Cool News
Bobo Vision Spends A Little Personal Time With Darren Aronofsky!
Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.
I will take any tidbit of info I can get on whatever Aronofsky is doing next, and I’m pleased that talkback regular Bobo Vision decided to send this report in:
Hi Moriarty,
Bobo_Vision here. This afternoon, myself and about seventy others sat in on a panel discussion at the Tribeca Film Festival with Darren Aronofsky, Billy Shebar (screenwriter), and Sidney Perkowitz (screenwriter and professor of physics). The topic of the discussion was the use of science in films, and the portrayal and stereotypes of scientists in movies. I was surprised that to find the theatre was only one-third full. I became aware of the fact that while Aronofsky may be extremely popular and well-loved among film buffs, to the general public he's fairly unknown. At one point in the discussion, Shebar started to make reference to how he heard that in 'The Fountain', the universe is represented in small details, but then he deferred to Aronofsky who could better speak on the subject, at which point Aronofsky joked that it served as proof of how few people had actually seen 'The Fountain'.
The discussion focused on movies in general rather than their specific films, though the film he referred to the most was 'Pi'. He mentioned how his roommate in college was a math major and served as a source of insight into that film's main character. The discussion began with an exploration of the "mad scientist" character in movies, with reference to a quote by James Cameron who mentioned how scientists in movies are often portrayed as either complete nerds, or evil psychopaths. Aronofsky said that he actually likes the "mad scientist" character because it serves as a hyperbole of those in science and academia who lead very isolated lives, working alone or in small groups in an extremely competitive environment where the stakes are very small. He told an anecdote about a friend of his who quit a career as a marine biologist to work in film production. Aronofsky was surprised and asked her why she would give a career like that up to work in the cut-throat world of film-making, to which she replied that the competition in science makes the movie business seem like nothing.
I was interested in hearing some information regarding his upcoming movie projects, specifically the "Noah" project I read about on AICN. He was tight-lipped, but I got a few clues. When asked about what direction film would take with regards to science, he said, "I'm working on something with regards to environmental destruction, and I think we'll see more of that because its a hugely important topic." Environmental destruction? Interesting. I take this to mean the "Noah" story will be a modern-day adaptation. "Generally, in movies, I think we'll see things like cloning, mixed reality, different levels of consciousness. I hope we see more psychological science fiction. I think what James Cameron is working on will probably change the framework of science fiction once again."
Another clue I got about his next movie came from a question about religion and science: "I like the idea of trying to combine science with mysticism. Science can only take you so far, but the blending of science with faith can get you to the emotional core of those answers. Film is a wonderful medium to tap into great spiritual moments, as well as the science around them."
That concluded the discussion, and most of the people cleared out, but I approached the stage for the opportunity to meet Aronofsky. I must admit, I've never met anyone famous before. I'm Canadian, and have only been living in New York for two years now, so living this close to the film industry is new to me. I realize that Aronofsky isn't really famous because he could walk down the street without getting recognized, and he's really down-to-earth, but it was an enormous leap from having never met anyone remotely famous to meeting someone whose work you respect and admire. So I was pretty nervous.
As I stood waiting to meet him, I thought of the things I wanted to tell him, like how I loved 'Requiem for a Dream', or ask about the significance of certain scenes in 'The Fountain, or what it was like filming Jennifer Connelly in a sex scene, but I was too nervous to say any of those things. When the moment came, I offered my hand and said, "Nice to meet you", without introducing myself.
"Hi, I'm Darren."
"Oh, uh, I'm (Bobo_Vision)", I answered sheepishly. "Um, can you tell me anything about the Ark movie?"
"No, sorry, I can't talk about it. But I have to go back and get to work on it. Its looking good so far, and hopefully it will get made."
I told him I enjoyed meeting him, and then scurried away nervously. So with regards to the "Noah" movie, perhaps its tied to the environmental destruction he mentioned earlier by way of global warming, melting of the ice caps, the raising of the water levels to give a modern-day Noah's Ark story. Science combined with Faith. Sounds pretty awesome. I'm looking forward to it.
Bobo_Vision
-
+ Expand All
-
Any word on whether Al Gore will be playing Noah?
-
The Fountain yet. It was in our cinema's for about a week.
Any good?
www.obsessedwithfilm.com -
I love his work, it's generally visually stunning, and the stories are good as well!
-
This is the guy should be directing Hulk, not that Transporter 2 director.
-
Even though it's all in the past, I would have liked to know more about what happened (with he and Frank Miller) and how far they had gotten in the process toward making "BATMAN: YEAR ONE". And I'd like to know more about his personal vision for Batman. Oh, well.
-
to transformers....
-
Aronofsky and Orwell. Just imagine...
-
A modern day version of NOAH'S ARK sounds fucking awesome. Maybe it'll be called NOAH'S SUBMERSIBLE?
-
. . . There's a better looking one showing at Amazon. Still wish they had used the movie poster image. Oh well . . .
-
Aronosfsky and Ayn Rand. Maybe the short story Anthem, or the book The Fountainhead. Fraking amazing.
-
It's about damn time somebody is going to tackle these two rivalries. Oh, and the Fountain was awesome!!! Suck on it!!
-
Aronofsky is the most pretentious director working today. "Pi" was an incromprehensible mess, full of fake math and self-conscious "spirituality." "Requiem For A Dream" was a nihlistic exercise in depravity, nothing more than an excuse for the director to have Jennifer Connelly performing insufficiently motivated sexual acts on camera. I declined to see "The Fountain"; fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I won't get fooled again. Aronofsky has a high degree of technical skill, giving his movies the patina of art, and he has a way of extracting exceptional performances from his actors. At their core, though, the movies are empty morally, self-conscious in their "importance" and ultimately as shallow as he wishes them to be deep. While Aronofsky's craftsmanship cannot be denied, his movies are all craft and no art. This is not a sin, as Tony Scott, for example, has proved time and again. The sin is in bending over backward to convince the audience that he is.
