Donnie Darko...a very strange movie - Page 7

the only plot element that bothers me in the movie is the whole "Frank honks his horn to Donnie" part; both times the car horn is used, it's done by Living Frank, who should have no idea what's going on (when Living Frank kills Gretchen, he has no idea what he did) unless he too is being manipulted be Dead Frank).

So if Frank did in fact honk the horn to Donnie, he didn't do it knowingly, i guess.

If you're talking about the part I think you're talking about, Frank is honking his horn to Elizabeth after dropping her off at home.

Rob

Seth

Ghost in the Shell is on the Elite Shelf in my DVD collection. Kay? That film is far more coherent than DD, despite the fact that it is far more complex.


That's pretty obvious because in the first dream Frank tells Donnie that he has been watching him. This clearly means that the two coexisted IMO.


In the future tangent universe. The engine fell off his mother's plane.


Which to me is the biggest hole in the films entire plot. If we are to believe that the tangent universe merged over from the plane engine falling, then what I don't understand is how you mean the artifact was returned to the primary universe. Donnie turned the clock back to a time after the primary universe moved to the tangent universe. So as far as I can tell, the catatrophie was still there. Remember, the engine still fell in the end.

According to the director, the beeping was Frank telling Donnie to wake up because they were successful in fulfilling his task. This doesn't make sense to me, because in order for that to happen, Frank would have to have had full cognition of what was achieved in the tangent universe. But then we see Frank waking up and touching his eye, as if he wasn't fully aware of what was going on. The director said this also... that the people had a slight recollection of what had happened in the tangent universe - a vague idea if you will. Seems like a contradiction to me. First Frank is beeping his horn saying YAY, wake up man, get out of bed. But then he wakes up out of bed, with a WTF look on his face like everyone else.

Maybe we should ignore the director's commentary?

Here's another question. If the Frank had been watching Donnie, and therefore the tangent universe always existed, then isn't the world always at risk of being destroyed?

Bryant,

I know, in fact we all know that you don't like this film. Now you're just engaging in a monolog on why for three consecutive posts. The more you say, the more you show why you just don't get it. You have a whopping 37 posts (currently) in this forum and I think half of them have been in this thread slamming the film it was created to appreciate. Please observe the guidelines of the forum. The next time a moderator has to intervene may not be as gentle as the last.

For someone who has repeatedly made it clear they dislike this film & can't understand why people enjoy it or care to discuss it in detail, you're sure spending a lot of time discussing & nitpicking it.

Correction - I have said that DD was illogical. I never said that I wasn't entertained. What is so bad about me questioning the fact that the director commented about the horn beep, when his comment his inconsistent with the film? Am I only allowed to say these things if I absolutely loved the film or have made 2000 posts on this board?

Are my questions not legit?

Another question for the DD experts. Does Frank or anyone else in the film ever mention the concept of tangent universes, or anything other than time travel?

I ask this, because the only events that began and concluded the anomolies was the plane engine falling from the future. The time travel part makes sense, but I don't see where the tangent universe really comes in. I'd go as far as saying that without this thread, I would have never caught on to a tangent universe.

Where are the TU clues in the film?

I for one caught on to the tangent universe (tangent time line, whatever) at the end of the first viewing. It was pretty darn clear to me. Live Frank does not mention anything about time travel or tangent universes, because he is not aware of them. He is being manipulated by dead Frank, as others are. Why do you think Karen wrote "Cellar Door" on the chalk board? Do you really think some linguist actually said it was the perfect phrase? Why did Dead Frank direct Donnie to burn down Jim Cunningham's house when his goal was also to destroy that time line? He knew the memory would still lead to the destruction of Cunningham.

You have already brought up the horn honk several times. Give it a rest would you! I haven't even listened to the commentary, myself. It really isn't a big deal if there are hidden meanings that would only be known by the director if not for DVD commentaries.

You are not required to love the film, but it is agonizingly clear you don't like it and have some desire to convince the rest of us likewise. The other contributors to this thread do like it. Why can't you just let us be? Your comments are not constructive contributions to this thread. You have just switched from outright slamming to not so clever or subtle monologs trying to convince the rest of us that we are idiots for liking it. What you should really do is start your own thread discussing how stupid this film is instead of dumping on this one. I don't understand why that doesn't get through to you.

