The Fountain (Darren Aronofsky, 2006)

[Barmy]

Death is not the End? Yay!

[reaky]

Aronofsky announced that his next film will be a "biblical epic" based on a poem he wrote in 7th grade

This must be a joke.

[Antoine Doinel]

From CHUD:

EXCLUSIVE! ARONOFSKY'S NEXT PROJECT TEASER.
11.03.06
By Russ Fischer

Last night Darren Aronofsky brought The Fountain to Atlanta. After the film, he did a Q&A moderated by some guy named Nunziata. I missed that, but did interview the director this morning. The full text of our 40-minute talk will be up soon, but here's a glimpse into what's next for the director:

Two part question: Will you do another studio film, and is Lone Wolf and Cub really dead?

Well, the big thing we're writing now is a studio film. Lone Wolf, Paramount never got the rights. And we developed a script, but now the rights don't exist.

That was so exciting for a moment there.

The new thing is even more exciting, and I'll give you an exclusive. I'm not going to tell you exactly what it is, but…it's a biblical epic.

In…Aramaic?

(laughs) In English!

What led you to that?

It's something I've wanted to do for a long time. Before Pi. Probably ten years ago, I had an idea. Actually, I wrote a poem about it when I was in 7th grade. I won this award for it -- my first writing award. So it's a story from the Bible that kind of stuck with me. About ten years ago I was at a museum that featured an exhibit that reminded me of it. So we've been trying to crack it for a while, and we finally figured out a direction. But…I can't tell you any more.

There's always that moment when a filmmaker gets to do the project they've wanted to do for a decade and…it rarely works. Are you afraid of that?

That's…I call that the fingerpaint syndrome. Remember when you were in kindergarten and you were painting, if you kept going too long it started to turn brown? So I'm always asking my crew, 'are we going brown here?'. And that was the challenge with the Fountain, and with anything you work on, and it'll be a challenge here too.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Latino Review's interview with Aronofsky.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

L.A. Times interview with Aronofsky and Weisz.

[chaddoli]

I saw this the other night. Unfortunately it wasn't much to speak of, rather dull, actually. The visuals were certainly impressive but it's an empty film. I think directors who aren't geniuses should stay away from the philosophical sci-fi epic type of film, because it has a way of showing them for what they are: talented, sure, but not brilliant.

[a.khan]

He wants Criterion to do "The Fountain."

Er, but isn't this WB material...

Faraci: What can we expect on the DVD for this film? I was watching the movie last night and I couldn't decide if I wanted a commentary that would give away every bit of symbolism and meaning or not.

Aronofsky:There is no commentary. Warner Bros was not interested in it, so I did not push it. My whole thing is that I realized… Criterion was interested in Pi and Requiem, but because I put everything out on [the original DVDs], they didn't really find a reason to do them. So when Warner Bros said they weren't interested, I said, hey I'll keep this in my pocket and eventually… I enjoy it because I got so much out of commentaries from other films I learned a lot.

Faraci: So you're telling me you want to do The Fountain as a Criterion DVD?

Aronofsky: I'd love to.

[Antoine Doinel]

It's really disheartening that Warner Brothers seems to be inexplicably dropping support for the film. I'm baffled there won't be a commentary on the DVD. While a Criterion edition isn't entirely out of the question (and I would love it), and while Criterion did work with Warner on a number of laserdisc titles - I'm not holding my breath that this will happen.

[soma]

Aronofsky on Criterion?! Fuck, that's like a dream come true.

[Antoine Doinel]

Aronofsky lists his influences for The Fountain in NY Mag:

[quote]David Bowie's “Space Oddityâ€

[Fletch F. Fletch]

The A.V. Club interviews Aronofsky.

[Barmy]

Re the NY Mag list: Could this guy be any more pretentious?

Pride comes before the fall.

[Antoine Doinel]

I'd rather take pretentious than glib remarks about actresses' noses.

[miless]

Re the NY Mag list: Could this guy be any more pretentious?

Pride comes before the fall.

anyone who listens to ESG is alright with me

[soma]

Re the NY Mag list: Could this guy be any more pretentious?

Pride comes before the fall.

After having just read your comments in the Altman thread, speak for yourself

[Barmy]

chaddoli's review nails it.

