Reviews / 14 February 2005

Donnie Darko

Donnie Darko
USA  /  2001

Of the numerous subgenres indigenous to ’70s cinema, the Head film seems to be the one that has spawned the fewest iterations. In the earlier part of the decade, efforts from Alejandro Jodorowsky and Dusan Makavejev became renowned for a stubborn lack of coherency and visual audacity. Some of their films even played for entire years on midnight circuits. These films were cult staples, many with a longevity that exceeded the decade’s more conventional films. With the end of the decade (or, perhaps, upon the release of David Lynch’s Eraserhead, the most durable Head film) came the subgenre’s disintegration.

I cite this defunct trend not to elevate the status of Donnie Darko via comparison, but rather to delineate its primary ancestry. It is in this regard that Donnie Darko’s peculiar popularity is described, as it has been received in the same manner as a Head film. The film has become a cult staple on video (along with Office Space, this was one of Fox’s bestsellers in its original, now truncated form), and, significantly, has been available in midnight screenings for much of the time following its lackluster 2001 release, at least in New York and Boston. With this sort of cult audience, a film’s criticism is rendered moot; evaluation, in turn, becomes an effort to contextualize such appeal.

In retrospect, the ’70s’ wealth of cinematic oddities pales considerably the sort of cult films that have burgeoned in the past ten years. It’s disingenuous to compare something like Office Space or Fight Club (even with the loose implication of “cult”) to anything that gained renown on the midnight circuit thirty years ago, films that introduced few recognizable actors other than Dennis Hopper, black cowboys (this would be 1969, to be precise), and porn chic. These incompatible, disparate qualities define the decade, and it is the same disparity that qualifies Donnie Darko as an appropriate resurrection.

Its individual merits are, however, entirely derivative. The film is set in the late 1980s, for no other apparent reason than to employ nostalgia (I would ignorantly suspect that the bulk of the film’s cult audience grew up in the decade). Its power soundtrack verifies Richard Kelly’s Hughes-ian aesthetic, and his stuttering steadicam shots are lifted from Martin Scorsese—one of the final shots in the film, even, is noticeably similar to the final shot of Krzysztof Kieslowski’s Blue. None of these elements in themselves characterize the film, but it is their combination that aggregates the film’s signature mystique.

Due to the massive audience that graced its availability on video (only in the UK did the film find a receptive audience in theaters), Donnie Darko is now available in an expanded director’s cut. The mystique of the film—which I consider engaging despite my many criticisms—is burdened by further explanation. The answers are still not evident, but now the questions are more pronounced. At some point interpretation becomes not the task of a film’s director but it’s audience, a thought exemplified in this film and dummied by its longer cut—one inherently prone to scrutiny. I’ve seen both versions of this film, and I can see Richard Kelly’s talent at juggling. His work is not an original one, but it is a faithfully rendered head trip.


Comments / 3 total / Submit Comment

  1. The Third Man
    16 February 2005
    12:17 PM

    Insightful review, Rumsey — well done. Heh, I didn’t know that subgenre was called “Head”.

    And well, nothing to add here, but I love this film; I’ve seen it five times and my love for it grows with each viewing. It’s not flawless whatsoever, in fact I’d argue that its ending isn’t all that, but there are so many laughs and thrills to be had in Kelly’s debut. I consider it an intricate work, full of layers and containing a bunch of praise-worthy performances, plus a notorious visual style, a memorable score (both original and non-original) and a fine script. Kelly’s talent here is palpable, and I very much look forward to his Southland Tales.


  2. Jeremiah
    29 January 2008
    4:14 PM

    The reason this film is so popular is that, in spite of its story, it is spectacularly easy to read on an emotional level. Its characters are actually so exquisitely typed that they transcend stereotypes and become archetypes- the virtuous liberal teacher, the hypocritical charismatic, the compassionate mother, etc. The film doesn’t so much ask the audience to feel a certain way about its characters as it demands it. This conservative tendency toward judgment may explain, in part, the film’s popularity: few films compel their audiences to feel so strongly while making so few demands. This leaves the audience prone to be dazzled by the film’s correspondent imagery and music and surreal plot. Without its melodramatic underpinning and Lynch/Scorsese audiovisual technique, “Donnie Darko” wouldn’t have even made it past the dollar bin at a local video store- it might not have even been produced. It is, however, a testimony to Kelly’s excellent execution of the film’s devices that I still like it, and even own a copy.


  3. buckj54
    7 September 2009
    8:40 PM
    Website

    I like the movie, but cannot find any coherent subversive themes other than the surface narrative and storyline, which itself is not very linear at times…this is something I assume, maybe erroneously, to be a staple of ‘head’ films. Rob Ager, who is renowned for his subversive analysis of Kubrick films called it a feature length music video. I agree with this statement.


Submit Comment / Some HTML is OK / Preview your remarks below


Preview Comment

Credits

Directed by
Richard Kelly

Review by
Rumsey Taylor

Source
Fox DVD (The Director’s Cut)


Statistics

Posted on
14 February 2005

Read
3675 times

Comments
3

Jump to comments
Submit comment

Recent Updates