Movies: S. Darko
May. 25th, 2009 10:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deirdreS. Darko (SD) is an attempt to make a sequel of Donnie Darko (DD).
As is often the case with sequels not written and directed by the original writer/director, this one captures the visual elements beautifully -- but nothing else. The director of S. Darko loved Donnie Darko and hoped to do an homage, but lacked a compelling script to work with.
S. Darko also doesn't have the great integration between music and plot that the first film had.
I do want to reiterate though: the film is gorgeous. It's one of the new films shot in digital, specifically Red One, and if you've ever seen some of the issues in older-generation digital and are interested in what the latest and greatest in cameras available to lower-budget film makers are like, it's worth seeing it for that alone (though if that's why you're seeing it, might as well see it on BluRay as it's intended). Like DD, SD has some very cool "I went to film school" tricks about it, and I loved those touches. Sadly, they aren't enough to transform the film into a keeper.
Plot:
What made Donnie ultimately sympathetic in DD is that he sacrificed himself so that everyone else could live. In SD, other people sacrifice so she can live, and she has the choice to save someone's life and does not do so. Thus, ultimately, she is anti-sympathetic.
Furthermore, the plot elements do not connect. Why burn the church down? There's no consequence of that happening. Nothing bad happens to any of the evildoers in this film, and they are definitely worse people than in DD. There's also just weird for the sake of weird, which there was some of in DD, but in SD, it never seems like she's actually crazy. In DD, he's crazy enough that it's not clear for some time whether he's actually hallucinating. SD never seemed like she was crazy, so it removed a lot of the complexity of the film.
Music:
In DD, the capstone song, Michael Andrews's cover of Tears for Fears's "Mad World," is an awesome rendition of that song where the film that came before completely changes the meaning of the lyrics. It fits so well that it almost seems like the song was the genesis for the film. It's also been extensively re-used in other contexts, including Without a Trace and CSI.
In SD, there's music, but it doesn't interconnect to form narrative connective tissue in passages without dialogue, which it did in DD. (Then again, this may partly have been a budget issue....)
Acting:
It seemed like most of the actors didn't understand their parts terribly well, and tended to overdo it. Ed Westwick did the best job, acting as Randy, the town's bad boy. In short, he mostly struck beautiful poses and did less than the other actors (and I mean "less" in a good way).
I can't blame the actors on this one; I don't know how I'd have interpreted most of the roles. Neither can I fully blame the director, since he may have been approached with a script in hand.
This is Chris Fisher's first feature film, so I'm going to cut him a bit of slack. The two episodes of Moonlight he directed are among my favorites, so I'm fairly sure that he knows his way around if he's got a script. He obviously can work on something visually stunning (though that's also partly what came before and the Marvin V. Rush's work as cinematographer; they worked together on Moonlight).
I believe that he genuinely liked DD and wanted to do an homage, and thus I'll say that this is an interesting failure.
I'd be interested in seeing what he can do with a meaningful script someday. Sadly, S. Darko is not that day.
As is often the case with sequels not written and directed by the original writer/director, this one captures the visual elements beautifully -- but nothing else. The director of S. Darko loved Donnie Darko and hoped to do an homage, but lacked a compelling script to work with.
S. Darko also doesn't have the great integration between music and plot that the first film had.
I do want to reiterate though: the film is gorgeous. It's one of the new films shot in digital, specifically Red One, and if you've ever seen some of the issues in older-generation digital and are interested in what the latest and greatest in cameras available to lower-budget film makers are like, it's worth seeing it for that alone (though if that's why you're seeing it, might as well see it on BluRay as it's intended). Like DD, SD has some very cool "I went to film school" tricks about it, and I loved those touches. Sadly, they aren't enough to transform the film into a keeper.
Plot:
What made Donnie ultimately sympathetic in DD is that he sacrificed himself so that everyone else could live. In SD, other people sacrifice so she can live, and she has the choice to save someone's life and does not do so. Thus, ultimately, she is anti-sympathetic.
Furthermore, the plot elements do not connect. Why burn the church down? There's no consequence of that happening. Nothing bad happens to any of the evildoers in this film, and they are definitely worse people than in DD. There's also just weird for the sake of weird, which there was some of in DD, but in SD, it never seems like she's actually crazy. In DD, he's crazy enough that it's not clear for some time whether he's actually hallucinating. SD never seemed like she was crazy, so it removed a lot of the complexity of the film.
Music:
In DD, the capstone song, Michael Andrews's cover of Tears for Fears's "Mad World," is an awesome rendition of that song where the film that came before completely changes the meaning of the lyrics. It fits so well that it almost seems like the song was the genesis for the film. It's also been extensively re-used in other contexts, including Without a Trace and CSI.
In SD, there's music, but it doesn't interconnect to form narrative connective tissue in passages without dialogue, which it did in DD. (Then again, this may partly have been a budget issue....)
Acting:
It seemed like most of the actors didn't understand their parts terribly well, and tended to overdo it. Ed Westwick did the best job, acting as Randy, the town's bad boy. In short, he mostly struck beautiful poses and did less than the other actors (and I mean "less" in a good way).
I can't blame the actors on this one; I don't know how I'd have interpreted most of the roles. Neither can I fully blame the director, since he may have been approached with a script in hand.
This is Chris Fisher's first feature film, so I'm going to cut him a bit of slack. The two episodes of Moonlight he directed are among my favorites, so I'm fairly sure that he knows his way around if he's got a script. He obviously can work on something visually stunning (though that's also partly what came before and the Marvin V. Rush's work as cinematographer; they worked together on Moonlight).
I believe that he genuinely liked DD and wanted to do an homage, and thus I'll say that this is an interesting failure.
I'd be interested in seeing what he can do with a meaningful script someday. Sadly, S. Darko is not that day.