Fortunately, this is train wreck bad. As is evident from the fact that the ads rely on Maxim and Playboy for positive quotes. Even EW gave it a B+. I wonder how many of Ebert's thumbs are WAY up.

But, man. Without wanting to spoil anything, Hugh J. portrays one of the most unlikable, egocentric characters ever. It's all about HIM.And apparently, in the future or the afterlife or whatever, we sit in a yoga position in a bubble. Boring.

This film had twice as many endings as LotR. Rachel Weisz gives an astonishingly hackneyed, vanilla, banal and vapid performance. If the budget exceeded Derwood's Amex limit, someone in Hollywood needs to call their accountant.

I loved it.

[Dylan]

Saw this today. It's been a very, very long time since I've been to a film where audience members (the kind that are assumingly devoid of keeping a straight face through any kind of human drama) laugh out loud during scenes where people cry. Very rude. But it's been even longer since I've been to a film that a few people actually walked out of.

With that said, I wasn't impressed. The Spanish scenes were very dull (to me, for the most part, most of those scenes didn't even need to be there) and the present/futuristic scenes thrived on lazy developmental assumptions and half-realized philosophies. I think Aronofsky's general ideas are sort of interesting, but I wasn't moved, and I feel the film was in dire need of some characterization. When it ended I couldn't help imagine how much better it would've been had I actually known Jackman and Weisz's characters instead of the film anonymously dipping into their tragic life when I'm not entirely sure at all who they are or what exactly is going on. And if we don't really know them, how does Jackman's avoidance of her mean anything (that isn't explained, by the way, though I guess we could always go with the old 'he was consumed with work' thing)? Or his medical revelation? Or his love? The story is kept above a surface level, and I feel for a film of this potential density, it needs to be more literary and character-driven. It lacked depth.

The music was interesting, nice use of guitars with orchestra and synth...nothing I'd buy on CD though.

It's also sort of refreshing to see a large-scale genre film that only ran an hour and a half. Even if that is kind of unheard of these days, this is a case where we needed another half hour or more.

[Matt]

how does Jackman's avoidance of her mean anything (that isn't explained, by the way, though I guess we could always go with the old 'he was consumed with work' thing)?

Huh? I think you missed an entire major plot point:

SpoilerShow

He was working frantically on a cure for cancer, which his wife was dying from. He felt that if he just worked fast enough, he could save her. He found out that the cure worked right after she died.

I know I have perverse tastes and that I often like movies that no one else likes. I actually quite liked this (though I think it doesn't explore the territory as well as Solaris, either version). I liked that the film strips away all of the stuff audiences need to be able to get into it (characterization, linear progression) and presents only the absolute basics of the theme: the problem and the reaction to it. I liked that Jackman spends the entire movie either crying or in a rage (I'm very fond of performances that sustain a single mood or emotion through an entire film).

[Dylan]

Matt,

I already knew about the cancer subplot from the little I had read about this (all of which explains more than the actual film does). I know he was consumed with studying ways to reduce tumors in chimpanzees, but he was too stubborn to really celebrate his recent success because curing it for chimps wasn't good enough, but time didn't allow for him to come up with anything for his wife before she died. But I didn't care for the way all of this was presented, and all we really saw of the dynamics between the two of them because of this was that he didn't want to take a walk with her. I meant that without illumination it doesn't really matter at all dramatically that they're distant. I felt that they were potentially more interesting characters than the surface we were given.

But even aside from that, his ideas are all over the place and wander in duplication, and by the end all of the cosmic stuff is happening and none of it really matters because we have no explanation for where we are in the story, nor do we have any characters to hold onto. Although it doesn't have to make perfect sense, it is an art form to film science fiction (just as it horror), and for "The Fountain" I think Aronofsky had an interesting idea, but not the best handle on what to do with it. It's a noble attempt at modern sci-fi, but for me it doesn't function intelligently enough for sci-fi, and from a written standpoint it fails as drama.

I liked that the film strips away all of the stuff audiences need to be able to get into it (characterization, linear progression) and presents only the absolute basics of the theme: the problem and the reaction to it.

I like the idea of charging ahead without the slightest concern for the audience too (see "Trilogy: The Weeping Meadow" by Theo Angelopolous, which I liked), but in this case I found it surprisingly uncompelling and dysfunctional.

