Revisiting THE FOUNTAIN

[jo]

THE FOUNTAIN is a very complex movie - including its impact on the audience. There have been so many interpretations and so many reactions ( reverential and divisive, in equal measure ) to the film by Aronofsky. But I find these quite true --

*When you watch the movie, expecting to want to it flash by fast, I find myself never pressing the fast-forward button! It is as if I never wanted to miss a moment from this film. Maybe it is the drama and the emotions that one is sucked into, while watching the story unfold? Maybe it is to be amazed at how versatile Hugh's acting is in this particular movie ( I would rate it equally well as his Jean Valjean portrayal, as they both go through highly varying character arcs)?

*Maybe it is also because of the unusual and excellent chemistry between Hugh and Rachel. Did you ever see the Rachel interview of Hugh, while Hugh was at the makeup room, being painted layers of tattoos on his arm? Very good insights on how an actor prepares and uses his craft to mesmerize a film audience!

*There are many other creative attractions - the haunting musical score by Mansell and the visual excellence of the movie ( with some very mind-blowing scenes).

The movie was, to both Hugh and Darren, such a moving personal experience!

I thought of opening this thread - because I came across this analysis of the movie on a YouTube clip, which again tantalizes to reopen my view of the movie!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkVS5A5gfGs

I never thought that one possible explanation was the suggestion that the story was really the story of one person ( with Izzi/other roles and Tommy/other roles combined in only one persona) as he confronts death and he lives out his different feelings and expectations! It harks back to the theme of immortality.

The movie is a truly unique film experience! It can also have personal resonance to anyone watching it - maybe that is the secret of its unique appeal?? I saw a discussion of the reactions to the movie - on Movie Awards - and I was so struck by the unanimous favorable response to the film!

PS: I never got the director commentary - it seems Warner Bros did not even want to finance it, as part of the DVD/BluRay - so Darren Aronofsky simply uploaded his file so he can share his thoughts on making the film with fans. Sadly, I never could access that download. But I've just found a site which may have a download option of the commentary - I will update if I was able to download it eventually.


Jo

[ADMIN]

Nov 1, 2013 22:57:51 GMT -5 jo said:

Darren Aronofsky simply uploaded his file so he can share his thoughts on making the film with fans. Sadly, I never could access that download. But I've just found a site which may have a download option of the commentary - I will update if I was able to download it eventually.

I think this is the one you mean...


Here is a download-able MP3 - from a fellow Fountain fanatic who says:

I believe that the only “fictional” part of the movie is the Conquistador portion of the movie. I believe that Tommy the doctor and Tom the space traveler are the same person. I believe that Tommy really does find the cure for death, and spends a lonely eternity searching for his wife’s soul, until he realizes that death is not the evil thing that he thinks is it. He finally stops being afraid of death, and realizes that the end of all his searching is the very thing he has been running away from: Death itself.

Here's his blog about the movie

[jo]

Valerie -- You're an angel smiley-signs101

Again, with the site I mentioned, I painstakingly tried to download but could not open the file.

With the link you gave, it went without a hitch!

I also read the blog -- more thoughts to add


But I'd like to say that there was a tinge of disappointment for me with the commentary - Darren focused on how the filming went and how scenes were acted/came into being. It included scenes I have been curious about and needed confirmation ( such as Darren saying it was the real mosque in Cordoba, Spain which was used for the scenes with Queen Isabel -- I had seen this wonderful religious structure, which has the distinction of having been a Muslim mosque, a Jewish temple, and a Catholic church in many of its evolutions, with its most distinctive architectural wonder)...as well as some comments on what kind of an actor Hugh was as he went about the process of portraying the characters. I thought Darren would deal more with the themes of the movie, resolving many questions on the film fans's minds. Maybe he did not want to define everything for the fan, but rather give us an opportunity "to soak in" the experience instead of the plotlines and themes being explicity explained.

Maybe I was expecting more of the Les Miserables type of commentary by Tom Hooper where there are more attempts to relate the movie with the original source material as well as sharing the filmmaking vision and process. Although in a different way, The Fountain commentary enlightens in the same way the movie does -- that the creative vision is all there to appreciate if one can open one's mind.

Jo

[jo]

Somewhat related --

Early buzz for NOAH (Darren Aronofsky and Russell Crowe) compares it to the appeal of THE FOUNTAIN.

www.slashfilm.com/early-buzz-noah-darren-aronofsky/

Noah represents a big change of pace for Darren Aronofsky in that it’s his first big-budget studio film. But those who worry that he’s sold his soul to Paramount Pictures needn’t worry. Following some early screenings, the word going around is Aronofsky is as bold and ambitious as ever — for better or for worse.

The closest comparison seems to be Aronfsky’s The Fountain. That may be good news for die-hard Aronofsky fans, many of whom consider that movie his best, but it could also be bad news for the studio, as The Fountain tanked horribly at the box office. Hit the jump to find out what people are saying about Noah.

According to THR, Aronofsky warned the crowd in advance at last night’s screening in Mexico that his Noah was “a very, very different movie.” He added, “Anything you’re expecting, you’re fucking wrong.”

Remember filmsite blogger/CHUD Admin Devin Faraci ( he wrote that love-letter-of-a-review for THE FOUNTAIN)?

Mystery Devin Faraci @devincf
Follow
THE FOUNTAIN really is the template for NOAH, at least when it comes to bombast mixed w/ deeper concerns. If you hated THE FOUNTAIN...


Mystery Devin Faraci @devincf
Follow
I think NOAH is going to be one I end up defending a bunch. It's odd and it's flawed but it's ambitious and thoughtful in ways I loved.

Jo

[mamaleh]

Ah, another splash in THE FOUNTAIN--albeit indirectly. May its ripples ever continue.

That makes me a little more curious about NOAH. I'll definitely see it now.

Ellen

[birchie]

Mar 12, 2014 7:35:39 GMT -5 mamaleh said:

Ah, another splash in THE FOUNTAIN--albeit indirectly. May its ripples ever continue.

That makes me a little more curious about NOAH. I'll definitely see it now.

Ellen

From everything I've seen/read I don't see it as being like The Fountain in any way, aside from it's pretentious ambitions. As I stated in my previous comments on another thread, Noah as superhero isn't my cup of tea. I still have no desire to see it. I think it has more action/adventure elements that will appeal to the prime demographic so I don't think it will lose money. Guess I'll wait to see more reactions from regular ticket buyers.
Sue

[jo]

The Fountain continues to have its cult-like following...and this fan of the movie writes a commentary on his cinematic attachment to Darren Aronofsky and a dissertation on the movie itself!

www.filmdispenser.com/darren-aronofskys-fountain/

I wonder if the film would have been received differently it if had been released today...and with Hugh helping in the promotion ( he was in Australia with the arena tour of TBFO when the movie was released)?

