The Fountain

[dekadentdave]

Where's my Hugh Jackman Tomas Conquistador figure?!?!?!?

 

[carbo-fation]

Is the movie worth watching? I've heard some mixed reviews about it.

 

[dekadentdave]

Aronofsky is the new Kubrick. This film is the new 2001. Philosophically and spiritually profound. I am in awe.

 

[PsychoCenobite]

Aronofsky is the new Kubrick. This film is the new 2001. Philosophically and spiritually profound. I am in awe.

Not seen it but I saw 2001 at the age of 9 and loved it.

This film looks good. I've loved 'Pi' and 'Requiem for a Dream'.

Stunning films.

PsychoCenobite

 

[P1X4R]

you will either love it or hate it. i personally loved it. it's not your typical fast action movie. it takes time to get into. i found the theme of past, present, future lives between the two characters very interesting. it's quite depressing actually so be prepared for that. lol. i thought hugh jackman portrayed his character quite well. something very different than wolverine. we had a QA session with the director afterwards. it was noted that brad pitt was originally the actor for the part. man, that would have been a different movie! i'm glad it turned out the way it did!

 

[carbo-fation]

Thanks for the input guys! I'll go check it out tomorrow for myself.

 

[Trevolver]

I'm really looking forward to seeing this one. looks great
Trev

 

[occulum]

Aronofsky is the new Kubrick.

LOVE this guy. and will watch anyhting and everthing he puts out.
cant wait to see this!

 

[DarkArtist81]

Have to agree with Occulum.... This guy's work is amazing... I'm itching to see this movie.

 

[Mookeylama]

This film looks good. I've loved 'Pi' and 'Requiem for a Dream'.

Stunning films.

PsychoCenobite

hell yeah! those 2 were incredible movies. gotta see this one soon.

 

[bluesparrow]

Saw this tonight. I enjoyed it, but what a lot of hype. I think it's Aranofsky's weakest movie. I just expected more substance.

 

[dekadentdave]

More substance!?!?!?

 

[bluesparrow]

Yeah. You know, like a plot. Not just a set-up and a conclusion. There's usually a thing called the Second Act in-between. :emperor

 

[dekadentdave]

The 3 acts are: The Past, The Present, The Future. It is a non-linear narrative. This is a film where you actually have to THINK. I know that's asking too much from the average moviegoer who just wants dumbed down entertainment.

 

[bluesparrow]

Well that's a snide and ridiculous thing to say. I did say I enjoyed the movie, dude. Perhaps you should THINK about how grownups discuss things with people they disagree with. I'll give you the respect you denied me and pretend you are in fact, a thinking adult, one that doesn't take a dissenting viewpoint as a personal attack. Perhaps that's a bit of a stretch, I guess we'll see by your response.


SPOILERS



Before I saw the movie I'd agree those were the three acts, but the actual content of them and the non-linear structure belies this, because each section(Past, Present, Future) has a two-part structure, with each part mirroring or matching up with the corresponding parts of the other sections. Therefore the actual structure of the movie is a story told in two acts, crossing over all three eras in each act.

Past = two acts:

-Spain with the Queen(getting the quest, leaving her behind in a futile effort to save her, to her probable demise).
-South America with the Pyramid(reaching the end of the quest, failing, oblivion).

Present = two acts:

-Jackman neglecting Izzy in favor of his research(finding the "cure" = the quest, he neglects her to pursue it, as the Conquistador leaves behind the Queen).
-Jackman regretting neglecting Izzy because she's now dead(she dies, ending the quest as a failure again, he's emotionally destroyed, this is the oblivion).

Future = Two Acts:

-Jackman flying to the sun(the quest).
-Jackman flying into the sun(oblivion).

The third part, being more abstract, necessarily doesn't have the minor variances the others do. Each section has a set up, then the conclusion. No second acts. It's just drawn out because of the non linear format. Just because there's three sections doesn't mean there's three acts.

Since you compared this to 2001, one of my favorite films, I'll use it as an example of how threadbare a plot the Fountain has. Imagine if this were the sequence of events in 2001:

A bunch of proto-humans fight each other. This turns out to be a documentary Dave Bowman is watching on his ship. We cut to the white room with Dave Bowman watching himself as an old man. We cut back to the ship, where Bowman sees HAL go crazy. We cut back to the monkeys fighting. Back on the ship HAL goes crazy some more, explains the star child thing. More white room. Moonwatcher(the proto-human) finds the Monolith, learns how to make tools. Dave Bowman becomes the star child in the white room. Cut back to Dave Bowman turning off HAL. The end.

Now, that might still be an interesting movie(which I thought the Fountain was), but it's not as interesting a plot as what is in the real 2001. The political situation on the moon, the reasons WHY HAL went crazy, the mechanics of how he murders Poole, the dynamics of the proto-human tribes, those are to me part of what makes 2001 a great movie, in addition to the visuals and ultimate theme. Because really, you can have a pretty-looking movie and a great idea, but if the story's barely there or very basic, so what? Because really, that's all that the Fountain ends up being, an interesting premise to hang some cool visuals on. Nothing it brings up is elaborated upon, it's just brought up, then resolved. Every single time. What about the anti-aging thing? It obviously works. How does that affect society? How does the changes in society affect his goal? It's skipped over for a cool visual. Where'd his ship come from? It's just there. We're just to assume since it's the future people can travel to other stars in giant bubbles? Does this have to be addressed for it to be a good movie? No, but I'd like a LITTLE more than just the beginning and end of the story. The middle tends to be the longest part for a reason.

