criterionforum.org

From an interview over at Moviehole in which fans were able to send in questions for Aronofsky to answer:

Martin, East Brunswick : Will there be an extended cut of film on DVD, and are you doing a commentary?
Darren : The cut in the cinema is MY final cut. You are seeing the finished film on the screen and it will be the same on the dvd. There will not be a commentary.

You can read the rest of the interview here

This is a film/video that Madonna (in her 'esoteric' period) would have been proud of, and Peter Gabriel ashamed of.

Precisely. Darren is delusional if he thinks anyone believes the released version is the director's cut.

Barmy wrote:

This is a film/video that Madonna (in her 'esoteric' period) would have been proud of, and Peter Gabriel ashamed of.

Darren is delusional if he thinks anyone believes the released version is the director's cut.

Why? I got the comic Aronofsky wrote for my girlfriend who loved the film and thought I haven't read it cover to cover it seems to be pretty much what's in the film.

The only thing Aronofsky was pissed about as I recall was Warner's not allowing him to do a commentary track for the DVD release.

Among other things:

Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of violent action, some sensuality and language. (edited for re-rating; originally R)

Also I think I might have actually liked this film if it was 2 hours long. At 95 minutes it just wasn't involving. If Darren is really happy with the length, I fear for his sanity.

Barmy wrote:

Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of violent action, some sensuality and language. (edited for re-rating; originally R)

Also I think I might have actually liked this film if it was 2 hours long. At 95 minutes it just wasn't involving. If Darren is really happy with the length, I fear for his sanity.

Don't be fooled by the MPAA. Often the "cuts" made for re-ratings are miniscule and usually amount to a a few seconds less of gore or a boob shot taken out.

i want my boob shot!

why do people clamour over extended cuts? half the time they aren't any better. if jackman were to whine about mortality for another half an hour, i think it would definately lose me.

Saw it last night. What a minimalistic sci-fi poem.

A story told in so little words but every single one so pregnant with meaning.

Circular situations mirroring circular characters trapped in themselves.

Learning how to let go as a lesson of higher understanding of the power of love.

Death as creation, death as an act of love, death as myth, origin of everything.

Yes, I loved it.

Bajaja wrote: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!

Not true. I was particularly shocked to stumble across this thread on another film I saw recently (a fairly average one in comparison), highlighting the modern scientific push for life extension, anti-ageing and yes, immortality.

This stuff posted by "dragan_dolvich" disturbs me to be honest, as does his world view. Check the website links!

Lino wrote:Saw it last night. What a minimalistic sci-fi poem.

A story told in so little words but every single one so pregnant with meaning.

Circular situations mirroring circular characters trapped in themselves.

Learning how to let go as a lesson of higher understanding of the power of love.

Death as creation, death as an act of love, death as myth, origin of everything.

Yes, I loved it.

In as few words as possible, this is very well put Lino. I agree entirely. I loved this film, and to me is only further testament to Aronofsky's genius. I am sure to be flamed for this comment and although I obviously agree Tarkovsky's vision is unmatchable, The Fountain is this generation's Solaris.

Roger_Thornhill wrote:After reading Antoine and Scalesofjustice's discussion I think I may have completely misunderstood this film...

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.

Yes! I love this interpretation of the film - in that the 'space' sequences are in fact the final chapter of the book as written by Tommy. An eventual understanding for his character about the cyclic nature and ultimate acceptance of death, and a somewhat cathartic healing experience for him for the loss of his wife. By writing this chapter he not only arrives at a point where he understands what his wife had been trying to tell him all along, but accepts both her death and his own - and thus reaches said state of spiritual enlightenment. The cosmic orgasm at the conclusion of the film is merely a visual imagining of his own character's arrival at a point of self acceptance, and inner peace.

Which again supports Antoine's theory of sacrifice, even more poignantly. The conquistador sacrifices his own life so that life itself may continue - the notion of dead matter decomposing to feed back to the natural world the nutrients it has taken from it; Tommy sacrifices his relationship in order to find the secret to eternal life, which he ultimately realises is a Trojan Horse in that by doing so he lost the last moments with his wife on Earth - the notion that it is by having a limited time on the planet that we appreciate or should appreciate each and every moment, no matter how small or insignificant the moment may seem in light of the bigger picture, or one's pursuits of something larger; and the imagined death of Tommy's projected 'space' future, the sacrifice of his own life or more precisely, his decision to abandon the quest to bring his wife back from the grave or making himself immortal via his discoveries - merely an analogy for him in that he has been able to accept death as natural and necessary cause, accept the loss of his wife, and accept his own death wherever and whenever that may arrive. A spiritual enlightenment, an ability to find peace with the universe, to free oneself from regret, an acceptance of nature's cause and effect, and ultimately, to find the eternity of life in its most simple and yet most inexplicable tangent... love.