But I need no prodding to want to revisit it again...including that fab interview of Hugh by co-star Rachel


Jo

[jo]

Back to NOAH --

Hugh Jackman ‏@realhughjackman · 4h
Chookas to @darrenaronofsky and @russellcrowe on #Noah! Can't wait to see it. xo HJ

[jo]

Indiewire/Playlist focuses on the six best performances in an Aronofsky movie ( as it mentions NOAH)--

blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/the-6-best-performances-in-the-films-of-darren-aronofsky-20140324

There are few filmmakers whose work is as instantly recognizable as Darren Aronofsky's. His subject matter has differed wildly, from Kabbalistic mathematical conspiracies to drug addiction to high-class ballet to Biblical apocalypse in this weekend's "Noah." But his heart-on-its-sleeve, unsubtle (that's not a knock, necessarily), highly cinematic, uniquely stylized films couldn't possibly be mistaken for anyone else's, even as their content proves ever-surprising.

But even aside from directorial technique, there's a continuity in the filmmakers' work: he's a great director of actors. Despite the films being almost the definition of Oscar-unfriendly, he's helped four performers earn Oscar nominations in the 15 years since he broke through, including a win for Natalie Portman. But even those who go unrecognized—from first-timers to Aronofsky favorites like Mark Margolis to major movie stars—turn in fantastic performances. With Russell Crowe getting some great notices for "Noah," even as the early reviews are more divided (what's new, for an Aronofsky film?), we decided to pick out 6 of our favorite performances from the director's five films to date...

Hugh Jackman as Tomas/Tommy/Tom Creo in “The Fountain” (2006)



Hugh Jackman has been a movie star for nearly a decade-and-a-half now, but he’s still best known either for his superhero ass-kicking, or charming Broadway-approved song-and-dance, with praise for his straight-up acting only arriving in the last few years, with an Oscar nod for “Les Misérables” and critical plaudits for last year’s “Prisoners.”

All of which is a little unfair, because in 2006, the Australian star gave the two best of performances of his career, cannily using his innate charm against itself with an impressively unsympathetic turn in Christopher Nolan’s “The Prestige,” and taking a very different turn—or three—in the most divisive and derided film of Aronofsky’s career, “The Fountain.” Originally intended for Brad Pitt in the film’s bigger-budgeted earlier incarnation, the triptych of parts sees Jackman playing a 16th century conquistador on the hunt for the Tree Of Life, a present-day scientist hoping to cure his wife’s brain tumor, and a bald-headed astronaut in the far future escorting the Tree through the universe.

This isn’t “Holy Motors” or “Dr. Strangelove”—the three roles aren’t wildly different, and Jackman isn’t doing anything to make them wildly different from each other. But that’s because the nature of the film is that they are all the same person, or elements of each other, and the actor does a good job at showing that throughline of shared DNA between the three Toms.

But more than anything, it’s the rawness of the turn that makes this memorable. The film is the most transparent, unsubtle, personal and sincere film of the career of a director who’s never been far from those qualities, and Jackman was the perfect person to pin the film on, especially in his present-day incarnation. He’s a man who knows that the fight against death is already lost, but he’ll fight against it as long as he can stand, even at the expense of spending final moments with his wife (Rachel Weisz, also strong). It’s pig-headed, but eminently relatable, and Jackman’s raw and immensely moving in the way that he captures that kind of I-can’t-stop-or-I’ll-collapse approach to grief.

[jo]

It seems that the release of NOAH is bringing to the forefront Darren Aronofsky's most underrated movie, THE FOUNTAIN. Here, someone summarizes the important points brought out in Darren's self-initiated commentary to the movie ( He was not given the opportunity to put together a director's commentary to accompany the DVD release).

29 Things We Learned From Darren Aronofsky’s ‘The Fountain’ Commentary
By Jack Giroux on March 27, 2014



Darren Aronofsky THE FOUNTAIN
Warner Bros.

The Fountain and Noah are, in some ways, companion pieces. Director Darren Aronofsky‘s 2006 sci-fi mini epic is a movie about facing death. Its character must accept the singular rule of the universe: everyone dies. Noah focuses on the one man who has to allow almost everyone to perish, but like The Fountain, it still deals with a man accepting his destiny, no mattew how dire it may seem. Some claim Aronofsky’s latest will divide audiences and critics, but it likely won’t match the polarized response The Fountain received, a movie that was downright hated by some.

To this day that remains a shame because it’s Aronofsky’s most emotional, complex, and rewarding film. The main problem with Aronofsky’s films in general is that, no matter how good they may be, they’re pretty surface-level dramas. Black Swan, as fun as it is, spells out its themes again and again, never leaving room for much interpretation. The Fountain does that too, but what it says sticks with you in a way his other films don’t. With Aronofsky’s other efforts you get the same film you saw on first viewing, but that’s not the case with The Fountain.

Aronfosky’s commentary for the film validates this belief. He doesn’t breakdown what it all means, but instead chooses to focus on the making-of and the kind of details that make his film grow richer on repeat viewings.



The Fountain (2007)

Commentator: Darren Aronofsky (writer-direct0r)

1. Warner Bros. didn’t want an audio commentary for the DVD, for reasons that go unexplained. Due to the lack of enthusiasm, Aronofsky recorded one by himself and put it out online for fans.

2. The film took “six or seven years” to make, but that long period of time trying to get a movie made isn’t new to Aronofsky. As he said, making a movie about God and math in black-and-white doesn’t exactly excite financiers.

3. Aronofsky felt science-fiction had been hijacked by technology and flying cars. He was more interested in psychedelic sci-fi when it came to The Fountain.

4. The shot of future Tom flipping back in his spaceship took four to five years for Aronofsky to perfect. Needless to say, he’s quite proud of it.

5. Aronofsky offered Hugh Jackman the three parts after seeing him in “The Boy from Oz” on Broadway. It was Jackman who recommended Rachel Weisz.

6. They photographed chemical reactions through a microscope for the elements that surround Tom’s ship. Aronofsky wanted to avoid relying on CGI, so he mostly stuck to practical effects.

7. The original script only featured the past and the future.

8. Lillian Gizzeti’s name was inspired by Aronofsky’s grandmother and teacher.

9. Aronofsky saw Tom as a vampire, a character in the shadows.

10. They did take after take of the scene with Izzie in the bathtub. That scene, and the rest of the movie, could’ve been cut so many different ways because of the variety of emotions Jackman and Weisz gave Aronofsky.

