Merrick wonders how life would've been different if he could have saved his dad...
Yggdrasil and Gerber played in THE FOUNTAIN at last night’s Chatsworth screening, and wrote in to tell us what they thought. Both were quite positive about the film.
First, here’s Yggdrasil – which is a plant, although he promises he is not a plant (I know, I know...)
The Fountain. This film will kick your brain in the nuts.
I won't recap the plot for you. That would be pointless and most people reading this probably already know the broad strokes: Three men, a conquistador, a research doctor, and a yoga master/spaceship pilot, all played by Hugh Jackman, in three different time periods, 1500, 2006, and 2500, all search either for the literal tree of life or some metaphor thereof. Rachel Weisz plays, in the earlier two periods, The Queen of Spain, who sends her loyal conquistador on his quest, and the dying wife of the doctor. Her role in the third time period is… open to interpretation.
These three plots are interwoven throughout the film, even intruding into each other's scenes, stray shots interjecting into scenes from different time periods. The structure is impeccable. The downside is that for the early portion of the film, the connections between the three stories, aside from the actors, are obscure in the beginning, and will probably turn off audience members who are not prepared for "this type of film." Which is a ridiculous thing to say, because I do not know any other film of this "type."
On the surface, the film is beautiful. Matthew Libatique of "Requiem for a Dream" (who I notice has added a cool "ASC" to his name), honors his position as one of my favorite DPs. The effects, namely the nebula with a Mayan name I won't try to spell, are simple, but completely appropriate, and at sync with the general aesthetic of the film. The score is melancholy, minimalist, and plays almost constantly, like in "Requiem."
But there is much more under the surface, themes and double meanings that I'm sure film geeks like me will dissect for years to come.
None of that really matters though, does it? Does the film sound too high brow? Too full of metaphor and symbolism to have resonant characters and twists?
Surprisingly, no. The main story is of a husband, Tom Verde, in 2006, who needs to learn to let go of his dying wife. Her death is destroying him, on the inside and professionally, as he become increasingly difficult to work with. Admittedly, this story is a little familiar, but it is in the telling that distinguishes the film. The alternate timelines work both as literal events in the history and future of the world of the film, connected to the events of the modern story, and as metaphors for Tom's struggle to basically "cure death."
In the future timeline, Jackman cruises through space in bubble with a giant tree inside. Weird, huh? He pilots by meditation, and subsists by eating the bark of the tree. It is totally unnecessary to look for metaphors here, but there are plenty if you want to look.
Anyhow, I've gone on too long. The Fountain is a wonderful film, with the best work I have seen from Jackman thus far. It is another step up for Aronofsky, who has written a wonderful script that works on both the literal and metaphorical levels.
One last thing, don't let anyone you drag to it be intimidated. Don't take any "Oh I won't get it" from your whiny girlfriends. Aronofsky has so mastered his art and visual vocabulary that he communicates all the concepts, emotions and meanings as accessibly as one can imagine for the subject matter. I think the greatest accomplishment of this film is that I got it. I think you will to.
Hmmmmm..."This film will kick your brain in the nuts."
If someone's brain has nuts, does that make them a dick head? (This is a general question, not a jab at Yggdrasil!)
Now, here’s Gerber with his report…
Just got back from a screening of “The Fountain” and thought I’d share some thoughts on the film.
Let’s get some things out of the way, the movie is about Tommy (Hugh Jackman) trying to save the love of his life (Rachel Weisz) the journey spans one thousand years, from the 1505 to 2505 as he attempts to find the tree of life, something akin to the fountain of youth. And let me also say that I liked this movie a lot. Now that that’s out of the way let’s get down to the movie.
The movie opens with a biblical passage reading something along the lines of “God banished them from the Garden of Eden, and guarded the tree of life with a sword of flame. Following this text, we open on Tommy, a conquistador in 1505, praying before going on a mission in the Mayan jungle. He is followed by two compatriots, as they traverse the jungle they happen upon what they believe to be a trap. It is.
After standing his ground, Tommy is led to a pyramid, upon climbing to the top, he finds a warrior who immediately slays him. We quickly jump to the year 2505 where Tommy, now bald, floats through space in what can best be described as a bubble containing a dying tree, and a small creek.
There segments play out much like the chapter in Alan Moore’s “The Watchmen” in which Dr. Manhattan flees to Mars and is haunted by all of his past memories. Tommy seems to be the only thing in space, and he is haunted by the memories of his life as a conquistador, and his life in 2005, which we now come to. In 2005 Tommy is a surgeon working for a pharmaceutical company. He is working on a drug to cure brain tumors, experimenting on a monkey.
After they find that none of there previous therapies have worked on the monkey, he remembers a sample taken from South America that had some sort of regenerative effect, and decides to attempt to use it on the monkey. The thing is his wife Izzi also has a brain tumor, and as Tommy’s co-workers seem him working doggedly and needing a few days off he is working against time to attempt to save not the monkey, but Izzi.
Sounds fairly straightforward right? Well it would be, but Aronofsky has taken a page from David Lynch. The movie gives away very little each time it switches time periods, and the only link between them seems to be Tommy in 2505, but not in any immediately discernable way.
This is a movie that cannot be watched passively, you’ve got to pay attention, and probably will need to see it at least twice to get it all. Many people seemed to leave the screening saying “what the hell happened.” Matthew Libatique and Clint Mansell again are on board for cinematography and score, both of which are by far the best aspects of the film. At any rate, for those that like thought provoking movies with questions that aren’t easily answered, this movie is for you.
The rest of you who like movies where all questions are wrapped up easily in nice little packages, save your money.
