The Fountain (review)
Head Trip Through Time
So I hear that if you play Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon while you’re watching The Fountain and you start it exactly at the moment when the conquistador Hugh Jackman gets stabbed in the gut by the Mayan priest/warrior near the beginning of the movie, then it’s like a totally awesome and mindblowing experience.
Or maybe it’s the Moody Blues’ Days of Future Passed...
more below the ad... scroll down...
When I saw The Fountain last year at a press screening, I pegged it as one of the trippier movies ever made, and maybe a new 2001: A Space Odyssey as far as freaking you out and making you wonder what the hell it’s all about, or wonder at all the things it can be about in all its many varied interpretations. But I could never get my head around it enough to actually write a review. I couldn’t figure out if I liked it or not. I suppose if lodging itself in your brain and hanging on like a rabid dog can be said to be a measure of success for a work of art, then The Fountain succeeds. But though the film intrigues me intellectually, it doesn’t make me feel anything: and movies for me are primarily emotional experiences. By that measure, The Fountain fails for me. But it’s one of the more interesting cinematic failures I’ve ever seen.
Filmmaker Darren Aronofsky -- whose low-budget 1998 film Pi is similarly brilliant and frustrating -- gets huge bonus points from me for being so damn audacious: for blending past, present, and future into one everpresent now; for recognizing the spiritual in the scientific, and vice versa; for daring to make a movie that is both so explicitly big-big-picture about the nature of human existence and so intimate as a love affair. The parallel tales of conquistador Hugh Jackman (The Prestige, Happy Feet), servant to Queen Isabella five hundred years ago, and space-travelling Hugh Jackman, servant to his own transcendent mysticism five hundred years in the future... are they but imaginary fancies sprung from the novel being written by the cancer-stricken wife of today’s cancer-researcher Hugh Jackman? Or are they “real”? It’s thrilling to think they could be both at the same time.
I was ambivalent about recommending the film while it was in theaters, but now that it’s available on DVD (or will be tomorrow) it’s definitely a must-see. See it for the wonderfully palpable chemistry between Jackman and Rachel Weisz (Eragon, The Constant Gardener) as Queen Isabella and as the contemporary author and cancer victim. See it for the beautiful organic imagery of trees and neurons and nebulas that swell with golden light and merge to become a glorious metaphor for the, you know, fundamental interconnectness of all things. And see it so you can tell me, maybe, just what the hell it’s all about, anyway.
(Technorati tags: Fountain, Darren Aronofsky, Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz)
viewed at home on a small screenrated PG-13 for some intense sequences of violent action, some sensuality and language
official site | IMDB
comments
posted by JoshDM (May 14, 2007 4:59 PM)
A re-review... interesting. B-)
Since we're getting the refresher course here, how about some "Munich" / "Sword of Gideon" action?
posted by MaryAnn (May 14, 2007 5:43 PM)
Well, not really a re-review, because I never reviewed it before.
I'd love to review every movie ever made. But I need to sleep sometime.
posted by Clayj (May 14, 2007 6:52 PM)
I was a bit frustrated with this movie when it came out last year... I guess I fell for some of the "it's the new 2001" hype, but part of the problem for me was that I kept comparing it to Pi and Requiem for a Dream, which I think are both brilliant movies. When I actually got to see The Fountain, I left the theatre with a sort of "huh" feeling.
That said, the imagery is brilliant, and the story (is it real?) is pretty cool... is future Tom the same person as present Tom? (I think we can rule out that past Tom is either of them, since the movie makes it fairly clear about the nature of his immortality.) And the soundtrack is pretty cool, too... Clint Mansell and Kronos Quartet are definitely worth listening to.
I will be picking up the HD-DVD tomorrow... because I have the feeling that my "huh" reaction will change into more of a "cool" reaction the more I watch the movie and understand its subtlety.
posted by MBI (May 15, 2007 12:02 AM)
It's definitely about enjoying the moments you have with the ones you love and not ruining yourself yearning for what you haven't got.
posted by MBI (May 15, 2007 12:07 AM)
That said, I feel like this is an insanely heartfelt movie. I'm not sure I "get" it, per se, and I feel that, like with "Mulholland Dr." and "Donnie Darko," a literal explanation is neither necessary nor especially desirable. I thought there was emotion lodged in every pore of this movie, and in that regard it's very distinct from "2001: A Space Odyssey." I see heartbreak in Jackman's struggle for something he won't ever have.
posted by MaryAnn (May 15, 2007 1:19 PM)
I *see* that heartbreak, too, but I don't feel it. And that's no reflection on Jackman. It's a reflection on Aronofsky. :->
posted by Clayj (May 15, 2007 2:09 PM)
Let's just all be thankful that we ended up with Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz and not Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett (the original Tom and Izzi before the movie's budget got scaled back). Cate Blanchett's a great actress, but any time Brad Pitt has to cry on screen (Se7en, Troy), it looks like he's trying to pass a kidney stone.
posted by Jennifer (May 15, 2007 9:55 PM)
I love this movie absurdly, but I should see it a second time before I try and explain why. If favorite movies comes up as a topic, I just say it's because of the passionate agnostism, but I can do better than that.
posted by DiscoSanchez (May 23, 2007 2:45 PM)
I think, PI excluded, that Aronofsky is a very emotional filmmaker. Apparently some people must be emotionally distanced by his style, but I find myself emotionally drawn to his work to the point that they're more rewatchable than most other films, even better films. The Fountain wasn't the best movie of the year by any means but I saw it more when it was in theaters than any other film, and each time the movie improved substantially. My latest home viewing was admittedly a little more lukewarm, but I could blame that on the poor transfer and less than desirable environs.
I don't really find 90% of the film that hard to follow. I suspect that the future sequences are real, Tom having discovered the secret to immortality (note the tattooing). The climactic sequence's details are hazy, deliberately, and I'm still a little confused about the scene where Future Tom appears before the Mayan priest, but I get the general gist of it, that searching for immortality will lead us to neglecting the more important things in life like spending more time with your dying wife while she's still alive. The exploding star's also a bit difficult to understand, but there's some kind of transcendant death-is-life type deal going on.
posted by MBI (May 30, 2007 9:35 AM)
I just realized MaryAnn's general sentiment towards this film pretty much sums up my feelings towards that same year's "The Science of Sleep," another insanely heartfelt movie, one that didn't do much for me, I'm afraid.
posted by Cthulhu (June 1, 2007 4:20 PM)
I watched it on DVD last night after reading the graphic novel a couple of years ago.
The bonus the graphic novel has is that it's easier to re-read the various subsections over and over again to get your head around the three seperate story lines.
It also made it easier to explain what was going on to Mrs Cthulhu when she got lost!! LOL