criterionforum.org

Macintosh wrote:

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...

Oh, yeah, I know. It was just so brutal, I couldn't believe that people actually do that. I had to go pray to my saviour.

What a shitty movie. I never understand why people like it. "Oh, it's so insightful!" Oh, yeah, sure, so is me taking a shit but you don't see my webcam footage on the IMDb Top 250.

Your completely polarized posting is becoming very confusing. You either suffer from split personalities or you think of yourself as quite the trickster.

LeeB.Sims wrote:Your completely polarized posting is becoming very confusing. You either suffer from split personalities or you think of yourself as quite the trickster.

Well, neither.

By the way, the main beef I have with people who don't like Requeim is because they can never really give a good explanation as to why. It's like someone not liking The Godfather just "because".

The most I can say about this film now is that no matter what anyone thinks of it, Darren should be proud that he had this made at the budget that was allowed to him by the major studio that distributed it.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:The most I can say about this film now is that no matter what anyone thinks of it, Darren should be proud that he had this made at the budget that was allowed to him by the major studio that distributed it.

Seriously. Someone else mentioned that the effects shots are going to outlast (and probably outawe) anything else from the last fifteen years, and that's the truth...

Yes, thanks to Fountain I bet simply EVERYBODY will be using urine-colored filters.

Barmy wrote:Yes, thanks to Fountain I bet simply EVERYBODY will be using urine-colored filters.

No, that came after Traffic.

To measure what this film means to me, as far as personal resonance, is almost too deep to get into now. But aside from those very deeply emotional themes that thread throughout the movie, the 2nd biggest theme is how we as humans are far from perfect and how we can even screw up something like the possibility of eternal life for ourselves

Spoiler

such as the Conquistador does when he drinks from the sap, and turns into a garden.

I imagine how history will remember this, will be the same way 2001 and Blade Runner came to be revered. Those films were considered flops too, upon release. Time, and the influence it will have on films to come will be the ultimate judge of how it will be remembered.

Getting back to the possibility of a Criterion release, can't Fox (who was the international distributor) come in and help negotiate something? I really do hope a new DVD comes, especially after reading about how bad the current one is, whether it's from WB or not.

I imagine how history will remember this, will be the same way 2001 and Blade Runner came to be revered. Those films were considered flops too, upon release. Time, and the influence it will have on films to come will be the ultimate judge of how it will be remembered.

Getting back to the possibility of a Criterion release, can't Fox (who was the international distributor) come in and help negotiate something? I really do hope a new DVD comes, especially after reading about how bad the current one is, whether it's from WB or not.[/quote]

Yes, i can imagine this film appealing to teenagers 15 years from now.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I imagine how history will remember this, will be the same way 2001 and Blade Runner came to be revered. Those films were considered flops too, upon release.

2001 wasn't a flop in its initial release. It made plenty of money, and played for months and months in some venues. Critical reaction was mixed, but it wasn't a flop.

I have to revive this thread and apologize, but am extremely passionate about this film in every way. I have seen this film a total of about 12 times and each time I am completely engrossed in the film and the visuals. The dialogue is great, with the exception of one screw up in the Mayan mall when Hugh goes off on this really rapid rant. The film will go down in history in the same was as blade runner has and 2001, it is a masterpiece in my opinion.

the reason why i don't think it is pretentious is because darren is genuinely interested in this stuff and is not making the film as a piece to "impress" people because of his vast knowledge. The film is amazing in every way and is one of the few films that make me tear up each time I view it. The chemical burns make it even more timeless.

After letting the film sit for a bit with everyone, I would like to hear some more opinions on how the film has lived since 06.

moviscop wrote:the reason why i don't think it is pretentious is because darren is genuinely interested in this stuff and is not making the film as a piece to "impress" people because of his vast knowledge.

This film is pretentious precisely because Aronofsky does not have vast knowledge of anything except the proper way to fit one's head up one's own ass. This film just ain't that deep.

Why don't you give one of the sci-fi Tarkovskys a try?

comparing Aronofsky to Tarkovsky is like comparing PTA to Stanley Kubrick. They are young, and working up their rep.

moviscop wrote:comparing Aronofsky to Tarkovsky is like comparing PTA to Stanley Kubrick.

They are young, and working up their rep.

moviscop wrote:The film will go down in history in the same was as blade runner has and 2001, it is a masterpiece in my opinion.

Cold Bishop wrote:

moviscop wrote:comparing Aronofsky to Tarkovsky is like comparing PTA to Stanley Kubrick.

