criterionforum.org

This film is another case of the first attempt being ruined for good reason. A 60 mil epic with Brad Pitt, or whatever the plan was would have taken away any humility that this film has; it would have been preposterous.

This film works as a personal poem; its ideas and imagery are too, how can I say, exhausted, for it to be a revelatory experience to any person familiar with them-- and I hope Aronofsky didn't pray that it would be. Still someone could launch an attack on him for recycling these things and being heavy handed with everything 'new-age'-- but that's not what the film is about. It's a personal world of symbolism, not worrying about preaching to the choir, but showing one man's journey. In all of the stories we're seeing Tom, or maybe Aronofsky's, symbolic world, with the same repetitious use of gold, star/snow patterns, long dark hallways, etc. etc. Viewers should not be intent on finding a 'message', what we are witnessing is simply how one man's consciousness is in the act of pursuing a sort of enlightenment or understanding-- moving through its world of symbolism, metaphor, and memory as only it can.

In light of this I had no problem with any of the set designs; they invoked the mood of an overly dramatic, elaborate stage play-- because that is what it is; this person's mind is not concerned with authenticity, naturalistic light, or what's behind the dimly lit pillars. It is instead interested in the muddy, painterly skies, the shrouded forests that go on without end, and the shining face of his wife. The reliance on photographic effects, the matte painting, all are perfect for portraying an enclosed world-- like I said, how ridiculous it would have been with an increased budget. In the same breath, there is nothing wrong with the personalized dialog, or the fact that the Spaniards speak English-- that simply isn't the point.

As much as I loathe the tai che, yoga shots and the audience-pleasing sensuality, I don't think they were necessarily wrong decisions, and fit into the world I have just described. Speaking of the audience, it's disconcerting that filmmakers are becoming more and more prohibited from making plot less, meditative films-- this film isn't the incredible miracle of The Thin Red Line, but nonetheless; this stance in filmmaking is becoming more and more a foreign oddity to audiences-- my brother left after half an hour, saying he didn't know what the hell was going on.

Though I maintain first and foremost my idea that we are just witnessing one man's consciousness; room is still left in the symbolism for one to make their own connections, and in this regard the film is pregnant with possibilities for interpretation. But I feel I am not defending this film as much as I am its ambition and stance towards filmmaking; I may not remember it for long myself, but I wish there were more like it.

So Aronofsky said the commentary would be coming soon, back in May... has anyone heard anything else? I figured it was already a done deal and they were just figuring out where to get it hosted. Maybe he's saving it for some future DVD release we don't know about.

The film has become Nathan Rabin's latest entry in The Onion's My Year of Flops series.

I find it a strange coincidence this film and Sunshine, two of my favourite films I've seen so far this year, have endings set in snow covered landscapes (even though I consider The Fountain to be more a romantic fantasy than 'real' science-fiction). A strange case of serendipity, and I guess essays could be written about the way that those scenes in both the films illustrate cold emotions being warmed by either the supernova or the sun being restarted, but I suppose in artistic terms it could also simply be because the whiteness contrasts well with the blackness of space!

colinr0380 wrote:I find it a strange coincidence this film and Sunshine, two of my favourite films I've seen so far this year, have endings set in snow covered landscapes (even though I consider The Fountain to be more a romantic fantasy than 'real' science-fiction).

Not only that, but:

Spoiler

they both end with a woman telling the male lead to "Finish it." followed by him flying into a star.

I love this movie, and I hope Criterion actually does accept it. I'd love to see their take on the artwork. Probably a tree, or maybe the golden nebulus.

Magic Hate Ball wrote:I love this movie, and I hope Criterion actually does accept it. I'd love to see their take on the artwork. Probably a tree, or maybe the golden nebulus.

Won't happen, even if Criterion wanted it. Rights issues.

jbeall wrote:

Magic Hate Ball wrote:I love this movie, and I hope Criterion actually does accept it. I'd love to see their take on the artwork. Probably a tree, or maybe the golden nebulus.

Won't happen, even if Criterion wanted it. Rights issues.

Yeah, but I can always hope.

Director's commentary now available online.

solaris72 wrote:Director's commentary now available online.

Bless you!

Hate to say it, but the commentary is pretty dull for me so far, about 40 minutes in. I'm fine with Aronofsky not wanting to go too deep into ascribing specific meanings to the whole thing, but what's left over is pretty dry. Way too much time spent talking about how great/nice/diligent the actors were.

Wow, reading this thread gives me the courage to step out of the closet and say: "I love The Fountain!"

