The Fountain

[lordofduct]

I bring this up here as this is the forum I spend most my time at in recent times.

I have recently watched "The Fountain" at the theatres and want to ask what others have felt of it. Magazines and Newspapers alike have been trashing this film, internet reviews have been praising yet warning those of the "non-standard abstract" approach the film takes. I want to know what others feel here.

I want to begin the discussion by remarking against a comment (though the review was in praise of the film) stated in a review I read. It states that the film tried to hard to reveal a simple answer to a all known question. That is accepting lost.

"Darren Aronofsky labors awfully hard to get across a pretty simple message in The Fountain. But his efforts are so ethereal and extreme, it's almost impossible to turn away."
-Baltimore Sun

Personally from someone like myself (and so many others out there) know that accepting the lost of your loved ones is not a simple message. It is a grotesque awful thing to endure and acceptance isn't enough to calm the heart. It dwells so deep into your sould that days seem to crawl in wait for the day you hope maybe the rumours are true and you may see them again in some grand world different from the one we exist in today. This message alone can not be simply answered... it can not be placed in words, or on film. It can not be painted or drawn or even imagined in ones mind. It is just done... just as life is done, death is done and we as humans may never get it... or fully respectfully accept the idea.

Aronofsky skillfully attempts to portray the faully of attempting to search for eternal life, to answer the diesease we call 'death' and explains simply it is what it must be. Yes it never actually answers the question... but it is a story I will never tiar of and isn't stated enough times. Just like Romeo + Juliet can be told over and over until the end of time with out boredom [the so called 'original' love story], it's variations and adaptations can be told over and over.

Aronofsky did not labor too hard at it... he didn't labor enough as there is an infinite amount of labor required for such a tale.

This film for me was a warm message that my father and brother are and will always be important despite their loss. I can't help but let it make me weep for myself and others like mother.


[edit]

Oh and you REALLY have to check out the soundtrack... amazing. Clint Mansell is a fucking dream when it comes to composing music.

[durkada]

You bring up some good points regarding what we bring to the film. The theme of loss, certainly strikes a chord for those who have had to endure the death of a loved one. People speak of healing, of closure -- neither of which are genuine things. Death comes and its inconsolable -- you may forget about the pain some days, but other times the pangs are sharp and relentless. So I brought my baggage into the theater, and largely -- I think -- due to Hugh Jacksons surprisingly good performance, I choked. Which brings me to wonder how good the film was?

I didn't particularly care for the female lead -- pretty, yes -- but not convincing to me. I didn't care much about her fate, for she never struck me as being anything but a two dimensional characiture. I cared about the old conquistadors pain, but here, probably only because of Jackson's performance which caused me to emmote and sympathise.

There were parts of the movie which were utterly divine in their beauty, but at times, too self-consciously so. As I mentioned on another board, it reminds me of an oil painting on film -- a beautiful image, but forgetting its medium is motion. Thus, scenes and images which were simply beautiful were allowed to linger -- almost as if padding out parts of the film which were not there.

Ultimately, however, the film is an uneasy metaphysical game -- like a Borges story transmuted to celluloid. However, what I think was lacking was detail -- background detail which need not be consciously understood, but nonetheless, comprises an entire symbolic message. For a movie which caters to the concept of metaphysical symbolism, there wasn't alot of it: there were scenes which were blatantly apart of that theme, but most were not.

And here, is my main problem. The movie sort of teeters from one extreme to another -- from being a film about ideas, to being a film about the people trapped within those ideas. I doubt, if I didn't bring in my own emmotional baggage, that the ideas would be compelling enough to carry the film, nor the characters sympathetic enough to drive the rest. Within the confines of the story, I believe the script tried to create a balance between ideas and characters -- and never quite pulled it off as such.

I don't mean to sound negative. I love the film -- I love its flaws. The movie deserves to be trashed for those wanting formulated tripe, and conversely, deserves the applause from those who can appreciate a uniquely personal vision. But because of the flaws, I'm hesitant to recommend this film to just anyone. Just as I like the Evil Dead films and wouldn't suggest that my mother-in-law buy the whole set.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful post -- in turn, making me exercise some brain matter.

[lordofduct]

I'd first like to comment on the flaws. I agree there are flaws in the film at times.

The actress also was dry... it seems as if Aronofsky put his girlfriend in it because she is his girlfriend and an actress (yes that is the mother of his child... well so I've read). Yet one of the flaws I am concerned with, but accept.

Next I'd like to approach two other things you said:

1) Bringing your own baggage. It is an understanding all humans have come to know, fear and even love. Most mature audiences will most likely come into the movie with their baggage to corrolate with the film. Anyways what is a film like this with out something to make it personal?

2) "from being a film about ideas, to being a film about the people trapped within those ideas."

I take that as the point of the film. Life is a world of rules, but we are only concerned about the fact we are trapped by the rules. (death being the biggest motif of the film... not the only). Sort of like a metaphor of our entrapment.


