Must be a Tibetan tradition.
Donnie as Christ? Who said that? That’s a stretch. What is it? Anyone who makes a sacrifice is compared to Christ? Oh well.
Hmmm, the way I see it walkin’ with 'talos
In the classic sense of rebel, Donnie is a means to right wrongs. Similar to films like ‘Rebel Without a Cause’ and ‘The Wild One’, you root for the anti-hero. The classic rebel lives fast and dies young, all the while raising hell on the establishment. Donnie does one better. He died and “something” brought him back on another plane of existence to make a difference. Was that “something” Donnie’s unique mental illness (or instability)? Was it a force of (super) Nature? Who knows? Whatever? Lives are changed and the rebel was at the center of it.
Alrighty on to 2001: A Space Odyssey. I feel this film best describes the difference between a movie and a film. The opening sequence is mesmerizing. The cinematography captures every moment brilliantly. Each shot displays the majesty of film. Many feel the film is boring but it is Kubrick at his best and showing off his craft. The film has the feel of a documentary, with its realism. It is pure art.
All that being said, 2001 is an adventure film. It is a journey of humanity. There really isn’t one character to connect to. There are moments when Heywood tries to be personable. Then he’s gone. Dave Bowman is very distant and then…well… then he is very, very distant. The film is about all of humanity. Where we were? Where we are (or should be)? And where we are going?
As I mentioned earlier, think of 2001 as a documentary and you might enjoy it better.
Now, MovieDude, maybe you can help me out with Mulholland Drive. Besides the amazing body of Laura Elena Harring, that movie made no sense to me. Many feel it is a masterpiece. To me, Meh.
2001 is an authorized sleep aid in the Jarathen household.
First off, Frakkintalos, excellent rebuttal. I can’t wait to see what you got next. Let me also say that it has been 5 years since I have seen 2001 so please excuse any vagueness.
Concerning young Master Darko, comparing him to iconic James Dean is almost blasphemous. In Rebel without a Cause, we know why he rebels even if it seems petty and almost brattish. Darko doesn’t really rebel as he is comfortable in his lifestyle. He might spout the typical Suburbs Sucks found in most teen movies but he never really rebels against authority, and eventually gives in to what might be as the ultimate authority at the end. I might be wrong but didn’t Donnie by the mere choice of leaving his room at night sidestep death? I don’t think he was ressurected. He might have had some angst, but it seems that it only came out when the plot needed it to. There was no declaration or avenue to which Donnie could convey his emotional state, making his last decisions in the movie seem irrational at best and confusing at worst. I pin this on Richard Kelly as a writer as he has shown in his other two movies the same emotional shortcomings in Southland Tales and The Box. He treats stories like mathmatical equations (which to be fair is the same thing Chris Nolan does, but only better).
The Donnie Christ-figure was on a special feature on the director’s cut DVD. In my attempt to understand the following of this movie I made the mistake of watching that featurette where no one could explain why they liked the movie so much.
As for 2001, allow me be more specific. I LOVE 1/3 of the movie. The other 2/3 is pure arthouse drivel in my humble opinion. I love the HAL portion of the movie. The stuff before that and after HALs sad demise merely confirmed my opinion that Kubrick wasn’t interested in the story he was conveying as he felt that he was making a larger statement about mankind. But what exactly was that message? if this was his defense of Evolution, what did the monoliths have to do with anything and how the frak was the Star Child have to do with anything (before I get messages from Clarke fans, I am only commenting on Kubrick’s presentation)? Kubrick puts his faith in his imagry that it almost seems that he’s passing off absurdity as artistry. Can anyone say definately that they know why Dave Bowman’s last words were important or what Bowman’s portal into becoming the star child is about as Kubrick presented it? The imagry is unforgettable, but the same cannot be said about the story.
As for Mulholland Drive, let me say that I have seen that three times as well and I still am not 100 percent sure about everything. If you consider 2001 a documentary, I consider Mul Dr a jigsaw puzzle. I am of the belief that David Lynch makes movies for an audience of one: himself. The problem is that only he really knows what the punchlines are and what the missing pieces look like. This is the closest he ever gets to making coherent sense since Dune. I understand that he is telling the Hollywood nightmare as an actual nightmare with a nightmare’s logic (though in my humble opinion, Videodrome understands nightmares and nightmare logic better). Beyond that, excellent sex scenes!!!
