The Fountain (Darren Aronofsky, 2006)
-
Barmy
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 7:59 pm
Although I can (sort of) appreciate "Fountain" as an exercise in style--a quiche film, if you will--I am puzzled about what the film is supposed to be telling us. Is there really a philosophical message? Some people say they are affected by the love story, but, my God, if this is one of the best love stories of 2006, I'm very afraid. And the visuals are simply not spectacular--this is film stage set 101. Urine-colored bubbles? What's up with that--Darren didn't even list Duchamp as one of his alleged influences.
-
putney
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:36 am
- Location: stratosphere, baby, stratosphere
-
scalesojustice
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:25 pm
- Contact:
i don't understand the extremist hatred or love for this film. perhaps its because people watch too many high-brow films or too few. perhaps its because they are moved by the emotion to a degree that blinds them from film's weakness or that the weaknesses blind them from the emotion.
for my part, i enjoyed the film quite a bit. and, in an area where i don't get a chance to see interesting, tend-to-be limited release films, the fountain was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale mainstream theater atmosphere. the film does reach for the stars, and i'm one of those people who's emotion blinds them from the film's short-comings, or at least allows me to forgive them. aronofsky touched on a core nerve of humanity's "wtf" about life and death.
yet, his expansive story highlights the fact that he can't quite keep the film's story at his heels. There are times where the plot gets away from him, or at least deviates from thematic path. it seems that aronofsky knows what he wants to say, but is not quite sure how to get there. the visual and emotional assualt at the end, seemed to come out of left field because it's the strongest argument within the film. before that it's an incohesive collage of arguments that lead up to the "ta-da." and much like the films post-rockish score, the film builds upon its layers to create a powerful, and massive, climax that inspires as much pain and sadness as awe and wonderment.
it is also my contention that the majority of viewers (not here mind you, but else where in the media world) are too hung up on the plot. the fountain is not some mystery that needs to be unravled. people don't seem to understand themes or ideas anymore, or maybe they never did. but the message of the film is much more important than the lineage of the plot.
for my part, i enjoyed the film quite a bit. and, in an area where i don't get a chance to see interesting, tend-to-be limited release films, the fountain was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale mainstream theater atmosphere. the film does reach for the stars, and i'm one of those people who's emotion blinds them from the film's short-comings, or at least allows me to forgive them. aronofsky touched on a core nerve of humanity's "wtf" about life and death.
yet, his expansive story highlights the fact that he can't quite keep the film's story at his heels. There are times where the plot gets away from him, or at least deviates from thematic path. it seems that aronofsky knows what he wants to say, but is not quite sure how to get there. the visual and emotional assualt at the end, seemed to come out of left field because it's the strongest argument within the film. before that it's an incohesive collage of arguments that lead up to the "ta-da." and much like the films post-rockish score, the film builds upon its layers to create a powerful, and massive, climax that inspires as much pain and sadness as awe and wonderment.
it is also my contention that the majority of viewers (not here mind you, but else where in the media world) are too hung up on the plot. the fountain is not some mystery that needs to be unravled. people don't seem to understand themes or ideas anymore, or maybe they never did. but the message of the film is much more important than the lineage of the plot.
-
scalesojustice
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:25 pm
- Contact:
for me, the message was that science and technology will only take us so far and that it will never answer some questions. in that light and more importantly, that death cannot be conquered and losses must be dealt with, because if you spend your time fighting what you can't control, you'll miss out on all the wonderful things you were fighting to save.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Well said scales. Aronofsky also firmly believes in some form of a spiritual afterlife as well, but that even there, there must be acceptance at what life's hand wrought before one can be at peace.
And Barmy, I'm not being facetitious, but have you seen the movie? If so, I'm a bit suprised this seems to have all gone over your head, but if not, why exactly are you firmly standing against a film you haven't seen?
And Barmy, I'm not being facetitious, but have you seen the movie? If so, I'm a bit suprised this seems to have all gone over your head, but if not, why exactly are you firmly standing against a film you haven't seen?
-
Barmy
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 7:59 pm
Yes, I've seen it. For me the film had no clear message.
I think scales has a point, but that interpretation seems at odds with other elements of the film. After all, 600 years later, Tommy is STILL trying to find a cure for death (going so far as to leave good old planet Earth altogether). I guess he didn't get the message.
I think scales has a point, but that interpretation seems at odds with other elements of the film. After all, 600 years later, Tommy is STILL trying to find a cure for death (going so far as to leave good old planet Earth altogether). I guess he didn't get the message.