I personally upset with a lot of things I didn't quite get in the film (surrounded by snickering movie goers didn't help... that and people up and walking out and a police officer 'watching' over us... what is with that? Oh yes there is going to be riot in the artsy film). I feel it needs another watching to understand more... which can be viewed as a bad thing, but then it makes the movie rewatchable. It's like replayability to a game.

[durkada]

I'd first like to comment on the flaws. I agree there are flaws in the film at times.

The actress also was dry... it seems as if Aronofsky put his girlfriend in it because she is his girlfriend and an actress (yes that is the mother of his child... well so I've read). Yet one of the flaws I am concerned with, but accept.

Next I'd like to approach two other things you said:

1) Bringing your own baggage. It is an understanding all humans have come to know, fear and even love. Most mature audiences will most likely come into the movie with their baggage to corrolate with the film. Anyways what is a film like this with out something to make it personal?

2) "from being a film about ideas, to being a film about the people trapped within those ideas."

I take that as the point of the film. Life is a world of rules, but we are only concerned about the fact we are trapped by the rules. (death being the biggest motif of the film... not the only). Sort of like a metaphor of our entrapment.


I personally upset with a lot of things I didn't quite get in the film (surrounded by snickering movie goers didn't help... that and people up and walking out and a police officer 'watching' over us... what is with that? Oh yes there is going to be riot in the artsy film). I feel it needs another watching to understand more... which can be viewed as a bad thing, but then it makes the movie rewatchable. It's like replayability to a game.

I did not realize the connection between the actress and the director. Even so, I don't mind the dry portrayal -- there simply wasn't much substance to the character to portray. And this brings me to point #2, which I probably didn't communicate clearly. Yes, you are right, part of the film is about people trapped in the ideas. What I was trying to get across was the balance between a movie about ideas (including being trapped in those), to being, what is generally called, a character driven film. I don't believe it balanced those two aspects particularly well, much less combined them into a satisfying whole. Which brings me back to point #1

Yes, we are all people and come equipped with the ability to comprehend based on our own experiences. Artistic experiences are only rewarding as we can invest ourselves into the art -- thus, read a book, and the reader becomes part-artist. No one reads the same book. Film is the same way, only with less leeway for visual and auditory interpretation. I simply question whether or not the film was powerful because the ideas and characters were compelling, or because I invested so much of myself into the film that it became compelling by default. Again, I think so much of what I felt was because Jackson was able to communicate despair, anger and anguish. I sympathised with his performance, so much so, that it transcends its framework. In other words, isolate Jackson's performance from the rest of the film, and I will still emmote with him -- still relate to what his character was going through. Take away his name, take away the location, take away the circumstance -- simply show him grieving so convincingly over the loss, and I would have a similarly strong reaction.

Sorry about the ghetto experience at the theater. The entire act of going out to movies is almost completely ruined for us. The rash of inappropriate behaviour of others which has taken over most theaters was bad enough, but with the addition of commercials before every showing -- I've been ditching the theater. The only grace to it all, are the rare art theaters which have patrons interested in film -- who will stay silent throughout a picture -- and the serving of alcohol

Oh yeah, we've also had a couple gang related shootings at our local megaplex... So, again -- loud people during the show, commercials crammed into your brain at every opportunity, and my best kevlar is still at the dry cleaners... f' the theater.

BTW -- yes, Mansell's score for this was incredible!

[EDIT] As an additional thought, I also question a film like 12 Monkies. I absolutely adore that film, and wept in the theater due to many of the same themes as The Fountain. I believe 12 Monkies is similar to the Fountain, in that it has its metaphysical game, and attempts to be character driven as it carries out that game. I believe 12 Monkies was probably more successful. But then again, I mention to other people that I choked in the theater while watching it -- and people think I'm crazy for it. Its another movie that I have difficulty guaging objectively -- I don't know how good it is because of what I put into it. Yes, even, realizing that you have to put yourself into everything.

[JC]

I'm not gonna dissect it too much really. I absolutely loved it though. That is all I will contribute to this thread.

[lordofduct]

I've stopped trying to gauge films objectively for other people's sake. I only watch film now knowing, and hoping I'll get to put myself in the film.

Generally this is why when people ask me if I like or dislike a film at the office, and what films I suggest viewing. I always tell them that it is up to them to decide as my opinions tend to clash with everyone elses on the matter.

In whole I warn any person going to see this film (or browsing through my own library of film, books and music) that it is likely it is not up their ally. The only person I've told so far who HAD to see this film was my mother as I knew it was her cup of tea.

I merely stopped the whole gauging my love for different things 'objectively' because I then get bogged with the question of, "What if I am wrong and it is actually a load of crap?"

My answer then to myself is, "You loved it... it must not be crap. It is merely crap for someone else." And vice versa, everyone in my office seems to love this Will Ferrall deusch bag; I for one wish that "cow bell" never existed and the next person to whimper those fateful lines "I think it needs more cow bell" again now 5 or 6 years later will receive a swift kick to the nuts from me.