Connect with us

Editorials

‘Donnie Darko’: A Critique of Conservatism and Book Bans in Schools

Published

on

Let’s be honest with ourselves. On your first watch, second, fifteenth, did you ever figure out what the cult classic Donnie Darko is about? I will confess. I had absolutely no idea what Donnie Darko was about. And I still don’t. Not quite. 

A Poignant Look at the Current School Systems

But the film’s warnings of pervasive and predatory conservatism facilitate important conversations surrounding censorship in the American post-Trump era, and illuminate just how out of touch the powers that be are with the needs of the younger generations. The central antagonist of Donnie Darko is not the giant bunny, not the bullies, but the conservative parent/gym teacher Kitty Farmer, whose lack of understanding of Middlesex’s youth causes extreme tension in the town. Farmer’s call for a book ban of Graham Greene’s “The Destructors,” given as a reading assignment by Miss Karen Pomeroy. Her reasons behind the ban enlighten us to what is currently happening in schools across the United States, especially in the South. The film’s post-Reagan political climate further enriches the comparisons to today’s post-Trump world, and politics is no doubt an ominous specter throughout the film.

Political Tensions in Donnie Darko

Donnie Darko is set in Middlesex, Virginia, in 1988. It is October, and the 1988 election is near. The film’s first piece of dialogue comes from Donnie’s sister Elizabeth at the family dinner table. “I’m voting for Dukakis,” she confesses to her parents. Mr. Darko pauses mid-bite, shocked. “Hmm, well. Maybe when you have children of your own who need braces, and you can’t afford them because half of your husband’s paycheck goes to the federal government, who umm…” “—my husband’s paycheck?” she interrupts. Mrs. Darko affirms her daughter with a giggle. However, she soon chides in, asking Elizabeth if she really thinks Dukakis, the Democratic nominee, will “provide for this country” until she’s ready to have children.

By now, we have learned that Elizabeth is eagerly awaiting an acceptance from Harvard University. This first scene sets the film’s political tone: conservative values reign and are in direct opposition to a bright young generation. Donnie Darko showcases the generation gap between the Baby Boomers and Generation X. Considering our political climate after just having an ultra-conservative showman president just as Donnie Darko is set amidst the race to succeed Ronald Reagan. The film is a window into the effects of the Moral Majority/GOP on schools, teachers, parents, and children. And sadly, the results are what you’d expect: conservative opposition to intellectualism/higher education, and an over-policing of children and teens. Sound familiar?

At Middlesex High School, English teacher Miss Karen Pomeroy introduced her students to the story “The Destructors.” This is a tale of a gang of child ruffians in the ruins of London in World War II after The Blitz. Together, they flood and dismantle the house of ‘Old Misery,’ a man whose house, unlike his neighbors’, survived The Blitz completely. The story includes a moment when the leader, T, finds bundles of cash in Old Misery’s mattress and instead of stealing it, he lights it aflame. When Miss Pomeroy asks what this scene in the story means, Donnie explains, “They just wanna see what happens when they tear the world apart. They want to change things.” 

Advertisement

Kitty Farmer’s Crusade Against Literature

“The PTA doesn’t ban books.” 

Unfortunately, the assignment from Miss Pomeroy was also given to Beth Farmer, Kitty Farmer’s daughter. An enraged Mrs. Farmer disrupts an Emergency PTA meeting to advocate for a school book ban. “I want to know why this smut is being taught to our children!” The PTA was on the topic of recent school vandalism, which included a flooding of the school (Frank, Donnie’s imaginary friend, instructed Donnie to do this). She cites that the child gang in “The Destructors” used flooding in their mission for destruction, which is what happened to the school earlier that month. Farmer receives scattered cheers from the parents present, but not from Rose Darko. “What is the real issue here?” she asks Kitty. “The PTA doesn’t ban books.” 

Farmer continues, “The PTA is here to acknowledge that pornography is being taught in our curriculum!” 

The Mislabeling of Literature as “Pornography”

According to Pen America, a literature and human rights organization, it is quite common for books to be labeled “pornographic” or “indecent.” However, as in Greene’s story, it is often the case that the books being accused of sexual content contain nothing of the sort. 

[T]his framing has become an increasing focus of activists and politicians to justify removing books that do not remotely fit the well-established legal and colloquial definitions of “pornography.” Rhetoric about ‘porn in schools’ has also been advanced as justification for the passage or introduction of new state laws, some of which would bar any books with sexual content and could easily sweep up a wide swath of literature and health-related content.