As far as your number of posts, I just find it curious that probably half of all your posts in this forum were trying to disable our appreciation of this film. I suggest you venture further into the HTF. You will find plenty of other threads to productively participate in rather than trying to disable this one. There are a multitude of very long discussions raving about movies I thank are crap. I just stay away from them, which is really the best thing to do.

John, what led you to think that there was a tangent universe? That's all I'm asking. It's clear that Donnie is being led by Frank, Drew and Noah, all throughout the movie. Drew and Noah I found to be the most interesting of them all, because the hints that they were in on the scheme were subtle. The best was when they were in school, and they turn to one another and say, "Donnie Darko" in disbelief.

So you have Frank who only appears to Donnie in visions, you have Drew and Noah who are characters in the present who ARE aware of what they are doing (instead of just being manipulated) and you have the channel which directs Donnie up to the gun in the bedroom. So yes it is clear that he is being led and that Frank from the future plays a part in the grand scheme of things like some of those in the present. But, I still don't see how that equates to a tangent universe. I just see where there is a need to turn back the clock - remember Donnie was trying to find out the master plan, and at the end he knew what was going on... "Deus Machina" [Frank races in] "Our Saviour." And thus understanding the masterplan, he turned back time.


Why should I give it a rest? This is critical to the understanding of the film! Was Donnie sacrificing himself? Did he need to sacrifice himself? Was he supposed to die in the first place? All of these are critical to appreciating the character's destiny, is it not?

Why should I not factor in inconsistencies in the Director's commentary. Isn't the commentary there to get a better understanding of what he was trying to convey?



John, I do like Donnie Darko, but like I've said a million times, I find it incoherent. So why can't I ask people questions about it? You've proposed that I "just don't get the film"? So what is so threatening about me asking questions to those "who do get it"?

Two simple questions - the tangent universe and the horn honking. Why can't I get an answer without you having a fit?

It is not even remotely critical to "understanding the film." I'll try to explain this one more time. As long as you are trying to decipher, definitively and absolutely "what a film means" you are missing most of the true enjoyment of them. This is particularly the case with most of the finest ones made, like Donnie Darko, The Man Who Wasn't There, Memento and Mulholland Drive, to name some recent ones. If you stop using films to prove your intellect and ability to find fault, and start using them to feel emotions and expand your view and perception of the world, and the people in it, you will finally be learning how to truly appreciate them.

Are there oddities in Donnie Darko? Absolutely! do they become annoying when you are obsessed with the trees and blind to the forest? You bet. Step back, unclench and let it take you somewhere. If you still don't like it? Fine. Just don't try to convince me that you aren't making an effort to dissuade the rest of us from our enjoyment.

Oh yeah, the other question about the tangent universe. I think it is pretty obvious there is a tangent time line and that is plenty for me to get a great deal of enjoyment from the film. From that point, it is really up to me whether I want to explore the differences between what the films means to me and what the director intends. If you gain more experience with the creative process, you will learn that what is created will inevitibly mean many more things to others than you ever could have conceived.

Look at my post a few spots back. There are so many ways to "approach" this film. That is a big part of what makes it so good to me.

Well, when the plane engine smashed through Donnie's roof, Donnie was supposed to be under it. He wasn't and therefore skirted death. So, because he was alive in a reality in which he is supposed to be dead, the reality really didn't exist. This "tangent universe" was only going to be in existence until it became unstable and crashed, causing all of existence to be wiped out. So, Donnie was manipulated by Frank to set in motion a chain of events that would guide the engine back through the portal so it would fall on Donnie, killing him and closing the tangent universe.

Bruce

Thanks Bruce,

The only thing I don't get about that though is the director's comments about Donnie's success at the end. He says that real Frank was beeping his car horn to him, telling him to get out of bed, as if to say, "We did it!" If Donnie had a choice of dying, then I don't think that Donnie's death was the cause of the tangent. For me, the anomolies began with the plane engine falling from the future, but that is repeated as well, meaning that all Donnie did was turn time back to the point after the rip began.

I could certainly have bought the idea of Donnie's death being the catalyst, but the director's comment really does screw that theory up. @%*^!

The other thing is that Drew Barrymoore and Noah Whylie weren't simply being manipulated. They knew what was going on and were in on the mission to get Donnie to follow a path. Funny thing there is that they were real people (not dead I mean). Also, their comment of disbelief implies that they had done this type of mission before, and it is odd that the person to make things right was Donnie Darko. It was sort as if they were special messengers, or guardian angels, or something like that. That was the coolest clue in the entire movie IMO.