The Guardian has an interview with Aronofsky that has more details on his "biblical epic", what his version of Batman would've been like, as well as this random quote from Bjork with her thoughts on the film:

With Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain, maybe it was a relief to see him portray a spiritual world that was so idiosyncratic at a time when I feel so overwhelmed by religion. It's so strange that the inner- most secret place in a person is their spiritual belief, and something as mass-produced as organised religion can just storm in there. The Fountain is not Christian or Jewish or Muslim - it's areligious; not against or with it. It's just alternative.

"It was a hard, R-rated Batman," he reflects. "What I pitched them was Travis Bickle meets The French Connection - a real guy running around fighting crime. No super-powers, no villains, just corruption".

I imagine I'm not the only one saddened that we'll never see Aronofsky's interpretation of Batman. Even though I quite liked the Nolan version, I'm sure Aronofsky's script would've gone way further in exploring Batman as a character than Goyer's script went. The character itself is one of the most troubled comic heroes ever and would've been a perfect target for much harsher criticism than what Goyer & Nolan were willing to do.

But as for The Fountain, while I would've loved to see his original vision on the screen, I got the distinct impression that scaling back the film to what it ended up might've actually been a good thing. I've only seen the film once so far (and not in a perfect enviroment either, as it didn't get a theatrical release here, I saw it in one of those overnight film festivals at like 2 am) but it's still hanging around in the back of my head. Whatever flaws the film might have, they seem so irrelevant compared to the overwhelming wonder of the film's last 20 minutes or so. Truly a beautiful piece of cinema.

BTW: Anyone read the comic based on Aronofsky's script? Supposedly it's supposed to show a bit what the film would've been like in it's originally intended incarnation.

Len wrote:BTW: Anyone read the comic based on Aronofsky's script? Supposedly it's supposed to show a bit what the film would've been like in it's originally intended incarnation.

I bought the comic for the girlfriend who loved the film but I haven't had a chance to read it entirely yet. But from what I remember hearing about the comic, it was based on a draft of the screenplay that was used for the final film version and from the parts I've glanced at in the book that pretty much seems to be the case. The "effects" and "sets" seem to be more or less what ended up on screen.

DVD Beaver review. By the way it looks like the UK edition may have some extra special features. Along with the Inside The Fountain: Death and Rebirth and the trailer there is also said to be another featurette called The Fountain: Life On Ship and a director's commentary. This is according to an advert on page 101 of this month's SFX magazine.

According to an R2 reviewer who received the DVD, the commentary is not actually present on the disc.

Typical. I was a bit suspicious that it wasn't included on the US disc if a commentary had been done. Does this suggest that a commentary was done that was then dropped, or is this just a case of false advertising?

Maybe the ad in SFX is wrong. I remember that Aronofksy had mentioned that Warner's had turned down his request to record a commentary for the film.

Before I start into my thoughts on the film, I would have really liked if the DVD had more than just the standard "making-of" featurettes on it, I would love to hear Aronofsky's take on all of the symbols and ideas he presented within the film. I'm sure WB will double-dip on this one at some point though.

I'm not quite sure why people compared this film to Zardoz (I'm guessing the reviewers who brought up the comparison didn't actually watch either film) other than it's a "difficult" sci-fi film being marketed to a mainstream audience. Ultimately, The Fountain reminded me of the works of Jodorowsky, particularly The Holy Mountain - Aronofsky has made an adventure film where the quest object is enlightenment, and he has created his own set of symbols that seem to have deeply personal meanings. He's also a director who seems to carefully compose each shot as a tableaux (again, much like Jodorowsky). While I felt a little turned off by some of the new agey spirituality present in the future sequences, the thrilling nature of the conquistador segments and the emotional core of the present-day story kept the film as a whole in check. Hugh Jackman did a wonderful job working with a script that gave him almost no expository dialogue and put him front-and-center in every scene.

Ultimately, I don't think this film needs a director's cut, even though I'd love more backstory for the past and future segments. As much of a personal statement as this film feels like, it's also left up to the viewer to interpret much of it, and explaining what's going on in every part would probably kill a lot of the thinking that the movie inspires.

After watching the film for a second time I still love it, although some parts had me thinking that it was a little too clever for it's own good in all the mirroring of plots and sets (the Christmas lights on the house/the candles in the castle/the stars in outer space).

patrick wrote:After watching the film for a second time I still love it, although some parts had me thinking that it was a little too clever for it's own good in all the mirroring of plots and sets (the Christmas lights on the house/the candles in the castle/the stars in outer space).