I think there is a fine line between some abiguous elements to a story and just leaving the audience in the dark because you’re not quite sure yourself, or you just don’t want to explain it. I think 2001 falls on the wrong side of that. I think Mulholland Drive tried fairly hard for a Lynch movie to cross the line, but it didn’t. I do think Donnie Darko works within its own mythology about alternate universes and the stability of existence (I mean, that’s what it all boils down to and why it ends that way), and so it walks that fine line well enough, much like Inception, which does allow the viewer to interpret it but isn’t confusing for its own sake. It just has a few different ways to interpret it.
According to recent interviews, none of those interpretations need to be thought about too hard. I think that fans often think much harder about stories and concepts than creators do. I think BSG specifically had writers that didn’t get as deep into the theories as many of its fans did, and that’s why the finale wound up somewhat bittersweet. We all expected deep revelatiosn that fit, and instead we got one of the step-sisters kind of forcing her way into Cinderella’s shoe. It wasn’t complete disaster, but it wasn’t a perfect fit.
By the way, talos, MovieDude, I love where you guys have taken this discussion. Fascinating.
Oh. My. Look what I done.
My take is that Donnie is mentally ill. His own mind is rebelling against him. He is uncomfortable in his own skin. He doesn’t want to act the way he does. He cannot control it. As he travels down the Frank-rabbit hole, his deterioration increases exponentially.
That’s a major crux to the film. He was meant to die that night but when he didn’t the universe or whutever had to set it right. There was a whole diary by some mystic (the crazy lady that Frank almost killed). I never understood any of that. There are plenty of theories and I think that is some of the appeal to the film: “Everyone has a theory.”
I don’t either.
Once again, he is not in his right mind. That made the most sense to me. As you say, his actions make no sense otherwise. The film plays on the whole teenager, “No one understands me” thing. But Donnie literally doesn’t understand himself because his mind is not working properly. He truly is a tragic hero.
I’m glad I never saw that. UGH!
I’ve heard that before. But chew on this. It’s a sci-fi film which prior to 1968 was a genre considered B-movie at best. This film took the genre to a more respectable level. You could make an interesting, realistic space adventure. Then, Star Wars happened…some felt it set the genre back.
There is a bit of pomp there, on Kubrick’s part. He is showing off and many audiences members left mesmerized but totally confused. IMO, the statement was we are so small compared to the rest of the solar system and universe. It’s meant to be humbling, I think. Yet there is a tinge of insignificance, as well. That would go with Kubrick’s snark.
Thank you. That’s what I thot. If someone would have just said that instead of making me feel like, “You don’t get it” and then not explain why I don’t get it.
Love this stuff!! I wish I was paid to talk about it.
I saw the film as the last “groundhog day but four weeks long”. The reason his behavior becomes erratic, and the reason he smiles and stabs at Frank, is because he has some recollection of it all, like a dream triggered hours after you’ve woken up. He doesn’t know what to make of the situation, but he knows it’s familiar and it feels futile until he figures out where to take it all.
I think I’ll answer here for 2001. I absolutely love that film and watch it probably once every two months or so. Put simply, 2001 is an allegory about how man evolves with technology, and how said technology impacts his evolution. From Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien to Homo Superior. It also is a cautionary tale on what over reliance on said technology can do. Take for instance the humans with speaking parts. They are all dispassionate automatons, with little if any emotion. Their reliance on the technology around them making them little more than machines themselves. In truth the only character in the film with any strong emotive motivation is HAL.
Only the machine seems passionate, moved by strong emotion, and in the end driven to commit murder to protect itself and it’s cause, very human traits. The Machine has what Men have lost. It’s only at the end, in the celestial zoo that Bowman ends up in, when he reaches for the monolith, that Man realizes what he has lost, and only then can he reconcile the internal war between Reason and Passion and evolve into something new, something wonderful.
On another note, 2001 is a film that cannot be really seen on a TV. You really have to see it projected on a big screen. I remember watching a restored 70mm print at a IMAX theatre (since IMAX is also a 70mm format) and behing completely awed by it. There are things that Kubrick has inserted into that film, that are far too easily lost in a viewing on a TV, no matter if it’s 60" or not. Many of these little visuals actually are important to the telling of the story, as 2001 is primarily a Silent Film (much like Fritz Lang’s Metropolis which goes over similar themes).
