|
Post by spacecowboy on Jun 11, 2007 18:16:16 GMT -5
Okay. That does make sense.
One thing that has been gnawing on my brains is that throughout the film, Frank is not only Frank the Bunny, he's Dead Frank! In the theater he reveals his gory eye socket. So he would be a "manipulated dead", yes? Why would the "powers that be" choose a dead guy in a rabbit costume?
Any distortion or damage caused to the spacetime continuum affects every single point in the universe. They could have chosen some guy named Uxnal from the planet Wadagoogoo to do the job. Of course, it would probably make no sense to us ... as if this version makes sense! ;D
The more I think about it, the more open ends and endless loops seems to have been left. Maybe Richard Kelley is either a sadistic maniac or a genius. Whichever, he certainly left a lot for us to talk about.
|
|
|
Post by shantle on Jun 12, 2007 14:47:31 GMT -5
this idea was made stronger in the directors cut by implanting the newer rabbit icon - a symbol of the inverted pentagram, along with the strengthening of the idea that everything was being controlled from outside by a strong force. The refernces to evil. I don't think the refrence was to evil, but the opposite. Like deus ex machina. I think the strong force is God. I may not this opinion correctly because I don't really get the wording, but I don't think it's a refrence to evil.
|
|
|
Post by spacecowboy on Jun 15, 2007 9:46:41 GMT -5
The "Freemason" site I stumbled across used the same image as "proof" that DD was a "masonic" movie. Similar images often mean different things to different people - or cultures.
|
|
bj945
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by bj945 on Dec 22, 2007 17:52:59 GMT -5
Hiya everyone,
I watched the film yesterday and thought about it for like 30 minutes and came up with an interpretation. I then looked it up on the web, and I seem to be way off the mark, if you can be off the mark in interpreting film. But I was just interested to see whether any of you guys had ever come across my interpretation, or what you thought about it.
It seemed to me through the film that Donnie was scared of one thing above all: the idea that all actions are pre-determined. When he goes to see his physics professor, he says "If God controls time then all time is pre-determined." Later he shouts: "Not if you move in God's channel" when his teacher denies that actions could be pre-determined if he could see into the future. So it seems clear that Donnie links the idea of God with the idea of a pre-determined future very closely.
Later, he goes to see his phyciatrist and she asks him whether he thinks everyone dies alone. Donnie replies that he could debate the question over and over, but doesn't have any proof. He says: "I could debate it my whole life and never find an answer" because he still wouldn't have any proof. Donnie says that the search is futile. Immediately after he says that, his phyciatrist brings God back into the picture. I think that here, Donnie was really talking about the debate over whether God exists or not and hence whether or not actions are pre-determined.
To me, Frank seemed to be that side of Donnie's phyche that was concerned with the question of the pre-determination of the future. Frank is in Donnie's head (most of the time), and is the side of Donnie that wants an answer to this question. Frank looks like Donnie's sister's boyfriend (can't remember her name), but I figured that as a schizophrenic, Donnie had probably subconsciously chosen a bunny rabbit called Frank arbitarily to represent that part of his phyche, and then linked that back to a Frank he knew when imagining him taking off his mask.
This seems to fit in OK, because Frank persuades Donnie to flood the school and to burn down Jim Cunningham's house. Donnie's trying to prove to himself that he has control over his actions, and it seems natural that he would do something extreme to try and prove this. He's sort of thinking: I'll prove that I'm in control by doing something that I'd never do ordinarily, that shows I'm in control, like flooding the school.
However, this doesn't really constitute convincing proof for the idea that he's in control. The only way to prove that you're in control would be to go back in time, put yourself in precisely the same situation as you were in before, and do something radically different. Here the exitence of the tangent universe offers Donnie an opportunity to do this. When Donnie was in bed at the beggining of the film, he got out and left the house, so he was unharmed when the jet engine hit into his bedroom. Put in the same situation again, Donnie controls himself, doesn't think of Frank in his mind, as he had the first time, and waits in bed. He knows that he's gone against what happened last time, a few seconds before the engine kills him. He finally has proof that he is in control of his actions and in fact that God does not exist, hence the almost manic laughter in the last few seconds of his life.
This interpretation doesn't explain some stuff, e.g how Donnie wedged an axe into the bronze statue at school. But I think it ties in quite well with a lot of the film. Frank kills Gretchen, and Donnie kills Frank, but the fact that this is the same Frank who he saw in the cinema could be a coincidence. A bit strenuous, I know.
Anyway, I thought that interpretation was more satisfying than all that stuff in the Philosophy of Time Travel. Those seemed to me to be just made up rules that the story abides to, but it's not neat and doesn't say anything. Just a bit sci-fi for my tastes. I was a little bit disappointed when I heard that that was Kelly's explanation. My idea didn't quite work, but I thought it would be along those lines, and it's more interesting. It says something about how much it's worth sacrificing in order to gain answers to some of the greatest philosophical questions that have haunted the human people for centuries.
I dunno. But whatever man. It'd be great to get some replies, some personal interpretations, how bollocks you thought my interpretation was etc...
Really, really like to get a response...
CHEERS, SDS
|
|
|
Post by Kristen on Jun 6, 2008 12:01:04 GMT -5
When analyzing Donnie Darko, I took the same approach and mentality that I use when I study literature or poetry.
The creator did have an intention and his own interpretation. However, the subconscious is strong and many other things went into the film that he didn't even realize he was including. I'm not saying everything was just tossed in. I think we can all agree that everything in Donnie Darko is deliberate.
Every element has a different connotation and denotation that Kelly is aware of (consciously or subconscious) and therefore, everyone watching/reading brings with them their unique experiences therefore different views. It is unhealthy for your creativity to simply take Kelly’s word and that’s final.
Also keep in mind that you have even more interruptive license when analyzing a film (as opposed to a piece of literature) because in a book or poem, only one person had his/her hand in creating that work. Even though Kelly was more involved than the usual writer/director many other people were involved in creating the Donnie Darko universe: actors, set designers, etc.
Happy analyzing.
|
|
|
Post by wowgoldplus on Mar 20, 2009 21:59:19 GMT -5
|
|