Haven't seen TMWWT. Memento was coherent.

David Lynch was quite obviously throwing out red herrings in Mulholland Drive, and he was obviously trying to convey madness in the film. For that reason I find Mulholland Drive quite amazing to watch. It was what the director intended

With DD, I'm seeing things that contradict what the director is saying, so I simply cannot put this film in the same class as the others yet.

:b

The first line pretty much gives away your motives, plus if you say something "a million times" you aren't being constructive. As far as your "asking questions to those who do get it," your motives are annoyingly transparant. Despite your claims, you obviously have no interest in gaining an appreciation for this film.

John,

Bruce attempted an answer without acting like I need to belong to some elite club. That is why I ignored 99% of your post. Obviously the horn honk issue is disrupting your appreciation for the film. Sorry to bust your bubble, but I'd like to get other people's views on the film rather than hold DD beyond question as you advocate.

I have questions, and a person attempted an answer. You on the other hand seem to have issues with me asking questions? What's your hang-up?


I've only had to say it a million times because you keep insisting that I don't like the film, when in fact I do. I just find it incoherent. So there, a million and one just for you. Perhaps if you stop accusing me of this, I won't have to say it a million and two times!


So what? The point is that they were alive and aware of what the plan was. They were playing a part evidenced by them demonstrating their cognition of Donnie's mission - i.e. they were not simply being manipulated into helping Donnie.

Anyways, if anyone can clue me in on signs that there was a tangent universe, I'd greatly appreciate hearing it. I understand the time travel... the engine came from the future, Frank was helping Donnie understand how to control time and the teachers were guiding Donnie to his destiny to save the world. But I still don't see where a tangent universe comes into play.

From the commentary, yes, but not from the film. Any suggestions?

I'm not the least bit concerned about it.


And where was that?


It is the dishonest guise of your questions. You have no interest in gaining an appreciation of this film, as I already said.






That's not what you said. You said they had done this before, and that it was "obvious." Your attempts at mind games don't fool me.


Go ahead and continue. I'll just give you as much attention as I should have from the beginning. A mistake on my part.

I just wanted to pop in here and say thanks to John and Seth and others who pointed out and discussed a couple of things I overlooked.

I really loved this movie. I was caught completely by surprise on this one. A friend let me borrow it and said it was good. I never followed up on this movie because I was under the impression it was a comic book superhero story.(Shows just how damn bad the marketing was on this) So I was totally blown away with the movie.

And to Mr. Trew:
Perhaps(and this is just my simple opinion) the director wanted to do this story with the tangent universe. And maybe he found no clear way of conveying this onscreen. At least not to his satisfaction. That was why he included everything he did on his commentary, DVD, and website. He wanted people to realize what he was going for. To me, it's a much more interesting idea than plain old time travel. But you also have to realize that this sort of idea is much harder to convey on screen than on page. So he left in subtle clues, but didn't try to push it. Even if you don't get the whole tangent universe idea from your initial viewing, it doesn't lessen the experience any. I think it only adds more enjoyment and thought to later viewing's. That is another reason I find this film so remarkable.

They also made it look like a horror movie. I mentioned this before, but I can't believe they drew a parallel to Stir of Echoes and Final Destination on the back cover.


And folks, I'm sorry I've contributed to the derailing of this thread. I'm usually fairly good at not inciting things, but I failed here. :b

Actually, I'm not even sure if there were subtle clues that it was a tangent universe. The one solid thing I got from the film was that Gretchen thought it was a great idea if it was possible to replace someone's bad memories with good memories. I think that this was a primary motivator for Donnie at the very end of the film. I think that this was the crux of the whole "master plan" for Donnie.

You have a catalyst, a hero, time travel, predestination and life's grand plan. That's plenty to chew on IMO.

Mind games? Man you take this way too seriously! I think you need to read the post again, bolded for your edification. I'd also suggest that you reread your own posts.





I'd love to respect your 2000 posts but ...that's really sad . Even Kevin Costner isn't this bad! Can't I ask questions without you breathing flames down my neck?

