies.
Personal interpretation is A-Okay but Kelley's interpretation should be used as a guideline of sorts. I respect Richard Kelly and so I must also respect how he sees his own work. Now it may be that I shoved one too many crayons up my nose but I never felt anything "evil" in this film. Frank is not there to hurt Donnie but to help him. We never know who/what broke the timeline but the plan to repair it didn't seem sinister to me. One absolute is that DD is the nexus in this movie, the protagonist.
What's that? You already knew this? Why didn't you stop me? I can rant and rave for pages and pages. My ... that was rather impolite of me.
|
|
|
Post by twinkle on May 26, 2007 7:29:20 GMT -5
granted, and you bring up some other salient points in your post. undoubtedly, the artist has specifics in mind before and during creation. afterward, though, the work exists more fully in the presence of a beholder. here, the artist's vision is exposed, w/all the "mistakes", oversights, what-have-you, and is experienced through what the viewer brings to the work: background, education, knowledge, prejudices, preferences, etc. the viewer then "creates" a version for him-/her-self; or, on the other hand, leaves it at "a rose is a rose is a rose". but you probably know all this already, having "suffered through a lot of film and literature classes". p.s.-wherefore "suffered"?
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on May 27, 2007 17:25:55 GMT -5
spacecowboyI largely agree with what you say, but to follow the assertion that Kelly's interpretation be the foundation for any other, you must include every interpretation which Kelly presents - if you compare the commentaries from the Theatrical and DC dvds, you get some significant differences: the theatrical commentary describes a more spiritual explanation, whilst the DC is very much a Sci-Fi explanation. So the question becomes - which is Kelly's actual intention - or was his intention to present a movie which can be interpreted coherently in several ways? Regarding the comaprison of book and film, again I agree in this case, but is it generally true that cut/alternate scenes be considered in the interpretation of the movie? Why should what is edited from a film be more significant than what is edited from a book? Certainly, in some cases, parts are cut for time - but more often than not they are cut because they are superfluous to the overall piece.
|
|
|
Post by spacecowboy on May 28, 2007 8:17:38 GMT -5
(This may be a long one so please stick with me). Absolutely, Bigboy. I found all the deleted scenes superfluous except one. When Donnie's doctor tells him that she's been pumping him full of placebos. It wasn't a big thing but it definitely changed how I saw the film, if only by a hair's breadth. I wonder if Donnie had a hunch about that. Once upon a time, they pumped me full of psychotropic meds. When you skip just one dose, your body lets you know in many uncomfortable ways. Twinkle, I haven't forgotten you. What you say is somewhat reminiscent of the movie/documentary "What the Bleep Do We Know!?". It starts with quantum physics (no, no, don't run away), and specifically what is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The idea central to the whole principle is that the state of the world/universe is directly dependant on the observer. Elements of the universe cannot exist without the observer. Heisenberg himself said: "I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it. " --Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927 A science reporter who was there when Heisenberg first presented his idea in 1927: "The consequences, are startling. Electrons and atoms cease to have any reality as things that can be detected by the senses directly or indirectly. Yet we are convinced the world is composed of them. All mental pictures we have formed of bodies moving through space are thrown into confusion. So simple a conception as a baseball flying from the pitcher to the batter turns out to be obscure, doubtful and even ridiculous. ... The scientific world is faced with an upheaval as great as that brought about by Einstein." Freaky! Sorry, Twinkle, I know I'm probably taking your idea waaaay out there but there is a connection between how we each perceive movies and how we see the world. For example, if I were to place a big statue of Frank in a local park and invite 278 people (a random number) to see it I would get 278 different interpretations of it. But with professor Heisenberg's nutty idea the same applies to reality. The barrier between physics and every day stuff is becoming blurry. Hold on. I am going to make a point soon. I can just FEEL it! When Donnie cuts the water main in school and then buries his Axe in a solid bronze statue, it hints that he may have "superhero" abilities. Even in his commentary Richard Kelly never really gives any explanation for this so that we can't even speculate based on his ideas. So we make make up stuff on our own (weeee!). Donnie was an extremely intelligent and intuitive kid. Without actually knowing about this quantum interpretation of the world, could he have somehow picked up on this idea? Sounds crazy, eh? But over the past 80 years efforts to disprove Heisenberg's idea have failed and so making more real. I'm pretty sure Richard Kelly had no idea about this whole concept. He did leave it very open to interpretation. You can come up with all kinds of crazy ideas. Like maybe Donnie was another survivor of Krypton but his powers were awakened only with the arrival of Frank. The only difference is that Heisenberg's Principle is friggin' real. As I surfed the web I ran across all kinds of crazy stuff; that DD was actually a Masonic movie (symbols in every scene); that the film was based on actual events, and so on. All movies are extensions of parts of ourselves and so we feel some kind of connection to them ... especially DD! The films in turn become part of us in an intimate way. I think that a lot of writers and directors are aware of that at some level. That's how they make hits! BTW, Twinkle, what I said about my literature and film classes was unfairly based on only one teacher. He was rather aged and moved and talked very slow. So slow, in fact, that as we got to the end of the semester a couple of films had to be sacrificed. And I was in two of his courses. (Aaaargh!). I probably should have put this in the science part of this blog but although the Heisenberg idea is real, it's interpretation is a little ambiguous. But I do have news of recent experiments with time travel. Science can be so cool! Is there a limit on how many words we're allowed to use? God knows one should be made just for me ...