11. The spinning shot of the car racing by the camera is connected to the earlier shot of Tom floating by in his space bubble and the later shot of Thomas on his horse. It’s one of the many examples, whether through camerawork or lighting, that Aronofsky connected the past, present, and future.

12. All the science in Tom’s work is based in truth.

13. Aronofsky wrote the character Searle specifically for actor Cliff Curtis.

14. The crew was encouraged to shave their heads to play the monks, because they couldn’t afford enough extras.

15. The idea of the tree of life protected by the Mayans was one of the earliest ideas for the project.

Hugh Jackman crying in THE FOUNTAIN
Warner Bros.

16. The film was shot as a three dimensional “crucifix.” They wanted to create structure in a three dimensional space.

17. An actual neurosurgeon was originally cast in the role of Dr. Alan Lipper, but when he showed up on set he froze and couldn’t act. He was quickly replaced.

18. Aronfosky’s father had a cameo. He also appeared in Pi and Requiem for a Dream.

19. There was an improvised scene between Ellen Burstyn and Weisz that didn’t make the final film. You see a glimpse of it when Tommy comes to the hospital and sees Dr. Lillian Guzetti and Izzie speaking with each other. Ultimately Aronofsky cut it because he wanted to keep the film from Tommy’s perspective.

20. Weisz did the scene where Izzie tells Tommy about how Moses’ father grew into a tree all in one take. “That’s acting, ladies and gentleman,” praised Aronfosky.

21. The shot of the hairs on the tree that raises from Tom’s touch was accomplished by static electricity. Once again, no CGI necessary.

22. The old man in the hospital bed who looks to Tommy is a very personal scene for Aronofsky.

23. The hardest scene to edit was when Tommy walks off during the funeral. Aronofsky was going to cut the “death is a disease” moment, but then he saw how important it was for the film.

24. They realized early on Hugh Jackman is a better stuntmen than most stuntmen.

25. The shot of Tom in zero gravity was accomplished with Jackman shot underwater.

27. The way cinematographer Matty Libatique lit the tree of life wasn’t what Aronofsky expected. Libatique shot it very realistically, which was quite different from how the actual set looked.

28. They made a giant puppet of Jackman’s body for the scene where flowers grow from Thomas’s body.

29. The final film ended up pretty much as written. Since The Fountain could be cut together many different ways, Aronfosky hopes to one day make another version.

Best in Commentary

“Those are all real wounds on Stephen McHattie. He’s that type of actor.”

“All three characters in all three time periods have an inspiration moment.”

“It’s rare you see a man cry on film, especially a man cry over love. It’s a shame that type of sentimentality isn’t represented in film. I think it turns some people off. A lot of women told me they had never seen a man cry like that before and didn’t know how to handle it.”

“I’m getting lost in the action and adventure here. Hold on a second…”

Final Thoughts

The Fountain is a major work of passion. It’s not like we need Aronofsky to tell us why that is, but he does an adequate job explaining how much The Fountain means to him. Admittedly, there are times where it’s easy to clock out of Aronfosky’s commentary. There’s repetition, silences, and at one point even Aronofsky said, “I’m still here.” When the commentary drags it’s easy to get lost in the movie instead, like Aronofsky often did. This very anecdotal commentary is still worth a listen, though. While it may have benefited from having another participant, diehard fans of The Fountain should hear it if they haven’t already.


Read more at Film School Rejects: filmschoolrejects.com/features/commentary-the-fountain.php#ixzz2xBdBmzoZ
Follow us: @rejectnation on Twitter

Read more at filmschoolrejects.com/features/commentary-the-fountain.php#dsXw7LkHi0dFqAEA.99

[jo]

Another reference to The Fountain, while reviewing NOAH, by TIME --

time.com/38365/noah-movie-darren-aronofsky-russell-crowe/

...the director has hatched his most daring film since the 2006 The Fountain, a sadly underappreciated work that imagined the world’s violent past and utopian future through the eyes of a man (Hugh Jackman) trying to find a cure for his wife’s spreading cancer...

Hopefully, when there is a festival of great movies, THE FOUNTAIN will be given another chance to be appreciated. It is already a cult hit!

Jo

[jo]

Because NOAH has opened at the top of the box office, there are many features analyzing Darren Aronoksky's style of film-making, with someone calling it as an "obsession with obsession" !

The Fountain always comes into the picture in the series of films where Darren have made an imprint. Of course, we all know what kind of obsession had stricken Tomas, Tommy, and Tom in the movie! In one feature, the trailer of The Fountain is uploaded again --

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA2IpUTZkls

Everytime I see those scenes, I feel like getting my BluRay/DVD out again for a viewing one more time!


Jo

[jo]

I caught THE FOUNTAIN once again, playing on a local cable channel...and drew me to looking up at the reviews of the film on Rotten Tomatoes.


A young film buff and student writes the most heartfelt retrospective on THE FOUNTAIN, seven years after it was released --

moviemezzanine.com/the-darren-aronofsky-retrospective-fountain/

The Darren Aronofsky Retrospective: ‘The Fountain’

Christopher Runyon

January 27, 2013



The Movie Mezzanine Filmmaker Retrospective series takes on an entire body of work–be it director’s, screenwriter’s, or otherwise–and analyzes each portion of the filmography. By the final post of a retrospective, there will be a better understanding of the filmmaker in question, the central themes that connect his/her works, and what they each represent within the larger context of his/her career. This time, we are taking a look at the short, recent, yet incredibly distinctive list of films from Darren Aronofsky.

Where to even begin with this one…

The Fountain–what was meant to be Aronofsky’s splash into mainstream, Hollywood filmmaking–was originally supposed to be a hundred-or-so million dollar epic starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett that spanned thousands of years, set everywhere from Mayan ruins to outer space, and with three intertwining stories depicting the eternal struggle between life and death.

A project this ambitious for a mega-budget studio film was simply not meant to be. Brad Pitt left the project to star in the safer, more generic Troy, and the film was subsequently shut down. But like all of the protagonists he’s written, Aronofsky doesn’t give up so easily, even if it means his downfall. He rewrote the script to accommodate a lower budget, got Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz to replace the original leads, and ended up getting the damn thing made.

And the result was one of the most divisive films of all time. When it premiered at Cannes for press and critics, it was met with a choir of boos. Meanwhile, when it was premiered in that very same festival for regular audiences, it received a standing ovation from the crowd. When it finally released for the public in theaters, it bombed at the box office and received none other than a 50% consensus rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And now, as more than 6 years have passed, it’s garnered something of a cult-following.

