Were the subplots necessary in Donnie Darko?

→ in
Tools    




ironpony's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
06-13-20
I think I like the movie overall, but it's hard to decide, because I really like the main character's plot, but I feel that the Drew Barrymore subplot and the Patrick Swayze subplot, just don't seem to have anything to do with the main plot, and perhaps should have been cut, and just let the main plot, be the only one?

What do you think?



Takoma11's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
Registered User
06-13-20
Originally Posted by ironpony
I think I like the movie overall, but it's hard to decide, because I really like the main character's plot, but I feel that the Drew Barrymore subplot and the Patrick Swayze subplot, just don't seem to have anything to do with the main plot, and perhaps should have been cut, and just let the main plot, be the only one?

What do you think?
Well, a huge part of the film is how one person can have an effect on other people. It's been way too long for me to be specific as to how effective those subplots are in particular. I think that especially when it comes to the Swayze character,
WARNING: spoilers below
you see that Donnie living would have been a good thing because it would have exposed his crimes. I think it partly depends on whether you interpret what happens as being "real" or as some sort of dying dream Donnie has before he dies.
.

But also this was the director's first feature film and Barrymore and Swayze are the most marketable names in the cast. Keeping them in semi-prominent roles makes sense from that point of view.



ironpony's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
06-13-20
Oh well, if you must keep Swayze in then why not just have him play the Noah Wyle character instead for example?

As for Donnie having an effect on others, I didn't think that his actions caused Drew Barrymore's character to be fired, and thought she was going to be fired for something regardless.



AgrippinaX's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
Roots for the villains
06-13-20
For one thing, it’s to do with world-building. Subplots help make a film multi-layered where having only one storyline might make it less engaging. Also it’s a point-of-view issue, I think without the focus on adult characters (including the old woman who’s waiting for the letter) DD could be seen as a ‘teenage’ film, which isn’t Kelly’s message as it’s quite philosophical. It’s similar to how it’s very difficult to write a novel exclusively about teenagers and not have it labelled ‘young adult’ fiction.



Takoma11's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
Registered User
06-13-20
Originally Posted by ironpony
Oh well, if you must keep Swayze in then why not just have him play the Noah Wyle character instead for example?

As for Donnie having an effect on others, I didn't think that his actions caused Drew Barrymore's character to be fired, and thought she was going to be fired for something regardless.
Maybe, but she's definitely fired in this case because of the supposed connection between her teaching and an act of destruction.

A different reading, of course, is if you are on board with the whole time-travel aspect being real. In that case, you are meant to see how all these different characters, in one way or another, move Donnie toward his destiny. In the case of the teacher, for example, writing "cellar door" on the chalkboard.



ironpony's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
06-13-20
Oh okay. It's just that Donnie feels that his actions have done harm, but if this is the theme they are going for, than how is exposing a pedophile more harm then? Wouldn't he feel very good about that rather than feeling so bad about the teacher being fired, hurting him a lot more?



Takoma11's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
Registered User
06-13-20
Originally Posted by ironpony
Oh okay. It's just that Donnie feels that his actions have done harm, but if this is the theme they are going for, than how is exposing a pedophile more harm then? Wouldn't he feel very good about that rather than feeling so bad about the teacher being fired, hurting him a lot more?
I think that it's meant to be complex.

WARNING: spoilers below
Donnie dying isn't an objectively good or objectively bad thing. While the pedophile gets away with his crime, the lack of a trial means that his mother won't be going to the dance competition and therefore won't die on the plane. You can also imagine that with Donnie dying, his sister probably won't go either.

I don't mind reading the time travel as literal (and I think that the film does lean this way). But to me it always seemed more likely that it's a dying moment in Donnie's mind. At first it's a good thing he's around (because he exposes a pedophile, starts to develop a romantic relationship, etc), but then Gretchen is killed. Frank is unwittingly a part of killing someone. His mother and sister die on the plane. It just gets worse and worse.


But it has been literally 18 years since I've seen it. I'd need to rewatch it to be more specific.



exiler96's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
Registered User
07-25-24
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
For one thing, it’s to do with world-building. Subplots help make a film multi-layered where having only one storyline might make it less engaging. Also it’s a point-of-view issue, I think without the focus on adult characters (including the old woman who’s waiting for the letter) DD could be seen as a ‘teenage’ film, which isn’t Kelly’s message as it’s quite philosophical. It’s similar to how it’s very difficult to write a novel exclusively about teenagers and not have it labelled ‘young adult’ fiction.
This.

I think what made DD so endearing was the fact that all these lives were going on and not all of them had relations to Donnie's at first glance. Though I think Swazey's character says a lot about the time period of the story though; almost like a commentary... everything looked bright but there were horrible secrets/unaddressed issues behind his phony smiley image... his subplot is like a mini Blue Velvet almost.