Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Donnie Darko...a very strange movie
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Donnie Darko...a very strange movie - Page 4

post #91 of 357
3/27/02 at 11:36am
[size=]
Quote:
Maybe I'm wrong. It just strikes me as a more captivating story if Frank was once just a 'normal guy.' If he's always been some omnipotent God figure...

According to the Philosophy, people who die during the temporal offshoot gain supernatural powers. Thus only dead Frank has any power, not live Frank.[/size]
Reply
post #92 of 357
3/27/02 at 12:25pm
Quote:
then who is the 'mystery woman?
What mystery woman are you talking about?


I have a few speculations that come right out of left field.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that Donnie might not be entirely human, or that he was "occupied" by some alien concsiousness? He says to his therapist that "there isn't much time until they catch me," and at the end of the film, when he is back on Carpathian Ridge, that he is "going home." Of course, the second one could be a Religious reference.

I also doubt "Carpathian Ridge" is a coincidence. Unless there is actually such a place in Virginia, I expect that is another Religious reference. Unfortunately, I don't know what to make of it. I may have to do a little reading.

OK, here's one of my more outrageous theories. The story seems to make it pretty clear that a time travelling vessel must be capable of traveling at the speed of light, which I believe is actually what Hawking and Einstein theorized. Obviously, a 747 is not capable of this under its own propulsion. What if the the 747 was actually struck by a time travelling vessel, or by its wake, that was possibly coming to get Donnie and that propelled the engine through the vortex, thus creating the "artifact" described in the "Philosophy" book.

No laughing, please.
Reply
post #93 of 357
3/27/02 at 1:22pm
Quote:
I also doubt "Carpathian Ridge" is a coincidence. Unfortunately, I don't know what to make of it.


in Ghostbusters 2, Vigo was the 'Scourge of Carpathia'. you don't suppose...?

still, i've no idea who 'they' are that killed of Monitoff. how many copies of that book do you think there are? would anybody be able to trace the the jet engine accident that Donnie back to Monitoff if he "never" gave the book to him?

this is ALOT of conjecture, but the poster who talked about the temporal police, i guess that would be one conventional explanation (the Men in Time?) although you'd think if they mastered the power of time travel they could've stopped the jet engine anomaly in the first place.
Reply
post #94 of 357
3/27/02 at 1:23pm
Regarding the "mystery woman" if you are talking about the girl at the party with long black hair, I thought it was Donnie's sister in her Halloween costume.
Reply
post #95 of 357
3/27/02 at 1:28pm
Quote:
but the poster who talked about the temporal police
I was kind of joking. I guess I should have put a smile there.



Quote:
the girl at the party with long black hair, I thought it was Donnie's sister in her Halloween costume.
That definitely was Donnie's sister. The reason I asked is, there is an obituary for a woman in the web site stuff that I don't remember being in the movie.
Reply
post #96 of 357
3/27/02 at 2:54pm
Quote:
That definitely was Donnie's sister.

And I definitely am obtuse. :b

-j
Reply
post #97 of 357
3/27/02 at 3:13pm
Now I'm confused, Joseph.

Is the "Mystery Woman" you were referring to, Donnie's sister in costume at the party, or were you referring to someone else?
Reply
post #98 of 357
3/27/02 at 3:47pm
I was confused because I didn't recognize Donnie's sister in costume and because there is, in the credits, a listing for "Mystery Woman." Now who that refers to, I have no idea.

Now that I have been set straight, entire portions of the plot are becoming abundantly clear!

Thanks for all the insight everybody!

-j
Reply
post #99 of 357
3/27/02 at 8:23pm
the 'mystery woman' in the movie is the Star Search lady, i think...
Reply
post #100 of 357
3/27/02 at 11:17pm
[size=]I must say that I'm just thrilled as to how this thread has turned out since the DVD's release. I've went back and watched the film several times now, including with the commentary, and the film just shines with every little new discovery. All from a first-time director who got a lucky card when Drew Barrymore wanted to help.

This film has shot all the way up to #2 on my Top 10 of 2001, which is shocking considering I had thought my list was complete. It would be #1 if not for that damn David Lynch.