To many, it’s considered Aronofsky’s one true failure. To others, it’s a fascinatingly ambitious failure that’s more admired than enjoyed. And for weirdos like me, it’s a modern masterpiece. For today’s spoiler-filled installment of The Darren Aronofsky Retrospective, we take a gander at the director’s much-maligned, increasingly-loved, almost totally misunderstood gem, The Fountain.

fountain 5

“Our bodies are prisons for our souls. Our skin and blood, the iron bars of confinement. But fear not. All flesh decays. Death turns all to ash. And thus, death frees every soul.”

In case you didn’t figure it out the last two times, the main theme connecting every one of Darren Aronofsky’s films is of obsession, with each one representing different types. Pi dealt with the direct obsession of mathematics and patterns, and how they related to the construction of the universe. Requiem for a Dream was about the visceral obsessions caused by drug addiction, and how those very desires and euphorias ended up deteriorating the mind.

Meanwhile, the obsession at the center of The Fountain might be the most outlandish one Aronofsky has ever put to screen: The three protagonists of The Fountain are each on an existential quest to defeat Death. No, not the Grim Reaper, but the very concept of Death itself. No more dying, no more grief, just the comfort of existence outside of the great beyond. And you thought Ellen Burstyn was off her rocker for trying to fit into a skinny red dress.

The film is broken up into three separate stories, each one intercut and connected with the others in a style that was definitely a clear inspiration for the 2012 film Cloud Atlas, and with each segment starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz in the lead roles. The one set in the 1500s follows a Spanish Conquistador named Tomas (Jackman) who is searching for the fabled Tree of Life so he could save his beloved Queen (Weisz) from the Inquisition. 500 years later, in the present day, a doctor named Tommy Creo (Also Jackman) is attempting to search for a cure for his wife Izzy’s cancer before she (Also Weisz) eventually succumbs to the disease. Another 500 years later, an unnamed astronaut (Credited as Tom, played again by Jackman) is floating in the far reaches of space in a biosphere holding the Tree of Life. As he journeys to the mythical nebula of Xibalba, he’s haunted by memories of a ghostly Izzy, who continually goads him to look back at the past and “Finish it.” Whatever that means.

When the film originally released in 2006, the main criticisms leveled against it regarded its ambition. That it attempted to tell this grand, epic story spanning a thousand years that dealt with the metaphysical and the existential, using a mixture of Judeo-Christian and Mayan religious texts to give the story a grand, majestic, mythological stature… and that the movie ultimately crumbled under the weight of its myriad ideas. And here’s the thing: The critics are, in a way, kind of right. At 90 minutes, there was no way it could really expand on its concepts in a way that would satisfy those hungering for something with a surplus of philosophical depth, nor would it be able to capture the full breadth and scope of a story set within a 1000 year time-frame.

And yet, the film is a masterpiece, at least in the eyes of this overly romantic critic with a penchant to deeply respect anything of enormous ambition. Why? Because even with all the religious and philosophical mumbo-jumbo weighing on the film, they are ultimately not the main focus. What appears on the surface to be an odyssey through time, the cosmos, and the cycle of life itself, is in actuality one of the most deeply personal films of all time, next to classics like The 400 Blows and 8 1/2, as well as modern works of brilliance like The Tree of Life, Synecdoche New York, and Holy Motors. What may seem at first glance like a 2001: A Space Odyssey quickly reveals itself to be something more emotionally rich: A profoundly personal depiction of grief and its effects on the human psyche.

fountain 3

To understand what makes The Fountain such a personal endeavor for Aronofsky requires a small tidbit of backstory: One of the inspirations of the film was actually Aronofsky’s own experiences with dealing with mortality. In interviews, he’s stated how, in 1999, both of his parents were diagnosed with cancer when he was just thirty years old. Upon this discovery, he was forced to come to terms with his own mortality at a relatively early age, and then got the idea of a man attempting to save a loved one from an illness. He shared his idea to Ari Handel, a college friend who would later earn a PhD in neuroscience and become Aronofsky’s co-writer for the film, and the idea eventually blossomed into the story of a man attempting to cure the ultimate disease: Death.

As stated before, the initial criticisms were that of a film that didn’t know how to properly convey its numerous ambitious ideas. In reality, what these critics didn’t know was that this wasn’t a film about unlocking the secrets of life, death, and the meaning of the universe. Rather, The Fountain is a film about how we process death, and the existential crises that happen not within the vast reaches of the cosmos but within our very own subconscious.

The film has three protagonists, each one attempting to stop the process of dying from stealing away a loved one. Tomas must find the Tree to rescue his Queen, Tommy must discover a cure to save his Wife, and Tom must reach Xibalba to restore the Tree. But the authenticity of the stories is constantly toyed with as the film progresses. At first, we seem to accept that there’s some kind of Cloud Atlas thing going on where the soul of the Conquistador passed down to Tommy the neuroscientist, who may in fact be the younger version of the Tom we see in the future storyline (given the flashbacks to his wife). But then, we see that the Conquistador story is actually part of Izzy’s book. So that leaves the present-day and future storylines as the “real” canon, right? Soon, it doesn’t seem that way when Tom the astronaut starts having visions of the Queen of Spain urging him to “Finish it” as well.

When trying to figure out what this all means as someone expecting a film similar to 2001 where there’s philosophical, cosmological subtext to be found, there will inevitably be disappointment. Upon seeing it for what it actually is, however, it’s an emotionally rewarding experience. Izzy’s book (Which is titled, what else, The Fountain) depicting Tomas the Conquistador’s search for the Tree is much richer when seen from Izzy’s point of view of writing it. The casting of Jackman and Weisz as characters in the story is key to this as well. Izzy is clearly writing the book as a means of coping with her own mortality, and leaves the last chapter blank so Tommy can finish it and learn the lessons she did himself.

This leaves the future storyline, which is much more enigmatic in its nature. There are many good theories on what the space-set story represents, but the one that makes the most thematic sense is this: The story of Tom the astronaut is the final chapter of Izzy’s book, the one that Tommy is “finishing”, in which Tom ends his journey by learning to literally give up his quest and find peace in death. The result is a multi-layered depiction of grief that creates a strong emotional arc for the central character of Tommy.

fountain 4

Tommy must deal with the grief of his wife’s death by literally looking back into the past–both figuratively with Izzy’s book, and literally with the lesson Izzy was trying to teach him–in order to finish the pain of his grief. Meanwhile, in order to actually do so, he has to end it himself by finishing Izzy’s book and killing off Tomas, a character Izzy clearly meant to represent Tommy. But that wasn’t enough.