Yes, when I saw an early screening of the film with Aronofsky in attendance, afterwards someone brought up the parallels across the three periods of the film, and Aronofsky mentioned there are also subtle differences; for instance, (if I remember correctly), the ancient period has an abundance of triangles, the more contemporary period has squares, and the future has circles. He gave the impression that you could go on finding these little things ad infinitum.

Aronofsky posted some interesting comments on his blog regarding a commentary and a dream of being picked up by Criterion at some point:

so the dvd came out.
happy that it is in the world.
hope more folks will get to see it.

as many of you can tell it is light on the extras as compared to my previous dvd releases.

everything at the studio was a struggle.
for instance: they didn't want to do a commentary track cause they felt that it wouldn't help sales.
i didn't have it in me to fight anymore.
whatever.

so:
niko, my friend who did the doc on the dvd came up with a novel idea.
we recorded a commentary track ourselves.
we're gonna post it on a site soon, http coming soon.
you can play it and watch the flick and hopefully you'll enjoy it.

i do hope to do a big special edition at some point. but for that to happen the dvd is gonna have to sell.
i got a lot of extras in my bag so who know maybe if you all write to criterion they'll get interested (suggest the fountain as a title: [email protected]).

they've been into pi and requiem but because the first run of dvd's had so many extras they didn't know what else they could add. but the fountain...

i hope you are all well. i've been writing. stuff is coming. gonna know what we are doing next soon enough.

It's cool that he took the initiative to just go ahead and record it himself. I imagine it'll be a bit more candid than your average commentary, too.

A Criterion edition would be fantastic. I would love to see all the artwork, concepts and screentests for the first version of the film when Brad Pitt was involved.

But I think it's awesome Aronofsky is recording a commentary track on his own. Great idea.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Maybe the ad in SFX is wrong. I remember that Aronofksy had mentioned that Warner's had turned down his request to record a commentary for the film.

How is this even possible? Unless he doesn't have final cut, or a say in the dvd presentation...?

Sent an e-mail to Mulvaney. Dunno if it'll accomplish anything, but one can always hope. And yeah, great move on Aronofsky's part to record a commentary on his own. Should be really interesting.

exte wrote:How is this even possible? Unless he doesn't have final cut, or a say in the dvd presentation...?

He had final cut, but I'm sure he didn't have much of a say in the DVD presentation. I doubt many directors really do.

After reading the comments on this thread I'm a little scared to wade into the debate with my opinions on the film! Perhaps it would be best to start by saying I liked the film a lot, and even consider it the best of Aronofsky's films so far.

I will also court controversy by saying that I think the Ain't It Cool News review of the film was probably the first and best statement of the themes of the film. I really liked the discussion in the last couple of pages between soma and Antoine Doinel (as well as Lino's haiku-style response!) As difficult as it is to place an interpretation on such a film (and I've no religious knowledge so I can't offer any interpretations from that perspective) I'll try and describe my take on it. Spoilers, of course.

I would agree somewhat with the discussion between scalesojustice and Antoine about the writing of a final chapter. I think that the 'present set' story is the most important part of the film, and we are shown that the sequences set in the past are Tom's visualisations of the story that Izzy has written - with the dissolve from the words flying past on the page to the sequences in the past (which are beautifully done - zooming in on the text as it moves faster, the words blurring as they speed by and the images from the past form). I think this is a standard filmic convention - reading the book equates to what you are now seeing in the past. What I like is how the film moves past that to a much more complex combination of fact and fiction, real and imagined sequences.

The other standard filmic convention comes at the beginning of the film. The first period sequence cuts to the future and then shows the Tommy of the future having visions that appear in his 'spacecraft', then has visions where he is speaking to the present Izzy in the present surroundings about going out with her to walk in the snow, but with his bald head from the future. It then returns to the future briefly before the same sequence is replayed but with the 'present' Tom with a full head of hair. This is a pretty standard tactic to show different periods bleeding into each other eXistenZ-style and for me this was the first point I felt that the future scenes were not to be taken too literally (It also does a good job of stressing the importance of the 'going for a walk in the snow' scene that we don't return to until later).

I get the sense that both the period and the future are meant to be stylised representations of what is occuring in the present through the present Tom's imagination. The easier part for the audience to get their heads around is the period section because there are the direct parallels between reading Izzy's book and the period scenes beginning.