I finally got my hands on the DVD and plan on watching it tonight. I saw it twice in the theatre but haven't gotten around to the DVD for some reason.

I'm just glad I'm not the only one considering how viciously this film got attacked upon it's original release.

You're not alone Roger, I too saw The Fountain twice at the cinema, and found it a refreshing breath of fresh air.

Regarding it's unwarranted deeply negative response from the media and paying audiences, I think it's a lot to do with the film not being suitable for cynical minded folk. Of which there's a lot of them about

Hope to give the running commentary a listen in the weeks to come.

I will tell you why I'm not to keen on The Fountain and it's not because I'm overly cynical, in fact, some of my favorite films are downright sentimental. It was the whole bald Hugh Jackman floating over a tree in an orb thing. I don't think I'm that dense, and I'm usually pretty open to metaphysical storytelling, but this whole segment of the film was either completely pretentious, meaningless drivel… or completely over my head. I loved the other two storylines that were working here simultaneously, both the present-day love story and the interconnected historic fantasy sequences that were from the pages of her book. These segments together told a story that had me riveted, and the visuals were out of this world… but the third of the film that took place in the orb just really confused and turned me off. I would welcome any explanation or defense of this, or an attack on my own lack of sensitivity for that matter, that might help me enjoy it more because, ultimately, I really wanted to like the film more than I did…

I found this movie to be rather silly, but it seems to get worse when I hear people rave about the genius of Aronofsky.

That's exactly what i'm talking about (the fanboys). I turned this movie off 30 minutes into it. His attempts at being "metaphysical" are totally ridiculous and elementary.

It's a somewhat passable film, at least I was able to sit through it all as opposed to RFAD... But to consider this film as great or from a mastermind is silly.

CORRECTION

bearcuborg wrote:at least I was to sit through it all as opposed to RFAD

Pardon?

Magic Hate Ball wrote:

bearcuborg wrote:at least I was to sit through it all as opposed to RFAD

Pardon?

Translation: at least I was able to sit through all of The Fountain as opposed to Requiem for a Dream.

bearcuborg wrote:at least I was to sit through it all as opposed to RFAD

Why couldn't you sit through Requeim For A Dream? Did the hip-hop montages irritate you? Did you think it was a pretentious and stupid movie? An awful lot of people think that...

^Pretty much that.

I just felt insulted, we were the wrong audience. To those who don't know any better it might be a great movie.

Has anyone seen those PSAs Aronofsky did for those anti-meth ads? Funny because I consider Requiem to be nothing more than a Public Service Announcement about the dangers of drug abuse with some funky hip-hop montages and ass-to-ass dildo action.

bearcuborg wrote:^Pretty much that.

I just felt insulted, we were the wrong audience. To those who don't know any better it might be a great movie.

Don't know any better than what?

I get the feeling that a lot of people who use the argument "It's so stupid and it's not even good because it's totally unrealistic/it's like a worst-case scenario". I don't know what the adverts were like, and I don't know what you were thinking it was about or was going to be like, but it just baffles me that so many people are unaffected by it. Frankfully, it terrified me. I've said this elsewhere, but I enjoy being throttled by movies. Perhaps all these people don't like it because they don't like being throttled by movies. I love the feeling of being hit by a large wave on the beach, and that's what this movie is like. It hits you and mixes you up, but maybe a lot of people don't like that and wish it could have been understated, like Insomnia or Scenes From A Marriage.

Why? Surely Darron Aronofsky felt that this was a good way to portray what happens to the characters, and, frankly, I agree with him.

It seems like lots of people look down on the idea of being manipulated by a film. Like it's not a thinking-man's movie, or something, so that completely negates anything about it. Why? So many people rave about Inland Empire because it plays chess with your emotions through vaguely unrelated shots, well, what do you think Requeim does? It's a thrilling, well-made movie. I'm sorry that it's not eighty minutes of silence and shot on 16mm b/w. I'd just like a good explanation about why you dislike it.

So you missed the groundbreaking double dildo scene in RFAD--the scene that got me to quit heroin?

Barmy wrote:So you missed the groundbreaking double dildo scene in RFAD--the scene that got me to quit heroin?

That scene got me to back to chuch again...

Barmy wrote:So you missed the groundbreaking double dildo scene in RFAD--the scene that got me to quit heroin?

See and I thought that if I were to shoot up, I'd get to see Jennifer Connelly take in a double-sided dildo. Two very different takes on one sexy scene, we'll just have to agree to disagree.