A review for The Fountain that I wrote in 2008:
This movie is very difficult to explain, so I'll just quote the Wikipedia summary.
"The Fountain takes place in three interweaving narratives that encompass the age of the Spanish conquistadors, the near-future period and a journey through deep space in an ecospheric starship."
Pretty vague, huh? Well, here's my description.
Hugh Jackman's wife, Rachel Weisz, has cancer and is dieing. Jackman happens to be a scientist studying tumor reduction. He's on the verge of breaking new ground and being able to save his wife. During her fight against her illness, Weisz has written a book based on the mythical/biblical/legendary Tree of Life that takes place during the age of the conquistadors. The movie flashes to these scenes from her book, the present, and the distant future.
(The future portion is open to interpretation. Who am I kidding? The entire fucking movie is open to interpretation. Anyway, I happen to think the future portion is Jackman's ending to the book.)
What the movie is really about: Life and death, beginning and ending, creation out of destruction, acceptance of our mortality, and the fact that we're all apart of something greater than ourselves. We're all connected in death and vital to the cycle of everything that exists, from flowers to the cosmos itself.
Yeah, pretty heavy stuff.
The genesis of this movie is said to have been when Darren Aronofsky saw the Matrix. He began thinking that anything is possible in cinema due to technology, so what if instead of big explosions and action, he took the genre in a different direction? He wanted his foray into Sci-Fi to break down barriers and redefine what the genre is capable of in much the same ways that Star Wars and the Matrix had done. While he flat out failed to achieve that goal, he most certainly succeeded in making one of the most ambitious Sci-Fi movies of all time, easily on par with 2001: A Space Odyssey. As a matter of fact, there is really no other movie to compare this to, other than 2001. Nothing else approaches the level of complex concepts that both movies try to convey. I say "try" because opinions are sharply divided on both films if they were able to get thier points across to the audience.
This movie was released on DVD 5/7/07. I've owned it for over a year, but just got around to watching it the other night.
My wife saw this in the theater with a friend of hers and they both hated it. They expected some sort of period piece romance with hopes of seeing a shirtless Hugh Jackman making sweet love to the stunning Rachel Weisz. What they got was more akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is to say, the exact fucking opposite of anything they would ever want to see.
I still remember my wife's description of the movie from over a year ago.
"When Hugh Jackman started drinking paint from a tree, I was pretty much ready to walk out. But it's probably something you'd like because it was really weird".
I bought it the day of release last year, but never made time to watch it. I bought it for several reasons, chief amongst them is the fact that Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, Below) wrote and directed the film. I happen to really enjoy his work and was eager to see his take on the Sci-Fi genre in much the same way I wanted to see Danny Boyle's "Sunshine". My wife's cryptic review also made me wonder what she meant by "weird" and also why she thought I would like it. I knew it was going to be a rather heavy film, and I tend to have to be in the mood to fully enjoy these types of movies. A year and lord knows how many movies later, I was finally in the mood.
Basically, if you couldn't stand 2001, then I don't think you'd be able to sit through The Fountain. If you did enjoy 2001, then you may find yourself with a new favorite movie to add to your collection. It's almost a companion to 2001 IMO. Even if you don't dig on the vast scope of the movie, anyone that loves art and cinema should find plenty to enjoy during the brief, 1.5 hour film. Once again, the same can be said of 2001. These are movies that were made by artists that almost seem to have been made for other artists.
Examples:
Each period in The Fountain is framed and defined by distinct design elements. During the conquistador period, triangles are the dominant shape. During the present, it's rectangles. In the future, it's circles and spheres. (I picked up on this element)
Hugh Jackman's character is always in darkness or shadow, while Rachel Weisz has a soft "glow" at almost all times. She seems angelic. (I noticed the glowing Weisz, but only picked up on the dark Jackman after reading about it in another review)
When confronting concepts so obtuse and vast, both Kubrik and Aranofsky chose to convey them in almost equally obtuse and vast ways. Remember the "Star Child" in 2001? Yeah, there are several of those moments in The Fountain.
The movie is almost more about the feeling it inspires, and less about the narrative that is actually happening on screen. Kind of like Donnie Darko? I guess my weird way of trying to explain this is comparing it to Tool's album, Lateralus. The concepts are far out and deep. Where a band like Tool uses music to evoke feelings and emotions, The Fountain uses imagery along with it's soundtrack and fantastic acting to dig into an almost subconscious level to convey very powerful concepts and ideas. IMO, Alex Grey's art is a great example of what The Fountain achieves. I am in no way a religious man, but I admit to times when looking at art, listening to music, or being with my daughter where I feel a very distinct sense of being part of something greater than myself, almost as if I see my place in all of this. It's probably the closest to being truely spiritual that I'm ever likely to become. The Fountian picked at the edges of these feelings and reminded me that I do have them from time to time.
This movie deserves to be seen and discussed. Forty years later, 2001 stands as an undeniable classic despite the fact that many people still debate it's true meaning and subtle undercurrents. I believe The Fountain will also withstand the test of time and be viewed as an equally rare movie that approaches the unapproachable, tries to explain the unexplainable, and takes it's audience to a place that very few movies or directors dare to tread.
10/10 - Brave and inspired film making