-
scalesojustice
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:25 pm
- Contact:
well, i don't find that time in space to be "real" (enter the plot debate).
i find that story line to be symbolic and push the message even further to the point where even if we have the means to live forever, we sill still never conquer death.
again, they aren't necessarily the same people, but its the same story. kind of like a wong kar-wai "sequel." they might be the same person, or they might not, but it doesn't matter if they are or not.
i find that story line to be symbolic and push the message even further to the point where even if we have the means to live forever, we sill still never conquer death.
again, they aren't necessarily the same people, but its the same story. kind of like a wong kar-wai "sequel." they might be the same person, or they might not, but it doesn't matter if they are or not.
-
soma
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:40 am
- Location: Melbourne
Not having seen the film yet I'm hardly fit to make this call, as despite being a major fan of Aronofsky I would like to judge such a risky and divided film on its own merits, but Balmy from where I'm sitting you were NEVER going to like this film. One has only to re-read this thread to see blatently and obtrusively where your bias against Aronofsky as a whole and indeed moreover The Fountain, lies.
When the film is released in Australia I will be sure to share my own thoughts, but in reading the discussion here I can't help but feel your somewhat overbearing personal opinions greatly pre-destined the outcome of the film for you. To the point perhaps where one might wonder why you bothered to see it at all?
When the film is released in Australia I will be sure to share my own thoughts, but in reading the discussion here I can't help but feel your somewhat overbearing personal opinions greatly pre-destined the outcome of the film for you. To the point perhaps where one might wonder why you bothered to see it at all?
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Very interesting -- that actually didn't occur to me at all. I found the time in space to be the most "real" element of the film, while the conquistador element was clearly (to me) "unreal". To me, what Aronofsky was saying is that we do have to some extent "eternal life" but not it will occur in the same manifestation of flesh and blood of our earthly life.scalesojustice wrote:well, i don't find that time in space to be "real" (enter the plot debate).
i find that story line to be symbolic and push the message even further to the point where even if we have the means to live forever, we sill still never conquer death.
again, they aren't necessarily the same people, but its the same story. kind of like a wong kar-wai "sequel." they might be the same person, or they might not, but it doesn't matter if they are or not.
I do agree it doesn't particularly matter if they are the same people or not as it doesn't have much of a bearing on the overall thematic tone of the film.
-
scalesojustice
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:25 pm
- Contact:
are spoilers permissable? this is the movie thread and it is out, can i speak freely?
and your statement, just made something occur to me to strengthen my "not real" space argument.
the space storyline could be the manifestation of the journey of thomas' soul. originally completely immersed with the idea of salvation through eternal life, he comes to realize that he does not contorl life, he is merely on a course through life and this his life also ends. but, much like the "real" thomas who accepts what izzy was teaching him and accepts her death, he accepts his inability to save anything and sacrafices himself, whereas in the past past, he drinks of the tree and the sap kills him. two different parables, which culminate in his spiritual transformation in the present, which is the only real reality.
on a side note, soma, perhaps barmy was previously bias, but he is highlighting a major film in the flaw (or at least the viewer, no offense meant barmy). the majority of people udnerstand a theme through the plot. so, if the plot is not understood the message is lost. personally, i got the theme loud and clear and i'm not working through the theme to understand the plot (par my expliation above and the first time the "plot" has made complete sense to me)
and your statement, just made something occur to me to strengthen my "not real" space argument.
the space storyline could be the manifestation of the journey of thomas' soul. originally completely immersed with the idea of salvation through eternal life, he comes to realize that he does not contorl life, he is merely on a course through life and this his life also ends. but, much like the "real" thomas who accepts what izzy was teaching him and accepts her death, he accepts his inability to save anything and sacrafices himself, whereas in the past past, he drinks of the tree and the sap kills him. two different parables, which culminate in his spiritual transformation in the present, which is the only real reality.
on a side note, soma, perhaps barmy was previously bias, but he is highlighting a major film in the flaw (or at least the viewer, no offense meant barmy). the majority of people udnerstand a theme through the plot. so, if the plot is not understood the message is lost. personally, i got the theme loud and clear and i'm not working through the theme to understand the plot (par my expliation above and the first time the "plot" has made complete sense to me)
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
MAJOR SPOILERS
Very interesting again scales. To me the film was largely about the sacrifices that are made in the pursuit of extending life. First, there was the conquistador who sacrificied his own life when gulping the sap from the tree. Then, there was the sacrifice of the relationship in the present day story. Finally, in the "future" Tom sacrifices himself - floating in what I imagine to be some kind of purgatory, desperately trying to revive Izzi and his memories of her into some kind of tangible form. It's only when he finally accepts his "death" that his spirit is allowed to ascend or reach a nirvana-like state.
Aronofsky deftly blurs the line between the real and unreal and even I think hints that all three plotlines are happening in parallel of each other.