I'm not even saying a movie NEEDS to follow the three act structure. But IMO, this movie didn't pack enough meat to really satisfy me. I found it rather predictable throughout, and for the last hour(it's rather short actually) I kept waiting/hoping for a plot development/complication to occur that wasn't predictable after the first ten minutes of the movie. It never did.

If this movie really blew your mind, gave you a life changing experience, that's great. I'm glad for you. But if you ever bother to read deeper into SF literature, or into the better SF films(particularly some of the Russian ones) then you may begin to see how old hat this movie really is underneath. I'm very glad you like 2001. It's a classic movie. The Fountain however is a very good movie that could be great, and is not, despite how many people claim it is. I do think what IS in the movie is top notch. It's still likely to be in my top 5 for the year. But I don't feel that there is ENOUGH there. At least enough there for me to call it great.

And that's just my opinion.

 

[dekadentdave]

Sparrow, I saw 2001 when I was 4 years old and got it. I just watched it again last night. Kubrick's film is a masterpiece and sits comfortably at #6 on my top 10 greatest films of all time.

The Fountain, sitting at #7 on my Top 10, is a 3 narrative structure that is interleaved into 1 and the beauty of the film is that it can be interpreted from many different perspectives depending upon which one you follow. There is the story of Tomas as the conquistador in the past which is basically Izzi's story, the story of the present which can be interpreted as the "real" story, and there is Tomas' story in the future which can be interpreted as his story that he is writing to finish Izzi's book. If you choose to follow the linear narrative, then Tomas is immortal throughout all three narratives, but I disagree with that perspective because when Tomas drank from the tree, he was consumed by it and blossomed into the earth (life springing from death) which supports the idea that the past narrative is a metaphor and is told with symbolic imagery through Izzi's story. The present is about a man consumed by his obsession to not only cure his wife, but to conquer death itself (hence the conquistador motif) and why instead of spending the remaining time he has left with his wife before she dies he'd rather selfishly continue his experiments to find a cure. The future is Tomas struggle to come to terms with his isolation and loneliness and ultimately accept his own mortality. It is a complicated plot structure that has been beautifully constructed and if that's not enough "substance" for your taste then I feel sorry for you.

As for the "bubble" not being explained, it's more of a metaphor and a trancendental projection of himself into the metaphysical realm. If Aronovsky had to explain this he'd be beating his audience over the head. Like Kubrick, he relies on the visuals and imagery to let his audience draw their own interpretations which is the function of all great works of art. That has more substance than any conventional plot that beats you over the head with trite exposition. I hate films that feel they have to give an explanation for everything, like "midiclorians" and the "force." If Kubrick had explained the ending of 2001, it would have been a disaster.

 

[pixletwin]

Mesa Jar Jar Binks. Ima yoosa homble servant.

 

[EVILFACE]

The movie was awesome. Great story, visuals and score.

Now SS, give me a Future Jackman.

 

[bluesparrow]

It is a complicated plot structure that has been beautifully constructed and if that's not enough "substance" for your taste then I feel sorry for you.

The trouble is, the plot structure is NOT really that complicated when it's unraveled. Your reiteration of the themes and possible interpretations, while pithy, doesn't fill in anything for me that I didn't figure out in the first 10-20 minutes. I think it is a nice plot structure, but imo it's only so intricate as to cover for the absence of a more substantial plot. Truthfully the movie it reminds me of most is 21 Grams, which I felt ultimately failed for the same reason. Now, thematically the Fountain is very rich, much of what you wrote above is a good recitation of the themes in the film, but themes are not plots. And a more substantial plot is what I wanted out of it. I think it would have made the movie even better, as it did with Requeim for a Dream. If you cut out the entire second act of that film, you'd still have the same themes represented, that still meant the same things, but the emotional impact(for me at least) would have been considerably lessened.

I hate films that feel they have to give an explanation for everything, like "midiclorians" and the "force." If Kubrick had explained the ending of 2001, it would have been a disaster.

Yes, I agree, as is evidenced by how horrible is Clarke's novel of 2001, which explains everything that should not be explained. I'm not looking for explanations, as I said above in my previous remarks. I'm looking for a mystery I can't answer half an hour into the movie. 2001 gave me this, the Fountain did not.

 

[dekadentdave]

If you cut out the entire second act of that film, you'd still have the same themes represented, that still meant the same things, but the emotional impact(for me at least) would have been considerably lessened.

and

There's usually a thing called the Second Act in-between. :emperor

You contradict yourself. Before you said there was no second act yet now you are hypothesising the thematic themes of the plot by cutting out the second act, therefore you are acknowledging that the film has a second act.

I'm looking for a mystery I can't answer half an hour into the movie. 2001 gave me this, the Fountain did not.

It's not a whodunnit or some elaborate enigmatic riddle, rather it's a poetic examination of life, love, death and re-birth. It is an examination of those themes and its intent was to open people's minds about their fears of death and living your life in the time that you have been given and sharing it with the people you love (Tom's selfishness in his pursuit of immortality inhibited this). The film flows like a poem with a recitation of the themes in the different narratives and how they relate to one another. Maybe you didn't get the philosophical or emotional conclusion that would have been to your satisfaction but I was quite satisfied by the conclusion and it was open to interpretation and debate which is what we are doing here so that proves that the film succeeded in its intent.