[ranaing83]

I have to add my voice to the handful of people who consider The Fountain one of the years best film. The film washed over me like no film has this entire year. Of course, I realize the many shortcomings of the film, at least in terms of characterization, but the sheer visual boldness, especially of the space scenes, had me spellbound. And I also have to add, I think the score by Clint Mansell, with the aid of the Kronos Quartet and Mogwai, is one of the most beautiful and haunting scores I have ever heard. If the film is nominated for anything this year, it should be for its score.

[David Ehrenstein]

It stinks on ice!

I'm with Rex Reed on this one.

[hangthadj]

I saw this film today and absolutely loved it. Yes it is probably the most pretentious ridiculous films that will come out this year or over the next few years but somehow it works.

I think that part of this is that it's length is kept short. It's only about 90 minutes. Like some have said, it felt like this film had numerous endings, thats definitely true. Had there been more tacked on to then is already there it may have become unbearable. For all the time jumping and the massive scope of this film that fact that it runs only 90 minutes shows an enormous and welcome amount of restraint for Aronofsky.

And yes, there are shortcomings, because it's only 90 minutes we are just dipped into the peoples lives with no real backstory. But I don't think that backstory is needed. We catch them at a specific and tragic pont in time of their lives and are asked to go with it. I think that if you allow yourself too this film can be incredibly rich. Their were those in the theater that were crying at points (I was definitely one of them) but there were also those who left the film muttering disaproval. As Antoine Doinel last page, it's gonna be a very divisive film.

What will divide audiences most is how much of the film draws upon Eastern religion and essentially posits that death is not an end, but a beginning. That it does this relying more on visuals and minimal dialogue puts a further demand on an audience and at least the crowd that I was with was not ready to try and unravel the film's themes themselves.

I am unsure if you are stating that the drawing of Eastern Religion in and of itself was gonna divide audiences, though I could see why it would. However, I consider myself a devout Christian and found the drawing on Eastern religion as central to the story, and very artfully and tastefully done.

Furthermore, the "romance" at the core at the film is never exactly resolved in a traditional sense; however audiences may not be willing to accept how he ends the picture.

This to me was probably my favorite aspect of the movie. This is at its core a love story. And it's far different than any other love story that will be in theaters this year.

At the end of the day, I gotta believe this is one of the best films of the year. I was affected much deeper than I imagined. I was skeptical as could be going into this, and figured if nothing else it would just look good. But it was so much more than that.

[Antoine Doinel]

I am unsure if you are stating that the drawing of Eastern Religion in and of itself was gonna divide audiences, though I could see why it would. However, I consider myself a devout Christian and found the drawing on Eastern religion as central to the story, and very artfully and tastefully done.

I guess I was trying to say that in a studio system that doesn't venture into topics of religion or issues outside of that of the Christian or Jewish faith very often, it was a pleasant surprise to see Aronofsky present his vision and Eastern based philosophies reverently, but as you said, tastefully. I think it does have the possibility to reach out to people of any faith, but I think it takes a willingness of the viewer to open to those viewpoints, which you clearly were.

And obviously I loved the film, and certainly it's not perfect, but I don't think I've seen a more ambitious and personal statement from a filmmaker in ages. On that level alone, I think it's worthy of praise.

[hangthadj]

I guess I was trying to say that in a studio system that doesn't venture into topics of religion or issues outside of that of the Christian or Jewish faith very often, it was a pleasant surprise to see Aronofsky present his vision and Eastern based philosophies reverently, but as you said, tastefully. I think it does have the possibility to reach out to people of any faith, but I think it takes a willingness of the viewer to open to those viewpoints, which you clearly were.

I got ya now thanks.

I don't know the best way to say this...But as has been stated by people in this thread who have really liked or been affected by this film it is at its core really a simple love story. Any aspects of the eastern religion or afterlife or what have you were told in the frame of Tommy and Izzy's love and desire to be together. It wasn't an "And oh, while I am making this film let me witness to you!" mindset. It was really bautifully and tastefully handled, but as you said still requires a certain willingness of the viewer.

And obviously I loved the film, and certainly it's not perfect, but I don't think I've seen a more ambitious and personal statement from a filmmaker in ages. On that level alone, I think it's worthy of praise.

I couldn't say that better.

[soma]

Very promising reviews from Nick Schager at Slant and Jason Anderson at Eye Weekly, both of whose opinions I generally concur with.