The Fountain (Darren Aronofsky, 2006)

[DDillaman]

keep in mind Venice also booed FIGHT CLUB.

Take that as you will.

[Antoine Doinel]

You don't know what can of worms you just opened.....

[Antoine Doinel]

Handing "boy wonders" a bunch of "stars" and $$$ isn't necessarily a good thing. Big-themed movies are VERY hard to pull off, yet everybody wants to do them. Just because you are a good cameraman doesn't suddenly make you a philosopher. I will go see this but it sounds dire.

P.S. I give the Darren/Rachel "relationship" about 6 more months, at best.

Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz are hardly "stars". Jackman hasn't yet proved himself as being able to bring in box office dollars based on his name alone - he was very lucky the X-Men franchise has done exceedingly well. Van Helsing diddn't make it's budget back, neither did Kate & Leopold. Both had the kind of marketing campaign that The Fountain is getting/will receive ie. extensive.

As for Rachel Weisz she's an "actress", not a "star" - huge difference.

Oh yeah, that huge budget? $35 million cut down from $70 million.

And you're already wrong about the Darren/Rachel relationship - they have a kid and have been together at least a couple of years.

All said, I'm really looking forward to this film. I find the trailer thrilling, the storyline great (I guess I'm a romantic then) and I admire Aronofsky's visual bravura. I just hope it all adds up.

[soma]

I's not like AICN has better credibility than Variety.

EDIT: and Moriarty is an all-time douche.

I agree. AICN is far from what I consider a reputable source of filmic opinion. Although they can occasionally be noted as giving deserved praise to seriously underappreciated cult or genre material which escapes the appreciation of well, let's just say more mature film critics. But by the same token they more than often give unwarranted cred to material that really doesn't stand out within its genre and is ultimately little more than Playstation generation fluff.

However, let me correct a misinterpretation of my post - I wasn't using AICN to back up my statement, just adding the info to the thread as there's not much of it about as yet. From some of the rude reactions in the thread perhaps I should have made two separate posts? One to post the info from AICN and one with my own opinion, which happens to be I believe Aronofsky to be an extremely talented and risk-taking director and I for one am seriously looking forward to this. This has every potential to be genius... and if not, it will at least be one of the year's most interesting films.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz are hardly "stars". Jackman hasn't yet proved himself as being able to bring in box office dollars based on his name alone - he was very lucky the X-Men franchise has done exceedingly well. Van Helsing diddn't make it's budget back, neither did Kate & Leopold. Both had the kind of marketing campaign that The Fountain is getting/will receive ie. extensive.

Well, let's do the math, here:

Swordfish:
Production Budget: $102 million
Worldwide: $147,080,413

Kate & Leopold:
Worldwide: $76,019,048

Van Helsing:
Production Budget: $160 million
Worldwide: $300,157,638

Lifetime Gross Total (8): $881,197,487

I think those are pretty respectable numbers. Not big time numbers like, say Tom Cruise, but I think it makes him bankable.

[Antoine Doinel]

Well, all those films had to go worldwide before breaking even which is hardly something the studios like to bank on. I guess my point is that Hugh Jackman, IMHO, isn't a household name yet and it will take a lot for The Fountain to break even domestically.

[Napoleon]

From some of the rude reactions in the thread...

You mean the film snobs that most likely consider any film that makes back more than half its budget to be part of the mainstream? And hence worthless?

You'll get used to them.

[soma]

Ha, awesome.

[Andre Jurieu]

You mean the film snobs that most likely consider any film that makes back more than half its budget to be part of the mainstream? And hence worthless?

You'll get used to them.

I've tried, but you never get used to those douche-bags. They always find new ways to annoy.

[Cinesimilitude]

Jackman needs to do something low budget and either gritty or heartfelt.
He's done big budget actions, studio schlop rom coms, and one woody allen film which I've yet to see but is probably awesome in it. I think he's a great actor, but he's the kind of guy that I can see having a breakout role in something smaller, and more creative. I'm really excited to see him attached to Baz Luhrmann's next project, since I know jackman's done theater.