Advertisement

Conspiracies and Hypocrisy in Donnie Darko

When Karen Pomeroy explains that the story is ironic, Kitty hurls with vitriol, “[Y]ou need to go back to grad school.” Kitty prefers her limited understanding to an intellectual conversation about the literature. Just as it is happening today, conscientious and knowledgeable teachers are being policed and scrutinized for routine classroom decisions on curriculum, while those who critique their actions follow abusive demigods with no question of their morals. It is later revealed that Kitty Farmer’s idol, motivational speaker Jim Cunningham, is a serial child predator who she introduced to children and adults in Middlesex. Kitty misses her daughter’s big break in Hollywood to be at his side for the trial. “It’s obviously some kind of conspiracy to destroy an innocent man!” 

Though Farmer had no problem destroying Miss Pomeroy’s career. Within a few weeks of introducing Greene’s story to her class, Miss Pomeroy is fired after Farmer’s complaints with support from the school principal. She tells him, “I don’t think that you have a clue what it’s like to communicate with these kids. And we are losing them to apathy… to this prescribed nonsense.” Similarly, an Oklahoma teacher in 2022 was fired for providing students with access to banned books. Folks like Kitty Farmer, of which there are many, want to “protect children” by banning controversial literature while they are the real predators.

Donnie Darko and the Myth of Literary Influence

To Kitty’s point, could Donnie have been directly inspired by “The Destructors,” causing chaos in Middlesex? The answer is no. Donnie Darko deals with fate, and Donnie was always on this path, as posited by the film’s central premise of time travel. In this sense, the film can be a vehicle to analyze conservative hysteria toward literature — children will always find a way to rebel, and perhaps in defiance, be inspired by the actions of conservatives to call for an end to book bans and censorship in schools.

Donnie was certainly inspired by his distaste for hypocritical and conservative school leadership. Even though his actions, or at least what his imaginary friend Frank told him to do, mirror those in the story, “The Destructors” did not dictate his behavior. Even further, the gang of boys did not kill anyone, unlike Donnie. He tells Gretchen early in the film that he had burned down an abandoned house once before, prior to his introduction to Greene’s story. Destruction/creation is Donnie’s destiny. 

Honoring Teachers Like Miss Pomeroy

I and many others have had our own Miss Pomeroys, the bright English teachers who, despite colleague scrutiny or petty gossip introduced kids to texts we may have only found with their help. Morrison, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Ginsberg, and countless other luminaries were sent my and other students’ way. But then again, I went to a public high school in New York. Teachers and students in conservative areas are facing the wrath of their own Kitty Farmers, many of whom have already infiltrated their schools, towns, and state legislatures. 

Advertisement

These are scary times. To the Miss Pomeroys across the United States, thank you and keep going.

Abigail Waldron is a queer historian who specializes in American horror cinema. Her book "Queer Screams: A History of LGBTQ+ Survival Through the Lens of American Horror Cinema" is available for purchase from McFarland Books. She resides in Brooklyn, New York.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Editorials

Choosing Shock Value Over Writers Is Very Telling

Published

on

There is a huge difference between a movie being remembered for being good and a movie being remembered because it’s controversial. As a writer, I can forgive an okay film with an amazing script. However, I find it frustrating when it feels like no one believed in the project, so just leaned into the controversy. Stunts were pulled, shock value was sought after, and I am now wondering when the creatives stopped believing in their project.

Animal Cruelty as Shock Value in Horror Cinema

Cannibal Holocaust, a pivotal step toward found footage horror films as we know them today, is remembered for all of the scenes of sexual assault and the murder of actual animals. This takes away from its historical significance because the first thing I remember about it is watching a turtle get murdered and ripped apart. I have a similar issue with Wake in Fright. It’s hard to remember Donald Pleasence, Gary Bond, or the queer implications of this thriller because the filmmaker had kangaroos executed for this film. The scene feels like it goes on forever, and I’m yet to understand why murdering animals needed to be part of the process. 

I finally watched Megan is Missing a couple of years ago, and the exploitative nature of the assault of a fourteen-year-old is what stays with me. Whatever Michael Goi’s intentions were, they were lost because the shock factor of that moment outweighs everything else.

When Shock Value Replaces Meaningful Horror

It feels gross and like yet another male filmmaker mishandling assault on camera. Meanwhile, the film was serving its purpose and had other truly disturbing imagery that would have gotten a reaction out of audiences. It also would have allowed for more discussion about the film as a whole, instead of that scene that becomes the conversation. It’s another instance of male filmmakers mishandling the weight of sexual assault on film.

