Today in “celebrities are just like us” news, Grammy-winning songwriter Sam Smith is apparently a Donnie Darko kid. Like each and every one of us, Smith has, through a thick cloud of smoke, unpacked the film’s metaphysical implications, recited the Smurf-fucking monologue, and muttered “destruction is a form of creation” after a particularly nasty bong rip. They also, presumably, felt a touch of shame once, as a college student, they watched Primer and realized Donnie Darko is sorta undercooked and tonally sloppy, but then a few years later came around to embracing it again after accepting that the demon rabbit truly is badass, Swayze is amazing, and the movie’s batshit ambition outweighs its faults.
See, Smith samples the movie in their new single, “To Die For,” a piano-forward ballad they wrote for “all the lonely hearts out there on another Valentine’s Day.” The sample comes from one of Donnie’s therapy sessions, in which Jake Gyllenhaal’s little weirdo reveals he’s scared of being alone. (Alas, as the old lady later tells him, “Every living creature on Earth dies alone.”)
“Releasing this song is going to be a wild one—I feel like it’s from one of the deepest parts of me,” Smith told Rolling Stone of the song. “I wrote this with Jimmy Napes and Stargate in L.A. during a time of self-discovery and heartbreak.”
The song’s music video, which you can watch below, finds Smith reimagined as a disembodied mannequin head watching all the happy couples walk by outside. In the end, they’re freed from their prison, though not really in a good way, by a hooded figure we’re going to just assume is Donnie Darko.
“To Die For” follows singles like “How Do You Sleep,” “Dancing With A Stranger,” and their cover of Judy Garland’s “Get Happy” (for the Oscar-winning Judy, natch). Smith’s last album was 2014's The Lonely Hour.
In a new interview with Apple Music’s Zane Lowe, Smith discussed details of their upcoming album. “[W]ith my gender and everything, I’ve—I feel like my whole life, I’ve felt like I’m not—it’s not enough just to be a guy, because I feel like I’m both,” they said. “And I get to play around now, and be who I want to be in this music.” Smith goes on to describe the music as “very much upbeat” and “wild” and “free.”
37 Comments
Those generic-ass words come from one of the deepest parts of him? Lord.
Fuck, I didn’t realise I misgendered them and cannot edit anymore. Apologies.
Just a friendly pronoun reminder: https://time.com/5677668/sam-smith-they-them-pronouns/
His music is boring, poorly put together, and is strangely popular despite being almost as deep as a sheet of paper. So yeah, I can see the connection to Darko.
sam smith has proven time and time again that when all is said and done, he’s neither fish nor flesh, he she or themhe is simply, a normie.
Sam uses gender neutral pronouns. They/them.
i think my comment made it pretty clear that i’m aware, and that his boring ass stupidity has superseded all of that
that’s pretty cool dude, do you deadname trans people if you think they’re not cool enough?
nope :)just making a joke about how dumb sam smith has proven to be over the years and how his taste are mid. that’s all, spacecop.
Use people’s pronouns even if you don’t like them, asshole.
oh towards the end my bad. i actually was gonna say again this wans tabout the pronoun but my bad.they are simply a normie*
I mean you did it multiple times in multiple comments but if you’re not just using the wrong pronouns to be shitty then it’s fine, just keep that sort of thing in mind.
yeah i legit forgot when i was referencing previous comments that’s legitimately my bad. this was a terence trent d’arby reference gone off the railes essentially but yeah this isn’t about sam’s gender more about sam’s general dense nature but yeah i leave this here.
I mean, why? This seems like a strange thing to be respectful of if you’re saying shitty things about people. If you’ve decided to talk shit about someone why would you respect how they want to be identified? I mean people insult people by calling them shitty things, it’s a sign of disrespect, you are taking their name away from them and naming them something else to show that you do not like them. It’s such a weird ask to be like: “Hey, you can call that guy a shit eating maggot, but you better use those pronouns right!”Like, in general you just shouldn’t say shitty things about people, it’s not a good way to spend time. But if you’re gonna do it, why would you be respectful in this one aspect?