[Barmy]

The quotes around "stars" was meant to be ironic. And I guess I should have typed $$ not $$$. But the overall arc of this project reeks of overextension of a limited, overrated talent. "Pi" was an interesting but extremely minor film. "Requiem"--I can understand why it has strong supporters, but what really did it have to "say"? And, again, it is a very minor work. Then all of a sudden Brad Pitt (rolls eyes) is attached to his next project. And Darren feels it's time to tackle the meaning of life.

Here's a positive review.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

The quotes around "stars" was meant to be ironic. And I guess I should have typed $$ not $$$. But the overall arc of this project reeks of overextension of a limited, overrated talent. "Pi" was an interesting but extremely minor film. "Requiem"--I can understand why it has strong supporters, but what really did it have to "say"?

Drugs are bad? But seriously, I think that Requiem was a pretty interesting adaptation of it source novel and certainly visually incredible with some very strong performances (from Jared Leto -- who woulda thunk?) but it feels like a natural progression to whatever The Fountain is going to be. He seems to be heading towards that.

But this whole discussion of these young guys suddenly getting all this money and going crazy with it is an interesting one. The Fountain is getting the same kind of reaction that Southland Tales got at Cannes. What's next? Wes Anderson's next movie getting booed at the New York Film Festival?

[Antoine Doinel]

I don't see the connection between budget size and quality of film.

[miless]

But this whole discussion of these young guys suddenly getting all this money and going crazy with it is an interesting one. The Fountain is getting the same kind of reaction that Southland Tales got at Cannes. What's next? Wes Anderson's next movie getting booed at the New York Film Festival?

yeah, because Wes Anderson doesn't get a boat-load of money for the budgets his films.

[Barmy]

Just think what Edward Burns could do with $35 million.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Just think what Edward Burns could do with $35 million.

[Andre Jurieu]

Just think what Edward Burns could do with $35 million.

Because Ed Burns and Darren Aronofsky are the same type of filmmaker? Does that make Coke the same as Cognac, or Cuba the same as Spain, or the Japanese the same as the Russians, or Bush the same as Hitler?

[Barmy]

yes

[Andre Jurieu]

yes

Sweet.

[soma]

But the overall arc of this project reeks of overextension of a limited, overrated talent. "Pi" was an interesting but extremely minor film. "Requiem"--I can understand why it has strong supporters, but what really did it have to "say"? And, again, it is a very minor work.

Pi was an interesting first film, but I'd hardly call it great. Requiem on the other hand I believe to be a masterpiece, and I'll defend it to the end.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

Alls I know is the Hollywood Reporter review compares it to Zardoz, and that says "must-see" in my book.

[soma]

Drugs are bad? But seriously, I think that Requiem was a pretty interesting adaptation of it source novel and certainly visually incredible with some very strong performances (from Jared Leto -- who woulda thunk?) but it feels like a natural progression to whatever The Fountain is going to be. He seems to be heading towards that.

I've had the same discussion with avid film friends here in Melbourne and no disrespect intended, I believe the "drugs are bad" argument to entirely miss the point of the film.

I don't believe that to be the key message in Requiem at all. Sure, it's a given that one is left with an undeniable sense that drugs aren't such a wise choice... and that more often than not junkies can be and are the worst kind of people in that they will ultimately betray themselves and everyone around them for their addiction. But this is not a drug movie. The "drug" loses its importance, fades into the background and the quick-edit montages Aronofsky uses become nothing more than carefully timed beats to break up the action. The real action is going on inside the characters' heads. What Requiem is essentially about is the nature of addiction. Whether the addiction is heroin, diet pills, weed, sex, caffeine, vanity, approval, the desire to belong, money, success, power or even television; these are all merely variables to be plugged into the algebra of human need. This is a movie about that need, about desire and our inability to escape from it, or more importantly... about how easily it can lure us to our own demise. Even the mother who is trapped in the glow of the television as her stash of chocolates begins to diminish is dependant on things to placate her. It doesn't matter what things (chocolate, television, her red dress, diet pills) any more than it matters what drugs her son and his crew take. The actual physical presence of the drug is less important than the psychological root of addiction itself. If anything, Requiem is a study of one of the greatest inherent flaws in human nature. Taken to the extreme, yes, but only to emphasize the point.