Very interesting again scales. To me the film was largely about the sacrifices that are made in the pursuit of extending life. First, there was the conquistador who sacrificied his own life when gulping the sap from the tree. Then, there was the sacrifice of the relationship in the present day story. Finally, in the "future" Tom sacrifices himself - floating in what I imagine to be some kind of purgatory, desperately trying to revive Izzi and his memories of her into some kind of tangible form. It's only when he finally accepts his "death" that his spirit is allowed to ascend or reach a nirvana-like state.
Aronofsky deftly blurs the line between the real and unreal and even I think hints that all three plotlines are happening in parallel of each other.
-
scalesojustice
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:25 pm
- Contact:
spoilers...?
actually, the more we discuss the film, the more i like it. when i was watching it, i wasn't sold until the end, as the entire film rests on his choice of what to do after her death. the continuing exploration of the film, definately gets me excited about it. but as my appreciation for it grows, i'm wondering if i'm becoming more blind to its weakness or if its weakness are melting away as i fill in my interpretations.
in the dilema of discerning the importance of contemporary films, i think that time will be kind to the fountain and that it will grow on people with age.
actually, the more we discuss the film, the more i like it. when i was watching it, i wasn't sold until the end, as the entire film rests on his choice of what to do after her death. the continuing exploration of the film, definately gets me excited about it. but as my appreciation for it grows, i'm wondering if i'm becoming more blind to its weakness or if its weakness are melting away as i fill in my interpretations.
in the dilema of discerning the importance of contemporary films, i think that time will be kind to the fountain and that it will grow on people with age.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
-
hangthadj
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:40 pm
- Contact:
I've been puzzled by the hatred of this film too. I visited Reverse Shot this morning and found the film being denounced and called vomit worthy because the Conquistador story didn't live up to total historical accuracy. Really? That's what you are choosing to take away from the film, Reverse Shot? Yes, the film is flawed at points, I am not sure I have ever seen a perfect film, but still...scalesojustice wrote:i don't understand the extremist hatred or love for this film. perhaps its because people watch too many high-brow films or too few. perhaps its because they are moved by the emotion to a degree that blinds them from film's weakness or that the weaknesses blind them from the emotion.
I am also falling in line with those who find themselves liking the film more the more they discuss it. I found myself very much thinking that the space part was real, as real as the present day story and more than just Tommy's soul. I found myself thinking that because I was thinking that because I didn't think that a soul would be seperate from a body in this view of an afterlife. I thought that both live on or something along those lines. Or maybe that would be my view of the afterlife having a bearing on what I have seen.
That isn't to discard the soul argument at all, which I am now thinking about more and obviously held water for scales.
-
scalesojustice
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:25 pm
- Contact:
i guess i also see the two bookending storylines as a representatin of his quest before and after izzy's death. i think i also like to think that he finished the book, planted the tree, said goodbye to izzy and tried to move on, like she would have wanted.
Spoiler...?
however, when i first watched it, it did strike me odd that he had discovered a "foutain of youth" so early on in the film. it would have felt like a big deal, but it was brushed aside. at the moment it happened i thought, "what's the point of this." but it makes more sense if continued his pursuit of science and used his early discovery to find a way to bring izzy back. but, MAJOR SPOILER...
the seperation of the soul and body idea is interesting and something i never considered. actually, i suppose i don't put much weight in the religous aspect, in favor of the metaphysical question it asks. (now, what does that say about me?) however, it is nice that those ideas are introduced in the film, but i never felt that they were stead-fast rules. another testament to the quality of the film, aronofsky doesn't force us to fall in line with his thoughts/beliefs/ideas.
at any rate, the more i thought about it last night, the less i was convinced about my yesterday theory. but now i'm more convinced. i guess i need to see it again to find the little nauances in the film that would support or refute my interpretation.
Spoiler...?
however, when i first watched it, it did strike me odd that he had discovered a "foutain of youth" so early on in the film. it would have felt like a big deal, but it was brushed aside. at the moment it happened i thought, "what's the point of this." but it makes more sense if continued his pursuit of science and used his early discovery to find a way to bring izzy back. but, MAJOR SPOILER...
Spoiler
the fact that the cure did work, just not in time, leads me to believe that he had to abandon his fool's hope in science to find any peace at all.
at any rate, the more i thought about it last night, the less i was convinced about my yesterday theory. but now i'm more convinced. i guess i need to see it again to find the little nauances in the film that would support or refute my interpretation.
