Donnie Darko: the truth revealed. Oops.
One of the things I do when I'm busy with work is sort of watch but mostly listen to a favorite film, and if I have it on DVD, I turn around and watch/listen again with the commentary. I just finished doing that with one of my all-time favorites, Donnie Darko director's cut.
I'm not sure what to say, except that it was different. Sometimes you find commentary that's all about the production and filming, "We had the hardest time finding the right type of window treatment for this scene" blah blah and there's important plot things happening on screen while the folks doing the commentary are going on about the completely irrelevant curtains. Being who I am, I'm more interested in learning why the characters were written this way, or what the symbolism of that bit of dialogue was. Trivia about, say, the production paying thousands of dolls to some Afghan weaving women to make the ultimate wrap-around belt for Jack Sparrow to wear (I didn't make that one up, BTW) is curious to know, yes, but doesn't help my understanding of the actual film.
With the Donnie Darko commentary, the director/writer Richard Kelly invited his pal Kevin Smith to join him. I actually like Kevin Smith's stuff, and I think he did add to the commentary. There was some of the window treatment talk, but it was more in line with what I really enjoy hearing about: the aforementioned character and plot insight.
This time, though, I think I learned too much. Hearing what Mr. Kelly meant with the film, and his motivation behind the characters...it kind of killed the magic. He said his Director's Cut was intended to emphasize the Science portion over the Fiction, and to emphasize how the future technology was used by The People of the Future to guide Donnie in fixing the hole they (the People of the Future) somehow made. (Don't look at me, he said it!) I have to agree with Mr. Smith on that angle: it wasn't necessarily a good thing. I wish I hadn't heard Mr. Kelly say that. I preferred to not know.
But the most striking thing I learned was about Charita Chen, the large Asian girl with a crush on Donnie. I really identify with her, in a way that makes the movie painful to watch. Growing up as pretty much the only fat girl in the skinny 80s and 90s, I dealt with bullying and verbal abuse on a daily basis. I liked that Charita was shown to be sympathetic, that her bullies were assholes and were not applauded for dumping on her. I was left breathless when Donnie defended her from the bullies, because only once did a boy ever defend me. Like Donnie, he was popular and gorgeous, and also like Charita, I carried a HUGE torch for my shining knight for the next seven years--all the way through high school graduation. Of all the symbolism and potential meanings in the film, hers was definitely the most fascinating for me.
And thanks to Mr. Smith directly asking, now I know. And again, I wish I didn't. She wasn't Donnie's guiding angel, she wasn't a divine observer to pass judgement, she wasn't symbolic in any way. Her role was to make Donnie think about things. Mr. Kelly flat-out said she was like the character Mike Yanagita, in Fargo. JIC you don't remember, that's the Asian guy the MC has lunch with, who makes a move on her that she dodges and lies to her about how his life is going. When the MC hears later that he WAS lying to her, it makes her wonder if the male lead had ALSO been lying to her, and she goes back and questions him again and solves the mystery.
So there you go. My favorite character, the one I can so amazingly identify with, is one step in the plot. No deep meaning, no symbolism, just a means to an end.
Damn it. *sigh*
I don't know. Maybe I am glad I finally know the truth of what Mr. Kelly was trying to say in the film. Now I don't have to wonder about it any more, and google for other people's thoughts and impressions. But I'm definitely let down.
There's something to be said for not seeking out the Word of God on your favorite pieces of fiction. Sometimes the window treatment is just the right shade of green, and not casting the shade of greed upon the characters as they talk in a key scene of a film. :|
Okay. Introspection over, back to work for me.
I'm not sure what to say, except that it was different. Sometimes you find commentary that's all about the production and filming, "We had the hardest time finding the right type of window treatment for this scene" blah blah and there's important plot things happening on screen while the folks doing the commentary are going on about the completely irrelevant curtains. Being who I am, I'm more interested in learning why the characters were written this way, or what the symbolism of that bit of dialogue was. Trivia about, say, the production paying thousands of dolls to some Afghan weaving women to make the ultimate wrap-around belt for Jack Sparrow to wear (I didn't make that one up, BTW) is curious to know, yes, but doesn't help my understanding of the actual film.
With the Donnie Darko commentary, the director/writer Richard Kelly invited his pal Kevin Smith to join him. I actually like Kevin Smith's stuff, and I think he did add to the commentary. There was some of the window treatment talk, but it was more in line with what I really enjoy hearing about: the aforementioned character and plot insight.
This time, though, I think I learned too much. Hearing what Mr. Kelly meant with the film, and his motivation behind the characters...it kind of killed the magic. He said his Director's Cut was intended to emphasize the Science portion over the Fiction, and to emphasize how the future technology was used by The People of the Future to guide Donnie in fixing the hole they (the People of the Future) somehow made. (Don't look at me, he said it!) I have to agree with Mr. Smith on that angle: it wasn't necessarily a good thing. I wish I hadn't heard Mr. Kelly say that. I preferred to not know.
But the most striking thing I learned was about Charita Chen, the large Asian girl with a crush on Donnie. I really identify with her, in a way that makes the movie painful to watch. Growing up as pretty much the only fat girl in the skinny 80s and 90s, I dealt with bullying and verbal abuse on a daily basis. I liked that Charita was shown to be sympathetic, that her bullies were assholes and were not applauded for dumping on her. I was left breathless when Donnie defended her from the bullies, because only once did a boy ever defend me. Like Donnie, he was popular and gorgeous, and also like Charita, I carried a HUGE torch for my shining knight for the next seven years--all the way through high school graduation. Of all the symbolism and potential meanings in the film, hers was definitely the most fascinating for me.
And thanks to Mr. Smith directly asking, now I know. And again, I wish I didn't. She wasn't Donnie's guiding angel, she wasn't a divine observer to pass judgement, she wasn't symbolic in any way. Her role was to make Donnie think about things. Mr. Kelly flat-out said she was like the character Mike Yanagita, in Fargo. JIC you don't remember, that's the Asian guy the MC has lunch with, who makes a move on her that she dodges and lies to her about how his life is going. When the MC hears later that he WAS lying to her, it makes her wonder if the male lead had ALSO been lying to her, and she goes back and questions him again and solves the mystery.
So there you go. My favorite character, the one I can so amazingly identify with, is one step in the plot. No deep meaning, no symbolism, just a means to an end.
Damn it. *sigh*
I don't know. Maybe I am glad I finally know the truth of what Mr. Kelly was trying to say in the film. Now I don't have to wonder about it any more, and google for other people's thoughts and impressions. But I'm definitely let down.
There's something to be said for not seeking out the Word of God on your favorite pieces of fiction. Sometimes the window treatment is just the right shade of green, and not casting the shade of greed upon the characters as they talk in a key scene of a film. :|
Okay. Introspection over, back to work for me.