I definitely believe it to be a cautionary tale. Are we supposed to learn something from their demise? Most definitely, but not necessarily that "drugs are bad". The inquisitive viewer should learn something about the phenomenology of addiction, in all its forms. We as humans are naturally addicted, it's part of our nature. We see the outside world and we want to be a part of it - thus even a being with no vices is addicted to life itself. Perhaps the message should be that anything in excess will lead to our downfall, even if that addiction or path of excess is inherently good or with good intent.

I also have perhaps even more respect for this film after reading the novel. The film is entirely different in its format, structure, plot progression, etc and yet PERFECTLY captures the very essence and feel of what the book is trying to say in, one may argue, a far more impactful vision. To see how much of the story Aronofsky either changed or ignored and still captured the heart and soul of the novel with such poignancy is amazing. It is rare for me to say that a film adaptation is as good as the source novel, but this is definitely one of them.

Lastly, technique. There's a reason just about every student filmmaker is riffing on Aronofsky's style, editing and technique since the release of this film - it's visually innovative and incredibly impactful. That said, this is one of the few 'flashy' indie films of today where form does actually follow function. The style not only serves the narrative, but the narrative and message would be lost without it.

This is a brave, brave piece of filmmaking and despite the naysayers I believe it to be one of the most important American films of the last decade. Regardless of your stance, the sheer emotional force of this work is undeniable. As I said before, bring on The Fountain.

[Grimfarrow]

I walked out after an hour of numbingly painful dialogue, overacting and cheesy new-age mumbo jumbo. Disappointing doesn't begin to cover how I feel about THE FOUNTAIN. For a thoughtful quasi-sci-fi, the real masterpiece is SYNDROMES AND A CENTURY.

[ellipsis7]

Aronofsky & Weisz answer back...

'I knew we were going to get attacked ... '

When Brad Pitt pulled out, Darren Aronofsky's new film looked doomed. This week it was booed at Venice. But the director and his partner Rachel Weisz tell Geoffrey Macnab why they're still smiling

Thursday September 7, 2006
The Guardian

Late afternoon in an upstairs ballroom in the Excelsior Hotel in Venice, and Darren Aronofsky is talking about his new film, The Fountain. Two days on from its world premiere, the film has already divided audiences: at the press screening, it was booed; at its public screening the following evening, the film was given a 10-minute-long standing ovation.
Aronofsky doesn't appear surprised by the mixed reception. A thin, bespectacled figure in a striped shirt, he is in a wry, philosophical mood, pointing out that his first two features, Pi and Requiem for a Dream, experienced similarly rocky births.

"Requiem got slaughtered by the press," Aronofsky cheerily recalls. "We had a 30-minute standing ovation in Cannes and the next day Variety said I should go into therapy instead of making movies. The New York Times trashed Pi. I am totally used to it."

It's not hard to see why The Fountain has proved so contentious. A hugely ambitious story about love and death, it defies easy categorisation. At its simplest, it is a melodrama about a scientist (Hugh Jackman) who can't come to terms with the fact that his wife (played by Aronofsky's partner, Rachel Weisz) is dying of cancer. So far, so straightforward, but this is also an action movie and a sci-fi film. The narrative opens with Jackman as a hirsute, bloodthirsty 16th-century Spanish conquistador in Central America, trying to find the tree of life. With a manic glee in his eye reminiscent of Klaus Kinski in Werner Herzog's Aguirre, the Wrath of God, he fights the natives and attempts to kill a Mayan witch-doctor who tells him "death is the road to awe".
On top of this, the subplot about the conquistador searching for the tree of life to save his queen is taken from a novel that Isabel (Weisz's character) is writing on her deathbed. And then there are futuristic sequences in which we see Jackman as a bald, 26th-century astronaut, looking more like Buddha than Buzz Aldrin, still trying to bring his beloved back to life.

Visually, the film is extraordinarily rich and just a touch eccentric. There are sequences showing the galaxy that rekindle memories of old Carl Sagan documentaries about the mysteries of the cosmos. Aronofsky's futuristic world, filmed without recourse to CGI, also has a freshness that carries echoes of old Georges Melies silent cartoons from the dawn of cinema.

Aronofsky doesn't apologise for the film's complexity. "I think it is a really simple story." As in the sci-fi novels that he loves, the plot simply takes some time to come into focus. "A man and a woman are in love and the woman has this tragic problem - she is going to die. The man is your typical man and he tries to fix it [her condition]. She gives him this incredible gift - she writes him a book which is a metaphor for what is going on in their life."