Things Aren’t Getting Better

However, the movies mentioned above are from different eras. We’d like to think filmmakers by now understand that shock factor doesn’t equal a quality movie. We would be wrong to assume that, though, because Dashcam (2021) didn’t stop at basing a character on an awful person. They actually cast the Trump-loving, anti-vax, and very vocal bigot Annie Hardy to play the character. This led to horror fans familiar with her brand of ignorance being turned off before the movie was even released. It also undid a lot of the goodwill that director Rob Savage earned with his previous movie, Host. To make matters worse, Savage repeatedly defended the choice all over the internet. At one point, he tried to blame her behavior on mental health, and people pointed out that doesn’t excuse racism, antisemitism, and homophobia.

Advertisement

Some of Annie’s Infamous Tweets

This is an especially head-scratching situation in this case. The team was riding the steam of a very popular found footage film. They were also primed to make a video game called Ghosts that had a successful crowdfunding campaign. People would have shown up for this before casting for shock value became the priority. We have had multiple films similar to this that sidestepped using known monsters. What was the reason? The idea came about because of her show, but any actress could’ve pulled that off. It was irresponsible to attempt to give this woman an even bigger platform . It was also the ultimate sign that no one was serious about this project.

Have We Tried Trying?

While making chaotic choices is one way to be memorable, is it worth it? In theory, someone(s) spent a lot of time and energy writing these stories. Wouldn’t actual storytellers prefer people to compliment their work instead? Celebrating their imagination, uniqueness, and skill instead of yelling about controversy and shock value. This isn’t a censorship thing. I’m used to being unimpressed with movies and asking,What was the reason?As a writer, I also know that there are ways to elicit responses from people without traumatizing them. We are literally tasked with putting characters and situations on the page that make people think and feel. Which is why going through the process of getting an idea greenlit and then leaning into something ghoulish like animal cruelty is baffling. Instead of casting a known Twitter bigot, you could just write a character based on assholes of that ilk. 

Whenever I see films coming out that seem more interested in courting controversy than trying to find their audiences, I pause. I cannot help but wonder who really decided this. Clearly, someone didn’t believe in the script and felt that upsetting people for the wrong reasons was the move. That outdated idea that any press is good press snuffed out whatever spark initially got people on board for the film. It is sad that someone(s) didn’t believe in the power of the written word. They doubted the effectiveness of storytelling and decided to go big in the wrong ways. Instead of stepping it up in the script department and figuring out if the proposed stunt is a band-aid for something missing on the page, they decided to go nuclear. They shocked us in the worst of ways, and now we are stuck on impact rather than intention.

How Did We Get Here?

I’m not trying to sound like a boomer, but the rise of social media has made this worse over the years. Studios seemingly want controversial content rather than actual art. The pursuit of going viral has replaced the idea of trying to actually do or say something. It’s all about adding AI to movies to spark outrage and make it trend. The worst people you know are getting cast in movies, so they can cry witch hunt when accountability enters the chat. Shocking the people for the wrong reasons seems to sadly be at main goal too often. 

How did we get here? I’m seriously asking. I mean, we know capitalism and people who don’t value art buying studios are a huge part of it. However, I feel like there is a missing piece of this puzzle. Maybe it’s just collective brain rot, and I want it to be more than that because I know the power of a good script. Hell, I know the power of a mid script in the hands of the right person. I want to believe in writers even if their vision is in the shadows of a circus. 

Advertisement

Is The Shock Value Worth It?

What do I know, though? I’m just a girl, sitting in front of a computer, asking the industry to believe in writers again. Back scripts that actually say something instead of figuring out how get them canceled. Make movies that spark conversation for legitimate reasons instead of incredibly head-scratching decisions that pull focus. Some of us deserve smart movies that challenge us for the right reasons. That’s why we flock to the original ideas, live for international films, and look to indie filmmakers. We crave disrupters who manage to break the cycle of crap we constantly get spoon-fed.

That’s what inspires me to keep beating my head against the wall. It’s what gives me hope that I’ll get to make things one day. Maybe I’m naive, but I want to at least try because I love writing. I don’t want to just cast a real bigot and call it a day. Not when I can write characters based on bigots and hopefully prompt actual conversation. I want my people discussing my dialogue and metaphors, instead of animal cruelty that makes people sick. In a perfect world the system would allow more room for that. We deserve scripts that can stand on their own without shock value leading TikTok to talk.

Continue Reading

Editorials

Tim Burton, Representation, and the Problem With Nostalgia

Published

on

Tim Burton was not always my nemesis. In the not-too-distant past, I was a child who just wanted to watch creepy things. I rewatched Beetlejuice countless times and thought he was a lot more involved in Henry Selick’s The Nightmare Before Christmas than he actually was. I was also a huge Batman fan before Ben Affleck happened to the Caped Crusader. To this day, I still argue that Michael Keaton’s Bruce Wayne was one of the best. So when I tell you I logged many hours rewatching Burton’s better films in my youth, I am not lying.