-
Bajaja
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:39 pm
- Location: Baltimore, MD
I have finally seen it and must conclude that it is a very unsuccessful attempt, albeit nice to look at. Someone has said before that it bordered on parody and I agree. Neither the plot nor the message were mature and well developed. Characters were quite unengaging, despite their tragedies and strives. I guess that Dr. Strangelove was a more realistic depiction of a scientist than the poor Tommy. I know that art has its licentia poetica, but no self-respecting scientist would have an explicit goal to overcome death! Science has established the biological meaning of death long ago. And the whole message of Eastern philosophy and religion, with which the film flirted heavily, is the graceful acceptance of death. Izzie was close, but Tommy did not seem to get it even in his space bubble. (There is a zen koan about a master preaching that there is no distinction between life and death. A smart-ass student asks him: "But then, Master, why do not you kill yourself?" Unsurprisingly, Master replied: "But-- what would be the difference?")
I did laugh out loud, together with the few fellow viewers in the theater, when at the end Tommy unfurled from his yoga position and shot into the outer space. Clarke and Kubrick's 2001 has a similar kind of mystical ending, but it does not elicit laughs at all-- because it is a masterpiece, which The Fountain is not.
I did laugh out loud, together with the few fellow viewers in the theater, when at the end Tommy unfurled from his yoga position and shot into the outer space. Clarke and Kubrick's 2001 has a similar kind of mystical ending, but it does not elicit laughs at all-- because it is a masterpiece, which The Fountain is not.
-
solaris72
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:03 pm
- Location: Baltimore, MD
That's not true. I've been at more than one screening of 2001 where audience members laughed at it. Whether some laugh or not, I love both 2001 (perhaps the greatest film I've ever seen) and The Fountain (merely the best film I've seen all year).Bajaja wrote:Clarke and Kubrick's 2001 has a similar kind of mystical ending, but it does not elicit laughs at all-- because it is a masterpiece, which The Fountain is not.
-
Roger_Thornhill
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:35 am
After reading Antoine and Scalesofjustice's discussion I think I may have completely misunderstood this film...
Besides my apparent confusion, I found this one of the better releases this year. I went in with low expectations considering the critical beating it has taken so I was pleasantly surprised when I found myself completely engrossed in Aronofsky's new film.
Spoiler
I thought the only "real" part of the picture was the present day story. The conquistador storyline is based on Weiz's book (where she inserted herself and Jackman in) and the space part being the last chapter of the book as written by Jackman. I realize that Jackman didn't know about the last chapter until the end of the film, but the non-linear structure of Aronofsky's film made that irrelevent to me.
-
Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 2:09 pm
It's now running over here in Germany, and I watched it yesterday, having become quite interested reading the discussion here. But I would agree with those statements that say that it borders on parody. This has little do with the message and philosophical thought behind the film (which IS quite interesting and even convincing), but much more with the actual execution of the film. The worst thing is the dialogue: lines like "Find the garden of Eden, and I will be your Eve" (something like this, I re-translate from the German dub) or the constantly repeated "Finish it" (which I found even worse than "Matrix"'s "He is the ONE") seemed utterly ridiculous once you've heard them more than once. Forgive me if these sound much better in the original version, but honestly, I doubt it. The rest isn't much better.
Then there are the visuals themselves. Yes, they look stunning from time to time, but they're overwrought with clichés. That part with Jackman riding through space in a yoga position looked like a TV ad for some esoteric meditation group. The shot of Jackman in black dancing in front of the interstellar space is a rip-off from Maya Deren's "The very eye of night". The bald Jackman by the tree looks exactly like Tarkovsky's "Stalker". And so on and so on.. Highly derivative, it seems Aronofsky has seen all the right films ("Solaris" and "2001" in particular, and also "Lord of the Rings"), but hasn't quite understood WHY they are great. There's no subtlety here, no real exploration of philosophy, no believable characters, and a constant onslaught of over-dramatic music. I kept thinking of some music videos all the time. This is a film/video that Madonna (in her 'esoteric' period) would have been proud of, and Peter Gabriel ashamed of.
Then there are the visuals themselves. Yes, they look stunning from time to time, but they're overwrought with clichés. That part with Jackman riding through space in a yoga position looked like a TV ad for some esoteric meditation group. The shot of Jackman in black dancing in front of the interstellar space is a rip-off from Maya Deren's "The very eye of night". The bald Jackman by the tree looks exactly like Tarkovsky's "Stalker". And so on and so on.. Highly derivative, it seems Aronofsky has seen all the right films ("Solaris" and "2001" in particular, and also "Lord of the Rings"), but hasn't quite understood WHY they are great. There's no subtlety here, no real exploration of philosophy, no believable characters, and a constant onslaught of over-dramatic music. I kept thinking of some music videos all the time. This is a film/video that Madonna (in her 'esoteric' period) would have been proud of, and Peter Gabriel ashamed of.