The creation of Tom the astronaut means many things to me. It’s ultimately the most direct visualization of the grieving process in the film: A single man, alone in the vast nothingness of space, with nothing else to keep him company but the Tree, a reminder of how he failed to save her, and a symbol of his unwillingness to let go of his lover’s memory. He traverses to Xibalba, a golden nebula where stars are born, its glow wrapping around Tom and his biosphere, teeming with a liveliness that he ultimately rejects in order to go further on his journey. As he ascends, he’s haunted by memories of Izzy & forced to confront the vastness of the cosmos and, as a result, the enigma of what lies beyond the grave. Finally, he reaches the star at the center: A dying star that, as Izzy pointed out in her research of Mayan culture, represents the Underworld in their mythology. To Tom, on the other hand, it’s the physical representation of the truth behind death that he must exploit to revive the Tree, and thus, defeat Death itself.

Instead of doing that, however, he sees the Queen of Spain, who was supposed to just be in Izzy’s book meant to teach Tommy his lesson, and in that moment he finally understands: He says, “I’m going to die,” with a sense of relief and deep satisfaction in his trembling, quivering voice. And through the lessons of the past, Tom can finally accept his destiny in the future.

However, the most fascinating thing about Tom’s journey is not how he comes to embody Tommy’s emotional arc. There’s actually more to it than just that. For example, if you were reading Izzy’s book, wouldn’t you find it odd that as you’re reading this fictionalized account of a Conquistador during the years of the Spanish Inquisition, you’re introduced to a character in the far future that’s never been referenced to before, haunted by memories of a character never seen before? But then, a realization: The memory that haunts Tom is Izzy, who is definitely not a fictional character in this movie’s universe. So imagine yourself reading this book, and in the final chapter, this character who you’ve never met before is mourning the death of the author of the very book you’re currently reading.

At that point, it becomes absolutely clear: Tom is not an embodiment of Tommy’s grief. Rather, Tommy literally wrote himself into the story. Think about it, in order to complete both the book and his emotional arc/grieving process, he had to insert himself into the narrative in order to externalize his grief and overcome it. If that’s not an apt metaphor for an artist like Darren Aronofsky making a deeply personal experience about coping with mortality, then nothing is.

The Fountain isn’t a film about unlocking the secrets of the universe. It’s a film, like his feature debut Pi, about learning to live without them. Search for order, and only chaos will infect your life. Embrace the chaos, however, and the world feels like it has more order than ever before.

fountain 2

So that’s ultimately what makes The Fountain something akin to Aronofsky’s 8 1/2, but how does the film employ his signature techniques?

If you’d seen just Pi and Requiem for a Dream, you’d almost be totally unaware that this was an Aronofsky film. Whereas those films were gritty and kinetic, The Fountain is vibrant, fantastical, and more gradual in its pacing. The film marks a huge evolution for Aronofsky’s style, displaying the first real proof of his incredible range as a director. He has a Danny Boyle-esque way of being able to assimilate into almost any kind of genre or style of filmmaking while retaining his own signature, distinct stamp on the project.

As different as the film feels at first, there are numerous techniques that remain the same. Matthew Libatique returns as Aronofsky’s director of photography for the third time in a row, saturating the film with a majestic, golden color palette. Meanwhile, the lighting and production design litter the film with little touches to each story that subtly connect the stories in interesting, visual ways. Some are much more noticeable, like a shot of a Mayan ruin turning out to be just a painting in the present-day storyline; while others are much more subtle, like a grouping of Christmas lights in the background that makes a present-day scene resemble the starry scenes with the biosphere in the future storyline.

This kind of attention to detail was what brought us into the mindset of Pi‘s protagonist and connected the stories of the four protagonists in Requiem for a Dream. The Fountain‘s aesthetic, on the other hand, accomplishes both. Much like the golden nebula that Tom must traverse through to confront his mortality, the colors give even the most mundane settings a kind of ethereal beauty and, in its own strange way, menace. It’s almost as if the world is being engulfed by the nebula itself, representing the protagonists’ ever-remaining fear that death is constantly encroaching towards all that he holds dear.

Aronofsky once again totally submerges us into the mindsets of his characters, while also simultaneously being aware of their flaws. As gorgeous as the visuals are, they actually represent a kind of paranoia for the protagonists. It’s almost as if Aronofsky is saying that death is not a dark presence, but a beautiful force that we as humans shun by default.

Of course, just a visual approach to the characters isn’t enough, and Aronofsky’s other staple of directing actors to their highest potential is evident here as well. This is easily the best performance(s) of Hugh Jackman’s career: Always sincere, always passionate, and effectively conveying that he’s playing the kind of men who are so single-minded in their pursuits that when one of them, in this case Tommy, finds a serum that can possibly prevent aging, he outright dismisses it because it can’t cure his wife’s brain tumor. And we totally buy into it because Jackman does not shy away from the fact that, as sincere and passionate as his three characters are, they’re almost reprehensible in their own way.

fountain 6

Instead of finding peace with the situation and comforting his wife during her final moments, Tommy constantly goes back to work so he could find a way to cure the incurable. On top of that, he seems outright dismissive of his own wife’s research. The scene that really brought the message home that Tommy is kind of an asshole was the one in a museum about Mayan culture, where Izzy is telling him about Mayan concepts of “Death as an act of Creation”, and he simply reflects them off, making candid, snarky asides rather than thinking on them like his wife clearly wants him to.

Further conveying this is in the scene of Izzy’s death, in which he continues to cling to his clearly-deceased wife. He performs CPR, repeats “Don’t die! Don’t Die!” as desperately as he could, and–in an almost cruel detail by Aronofsky–he performs mouth-to-mouth on her. This particular detail is not portrayed in a flattering light, as he’s almost slobbering all over her in his attempts to sustain her life. If scenes like that aren’t enough to convey that Tommy is completely imperfect, I don’t know what is.

And yet, Jackman’s Tommy isn’t totally deplorable either because of his aforementioned sincerity and passion. If he is acting purely on his own interests without regard for his wife’s own peace of mind, it’s solely because he loves and cares about her that much–almost too much–and it’s conveyed wonderfully in Jackman’s performance.

One of the best scenes in the film is the one after Izzy’s funeral, where Tommy is now alone in his home and remembers that his wedding ring is missing, a symbol of his own ignorance. Refusing to let go of Izzy, he literally tattoos a ring on his finger so that he can never lose it again. And when Jackman cries, he really goes for it. This isn’t the typical Hollywood sob where a single tear streams down the actor’s cheek. Instead, Jackman sniffles and wheezes through the scene in pure despair, his eyes turning completely bloodshot and his face whimpering like a baby that hasn’t been breast-fed in weeks. It’s a performance that comes purely from the heart, and the perfect kind for a project that’s as personal as this.

And before you ask me about the visual effects of the film, they pretty much speak for themselves. I mean, just look at these screenshots!