And yet, I just can't really discuss the film with you guys. The film lives in my mind. I understand and I agree with a lot of the discussion that has been going on here, but yet I'm obsessed with "Donnie Darko" in viewing mode only: I'll watch it and not talk about it. I will say, though, that I didn't need the commentary to understand the symbolism and meanings that David Kelly was going for; if you look hard enough it's all there.

Jason[/size]
Reply
post #101 of 357
3/27/02 at 11:38pm
In the commentary, the director refers to the fat star-search lady as the Mystery Woman. Donnies sister is indeed dating Frank, who is just a normal teenager throughout the film, who then time travels back in time to meet Donnie AFTER Donnie kills him at the end.

Listen to the directors commentary. It will clear up many things, as he tells some symbolism and clues that no-one could ever possibly pick up on without having him explain it to you.
Reply
post #102 of 357
3/28/02 at 7:59am
The weakest actor in the movie, in my opinion, was Drew Barrymore. There were just too many moments where I was thinking "she's just acting". The other actors made their characters much more convincing. Even Patrick Swayze, who was supposed to play a phoney anyway. Did anyone else notice this?
Reply
post #103 of 357
3/28/02 at 8:42am
that's funny bob...

i thought the opposite. i liked drew's character. when she told the gal Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
go sit next to the cutest boy
i was like "huh?...now that's whack". but the whole time i was thinking she'd be a cool teacher to have.

i thought her character was trippy in a "cool-trippy" way...
Reply
post #104 of 357
3/28/02 at 8:54am
Quote:
understand the symbolism and meanings that David Kelly was going for

You meant Richard Kelly.
Reply
post #105 of 357
3/28/02 at 8:59am
[size=]I sure did.....whoops.

Or you could argue I wanted to give props out to the great British actor from Waking Ned Devine and Greenfingers! [/size]
Reply
post #106 of 357
3/28/02 at 8:59am
Jason,

It's funny you said what you did because I feel the same way. I am consumed by this movie. It's like it has a power over me. I too can't really talk about the movie but it's all I've been thinking about lately.
Reply
post #107 of 357
3/28/02 at 10:32am
did anyone already mention this? i just saw on dvdshrine an interview with richard kelly:

http://www.dvdshrine.com/interviews/darko.shtml
Reply
post #108 of 357
3/28/02 at 12:50pm
Ron needs to review this so the masses from HTF will want to partake of this brilliant film. Ya hear me Ron?
Reply
post #109 of 357
3/28/02 at 7:44pm
Thanks for the link Ted. So it appears Fox wasn't responsible for the crappy packaging including the absurd comparison to Stir of Echoes and even worse Final Destination.
Reply
post #110 of 357
3/29/02 at 8:20am
I went to rent this and bully at my local Hollywood Video..but suprise, they don't carry these titles! Anyone know of a chain that does?
Reply
post #111 of 357
3/29/02 at 8:28am
You should be able to find it at Blockbuster.


What do you mean by "these title?"
Reply
post #112 of 357
3/29/02 at 8:37am
you're welcome john. judging by the interview, do you think richard is a little pissed at the dvd people?

matthew - that's odd that you couldn't find it at hollywood, because that's where i got my rental from.
Reply
post #113 of 357
3/29/02 at 8:50am
Quote:
do you think richard is a little pissed at the dvd people?
You mean the "bottom feeding douchebags?" Yeah, I think so. I have to say, one statement definitely did NOT impress me. It was him noting Speilberg, Zemeckis and Cameron as something like the greatest living directors. I was very surprised by this.
Reply
post #114 of 357
3/29/02 at 9:08am
i thought he said they were an influence when he was younger or something? not sure. i think he listed someone else as his main influence these days or something.

oh well, i guess if i was a director i sure wouldn't mind being in spieldberg or cameron's shoes. hopefully he'll keep his independent vision alive through the hollywood "machine"!
Reply
post #115 of 357
3/29/02 at 9:32am
Quote:
The film lives in my mind. I understand and I agree with a lot of the discussion that has been going on here, but yet I'm obsessed with "Donnie Darko" in viewing mode only: I'll watch it and not talk about it. I will say, though, that I didn't need the commentary to understand the symbolism

Jason, I am of the same mind. Despite the numerous attempts I have made in this thread to dissect the symbolic significance of this movie, it ultimately has taken on a life of it's own in my own head, where it will doubtless stay in it's 'uncorrupted state' until I listen to the commentary and Kelly tells me exactly what he meant and didn't mean. I have been hesitant to watch the commentary for this reason.