Hope that helps.
Tallos, I have to admit that you might be onto something, but it’s been so long ago that I couldn’t agree or rebuke you without opening myself to misunderstanding. All I will say is that if I get back around to Donnie Darko, I’ll look at it from the perspective you suggested. I still might disagree, but at least I can’t say I haven’t tried…again. Thank you.
As for Photonutz, dude I took on one of the biggest Kubrick geeks in a six hour debate over this movie and you did a much better job explaining the movie than he, so my hats off to you. With that said, I still say Kubrick had a much bigger vision he was trying to convey than what his movie could support. His major flaw is that the three sections of his movie don’t mesh very well with the story he’s trying to tell. To make up for this, he introduces the idea of the monolith’s as markers of progress in human achievement. But by doing so, he opens up the question of who is judging and why and what for? Evolution is not about one individual but masses. In that case, Bowman’s fate has nothing to do with evolution as no one is going to follow him in that process.
But let’s say that he has thought of everything and there are no holes. He still hasn’t conveyed a complete undrstanding of his own creed to easily convey his ideas to the masses without confusuion. That’s because the ideas of the filmmaker being hindered by their ability to project. A fimmaker’s most important job is to portray their vision as clearly as possible. Kubrick prefers to be vague and artsy.
Bear in mind that my issue with 2001 isn’t visually or artistically. He’s like Picasso, completely on a differnt level than his contemporaries. My issue is that he decided that telling a comprehensive story is second-string besides making a cool-looking art film. And while you can convince me of his visual strengths, I won’t budge on this.
On 2001;
All the characters are cyphers - allegorical representations of Man. Each in his/it’s own way is an aspect of man. The movie is about leaving the viewer with questions to ponder, not just about the story, but of greater philosophical questions. I do personally think that the film as a whole tells a complete and comprhesive story that leads to a very specific philosophical riddle. The answer to that riddle is different for everyone.
I think if you view it in that manner, you may find it a very different experience. For me Bowman is a cypher for Human Reasoning, HAL for Human Passion, and the Monolith for the Super-Ego. These three things drive Man towards some goal, and higher development. Technology and how it affects Man evolution from Homo Erectus (Untermench), Homo Sapien (Mench) and Homo Superior(Ubermench) is a good way to represent this.
Photo, tell ya what. I’m going to watch it again before March and then we’ll have a nice lengthy conversation about 2001 at the meet-up. You best show up or I might just call ya “yella” 
Anyways, damn the results have taken some great turns. Apparently Tracy Turnblad has no friends in the GWC (I guess I should have put Darko there) while the top three are the uber-famous Repo Man and Dark City with 8 and late upcomer Rocky Horror at 7. There is a tie for 4th between Barbarella and early favorite Videodrome. Anyone care to break the tie?
I’m down on that! We should do it as a panel discussion, with the movie playing and have Chuck record it.
If he won’t, I will.
Deal. We need an audience and a moderator
I just voted for 2 of my faves - Requiem for a dream and City of Lost Children - and netiher have a shot of winning or placing, so basically, I’m just fudging around. 
And dang, I didn’t see Blue Velvet there til just now. I’d vote for that too.
ETA: btw, I see that Primer was a suggestion earlier. Any reason it’s not the list? I freaking love that movie. It’s probably my top movie this decade.
As for Fight Club, I love that movie, but it’s pretty darn popular, and thus it doesn’t feel as cult-ish as the other choices. So I see why that’s not on the list.
Primer was on the short list, but I made a conscious decision not to put more than 10, so that had to be cut along with Darko as I wanted to put in some whimsical choices that weren’t all depressing. Oh, and we’ll accept write-ins for Primer and others.
I’m calling this closed! 19 votes show the top three being Repo Men, Dark City and The Rocky Horror Picture Show with a fourth option being Scott Pilgrim. Thanks to all who voted. Maybe the crue will pick this up or maybe we’ll do our own thing like a frak party or something. What do you thinks?
OOPS !
Voted just now before reading this last post.
Well Dark City has my vote.