The Last Man

However, one of the few things that differentiates The Fountain from the rest of Aronofsky’s filmography is that Tommy might be the only Aronofsky character who doesn’t end with cruel punishment, instead reaching salvation and ultimately finding peace with himself. Much like Pi, The Fountainis ultimately about what we sacrifice in our search for coherence in a chaotic universe. Except whereas Pi‘s protagonist had to sacrifice every semblance of his humanity in order to gain peace of mind, Tommy undergoes a transformation and an arc that brings him to a literal embracing of death so he could regain peace of mind.

Looking back, this sort of development makes sense considering this is a story about personal introspection, and ultimately, an existential crisis doesn’t mean squat if the character doesn’t evolve from it. The same can be applied to Aronofsky himself, who clearly has a deep connection to what’s on screen. And the manner in which Tommy undergoes this realization is yet another virtuosic “montage” not unlike the one employed at the end of Requiem for a Dream.

Another staple of Aronofsky’s films is what I like to call “The Crescendo”, the final moments of an Aronofsky film in which everything continually builds and builds in intensity with the help of a Clint Mansell score and symphonic editing; bringing together numerous working elements into one cohesive whole. The final 10-15 minutes of The Fountain–set to what is perhaps the best track Mansell has ever composed, “Death is the Road to Awe”–is one of Aronofsky’s best “crescendos” alongside Requiem for a Dream‘s finale.

Much like how Requiem constantly cut between numerous different stories at completely different settings in order to unify all four protagonists’ misery, The Fountain accomplishes that feat on a much grander scale. As Aronofsky cuts between the three separate time periods in segmented fashion, Mansell’s music steadily amps up in rhythm and volume as the time periods blur together. A Mayan temple guardian sees a vision of Tom the astronaut, Tomas the conquistador sees the star of Xibalba as soon as he drinks of the sap of the Tree of Life, Izzy takes a seed from the newly bloomed Tree and gives it to Tommy, etc. But what’s just as effective is that the score contains a period of absolute silence right before maybe loudest, most sudden orchestral cue in the history of cinema, right when Xibalba’s star blows into supernova. Aronofsky’s films usually end in a manner much like an explosion; The Fountain is the only one of his films that ends with a literal one.

As disorienting as it this finale is, the formalistic grandeur is enough to wash over you and allow a sense of awe at what’s transpiring on scene. It’s so deftly directed that it ultimately doesn’t matter whether you really “understand” it or not. Just letting Mansell’s lucid tones and the evocative visuals do the work is practically all that’s needed to “get” it.

fountain tree

Perhaps it ultimately doesn’t matter what The Fountain means, because what matters most is 1.) What it means to Aronofsky himself, and 2.) If it still works as a stand-alone experience. For my money, The Fountain is Aronofsky’s most beautiful, poignant work, and my personal favorite of his films. Normally when discussing a divisive film, I’d tend to point out that many will most likely disagree, but the fact that more and more people are discovering The Fountain‘s true meaning speaks to how exquisitely layered and resonant the film is. The Fountain is utterly brilliant, and perhaps in twenty more years or so, it will be recognized for the utterly gorgeous masterpiece that it is.

Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that it was deemed a failure back in 2006. And as such, as misunderstood as the film was at the time, Aronofsky still needed something of a “comeback” film to pick himself back up from the commercial and critical failure that The Fountain brought. His solution for a comeback film: A film about the obsession of comebacks. Typical, typical, Mr. Aronofsky.

Stay tuned next time, for a look at Darren Aronofsky’s Mickey Rourke vehicle: The Wrestler.

The Fountain is usually paired coincidentally with The Prestige when talking about best Jackman performances in the past. I find Hugh's portrayal in this film more layered and more inspired. As the film reviewer notes - his performance comes from the heart!

It would be interesting if Hugh himself shares his own retrospective of the themes of this film as well as the personal references he derived while making it!

Jo

[jo]

Every now and then, THE FOUNTAIN sneaks in as one of select personal favorites for some people! Here are a blogger's thoughts of movies that blow the mind and the heart --

www.learning-mind.com/7-movies-that-will-profoundly-change-you/

Darren Aronofsky has given us some wonderful features, that linger and haunt us long after e’ve watched them. “The Fountain” is a little gem that, because of its grandness, can easily be misunderstood. In its core, it is a love story. One man trying across time and space to get back his love from the clutches of the inevitable; death. At the same time, it is an exploration of how we come to terms with death; decay; and our own perishing. This balance between love and death, along with the stunning visuals, will give you an unforgettable experience.

[jo]

www.avclub.com/article/darren-aronofsky-14035

One of the most insightful interviews with Darren Aronofsky about THE FOUNTAIN.

He even clarifies what actually happened at the Venice and Toronto Film Festivals, where a bad press reported negatively on the film reception.

Excerpts --

The A.V. Club: The Fountain got some bad press coming out of the Venice and Toronto festivals. What kind of experiences have you had showing the film since then?

Darren Aronofsky: I'm not sure what you're talking about. My experience in Venice was, we had a première and we had a 10-minute standing ovation afterward. In Toronto, we were one of the first films to sell out. We had this huge applause at the end as well. There were some divisive reactions in the press screenings, but it wasn't really properly a report of what had happened.

AVC: Do you think the press isn't indicative of how the film is actually being received?

DA: No. If you read the reviews on the Internet—Premiere magazine gave us a four-out-of-four-star review this month. Playboy gave us six bunnies out of six. So I don't know. The trades were very, very hard on the film. Which is exactly what happened with Requiem For A Dream. Todd McCarthy of Variety said I shouldn't be making films, I should be in therapy. It's the same thing with The Fountain, but the stakes are bigger now, because a lot of people have heard of Requiem For A Dream, and they've been waiting to see this film.

AVC: Do you think this will be a film where word of mouth has to fight against the critics' reviews?

DA: No, because I think the critics haven't weighed in. The only critics that have weighed in are the trades and the Internet. And the Internet reviews… If you look at Ain't It Cool News, a lot of them are love letters. This one woman in Variety wrote about how I was booed in Venice, which is not what happened. Half the audience whistled at it—which is what they do—they don't boo, they whistle—and half the audience applauded. The two sides started debating—they had to clear the theater, and people were screaming at each other afterward. That's what happened. I was in Spain two days ago and this came up, and I said, "Was anyone here at that press screening?" And a guy raised his hand, and I said, "Give him the mic." And I asked, "Who was louder, the people clapping or the people whistling?" He said it was the same. That's the story. And I've got no problem with that. That, to me, is a good thing...