If for a moment, I felt that Donnie Darko was strictly intended as 'science fiction' or a 'BTTF' homage, I would be greatly disappointed.

For the record, October of 1988 was the year I 'found myself.' I was roughly the same age as the characters and just kind of 'thought the same way.' Portions of this film were like watching an audio/video record of my past. Kind of a trip.

Add that to the new wave/goth music, and the whole 'cult' thing, and one could easily see why I enjoyed DD so much.

Joseph
Reply
post #116 of 357
3/29/02 at 12:40pm
Quote:
What do you mean by "these title?"


I meant titles that are not mainstream material.
Reply
post #117 of 357
3/29/02 at 1:54pm
(Mighty) Joseph Young, (like you haven't been called that a million times by now),

I am also reluctant to listen to the commentary for the same reason. Then again, who says that the director has to have the last word on his own movie? A lot of artists have one interpretation of their work, but then the art can many things to many people. You'd be surprised how many times an artist will have one very simple literal story in mind, but then everyone reads into it and sees the allegory that is there. Sometimes there is a subconsciously rendered work within the work.

So, I probably will end up listening to the commentary, just to hear another perspective, but I think the movie is open to interpretation enough that it will still be fun to re-watch and re-discover.
Reply
post #118 of 357
3/29/02 at 2:12pm
Quote:
A lot of artists have one interpretation of their work, but then the art can many things to many people


imo, that is so very true!

once i had a b&w photo essay in college. i pretty much had a specific angle and story i was trying to tell and (obviously) used certain images to tell the story. what amazed me was how varied the other classmates impressions were. some saw things i didn't even think about. others interpreted the images in a totally different way - that was one of the coolest things ever. i really enjoyed hearing what other's had to say.

so, i think regardless of what the director was trying to convey, what's really important is what we take from it. i think that's what makes movies like donnie darko so wonderful.
Reply
post #119 of 357
3/29/02 at 2:46pm
Quote:
A lot of artists have one interpretation of their work, but then the art can many things to many people

Quote:
what's really important is what we take from it.



Agreed. I think what bothers me about some schools of thought in strict academic film interpretation, is the tendancy to discount the emotional reaction of the viewer for sake of the most 'accurate' or 'true' intention of the author or director. Some films ('Mulholland Drive' comes to mind but there are many others) produce a distinct emotional gut-reaction on my first viewing, in response to a character's facial expression, the timing of their laughter, the way a scene is directed, musical cues, et cetera. Sometime my 'love' of a movie is based on the fact that it was able to extrapolate emotions from me that were hidden or previously ignored.

If you perceive yourself or your experiences and emotions buried in the context of a film, you don't have to agree with the director to have a valid point of view.

For instance, if I create a very personal work of art that is viewed (or heard) by many people, chances are some of them are going to perceive things that never occured to me.

Although I haven't listened to the commentary, it sounds as if they deconstruct the whole thing, leaving nothing to the imagination, to the instinct or interpretation. If that's true, perhaps I should stay away, because I would hate to have my feelings deflated.

Joseph
Reply
post #120 of 357
3/29/02 at 8:24pm
Thread Starter 
Do you think this film might be used someday in High School or College just like the book "Animal Farm" was? Students will pick it apart, try to understand what the director was shooting for or maybe what they see the movie as?

I knew when I started this thread that there was "something" to this movie, I just didn't know what. I find it a unique film and perhaps this is why it is so high on my list of must see's. The movie made me think, kept me guessing and still keeps me guessing. It really is a great film.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Donnie Darko...a very strange movie