Because by not respecting their identity you’re essentially saying that their humanity and identity are dependent on whether or not you like them. These things are a much deeper part of people than their opinions or actions and dehumanizing people is never an appropriate response to anything.
By deciding to un-name them, and disrespect, and thus disregard, their desires or views you are already deciding that your regard for their identity is dependent on your level of respect for them. You are not dehumanizing them, or at least this act alone is not enough to be a dehumanizing act, that would also require actually taking away their ability to have an identity, or make those choices. Or if it is dehumanizing by its broadest definition, then all insulting names or appellations are dehumanizing. Insulting people is never an appropriate response to anything. It is an inappropriate act. Hence my question, you’ve already decided to be a jerk, why be respectful in this regard. It’s incongruous to the situation.I mean you called that guy an asshole, that’s not what he wants to be referred to, he wants to be called “uncle breaststroke”. Did you dehumanize him by instead referring to him as a part of mammalian anatomy? You decided his identity was less important because of his actions, so you called him a name.Why is it okay to insult someone’s outlook, or their name, or their views, but not their preferred pronoun, why is that aspect of their identity more sacred? Why is that aspect of them more representative of their humanity than the other things they have chosen about themselves? And if it’s not, why is it worse to misuse pronouns than it is to call someone an asshole?Seems like those are all the same level of shitty to me, and thus if you’ve decided to do something shitty, it seems silly to sacred cow one aspect of identity over others.
When you deadname or use the wrong pronouns for someone just because you don’t like them, you are telling any other trans/NB/genderqueer person that their humanity is dependent on whether or not you like them. That’s it. It’s no longer a personal affront, it’s an attack on the legitimacy of how people identify. It’s on par with referring to people of certain races as dogs or animals. There should be a level of basic respect of humanity regardless of who you’re talking to and that crosses that line.
By that notion when you called Uncle Breaststroke an asshole you are declaring that all other people’s rights to self identify are negotiable based on your acceptance of their behavior. And every time someone calls someone a dog, or a bitch, they are thus stating that humanity is negotiable. Either you respect people’s rights, and thus it is disrespectful and wrong (from a moral standpoint) to aggressively misidentify or name them. Or, when crossed it is an accepted moral transgression (though still not a good action) to say mean things, and to be disrespectful because that is the weapon you are using in your arsenal. Your explanation has failed to explain why their gender pronoun is more representative of them than their name, or their actions, or their beliefs, or why it should be more protected than any other aspect of their identity. Presumably they use all of those to represent themselves, and have chosen to identify with them. So isn’t the removal, or disrespect of any of those things an equally hostile act?“There should be a level of basic respect of humanity regardless of who you’re talking to and that crosses that line.” You are right, there should. But why does that cross the line and not otherwise being disrespectful? Why is one okay, permissible, but the other is not? Isn’t being hostile to someone in speech already a social transgression of that basic level of respect?
“It’s on par with referring to people of certain races as dogs or animals.”Only if one says, “All nonbinary’s (insert other identity group here)are ____” if I call the guy who beat up on my sister an animal, and he happens to be Japanese, I’m being disrespectful because I feel I have grievance and don’t like his actions, but I’m not declaring all Japanese people animals. If I’m shitty to him, for whatever reason it doesn’t mean I’m shitty to all people he may or may not identify with. Were he/she/they trans, and were I to deadname them because I was mad, it would be a shitty thing to do, but it doesn’t mean I believe trans people aren’t human, it means I believe that guy doesn’t deserve my respect, and I’m trying to hurt him because of that. It also doesn’t mean his actual humanity is affected or that I desire that. None of this is to say that these behaviors aren’t hostile and offensive, but one is being disrespectful, one has chosen to use language to harm another. Once one has chosen to do that, which if one is being reasonable one shouldn’t, why would one mince words?
Basically, I don’t see how you can call someone an asshole in the same breath as telling them not to disrespect someone else’s pronouns without being hypocritical. Those positions seem to be opposed to each other. Your line in the sand, where it is seems entirely arbitrary. You just shouldn’t say mean things to people, once you’ve decided to do that, I don’t see how it really matters what you say, your intent is harm regardless.