I had an interesting afternoon today. I finished Federico Fellini's 8 1/2 and Donnie Darko. I must be getting better in my film assessment or something, but I reached the same damn conclusions Seth Paxton and Eric W did. I'm scared now, somebody hold me.
.
.
.
.
.


I loved the fact that it took place during the 80's, although it didn't seem that way. I thought it was an interesting device to make part of the setting at a private school (can you imagine tracking down 80's dress and other nostalgia? If you did manage to find all that stuff, you'd end up with something that looked more like a spoof a la The Wedding Singer, which coincidently also had Drew Barrymore.....okay I'm really scarying myself now).

Anyways, I want to second what Seth and Eric said and add in addition that Donnie Dark had a really bittersweet, endearing ending.

It's hard to believe that the guy that plays Donnie Darko is the same dude from Bubble Boy. Never saw it, but you know how that goes.

The girl that played Gretchen (Jena Malone) was hot.....then I realized that is the same girl that played the little daughter from Stepmom. Shudder..... Same thing happened to me when I realized Kirsten Dunst was the little vampire in Interview with a Vampire. Oh Fate, why do you mock me!?

So Dome, is that what your standard train of thought would look like?

You know these things for a fact? You don't think it's possible that every single frame of Mulholland Drive has meaning? Assuming you're right, can you identify all of the red herrings? If you can't, doesn't that make it incoherent?

I don't have a problem with your questions about DD. I do have a problem with you calling it "incoherent" (lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance; inconsistent
; lacking clarity or intelligibility). Just because not everything is spelled out in a film doesn't make it incoherent. Lots of good movies leave loose ends. Or, you could say, there are a lot of really good, incoherent films including Donnie Darko.

Any movie with the least bit of depth is going to leave some amount of detail up to the imagination of the viewer. What did the horn honk mean? Was it all just a dream? A tangent universe? Or was Donnie simply going insane? You decide. Do you want to know how the director sees it? Listen to the commentary. Want some history? Dive into donniedarko.com. Want to have the time travel story line spelled out for you? Read Philosophy of Time Travel. Or don't. It's up to you.

Bryant, having just watched Ghost in the Shell in my SF film class I can certainly say that it is no easier to understand the first time through than DD, which is why I brought those other films up.

I had seen GitS many times before, so I was fine. But when we went to group discussion is became very clear that most people had no idea what had happened. They couldn't keep track of the gov't agencies, didn't have any idea who lived, died, joined together at the end, didn't understand how Bateau was able to recover Kusanagi's ghost (or if he even had) without the gov't being involved (and therefore why he had to find a cyborg body on the black market - some even thought it was a human child he bought).


So I simply can not agree in the least that Ghost in the Shell is perfectly understandable the first time through, but Donnie Darko is some cryptic mess. I think both films are equally vague and muddled (for the better) and require some extrapolation by the viewer, along with provoking general thoughts about the film that have no definate answers.

And both are highly enjoyable the first time through, providing enough clues and insights to at least give the viewer a vague understanding of what is really going on while leaving some things open for a return viewing or 2.

I said
you said

Wrong. The engine fell off his mother's plane IN BOTH UNIVERSES and in the future at the same point. That these 2 engines have crossed paths by jumping tracks to the other universe makes little difference.

To the people in the PRIMARY UNIVERSE all they will see is a kid killed by an engine that will then fall from his mother's plane in a month. These people will NOT know that that engine slipped across into another universe and was then replaced by Donnie Darko from the ALTERNATE UNIVERSE because the engines are identical.

All this means that everytime someone is killed by a future object they were part of one of these alternate universe events and the artifact being replaced back in the primary universe resulted in them being killed by it, even though it appears to have come straight back in time.

Like the sword thing - the guy's future sword slips over into an alternate universe (but in the past) where the guy is NOT killed by it, but to stave off the destruction of both universes he must return the duplicate of this sword from the alternate universe to the primary universe (again back to the same point in time the other entered at); and when it arrives it kills the soldier/maker.

What??

The engine falls from a plane in the primary universe in the future, jumps tracks into an alternate universe at a point in the past (just before it hits the house).

Donnie creates a wormhole through time/space to the primary universe, sends the engine from his mother's plane in the alternate universe back to the same point that the original engine fell into the alternate universe.

Like 30-60 seconds before it hit the house or whatever. It's the metal object flying at speed that hits time/space just right that induces a jump back in time and creates an alternate universe.