They are young, and working up their rep.

moviscop wrote:The film will go down in history in the same was as blade runner has and 2001, it is a masterpiece in my opinion.

Exactly, their films will only be accepted once they have made a big name for themselves.

PTA is a bit further down the road than Darren, but they are both talented.

moviscop wrote:Exactly, their films will only be accepted once they have made a big name for themselves.

PTA is a bit further down the road than Darren, but they are both talented.

The shortcomings of The Fountain and the greatness of 2001 have very little to do with Aronofsky's and Kubrick's respective "reps".

In the eye of the beholder my friend. That is why such films were "bombs" initially. They will only be able to speak in the language of "time".

moviscop wrote:In the eye of the beholder my friend. That is why such films were "bombs" initially.

It divided critics, and it had a little problem finding its audience at first, but I would hardly call 2001 an initial "bomb", either critically or financially.

Even the critics who liked The Fountain hardly took it for a "masterpiece".

It might not pan out to be as influential as 2001 but to disregard it as pretentious is pretty rash. I'm sensitive to pretentious work and did not get that feeling at all when watching the fountain.

chaddoli wrote:

moviscop wrote:the reason why i don't think it is pretentious is because darren is genuinely interested in this stuff and is not making the film as a piece to "impress" people because of his vast knowledge.

This film is pretentious precisely because Aronofsky does not have vast knowledge of anything except the proper way to fit one's head up one's own ass. This film just ain't that deep.

Yep.

I admire its ambition and enjoy the film.

That said, there's a lot of general ridiculousness I need to overlook to do so.

moviscop wrote:It might not pan out to be as influential as 2001 but to disregard it as pretentious is pretty rash. I'm sensitive to pretentious work and did not get that feeling at all when watching the fountain.

I'm not trying to pick on you but what does this mean? How can someone be "sensitive to pretentious work"? What is pretentious work? We all have our own definitions. But from this statement I fear you deem a certain kind of film (like say Contemplative Cinema*) to be more or less pretentious from the get go. For me, a pretentious film is one with grand ambitions that falls flat on its face because of the creator's half-empty talent, insight, intelligence, whatever. Grand brush strokes for simplistic philosophy. Like The Fountain.

It "might not pan out to be as influential as 2001"? I think that's a pretty safe horse to bet on.

Just wait for Tree of Life....

*http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/

moviscop wrote:After letting the film sit for a bit with everyone, I would like to hear some more opinions on how the film has lived since 06.

Opinion on it may turn around, and I may have missed the boat here with my fuddy-duddy ways, but I mostly think that twenty years from now I'll find it as foolish as I did last year, and enjoy sitting down with a bowl of popcorn to point and laugh at it for 90 minutes.

chaddoli wrote:This film is pretentious precisely because Aronofsky does not have vast knowledge of anything except the proper way to fit one's head up one's own ass. This film just ain't that deep.

Beautiful.

In addition to Tarkovsky, I recommend Frankenheimer's Seconds, from which Aronofsky derived some of his signature moves and pretty much all of Pi.

My friend lent the DVD to me, as I had mentioned Requiem for a Dream and he reckons I'm into "cerebral Cinema". He loves The Fountain, ranking it in his top 10. I found it engrossing, visually impressive and featuring a beautiful score, but I ultimately found it too sombre and insular. I think that if an artist is making a philosophical film, it is always risky presenting it via an intimate narrative. And amongst that Disease-of-the-Week TV-movie core story, you have heavy, arcane references to Genesis, Hinduism, the Yggdrasil and the on top of it all, you have the fear of one's ultimate annihilation of consciousness after a lifetime of suffering. These are themes that never bode well with critics and general audiences. The Fountain isn't a comforting film, though it is humane, perhaps even sentimental.

Aronofsky would have started out in an ultra-serious frame of mind when he first set about creating this film and he could only have become fanatically serious after the initial production was halted. It's an unapologetically ultra-serious film that compensates with visual and aural beauty. What the film has to say should give one pause, but it's the presentation and vibe of the film that are off-putting, I feel.

For me, the universal themes of the film and the virtuoso style are often at odds with each other and the sombreness of the core story is hard to become involved with in the face the vastness of the eternity and impersonal nature of reality that surrounds the two main individuals.

I have always had the feeling that Western, secular audiences don't care for esoteric stories like these. How did the film fare in India, one wonders? Perhaps The Fountain's reputation will change and that I myself will have a different opinion on it in later years, as it seems to be that type of film that could sneak up on you later and have a different effect upon one. Aronofsky wants a Criterion edition, btw.