-
I think you missed the whole point of the movie "Pi" and furthuremore I think you also missed the entire point of "Requiem For A Dream" a movie which is fantastic on pretty much every level. The Cinematography is breathtaking, the story is heart-breaking, the acting is Superb, I mean seriously did you ever think a Wayans brother could act in a serious role, and actually do a good job at it? The pacing, the editing, the score, everything, and I mean everything about the movie "Requiem For A Dream" is just fantastic. That is just my not so humble opinion... but suit yourself... :P
-
Why film the Fountainhead again? The existing movie is perfectly good.
-
because it felt like too many Oscar bait cliches, but I loved 'The Fountain' and quite liked 'Pi'. Aronofsky doesn't make films in any one tone or genre but consistently shows strong skill. I'll see anything he does.
-
Are you talking about the 1949 Gary Cooper Film? Although I havn't seen that particular film, I doubt it captures the full vision of the Ayn Rand novel.
-
There was a script for Aronofsky and Miller's movie floating around online for a while, might see if you could find it.
-
I remember that initial packaging they put up online. It looked like 'Solarbabies' or some 1970s B sci-fi flick. Now they've replaced it with artwork that's slightly better in that it at least looks like a movie made in the 1990s, but nobody will still rent it. Is the studio determined to keep this film from making money? If they let me I could design a better box cover.
-
is excellent, and I recommend it. They did a restoration and re-release in the mid-90s I believe, so the DVD should be pretty crisp.
-
Wim Wenders. Everything he does screams "Analyze MEEEE!" It's undergrad film thesis fodder.
-
I'll second that.
-
"You're a fucking idiot" is not a well-reasoned argument. It is unsupported by any evidence. Name-calling is easy; presenting a coherent case is not. Which one shows less thought? In other words, which is more akin to idiocy? Saying "Your ignorance was proven by not even WATCHING 'The Fountain'" raises a couple of questions. My ignorance of what? Idiocy is not ignorance. Your thesis is that I'm an idiot, but instead of supporting the assertion, you change the subject to ignorance, again without support. Another question: Suppose a cook offered you a taste of his soup. You took one slurp and found it rotten. He makes another batch and promises it will be good. You taste it and find it rotten. Are you showing your ignorance in declining a taste of his third batch? In the case of movies, one makes a commitment of time and money. The money can be replenished; the time cannot. If I find a director's work to be bad the first two times around, it is neither idiocy nor ignorance that keeps me away from the third one; it is prudence, especially in light of the generally poor reviews the movie got from the critics whose opinions I value. As to the argument made by the second-referenced poster that I "missed the point" of the first two movies, well, it's just too easily dismissive to claim "you just don't get it," when sometimes the emperor really has no clothes. The argument is supported by three primary points: the quality of the cinematography, the story and the acting. The first and last points are irrelevant; I already conceded them in my first post and I asserted, and will continue to assert, that technical skill does not an artist make. As to the story, it didn't break my heart. If it broke yours, then the point cannot be counter-argued. In reference to a Wayans brother being able to act "seriously," if I'd ever stopped to think about it, I'd say "Why not?" From Charlie Chaplin to Art Carney to Steve Martin to Bill Murray, gifted comic actors have shown that they are simply gifted actors. I've always found it something of a shame that more comic actors are not given - or don't take - the chance to show their abilities to the fullest extent. The real test of talent is to move the other way around, from humorless to comedic. Let's see Aronofsky pull off a comedy.
-
I really liked The Fountain way more than Darren's other two films and find none of his three films to have anything in common, so your soup analogy is flawed in my opinion. If Aronofsky kept making movies about drug addicts you'd have a point, but he's taken on different subject matter with a different tone and pacing each time. But if you see him continually failing the same way, then you are totally justified in not wanting to see any more of his films.I didn't even like Requiem for a Dream (I think for the same reasons as you), but found none its faults present in Pi or The Fountain.
-
I agree with many of your well articulated points and do not wish to invoke any personal attacks (I detest when the forum reverts to an insult competition), however I must disagree with one of the things that you insinuated. You said that ‘technical skill does not an artist make’ which isn’t necessarily wrong but you insinuated that Aronofsky is not an artist. Art is extremely subjective and you may not enjoy Aronofsky’s work, but that doesn’t mean he’s not an artist. There are no specific guidelines to indicate whether or not something is art. We may agree that not all art is of equal quality, but who are you to say that Aronofsky isn’t an artist? Most writers’ and directors’ work is influenced by past work. Aronofsky’s influences and tastes obviously differ from yours but I think that he is talented artist and since art is subjective, I feel qualified to make that statement, as can anyone else here.
-
Your point is well taken.
-
We've already seen Noah on the screen countless times. How about - the original - Gilgamesh instead???
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 142 total posts 131 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 465 total posts 126 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 124 total posts 124 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 69 total posts 68 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 60 total posts 60 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 111 total posts 46 posts
- AICN Legends: Quint talks with Paul Reubens about all things Pee-Wee! Including the 3 (!!!) Pee-Wee movies in development! -- 37 total posts 37 posts
- Rest In Peace Bethesda’s Adam Adamowicz -- 88 total posts 37 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 174 total posts 33 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 83 total posts 32 posts