|
|
|
Post by spacecowboy on Jun 6, 2007 0:06:04 GMT -5
This brings up BIG questions.
In the director's comments, Richard Kelly brings up the reasons for Frank honking his car horn like a madman. First, he said it was Frank's way of saying, "Donnie, you did it!", which is nice.
Second, Kelley said it was to awaken Donnie so he didn't get squished by the engine. Unfortunately, Donnie hadn't had a decent night's sleep in 28 days.
The important problem here is that for Frank to sound his horn for the above-mentioned reasons, he would need to have a "memory" of "future" events in the alternate timeline - which no longer exists and, actually, never did.
I don't know if Kelley mentioned anything about this but it certainly throws a wrench into the plot.
|
|
|
Post by thepretender on Jun 6, 2007 8:41:24 GMT -5
SpaceCowboy first off...I just love that bugs/frank avatar of yours. It just makes me smile every time. I never heard that thing about Frank honking...the way that the woman would always cross the road right there to check her mail makes it seem as tho everyone should have been honking as they approached... it. (but really it probably wouldn't have mattered to her anyway) Or someone could have been thoughtful and moved her mailbox to a better location! ;-)
|
|
|
Post by twinkle on Jun 6, 2007 11:08:41 GMT -5
The important problem here is that for Frank to sound his horn for the above-mentioned reasons, he would need to have a "memory" of "future" events in the alternate timeline - which no longer exists and, actually, never did. unless...the bunny was driving the car! plus, how can Frank be both outside Donnie's house honking his horn AND in the "Mad World" montage? am i missing a time lapse/delay? always connected Donnie's death w/everyone's "awakening" as near-simultaneous. good points, Spacecowboy.
|
|
|
Post by greedy on Jun 6, 2007 19:29:31 GMT -5
Or someone could have been thoughtful and moved her mailbox to a better location! ;-) or someone could have just written the bitch
|
|
|
Post by spacecowboy on Jun 6, 2007 22:10:34 GMT -5
how can Frank be both outside Donnie's house honking his horn AND in the "Mad World" montage? My gawd! Why didn't I think of that? Unless, after he dropped off Elizabeth and honked his horn, Frank drove home in a state of sleep (don't laugh, many cases of "sleep-driving" have been documented). Once at home, he falls into bed into REM sleep only to be awakened for the montage. Naw ... that's more convoluted than Richard Kelley's stories! I must have smoked too many rabbit pellets. Thepretender: Thanks for your positive input on my avatar. I used Bugs' face as a reminder that I shouldn't get too serious about all this. Donnie Darko did change my perspective on life but at the same time I feel there is humor in everything. There's certainly a lot of it in the movie! I was thinking of making Bugs' head metallic, like Frank's mask. Let's see what happens ...
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Jun 9, 2007 11:39:36 GMT -5
The PoTT states that those who had experience in the Tangent Universe (not the future, but a parallel reality) would remember thier experience AS dreams, not that they would have to dream to remember.
Kelly states in one of the commentaries that the wake-up montage is not in real time - given that we see Frank last, fully clothed and next to his bed, it's not unreasonable to imagine that he dropped off Elizabeth, got home to his room and the sight of his suit sketches trigger a kind of dejavu...
|
|