The Fountain
Movie Review
"The Fountain"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B
Rating: PG-13
Released: Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Directed by:
Cast:
I usually like to know what I'm talking about, or at least give the impression that I do, but I'm going to tell you something about "The Fountain" up front: I don't know what to make of it. I was utterly absorbed in watching it, yet when it was over I had no idea what had happened.
It has Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz playing Thomas and Isabel in three different time periods: around 1500 (the time of the Spanish Inquisition), present-day, and some point in the distant future. I believe the Thomas of 2006 is the same person, miraculously un-aged, as the Thomas of hundreds of years from now, but I would not stake my reputation on that. He doesn't seem to be the same Thomas as the Inquisition Thomas, nor is it the same Isabel ... but I'm not totally sold on either of those points, either.
Thomas the conquistador (OK, Tomás), working for Queen Isabella of Spain, is searching for the mythical Fountain of Youth when he is attacked by Mayans in one of their holy pyramids. In the present day, Thomas is a medical researcher looking for a way to cure his wife Isabel's terminal cancer. In the future, he is bald and sitting by a tree that floats through space in a bubble.
These three stories are told simultaneously, cutting from one to another, and while I could probably describe them in a less nonsensical fashion than I have just done, that might defeat the purpose. The enjoyment of the movie is in being caught up in its single-minded devotion to its own vision, not in completely understanding what that vision is.
It's the work of Darren Aronofsky, whose "Pi" I admire and whose "Requiem for a Dream" I consider one of very best films of the decade. That was in 2000, and "The Fountain" is his first movie since then. It's taken him that long to get the project together. The special effects make it blockbuster expensive, but it's not the kind of movie that brings in blockbuster crowds. It features two actors playing multiple characters (or maybe the same character) in three different time periods, with each story overlapping the other two in strange ways. You can see why studios weren't too eager to fund it.
As in "Pi" and "Requiem," Aronofsky has an astonishing knack for putting together bizarre, entrancing images, beautifully filmed by cinematographer Matthew Libatique and scored by composer Clint Mansell. (Both men are Aronofsky regulars.) He usually shoots scenes either head-on or exactly in profile, with few three-quarter shots or other jaunty angles. The head-on shots, in particular, give the film an otherworldly feel simply because that angle -- with the actors looking directly at the camera -- is so rarely used in movies. Even if you knew nothing else about the film, you'd know it was unusual for that reason alone.
"The Fountain" strikes me as a rumination on life and death, and on the latter's vital role as part of the former. The film has a "plot," yes, but even if I understood all the details of it, it would be beside the point. The point is how it makes you feel. It's less a narrative than a tone poem, designed to envelop you in its emotions rather than tell you a story.
Grade: B
Rated PG-13, one F-word, mild sexuality, a little semi-strong violence
1 hr., 36 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 10 comments
November 23, 2006 at 8:18 am
I haven't seen the film but I'm excited to see it. I read that director Darren Aronofsky wanted to stay away from CGI filming techniques simply because he didn't want to rely on the orderly world of CGI to create what he felt could only be displayed visually in chaos. What he discovered was an increadly innovative filming technique utilizing technology called the Microzoom Photo Bench which allowed him to film a single drop of water in IMAX screen-size definition. It was in this drop of water that Darren filmed all of the scenes in space to give the universe a truely chaotic and organic feel.
Read Wired Magazine's article "The Outsider" in issue 14.11 for some fantastic insight to this film.
November 29, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Just got back from it. I feel like I have been dropping acid for the past hour and a half. The review is spot on. Definitely a B. I'm not sure it was worth the trip.
December 11, 2006 at 3:08 pm
This movie was beautiful. Never have I described a movie in such a manner before, but I cannot think of another way to describe the fountain. I don't consider this film to be a movie so much as art; truly beautiful art.
Not everybody will understand or appreciate this movie, in fact I'm sure that most people will not understand or appreciate it, but those who possess the mental complexity and depth to grasp the film will be profoundly affected.
An astonishing movie overall, highly recommended.
December 13, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Bad. This emperor is naked, people.
June 3, 2007 at 9:35 am
Just saw this on DVD and I think it's really all just the main story in the present time... the other part is just them acting out the book she wrote, and then presumably his subconscious musing on things for the scenes where he's bald by the tree. We concluded that the whole thing about the back story was pretty much her idea of how to get him to deal with her death. Interesting movie, no doubt.
July 3, 2007 at 9:09 pm
The film displayed a very warm, and almost spiritual atmosphere. It displays some very beautiful scenerios. I liked the movie very much, but in the latter half, there were a couple of things that I could not understand. For example, it almost seemed as if the tree was one with him, and vice versa. I think I'm going to get the book to see if I can get more understanding for the movie.
July 6, 2007 at 2:45 pm
The tree was the tree of life, the communion, the girl, etc. It sustained him and gave him life after her death. He didn't really live until she was gone. In fact every character in the movie at some point states the main point of the movie, which is that life is only possible by death. There are many religious and spiritual images in the movie, including Christianity and Buddhism that I saw.
A very interesting and thought-provoking movie. Definitely a work of art. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Filmmaking is an art form - too bad more directors don't realize that.
October 7, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Know this is late, but I'm always about a year behind on seeing anything ... I had the same impression (sort of) as Eric Herman (#5): the conquistador scenes were the enactment of the text that the wife wrote (in the present). Sort of like we're visualizing her book as her husband reads it.
But I disagree on the interpretation of the future scenes. I think they really are supposed to be 1000+ years in the future--the husband is still alive and has built, with the advanced technology, a kind of spaceship to take him and his wife's tree to the nebula where he assumes she will somehow be reborn (before he figures things out finally in the end). This interpretation is supported by the implication that the scientific research at the lab would lead to a way to prolong human life indefinately. After she dies, he essentially figures out a way to stay alive until he can, he thinks, bring her back. The tatooing of his arms began with the replacement of the wedding ring and here continue as a way for him to mark the time that he has been travelling.
It's subtle, but I think it's there. Piecing the three narratives together in relationship to each other this way helped me appreciate the movie more--it became one man's journey through life toward death rather than three somehow related narratives telling the same story.
March 16, 2008 at 5:43 pm
The great thing about this movie is, like 2001, you can interpret it several ways and they might all be right (or, at least, not wrong). For my money, the different versions of Tom and Izzy were reincarnations, with enlightenment being the acceptance of death (or the inevitability thereof), as summarized by the Mayan "First Father" myth.
But that's just me.
I do agree with the rating, though. Like 2001, it can be a bit too obtuse in places.
August 13, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I first watched it when it came out on DVD, and I would have to say that my first impression was that it was kind of stilted and slow, but still beautiful to watch. I just watched it again on HBO, and it did not feel nearly as slow this time around. There were still a couple of stilty parts - since the dialogue is not always particularly natural - but on the whole, it was far more interesting this time around. Still, B, maybe B+.