Calling someone an asshole isn’t denying their identity, it’s just an insult. Your premise is dumb and wrong and irrelevant. I’m not reading your whole pretentious comment, I’ve told you everything you need to understand this but you’re looking for any avenue around it.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m not looking for any avenue, just exploring the concepts at play in this conversation. I will say that you seem to be fine with insulting people who you disagree with, which I dunno, seems like maybe you shouldn’t be attempting to correct their behavior when it comes to decorum and their use of language. Then again, do whatever, you wouldn’t be the first person to spank someone for hitting. Hope this interaction wasn’t too annoying, have a nice day.
I’m fine with insulting people who are looking for excuses to misgender or deadname people. I’m not okay with using someone’s status as trans or non-binary as an insult. It’s really quite simple. This interaction was, in fact, annoying.
Did you want to keep this going?You’ve made your stance on insulting people pretty clear. You’ve called my views dumb and irrelevant, and you called me pretentious. I’ve never deadnamed anyone, nor would I, my sister is trans and I’m very familiar with how hurtful that can be. But, I also try not to use my words to hurt people in general and was having trouble understanding why you found one form of doing so okay, but not the other. My issue was also quite simple.Sorry you were annoyed.
No. Talk to your sister about the topic.
You forgot the gender neutral pronouns up until the last two paragraphs.EDIT: That was quick.
“They also, presumably, felt a touch of shame once, as a college student, they watched Primer and realized Donnie Darko is sorta undercooked and tonally sloppy”
Imagine if people didn’t have to prove how cool they are by shitting on a good movie via praise for a movie that’s really nothing like it at all.
I feel left out here because I like both of those movies for different reasons.
I wonder when Randall Colburn realizes he is just a sorta undercooked and sloppy version of Sean O’Neal.
Welcome to AV Club!
Oh hey, it’s Gargasmell again posting sentences out of context and removing the latter half of the whole fucking sentence that actually undermines his whole entire point. You’re the worst. Go away. your schtick is tiresome. “They also, presumably, felt a touch of shame once, as a college student, they watched Primer and realized Donnie Darko is sorta undercooked and tonally sloppy, but then a few years later came around to embracing it again after accepting that the demon rabbit truly is badass, Swayze is amazing, and the movie’s batshit ambition outweighs its faults“Notice how the But there connects two ideas. The first is that as a college student you might become jaded, but then you change later and realize you were a younger shithead. When will you have your But moment and realize your present self is a shithead?
Huh. The way you put it, it almost seems as if the point I was making relates to the first part of the sentence and not the second.
Imagine that.
plus Primer is pretty terrible
donnie darko is objectively pretentious and undercooked. i agree with you that its a good movie though.
I read “Sam Smith” and immediately thought the article was about the ginger one. Only when the photo loaded my thought process went “wait, why is there a picture of this one attached to an article about Sam Smith … Oh this one is Sam Smith .. So the ginger one is … Damn what’s his name …. Argh! … Oh yes, ED SHEERAN”In my defence: Ed Sheeran wrote song called Sam for Jessie Ware. I’m not a fan of his but I’m a huge fan of hers. Also I believe Ed Sheeran looks like his name should be Sam, and the real Sam Smith looks more like an Ed.Not in my defence: I’m English and should know better!
Here’s the attention you ordered.
I will make a song sampling my favorite part of Donnie Darko –
For anyone who wants to waste their damn time like I did, listen to the Director’s Commentary for Donnie Darko, which also had a chap named Jake Gyllenhaal sitting in and making comments too.What you will find is that the director of this movie (Richard Kelly) has no fucking idea what he is doing. He says major things about the film and the character Jake plays, and Jake has no clue what the fuck Kelly is talking about. Hmm, you think they should have gone over the stuff during filming? Nah, apparently not, but hey, it’s not like it shows up in the finished product anyway, so I guess Kelly’s “vision” didn’t make it to the screen?