However, as I got older, I started to realize that this director’s films are usually exclusively filled with white actors. Even his animated work somehow ignores POC actors, seemingly by design. This is sadly common in the industry, as intersectionality seems to be a concept most older filmmakers cannot wrap their heads around. So, I was one of the people who chalked it up to a glaring oversight and not much more. I also outgrew Burton’s aesthetic and attempts at humor when I started seeking out horror movies that might actually be scary.

I Was Over Tim Burton Before It Was Cool

So, how did we get to episodes of the podcast I co-host, roasting Tim Burton? I kind of forgot about the man behind all of those movies I thought were epic when I was a kid. In huge part because his muse was Johnny Depp, whom I also outgrew forever ago. I wasn’t thinking about Burton or his filmography, and I doubt he noticed a kid in the Midwest stopped renting his movies. I didn’t think about Burton again until 2016 rolled around.

In an interview with Bustle for Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children, the lack of diversity in Burton’s work came up. That’s when the filmmaker explained this wasn’t a simple blunder or oversight on his part. He also unsurprisingly said the wrong thing instead of pretending he’d like to do better in the future.

Tim Burton said,Things either call for things, or they don’t. I remember back when I was a child watching The Brady Bunch, and they started to get all politically correct. Like, OK, let’s have an Asian child and a black. I used to get more offended by that than just… I grew up watching blaxploitation movies, right? And I said, that’s great. I didn’t go like, OK, there should be more white people in these movies.Bustle

Advertisement

Tim Burton Is Not the Only One Failing

We watch older white guys fumble in interviews when topics like gender parity, diversity, politics, etc., come up all the time. It’s to the point now where most of us are forced to wonder if their publicists have simply given up and just live in a state of constant damage control. However, Tim Burton’s response was surprisingly offensive in so many ways. The more I reread it, the more pissed off at this guy I forgot existed after we returned our copy of Mars Attacks! to the Hollywood Video closest to my childhood home. While I knew I wouldn’t be revisiting Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice, his explanation for the almost complete absence of POC in his work burst a bubble. 

We Hate To See It

Tim Burton’s own words made me realize so many obvious issues that I excused as a kid. Like Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent in Batman, it was the only time I remembered a Black actor with substantial screentime in a Burton film. Or that The Nightmare Before Christmas was really named the late Ken Page’s character, Oogie Boogie. As a Black kid, what a confusingly racist image with a helluva song. So, Burton saying the quiet part out loud is what led me to reexamine the actual reasons I probably stopped watching his work. His problematic answer is also why I don’t have the nostalgia that made most of my friends sit through Beetlejuice Beetlejuice

I love the cast for this sequel we didn’t need. I am also delighted to see Jenna Ortega continue working in my favorite genre. However, from what I heard from most of my friends who watched the movie, I’m not the only person who has outgrown Tim Burton’s messy aesthetic and outdated stabs at jokes. I am also not the only one paying attention to what’s being said about the Black characters on Wednesday. Again, I’m always happy to see Ortega booked and busy. However, I also refuse to pretend Burton has fixed his diversity problem. If anything, this moves us deeper into specific bias territory.

Tim Burton’s Bare Minimum Is Not Good Enough

He will now cast a couple of Brown people, but is still displaying colorism and anti-Blackness. Histhingsseeminglycall for thingsthat are not Black folks in key roles that aren’t bullies. He still feels that’s his aesthetic. If we are still dragging him into the last millennium, will he ever work on a project that truly understands and celebrates intersectionality? Or will he continue doing the bare minimum while waiting for a cookie? I don’t know, and to be honest, I don’t care anymore. I’m not the audience for Tim Burton. You can say mythingsno longercall for thingshe’s known for. In part because I’m over supporting filmmakers who don’t get it and don’t want to get it.

If a director wants to stay in a rut and keep regurgitating the mediocre things that worked for him before I was born, that’s his business. I’m more interested in what better filmmakers who can envision worlds filled with POC characters. Writer-directors that understand intersectionality benefits their stories are the people I’m trying to engage with. So, while Tim Burton might have had a few movies on repeat during my VHS era, I have as hard of a time watching his work as he has imagining people who look like me in his stuff. I will never unsee “let’s have an Asian child and a black” in his offensive word salad. However, I don’t think he wants me in the audience anyways because he might then have to imagine a world that calls for people who look like me.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement