Frank's father

[josh]

Was rewatching DD and got to thinking about Frank's response to Donnie's ? "Why do they call you Frank?" to which Frank responds "it was the name of my father, and his father before me."

Not quite sure how to understand Frank's response. If he had said "it is the name of my father and my father's father" I'd get it. But Frank says "his father before me" as if Frank's origin was circular rather than linear.

If you assume Frank the bunnie is a manifestation of Frank the boyfriend, then then the "his father before me" makes more sense..... I think.

[Elwood]

josh said:

If you assume Frank the bunnie is a manifestation of Frank the boyfriend, then then the "his father before me" makes more sense..... I think.

Why do you say that, Josh? I've wondered about this line, too, but I don't have any good answers.

Is MD Frank saying that ML Frank can be seen as both himself (before death) and as own his father (as in the being that lead to MD Frank's creation, through death)? Then he could be saying something equivalent to "It was my father's name, and his father before him": "It was my father's [my father = ML Frank's] name, and his father before me [me = ML Frank]". That seems to suffer from the double problem of (1) being too confusing, and (2) not really adding any insight even if it were true!

I also noticed that the Darko Discussion:6 questions thread mentioned this briefly, and tried to connect it to the hotel discussion when Donnie's dad mentions the Frank he knew who died on the way to the prom. It didn't really go anywhere, though.

I wonder if this line was in the original script (ie, in the script we can see in the DD book). If it isn't, maybe that gives us an easy excuse to avoid having to read any meaning in it.

[Good idea]

There was a discussion regarding Donnie's age in the movie with a link to the script. i'll look it up and see what the dialogue was intended to be.

[josh]

yup. per ushoulda.asked.biz/sparklemotion.txt the "and his father before me" was the intended line.

[gabriel8616]

I can see how it is possible how this could be seen as a circular statement. However, I hope you consider this... Through the statements we must consider 3 people... Frank, Frank's father, and Frank's Father's father who will be called A, B, and C respecitively. (Because of the way A stated it... we must consider these 3.) Now, in this case we are currently in the TU. Currently there is a Frank... a ML frank, in the 4th dimension, there is a MD frank, the third would have to be a PU Frank... I am unsure if this would contridict anything. In my opinion, it would since PU doesn't currently exist... bringing about PU again I would say is the purpose of the LR. This is why he must send the artifact home after all, to re-establish PU. Thus, I see this senario false if you consider the "physical frank".

If you twist this to fit Elwood's theory, then it MAY be possible by a stretch. MD Frank would clearly know of PU Frank... since MD Frank's goal is to re-associate himself PU, in which we remember ML Frank too. In this case, we can see it this way. Since time is linear minus some parts that are fixed by the LR, the Franks would be in the time line of PU Frank, ML Frank, then MD Frank... since MD Frank must have died... and he doesnt die until later, thus MD Frank uses the fourth Dimension construct to manipulate Donnie. So, in this way... the 4th DC Frank (MD FRANK) who says this to Donnie, would be the 3rd, and from the time line would logically make the statement with the PU and ML ideas correct.

In further thought of this I hate to throw this in, but I feel that this may not be a great idea for one reason... the wording. He states... "it WAS the name of my father." WAS is past tense, thus we must logically assume this Frank must not be alive, however, in the TU ML Frank IS alive... so he couldn't logically say WAS. That is my biggest problem with this idea. If the writers wished to make this something... as in the idea put forth... then they would have made sure it made grammatical sense as well so as no confusion can be made. Now here we are, and we must assume that due to wording these ideas are not/ cannot be true.

Here is my conclusion. "Always pick the simpliest answer." Quite simply, consider the feel of MD Frank. He has to be able to manipulate Donnie. He must be clever, smart in an odd sense. With this feel in mind, consider the way you would say things. If you were acting as a smart character would you choose to say:
"Why do they call you Frank?" to which Frank responds "it was the name of my father, and his father before me."... or "it is the name of my father and my father's father". So, thought it does seem like something to read into, I think it is just us wanting to read into it. It was a thought provoking movie... so ofcourse we want to pick it apart... but I just don't think it is there. On a side not, as far as Frank... the one the dad mentions about on prom night... I would say that this was a way to have the audience associate the name with a mystery/misery. Those are my thoughts... please reply back with what you think!

[h4m]

you know its also possible that frank's actual father was frank too and he is frank jr...

[Bigboy]

Actually it would make the Frank we all know and love Frank III, his father Frank Jr, and his grandfather Frank (the first)

The wording in the movie was a little odd, but it depends on how you read it:

You can separtate the statements this way:
"[it was the name of my father], and [his father before me.]"

this is how most of us read it (and the way the punctuation presents it), and is a bit confusing, because it implies his father's father was in the same generation as his father

Or you can separtate the statements this way:
"[it was the name of my father, and his father] [before me.]"
this way it makes better sense, as it suggests simply that his father, and his father's father (grandfather) preceded him.

In the end I think it's just a grammatical typo and should have read:
"it was the name of my father, and his father before him."

[Phil]

i saw this line as relevance to the conversation donnies mum and dad had in the hotel.

When his dad talks about a frank they knew at high school that was doomed. Meaning that the frank they knew was the father of the bunny suit frank.

That is why he took donnie away from his room at the start, because maybe franks dad was doomed in the same way that donnie was doomed to die.

[h4m]

actually i find this highly unlikely... for that to be franks dad frankie feedler (who died on his way to the prom) would have had to have had a kid by about 18 years of age. also frank (bunny and elizabeth's bf) is too young to have been his son.

[Bigboy]

Maybe not, but we also know that Frank's grandfather was called Frank too.
I've not done the maths, but could that Frank be Frankie Fiedler?

[gretchen]

perhaps he could.

anyone with comments on the deleted part of this scene?

[Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane]

simply: "phantom" Frank's "father" (one from whom one is issued forth)=MD Frank of the TU. MD Frank's "father" ("phantom" Frank's "his father before me/him")=Frank of PU.
no connection w/ Frankie Feedler of prom death fame except for name and link w/ idea of tragic fate, doom; "some people have tragedy in their blood".

[Bigboy]

Nice idea, but some terminology's a bit squiffy;
MD frank IS 'Phantom' Frank;

But you're right - MD Frank could be seen as the descendant of ML Frank (both in TU). And in turn PU Frank is the 'ancestor' of both.

[Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane]

yes, MD Frank IS "phantom" Frank. merely wanted to suggest as a separate entity, hence position as "offspring"/"son". never see MD Frank at all (sans bunny suit) prior to party sequence.

[Bigboy]

Ah - I think we have wires crossed:
MD Frank - DEAD Frank in TU
ML Frank - LIVING frank in TU (as you say we dont see him till after the party)
PU Frank - The original Frank.

Were saying the exact same thing !

The distinction I'm making is that the Frank who is shot isn't MD Frank - how can you me a minipulated dead whilst you're alive? He's living, and manipulated, therefore ML.

It's only semantics, but I'm a picky bastard. ;D