I can understand why Aronofsky had planned a Lord of the Rings style battle sequence for the opening period scene as it conjures up the black and white heroes and villains, epic style of fantasy fiction set in a vaguely recognisable past (however I think the pared down opening sequence probably works the best as it gets to the heart of what the actions are meant to convey, rather than an (even more!) convoluted and audience-confusing battle sequence getting started, whose only purpose would be showing pointless action violence before the plot starts up again. Having Tomas fight alone until a change comes over his enemies as he seemingly passes their test and they actually force him onwards to the next stage is a nice moment). I guess there might have been more of this spectacle in the 'more epic' originally planned version to perhaps convey more of the period sequence being meant to be an obviously fictional writing based on Izzy's period research - a love letter to Tom in which she is the noble yet threatened Queen and he is the only one to save her, and her way of telling him that she understands why he is consumed in his research in an attempt to save her.

In that sense the period scenes are a little more florid in dialogue, more obviously staged, a little obvious and "on the nose" in their imagery but are intended to be that way. It is also why the 'Spanish characters speaking English' problem that I can usually be hard on films about is not such an important debate to have, since it feels like it is meant to be the imaginings of a character reading a book written in English.

I'm not sure I agree with scales and Antoine about the future being the last chapter of Izzy's book that Tom has written. I think the last chapter of Izzy's book is the climax of the period sequence where Tomas defeats the guardian and reaches the Tree of Life. The ending of this sequence, with the drinking of the nectar and sprouting of the plants from Tomas is a direct call back to Izzy at the museum where she talks Tom through the Mayan creation myth.

This has parallels with the seed placed on Izzy's grave at the end of the film.

Now for the difficult(!) bit, that I've been thinking about how to describe since watching the film. I think that this is also a 'paths not taken' film and that everything in the present sequence after he leaves Izzy to take her walk in the snow alone at the beginning of the film is a 'what if?', but it is played out in a more naturalistic way than the period set material is (i.e. the period material is florid and violent, the present is emotional and involves detailed technical discussion with work colleagues or tense exchanges, the future is almost silent and empty). However we do get the convenient moments of deus ex machina where Izzy dies at the moment Lilian comes to him to tell him that his experiments have succeeded and they have found a way to beat death (would this make Izzy the last human to ever die?). I think this particular version of the 'present', the version of the present where death is banished and Tom is left with the last chapter of Izzy's book to write, is also the one in which he becomes the 'Tommy' of the future.

I could imagine Tom planting the seed over Izzy's grave and then in the future digging up the tree whose roots have taken nourishment from and taken Izzy's body into them (in a similar way to the creation myth) and transporting it to her nebula.

However the film circles back to that moment where Tom is given the opportunity of walking out with Izzy in the snow or returning to his, pointless for the reasons he is doing it for, work and in choosing to go with her instead the events of the past, present and future as we have seen them unfold are changed (I think this also makes it necessary for the protagonists in the period and future sequences to reach an end where they are completed and transformed as the the three story strands converge to focus on the present). Izzy will still die but Tom will not be so consumed with grief so as to hold it in his heart for hundreds of years to come. In fact because he does not experiment on Donovan and use the 'botanical compound from the tree in Central America' on the monkey's brain (hehe, Donovan's Brain!) he doesn't discover the cure to death and so wouldn't be around hundreds of years in the future anyway.

Finally, since Tom follows Izzy and they spend the time she has remaining together, the need to write the book as a message or tribute to his single mindedness is not necessary any more. Who knows, perhaps Izzy finishes the last chapter herself before she dies where the Queen falls in love with Tomas, doesn't send him on his quest and instead they face the wrath of the Grand Inquisitor together, prepared for death through the time they spent with each other.

I would agree with some of the comments on here that some of the plotting is left simple (i.e. the doctor abandoning dying wife on quest to cure her) the way it is handled is what makes the film so beautiful and complex. As one poster above said, it is like everything is happening at the same time, and I think that is because everything is happening simultaneously. I find it to be a great statement on how we turn to writing and imagination to make some sense of the events occuring in our real lives.

I really like this film, and also liked finding some themes from the previous films: the tai chi against the stars reminding me of the people doing the same thing in the park in Pi. The 'ignorance is bliss' downbeat ending of Pi felt to become in The Fountain more that knowledge and understanding leads to enlightenment and acceptance. The horrific conclusion of Requiem For A Dream as everyone is punished in their private hell far apart from each other and the theme of having the person you love slip away from you and there is nothing you can do to stop it are, of course, themes in The Fountain but there is a feeling of acceptance and letting go in Fountain compared to lives, morals, flesh and sanity being ripped apart in Requiem. As Tom plants the seed on Izzy's grave and says goodbye in this 'new' version of the present and the camera pans up, day turning to night as it does so, and we see Izzy's (and the Mayan's) nebula die (and be reborn) it feels that her loss will always touch him, but it won't destroy him as he searches for meaning and a way to change what has happened, as we have seen in the 'future' scenes. I really like the Solaris-style ocean and stars playing over the end credits that give a sense of where we come from and where we are going to.