[image:202:l] Darren Aranofsky’s long labored over, much anticipated (at least among geeky film fans), movie is finally here. Many hoped it would be a modern 2001. Is it?
No.
This movie has very little in common Kubrick’s classic including the polarized passions it produces. People usually either love 2001 or hate it. I love it. But the impression I get with The Fountain is that people will either hate it or be kind of ambivalent. I’m ambivalent.
Yeah I’ve read a couple of glowing reviews to go along with the mostly tepid or lousy ones. But I think those will remain exceptions. This is going to be a hard movie for anyone to love. Ironic since love is one of it’s core elements. That and death. In fact it’s hard to know which of these Arranofsky himself is devoted to. Love or death. To some extent he’s made a sometimes turgid paean to death that in its exuberance in attempting to embrace it and help us to not fear death, seems more likely to have been fashioned out of a desperate fear of it himself.
That would be fine if it didn’t seem like one of it’s central themes is in coming to terms with death and realizing its not final. But in crafting a story that uses ancient archetypes of death avoidance like that of a tree perpetually renewing-a theme going back to fertility and agricultural worship motifs, playing right on through the Ash Tree of Nordic myth and Jesus on his cross shaped tree of wood-and the archetype of the eternally running fountain, Arranofsky certainly seems to be expressing a hopeful vision of the most feared thing in creation.
There’s even some Buddhist imagery as well as some transcendental touches in the films future vision that suggests breaking through to a greater understanding or awareness.
But none of it convinced me that Aranofsky or all those he borrowed from, are onto something.
Which isn’t necessarily his job as a filmaker. One thing this film does share with 2001 is in moving towards a sort of renewal. 2001 keeps this a bit more universal as he dehumanizes individuals, but it does suggest some sort of evolution of the spirit or mind of mankind. The movie doesn’t prove any of that. But it leaves room for interpretations that can range as far along the scale of believability or mysticism as you’re comfortable with. The Fountain certainly leaves room for interpretations too. I am not in anyway sure of what I just saw on that screen. There’s alot there up for debate and exploration upon further viewing.
I’m just not sure I want to see it again.
I’ll probably have at least one more viewing in me on DVD months from now to try and get a better grasp and see how it holds up. The movie was engrossing. At least for me. A group of people actually got up and left halfway through the movie where I saw it and another girl was in and out of the theater with her cell phone so much it was clear she was just killing time waiting for her boyfriend who seemed to want to stick it out or at least get his money’s worth. Me, I was riveted. I’m not sure why though. Was it my expectations or something there in the film that meant more to me in the sum of its parts than the full version?
I’m not sure because those parts were less than compelling while still being interesting. Maybe I need to coin a new term for this kind of film. It’s obtuse and compelling. Obtelling? Comptuse?
Solaris would be a film I’d put under that label. That too was Comptuse. It was also boring. Boring and interesting. Boresting.
Anyway, those parts consist of basically 3 milieus. 15th or 16th century Spain and the new World, somewhat modern period that’s possibly a bit in the future and that is the main ground of the film, and a far off future with Hugh Jackman travelling to a nebula in a round and transparent conveyance that looks like a dessicated snow globe.
The only part we’re sure is real is the modern area where most of the “action” takes place. One of the problems for alot of people is going to be in its non linear interspersing and shuffling of the three periods. Say what you want about how pretentious and arty you might think 2001 is but it was a straightforward story laid out in an encompassing linear progression. The Fountain is more Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind meets Donnie Darko and have a dyslexic child who does acid and likes going to the art houses of the moderately talented as a way of rebelling against its parents.
Or something.
As alluded to above there is also doubt about how real the past and far future segments really are. Jackman who plays Tommy, is married to the dying Izzy played by Arranofsky’s wife Rachael Weisz. She has apparently worked some of her death issues out working on a book which is apparently where the Jackman as Conquistador and Weisz as Queeen Isabella stuff take place. It deals with Mayan myths regarding a tree of life and has some scenes and symbols I’m not going to pretend to have figured out though they are not as complex as that makes them sound. [image:201:l]
Nor will I throw my theories on what that whole period was about and how it relates to the other segments. I’ll just mention that the Mayans apparently thought the dead went to a nebula they called Shambala and identified in the Orion cluster. One illuminated from within by a dying star. This is where future Jackman in his plastic bubble is headed.
All of this takes place under the guise of profound love and a desire to keep Izzy alive.
That’s also all I’ll say there for now as far as plot points go.
But I have to comment on the nature of this angle as well as the death and rebirth one I’ve already mentioned.
Viewing this movie as a love story between Tommy and Izzy contributes to it falling short for me. Sure love is grand and all but how many mature people who have lived and loved really think love is this everlasting ideal anymore? We go through couplings and get over it when they’re over. It’s a nice feeling to have but there is plenty of evidence it’s in large part a poetic expression of lust and genetic imperatives meant to legitimize and elevate it over other bodily functions. True some people have it more fully and deeply than others. They have my jeolousy. But Arranofsky goes a long way to aggrandize the feeling that no matter how hard he feels for Weisz now, will almost surely let him down and lead to another inevitable divorce one day.
Ok that is a bit cynical. But it’s also likely. Feelings fade and very few couples, if any, love each other in a deep and passionate way forever.
That out of my system it does have a different interpretation if one chooses to look at the film and its characters as more of an archetype. Arranofsky likes those and tries to keep his characters from becoming too personal. So maybe Tommy and Izzy are Man and Woman. In that sense the love or whatever that binds us together will go on forever. At least as long as humanity anyway. In that sense the puching back of death is our eternal struggle.
And like I said this could be viewed more as about love of death and acceptance as a timeless love that Tommy feels for Izzy.
Except that it’s possible death is conquered in the movie.
Alot of all this depends on how how you view the final future segments as well as the final bit back in our time more or less, and how that fits in with the concept of Izzy’s book and her desire for it to be finished. But between needing another viewing to figure it out and nobody having seen this yet, discussion on that topic will have to wait.
Another element that was rumored to be strong, and indeed people have commented favorably on even when in overall negative reviews are the visuals. 2001 told much of its story visually and The Fountain was supposed to do the same thing. And it may very well have attempted to do so. But it doesn’t work as well. First off the imagery isn’t all that special. When 2001 came out is was unique trippy stuff to see on the big screen. The future segments here, though being lauded by many, seemed pretty pedestrian to me. In this day and age of offhand cgi technology I just wasn’t impressed. I’ve seen visuals as good on episodes of Farscape.
I’m not saying these segments weren’t still interesting to look at. But I don’t see them being as compelling as some do. They certainly will not become as iconographic as Kubrick’s. Or Battlestar Gallactica’s for that matter.
But if you’re not the typical moviegoer this is worth a look. I’m already starting to want to see it again. I just don’t want to pay to do so. That might tell you something. For all this movies warming to death, if that is indeed what it is doing, I’m no less afraid of it and what is more to the point I feel like Arranofsky is no less afraid. I get more of an impression of a director who has suffered loss and is creating his religion in film to help deal with it. A man whistling in the dark much like Clint Eastwood’s William Munie in The Unforgiven who kept saying that he was changed and not like that anymore thanks to his dear departed, over and over, trying to make himself believe it. Right up until he shoots everyone in sight.



Recent Comments