Seedy Edgewick
09-04-2003, 05:04 PM
Donnie (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a troubled kid. He sleepwalks, finding himself waking up in strange, out-of-the-way places. He hallucinates a man in a evil bunny suit telling him exactly when the world will end. After a jet airplane's engine crashes into his house, his life begins to get really strange.
This film is a rare treat. It blends some abstract and radical concepts with its storyline so well the audience never feels preached to. Surreal imagery abounds, but all of it is eventually explained. Maybe not always rationally, but it IS explained. Gyllenhaal proves the heart he gave to Bubble Boy wasn't just a fluke; the kid can really act. Throughout the film, various explanations as to the bizarre happenings are hinted at, but one by one they all wind up missing the mark. The ending, which wraps up everything going back to the opening shot, provides not so much a "twist" as a Moebius strip.
I think the key to what makes this film good is that Donnie sees these events as bizarre, just as the audience does. The character acts as a sounding board for them, asking the questions they want to ask. He's also the crux of the biscuit around which all the other events revolve, a role that is only revealed fully at the very end.
I always enjoy films that play with storytelling methods and display some freaky thought processes without getting obtuse like Godard. I also hate the FT review of DD; they dismissed it as a "big studio indie flick." I thought it deserved a lot more credit for the intellect that created it.
This film is a rare treat. It blends some abstract and radical concepts with its storyline so well the audience never feels preached to. Surreal imagery abounds, but all of it is eventually explained. Maybe not always rationally, but it IS explained. Gyllenhaal proves the heart he gave to Bubble Boy wasn't just a fluke; the kid can really act. Throughout the film, various explanations as to the bizarre happenings are hinted at, but one by one they all wind up missing the mark. The ending, which wraps up everything going back to the opening shot, provides not so much a "twist" as a Moebius strip.
I think the key to what makes this film good is that Donnie sees these events as bizarre, just as the audience does. The character acts as a sounding board for them, asking the questions they want to ask. He's also the crux of the biscuit around which all the other events revolve, a role that is only revealed fully at the very end.
I always enjoy films that play with storytelling methods and display some freaky thought processes without getting obtuse like Godard. I also hate the FT review of DD; they dismissed it as a "big studio indie flick." I thought it deserved a lot more credit for the intellect that created it.