I don't think Kelly knew what he was doing...

[Lie To You]

Haha... my original title for this post was supposed to be "I don't think Kelly knew what he was getting himself into," but it wouldn't fit. I didn't mean for it to sound critical of his genius...
But I have to actually question his genius after reading an interview that romanticmovies did with him. (http://www.romanticmovies.about.com/cs/donniedarko/a/donniedarkork.htm) Because they ask him a some of the questions that many of you ponder on this board, and he has really simple answers.
For example, I came across a post on here where someone had related the golf course to wormholes in the movie; because it, of course, has holes, but in the interview, Kelly says that in the original screenplay, Donnie was supposed to wake up in a shopping mall.
And when asked what the point of this movie was, Kelly said "Ultimately the film is critical of the public school system."
After reading the interview, I feel that Kelly was trying to create a film that looked cool that had some coincidential ties in it that would make people go "Oh! How coincidential!" for a breif second, but, by accident, came up with this masterpiece.

[wander3]

Ok, I also read that interview, just today actualy. The post you mentioned with the holes, was mine. The article does have an air of simplicity to it. He shys away from the more serious and in depth segements of the movie and highlights the simple aspects of the plot. The fact is that the movie has a lot going on. It deals with many arguments and topics. I believe he did realize his was making a work of art, but not exactly sure how big it would get. He seemed to make the film ambiguous so that it ccould be interpreted in many ways. Also, the scene you mention where he wakes up in a shopping mall, I dont believe that was to supercede the golf course scene. I believe that it was just an extra scene that was going to released on the directors cut DVD. Anyways, the movie he made was far from simple, although it appears that way on the surface.

[anth]

Are you sure it wasn't just fabricated. It's way too simple and nonsensical.

[thepretender]

If there is something that you are comfortable with...you don't think about how you come to the conclusions anymore. They are just there. A part of you. I wonder if this is what happened when Kelly created this movie. I can't imagine half of the thoughts expressed on this website going into it.
If you write about something you know...it has some integrity that is just innate. Brilliant ...but for some people...innate.

[anth]

I agree with thepretender, I can't imagine such brilliance, filled with symbols and connotations as a fluke. Every detail was composed to perfection.

Either the piece (interview) was fabricated, or RK was so comfortable with his work and wasn't struggling for his answer (as thepretender said).

After reading the interview, I feel that Kelly was trying to create a film that looked cool that had some coincidential ties in it that would make people go "Oh! How coincidential!" for a breif second, but, by accident, came up with this masterpiece.

Highly doubt it!

[gretchen]

if he was trying to be critical of the PUBLIC school system, shouldn't he have placed the characters in a public school?

i've said before, this makes the least sense of me to everything DD.

[Bigboy]

The terms 'Public School' and 'Private School' seem to mean different things in different places.
For instance, traditionally in the UK 'Public' (rather counter-intuitively) means independant, and 'Private' means 'state'. But in certain places it's sometimes the other way around - see here.

So it may be that in some parts of the more 'anglical' parts US that the terminology stuck...
Or it may be he was referring to the way the student body is chosen - for instance a privately funded parochial school (as Donnie's seems to be) may allow anyone to attend without requiring tuition fees; i.e. public, though would be technically classified as private/independant.

[ProvidencePortal]

Lie said:

Kelly was trying to create a film that looked cool that had some coincidential ties.

In my opinion, that's totally plausible. And I'd ask the rest of the forum members: let's not bash this idea too hard -- we've discussed it as a community in other places on the board, and just about all of use have warmed up to it in softer forms.

That's because (I believe) there are giant leaps of faith and logic required to piece together the movie in a way that maintains an integrity for the whole ... and even that integrity is tenuous, coming from tons of outside-the-movie texts and plenty of extrapolation. So with all those machinations to assemble the story, plus Kelly's own comments (which range from "ambiguous" on the generous end to flat-out contraditory if we're taking off our fan hats), there's a totally valid question to get to there, which is: how much of this are WE making work, and how much of it's what was meant by Kelly when he wrote/directed it.

I've said it before: I think great art, successful art, is defined by the ease with which you insert yourself and your experience into the piece. So it may be what makes DD so great is that it doesn't totally jive -- it gives us grand emotion, loveable characters and enough a story to get us intrigued, then invites us to fill in the gaps with our own perspective.

[gregj]

I questioned his genius after watching the director's cut.

[Twitchmonkey]

gregj said:

I questioned his genius after watching the director's cut.

Don't forget Domnio. I think when you take risks like Kelly does, you're bound to make a few blunders, but at least ihe doesn't play it safe and be content with making bland movies.

[tomresurrection]

I dont think Kelly knew this was going to be a Cult film.

As said in the commentary he was piecing things and trying to figure things out himself while making and editing the movie.