Unfortunately, when the critics weighed in at the domestic American market - they missed the cues!

www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_fountain/

Critics rated it at 51% but users (about 260 thousand users) rated it 74 %. If this were a tentpole type, I can believe that the reverse rating would be expected. For something like THE FOUNTAIN, it is amazing that the film audiences ( who rated it) seemed to have seen beyond the myopic viewpoints of the critics ( it is even worse for the Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes -- they rated the film at 27%). I wonder if these same critics will view the film in the same way if they revisit it on its 10th anniversary

Btw, there were 1164 reviews written by users! A running vein is how commendable Hugh's performance was in this movie!


Jo

[jo]

PLAYLIST ( IndieWire) has been revisiting the movies of the past decade or so --

Here, the 2006 list revisits the 10 best movies of that year as well as some honorable mentions.

blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/the-10-best-films-of-2006-20150127?page=1

Excerpts --

The mid-aughts were incredibly strong for movies — we dealt with 2005 yesterday, and had to expand the list it was such a good year, while 2007 (coming tomorrow) had several of the very best movies of the whole decade. In between the two, 2006 is less immediately stacked with goodness, but over time has been revealed as a truly great year for genre filmmaking. Young auteurs took the western, the detective movie, the sci-fi flick, the gangster film, and even the "inspirational teacher" genre, and turned them into films as smart and subversive as those below. Even the Bond movie was reinvented, and more successfully than anyone could have imagined.

Elsewhere, Martin Scorsese finally won a long overdue Oscar for "The Departed," and Ken Loach picked up the Palme d'Or for "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" (although both are examples of filmmakers being rewarded more for past work than for their best movies; particularly considering the presence of Cannes films, "Volver," "Pan's Labyrinth" and "Red Road")

Blockbuster-wise, the bloated "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" dominated, losing most of the charm of the original, while "X-Men: The Last Stand" and "Mission: Impossible III" also proved to be unsatisfying sequels, and "The Da Vinci Code" made a ton of money, despite easily being one of the worst films of the decade. On the plus side, "Borat" proved the sleeper hit of the year, and "The Devil Wears Prada" surprised by proving to be one of the best chick flicks (man, we hate that term) in some time.


The Fountain

10. "The Fountain"
Tomas plunges deep into the jungle, in a search for the Fountain of Youth, Tommy (Hugh Jackman) is trying to push modern science to the brink to end his wife’s suffering (Rachel Weisz), while Tom sails through space and time in pursuit of Xibalba, the tree that will bring life to his long-dead paramour. The discussion as to whether all three are real, and the same person, is one with multiple sides and one that only underlines the multiple interpretations that can be given to Darren Aronofsky’s intense meditation on love, mortality and acceptance. Originally set up as a big budget post-“Matrix” sci-fi adventure with Brad Pitt, “The Fountain” eventually became a much more satisfying small project. An intimate, centuries-spanning tale of how death truly is the road to awe.

Honorable Mentions:
As usual, some good films have to fall just outside the top 10 list including: Tommy Lee Jones' feature-length directorial debut, "The Three Burials Of Melquiades Estrada"; Christopher Nolan's excellent, in-between-Batman-movies cum rival magician film, "The Prestige," starring Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale;...

I guess the true test is what films have become cult movies. The Fountain is certainly one of those - as it is still discussed on IMDB and have had occasional revisits by some blog sites. A pity that the movie was not given enough time at the box office.


Jo

[jo]

Almost nine years after its controversial screening at the Venice Film Festival, THE FOUNTAIN is still in the news -- as an example of the major ouvres of Darren Aronofsky.

www.dw.de/noah-director-aronofsky-at-the-helm-of-berlinale-jury/a-18230080

'Noah' director Aronofsky at the helm of Berlinale jury

The meaning of life has been a favorite theme for American filmmaker Darren Aronofsky, who brought of "Pi," "The Fountain" and "Noah." Now he's heading the jury at this year's Berlinale film festival.

Darren Aronofsky, Copyright: picture alliance/Geisler-Fotopress

His job as chairman of the jury at this year's Berlin International Film Festival, which runs from February 5-15, should be a piece of cake. Compared to the cinematic feats involved in his last mammoth film project, the Biblical epic "Noah," the question of which film should receive the Golden Bear at the end of the Berlinale should be an easy one to answer.

Darren Aronofsky will just have to reach a consensus with a handful of film celebs in the jury.

But Aronofsky is well acquainted with even bigger challenges. "Noah" gobbled up an impressive budget of $130 million and the film shoots were complicated and tedious, particularly considering that most of it was shot on an island.

Sean Gulette in 'Pi' (1998), directed by Darren Aronofsky, Copyright: Studiocanal

Aronofsky launched his career with a much smaller project: His 1998 debut, "Pi," cost a mere $60,000 - but was also fraught with hardship.

Shot in black-and-white with an unknown cast, "Pi" told the story of a delusional mathematician - not your typical blockbuster topic. A special edition DVD set of Aronofsky's early works - "The Fountain" (2006), "Pi" and "The Wrestler" (2008) - is being released in Germany just in time for the Berlinale. A good reason to look back at the director's oeuvre.

Life's major questions

Aronofsky was never interested in fulfilling the expectations of the industry. In addition to film and animation, he also studied anthropology at the prestigious Harvard University in Boston. His broad collection of interests becomes evident in his later works. He went on to do a masters in film directing at the American Film Institute Conservatory in Los Angeles.

In selecting Aronofsky to head this year's jury, Berlinale boss Dieter Kosslick has brought an intriguing American filmmaker on board that not only knows how to manage a multi-million-dollar Hollywood blockbuster, but also how to create a strong independent picture on a shoestring budget.



Scene from 'The Fountain,' directed by Darren Aronofsky, Copyright: Studiocanal
'The Fountain' features a tree of life


"Darren Aronofsky has shown himself to be one of the outstanding protagonists of contemporary art cinema," said Kosslick. "With his artistic approach, he sounds out the cinematic language and its aesthetic possibilities time and again."

After the experimental, low-budget film "Pi," Aronofsky directed the psychological drama "Requiem for a Dream" in 2000, which exhibited for the first time the full extent of his visual power. His next project was "The Fountain," a three-track epic about nothing less than reincarnation and the origin of life. Starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz, it premiered at the 2006 Venice Film Festival to boos from critics, but a standing ovation at the public screening.

With its philosophical plot and esoteric approach to life's deep questions, it's easy to see why the film was too kitschy for some. When Jackman, his head shaved, sits in the lotus position in a bubble floating through space, sensitive viewers may have to suppress a gag. Nevertheless, those who make it through to the end are rewarded with an overwhelming flow of images.




