|
|
Post by broadack on Feb 11, 2004 11:44:27 GMT
right watched it last night......
i sort of understood it, but when i was watching it, i kept on getting interupted. so now i feel after watching that i missed some thing.
now at the start of this post i thought i would list a number of points, now thinking about it, i did not really understand the whole bastard thing.
some things i did not understand were:
the old woman(ok she wrote the book, but what the hell is she?)
the guy in the red suit you see 2 or 3 times
that fucknucking rabbit
why does he laugh at the end when he could get out of bed and save himself. i understand he is happy coz he has just saved the world but he surely could of lived as well.
i also tried to access the donnie darko web-site as i have been told it has clues but i cannot get on, can anyone else???
thank you for wasting your time looking at this post
|
|
Ejay
Academy Starlet
Posts: 158
|
Post by Ejay on Feb 11, 2004 12:27:29 GMT
I watched this film about 4 month ago and it was a waste of 2 hrs of my life  I usually like this type of film but what the hell was the easter bunny doing involved in this type of film...??? Whatever you do DO NOT! watch Dreamcatcher What a pile of tosh THAT film is!!!! Its a shame as I love Stephen King books but the TV films and aduptations do not do his books any justice! The film was ok until the giant penis with teeth??? Don't ask!!!  Ejay |
|
|
|
Post by Widget123 on Feb 11, 2004 12:43:15 GMT
excellent film this... in answer to your questions...
she wrote the book yes. she also sees the time holes which donnie see's. she's dismissed as a 'mental' by society but the pun is that shes actually wiser than the people who shun her. because she can see the future she has a greater span of vision in the world.
guy in the red suit - cant remember this one saw the film over 6months ago now so i'm working off memory here ;D
the rabbit as revealed at the end of the film is the suit the guy is wearing who runs down his girlfriend. the rabbit is a representation of donnies guide in the visions of the future. the twist is that the guide doesnt have to like donnie or infact do him any good. the idea that the rabbit is part of the possible/unfolding future is just to be taken as a given. it sets up the ending nothing more.
he laughs because he finally gets the joke that despite what he believed at the beginning of the film that free will can override destiny it doesnt lead to a happy ending - ie. his girl dying etc... he chooses to die so that she might live as she doesnt in the possible future where he lives. the idea that he is given a second chance is a nod in the direction of "its a wonderful life" IMO where the protagonist is given a second chance having seen the way things turn out given the status quo.
the fact that the reason he survived the first swing through time was because of the rabbit was to show that although donnie had the ability to see the destiny lines/future he wasnt in control of it. by staying in bed and laughing donnie controls his destiny and thus maintains his free will.
all the above is my personal interpretations of the film. imo its a fucking good film and extreamly well shot and edited - as a film producer i appreciate that sort of stuff but the story is a cracking morality tale.
Widget.
|
|
|
|
Post by broadack on Feb 11, 2004 12:47:45 GMT
better than mulholland drive?
|
|
|
|
Post by Widget123 on Feb 11, 2004 13:05:39 GMT
not really seeking to make any comparisions. and actually i got too drunk before putting mullholland drive on and fell asleep as the opening credit rolled so i've yet to watch it.
but i'd say donnie darko was as good as memento ;D
Widget.
|
|
|
|
Post by broadack on Feb 11, 2004 13:20:55 GMT
i thought memento was better, an classic, i ended up doing my a-level media coursework on it.
An Examination And Analysis Of The Narrative Subversion In The Film ‘Memento’.
exciting eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by suspect on Feb 11, 2004 13:27:29 GMT
This is an excellent film with loads of possible interpretations
My interpretation is that Frank uses Donnie to send the jet engine back through time and stop the world from ending. Frank is the ghost/premonition of the bloke who kills Gretchen in the future/ alternative reality created the first time the jet engine crashes through his house
All the characters remember bits about the alternative reality- Donnie remembers obviously, and you see Gretchen feels she knows Donnie even though she never really met him, the Chinese girl is happy as she remembers being told by Donnie that things will be better and the real life Frank touches his eye where Donnie shoots him in the future
He laughs at the end rather than saving himself because he knows that by dying the people he loves will survive (Gretchen, his mother, his younger sister) all of whom die in the alternative reality due to him. Donnie dies happily as he has saved the world and knows that the people he loves will be safe
|
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Feb 11, 2004 19:06:52 GMT
broadack, I made movie trailer and wrote a 2000 word report on it for my 'A' level coursework!  Also I came joint top out of about 75 media students in my college apparently so I've got to go to some awards ceremony or other to get a prize. It better be money and not some shitty certificate though. I found media studies extremely easy over the 2 'A' level years, getting 98% in both first year exams. How it can be considered as an equal to something like physics or philosophy baffles me. A media degree is a completely different matter however, mainly because I've hardly done anything to do with media studies so far. ??? By the way, I haven't got a clue what Narrative Subversion is, and I don't want to know either! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Feb 11, 2004 20:16:08 GMT
It's ages since I watched it but the second time, things just clicked into place.
I think watching the directors commentary helped, but with all time-travel films theres always one or two loop holes in the story.
Cracking film though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Widget123 on Feb 12, 2004 9:32:55 GMT
yeah they tend to shy away from the "media studies" culture of film critique (although there was some in the course i did) and concentrates more on screenplay, techincal aspects (such as colour temperatures, lighting, set rigging, camera position, shot framing etc...) and other things like the law, funding, post production processes and much more...
tis a fun degree to do if your passionate about film/video, but then like most things in life even the more mundane stuff is interesting if you enjoy doing it.
;D
Widget.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrGonzo on Feb 12, 2004 10:27:05 GMT
'Frank' is Donnies' sisters boyfreind. At the end of the film he leaves the party (dressed as rabbit) to get beer -ending up killing Gretchen and then getting shot himself.
The whole film is based around parallel universe theory. The jet engine was never supposed to full on the house and kill Donnie in the initial universe (the one we see at the start of the film). That is why Frank makes Donnie sleep on the golf course.
It all then basically revolves around Frank attempting to 'correct' the universe by means of influencing Donnie. I.e. Making him burn down Patrick Swayze's house so that his mother has to go away with the dancing kids meaning that they can have a party at the house meaning that Frank drives off and kills Gretchen.
The old women had basically seen the future. She knew that at some point in her life she was required to be checking her mail so that franks car would miss her and swerve off the road.
Dont know who the bloke in the red suit is - guess he's just some kind of red herring.
|
|
|
|
Post by broadack on Feb 13, 2004 1:40:09 GMT
hang on one minuto, my VD seems to be a bit shit, i mean i can paly the film, and i can select a chapter, but no audio commentary, no nothing.
are there 2 VD versions?
|
|
|
|
Post by DrGonzo on Feb 13, 2004 9:07:45 GMT
Yes. There is the normal one and a 'Prism Edition' containing none of the extras but sold a couple of quid cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Post by cr4zyd4ve on Feb 13, 2004 10:49:25 GMT
I don't know about anyone else, that rabbit scares the shit out of me. It's the weidest film I've ever seen. I still don't fully understand it now, and thats after going through everything on the DVD. Put what a great film.
The director say's in his commentary that he wanted to make a film that people will be thinking about hours after leaving the cinema, we're still thinking about it nearly 3 years after it's original relaease. IMO that is a testament to how good the film is.
Let's face you are not meant to fully understand it. I don't think, even the director, would admit to understanding it fully.
|
|