The Fountain has been in gestation for a small eternity. It is seven years since Requiem for a Dream, the director's last feature. Brad Pitt, Aronofsky explains, is to blame. In 2002, The Fountain was weeks away from shooting in Australia, with Pitt starring. "We started working on The Fountain in 1999. We had spent $18m - and then the lead actor quit."

Even today, the film-maker can't quite explain why Pitt withdrew. "It is like breaking up. If you break up with someone after two and a half years preparation, it is hard to say if it was one thing. It wasn't like he left the toothpaste cap off the toothpaste."

But Pitt and Aronofsky remain friends. "The only reason the film was happening was because of Brad. I think creatively we grew apart. By the time it was ready to go, he wasn't ready to go - and so it fell apart."

The Russian-American film-maker from Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, made his debut feature Pi for $60,000 and still can't quite get his head around the fact that $18m was spent on the aborted first version of The Fountain. For seven months afterwards, he tried to muster enthusiasm for other projects, but couldn't get the film out of his system.

"One night I couldn't sleep. I was sitting in my office and across from me were all the books I had read for The Fountain. I realised that the film was still in my blood."

Aronofsky began to reconceive the project as a low-budget feature - something he could do without studio interference. In time- honoured fashion, the potential financiers balked at backing such an unconventional project. "Pretty much everyone in the world said no to this film several times." In the end, with Jackman and Weisz aboard, the film did attract studio backing. It was made for $30m. Aronofsky and his crew prepared just as diligently second time around. Weisz spent several weeks at cancer hospices, observing how the terminally ill are prepared for death.

The director has little patience with the American way of dying. "We spend a fortune keeping people alive who shouldn't be alive and we don't allow death in any way into the hospital setting," he says. "At 93, my grandma had a heart attack and we brought her to a hospital. They tried to bring her back three times. They broke her ribs. There is something wrong about that."

Aronofsky reveals that he began to fret about his own mortality when he reached his early 30s. At the time, his parents had become ill. "That freaked me out - to have people that you really love start to deal with big issues. I started to think about what it would mean to lose someone."

On one level, The Fountain is Aronofsky's love letter to Weisz. The first time we see her, she is shown in a huge, lambent close-up. She is constantly portrayed wearing white, as if she is some kind of Madonna-figure. "We had an intimacy that we were able to translate into work as well," he says. Weisz, who has arrived in Venice fresh from filming with Wong Kar-Wai, tells me that "who we are when we work is very different to who we are around the house". Of the curse of couples who work together, she says: "There are success stories and people who end up splitting up - but we did OK."

Aronofsky is a cerebral film-maker who throws himself into each new project as if it were his latest college course. As he puts it, Pi gave him the chance to steep himself in "math and the kabbalah". Requiem for a Dream taught him everything he ever wanted to know about drug addiction. Now, thanks to The Fountain, he is an expert on Mayan culture.

Yes, Aronofsky acknowledges, some audiences might find The Fountain outlandish. "I know we're going to get attacked by some cynics, but it is time for some sincerity and just to talk about the things that make us human."

One of the paradoxes about The Fountain is that Tom (Jackman) is so busy trying to save his wife's life that he doesn't actually have time to pay her any attention. When she asks him to come outside to see the first snow, he is too preoccupied with his work that he refuses, little realising that they won't enjoy many such other moments together. Weisz says: "For me, that is what the movie is about - the moments in life we can do something that is very simple and what can be more simple than taking a walk in the snow with someone we love? I think on our deathbeds, we're not going to regret that we didn't work more. We're just going to regret that we didn't spend more time with the people we love."

This isn't a mistake that Aronofsky seems in danger of repeating. Not so long ago, he was offered the chance to direct an episode of Lost. He was keen to take the job but he put the work on hold. At the time, Weisz was nearing the end of her pregnancy (the couple now have a three-month-old son, Henry Chance) and she made it very clear where his priorities should lie. "I didn't know what it would be like being away from a seven-month pregnant woman, but I learned quickly."

[Lino]

I walked out after an hour of numbingly painful dialogue, overacting and cheesy new-age mumbo jumbo. Disappointing doesn't begin to cover how I feel about THE FOUNTAIN.

Now I am sure I'm going to love this one! Thanks, Grim!