Aronofsky on the set of 'The Fountain' with lead Hugh Jackman, Copyright: Studiocanal



Aronofsky's comeback two years later was supposed to be all the more triumphant. With Mickey Rourke in the lead role, "The Wrestler" brought the director a Golden Lion at the 2008 Venice Film Festival. His next film, the ballet psycho-thriller "Black Swan," was both an artistic and commercial success and garnered Aronofsky an Oscar nomination for best director.

The Biblical epic, "Noah," which was released in March 2014, is Aronofsky's most expensive and laborious project to date. The response, however, has been divided, with some critics saying that Aronofsky had wasted his visual talent on a faceless Hollywood standard.

From silver screen to TV

Now, Aronofsky is setting out to film the apocalyptic "MaddAddam" trilogy by star author Margaret Atwood as a television series for US broadcaster HBO. The three novels depict a futuristic world that is threatened by illness and natural catastrophes. It's material that clearly lends itself to Aronofsky's large-scale visual talent, while at the same time posing some of the deeper questions that the director has dealt with in past films.

Mickey Rourke in a scene from 'The Wrestler' (2006), directed by Darren Aronofsky, Copyright: Studiocanal
Mickey Rourke was 'the Wrestler' in 2006

"I think the environment is the most important issue on the planet right now," said the director ahead of the Berlinale.

After the strenuous production and promotion tour for "Noah," the Berlin International Film Festival may seem like vacation for Darren Aronofsky. Running a festival jury is also old hat for the experienced director: Four years ago he headed the jury at the Venice Film Festival.

"At the Berlinale, the cinema is always exciting and fascinating," said Aronofsky. "I am looking forward to watching the latest from the greatest in one of the great cities on the planet."

What an irony that Warner Bros cuts its presumed losses on THE FOUNTAIN by limiting promotional activities, by opening the movie on a limited basis, and by even refusing to fund a Director's commentary!

The Fountain has become a cult hit, one that is often cited as one of Hugh Jackman's best cinematic works!


Jo

[mamaleh]

What does he mean, "suppress a gag"? Why would one gag at the sight of Hugh floating through space? Unless he means a "giggle," which I did not hear in the movie theater.

But it is nice to see THE FOUNTAIN getting the recognition, albeit belatedly, that it deserves.

Ellen

[jo]

Someone's uploaded a Remastered Director's commentary on YouTube -- in case you didn't have a chance to download it mch earlier

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aeCUFvZFYk

*Now I can appreciate the nature of the commentary, as I was no longer expecting Darren to explain explicitly  the rationale and the meaning of the film and how the three parts of the trifecta plot and their characters relate to each other. Darren precisely wanted the audience to experience the enjoyment of discussing what it is all about -- What exists and what does not, who exists and who does not, what is real and what is a metaphor! One hint : Not too many of the characters are metaphors!

He patiently explains major scenes as to their technical and their motivational aspects of shooting those scenes. This insight helps me understand and appreciate the distinct parts of the film, which taken together supports the rationale of the film. I also enjoyed hearing how Hugh acquits himself on major scenes in the movie. More later.

*Too bad the commentary cannot be listened to while watching the film ( unless I would know how to splice and synchronize the comments with the particular scenes )-- all Warner Bros's fault for not funding the release of the DVD with Darren's commentary! But having seen the movie so many times (maybe almost 20 times?), I can guess well which scenes he was referring to -- plus the background sounds occasionally help.

I will leave the details for another post ( it is past midnight here)

But I will leave these words from Darren as to his broad hint on what the film is all about, towards the end as the Xibalba explosion is seen and heard --

"When we're done, we go back to where we've come from -- this is an old idea -- borne out of the big bang. The same material unleashed by the big bang is the same material which forms us and will form humanity and all the world that's yet to come"


And btw - this is the first time I understood this : " When Tom's body ascends to Xibalba and is ripped apart by the explosion, the particles from his body rain on the dead tree and the tree comes to life! ". I have always thought that it was the particles from the exploding dying planet which rained on the tree - which, now that I think of it, does not have any meaning, does not make any sense! It is in the context of the body particles from Tommy which resuscitates the tree ( which he lived together with in the spaceship bubble) that I can draw significance from. It is the cycle of life and the relationship of Man and his environment and how they draw from each other! The same allegory happens when the fatally wounded conquistador drank from the tree sap, was healed, eventually and presumably died, and then new plants and flowers sprout from him. The transformation and cycle of life!


Jo

[jo]

Here are some of the detailed notes which I did not have the time to narrate in the earlier post --

*How Darren met Hugh and cast him in THE FOUNTAIN. I have always thought that they first met backstage at the Imperial. That was actually the third meeting. The first one, according to Darren, was when he was introduced to Hugh at a bar in lower Manhattan. The second time around, Darren saw this guy who was creating such a sensation in a gym because of the physical feats he was showing - that was Hugh! They talked. Then he said he was also in NYC and had a chance to see three shows. He said the first two shows were "Meh!". The third one was The Boy of Oz and he liked the show so much he was clapping madly at the end. He went to see Hugh backstage and the script of The Fountain was mentioned. Hugh asked for a copy and read it overnight -- the following morning he told Darren that he was interested!

*The long gestating project had ended up with a contrained budget. Darren had cast many actors whom he knew from before ( there were two, one was Ellen Burstyn, for whom he wrote a part to be in the movie). One interesting episode that did not work was when he tried to cast a real neurosurgeon who froze when he was confronted by a real-life film camera!... He also used organic means ( petrie dish and building a real tree structure) rather than much CGIs. He said the heavens was actually a simple photograph that has been taken. Another budgetary limitation was the hiring of a real soundstage - instead they found a huge warehouse, on which they built their set, including the Mayan structures ( the familiarity with Mayan and similar cultures was a result of many trips taken in the south Americas. One secret he divulged - because Hugh was busy somewhere else during filming, the finger that was tattooed with the wedding ring and another hand shot did not actually belong to Hugh. He also said that the second hand they used was not fair to Hugh - they were bony and arthritic - LOL! I guess they were trying to meet filming deadlines and Hugh had to attend to something else.

*He talked of many visual concepts in framing the scenes --

**The past - symbolized in many scenes by a TRIANGLE ( like the Mayan pyramid)
**The present - symbolized in many scenes by a SQUARE ( like the shape of the hospital rooms)
**The future - symbolized by a CIRCLE ( like the spaceship bubble)

And he talks about the symmetries, I guess, which connects the triptych eras.


*The RING also symbolized many events --

**It was the ring that Tomas earned by his efforts for the Queen
**The same ring that the present Tommy lost
**Which the future Tom re-finds!

In this connection, he mentions that the Queen was the same as the tree of life in the bubble.



*Darren developed a tremendous respect for Hugh as an actor --

**He calls him not just an exceptional actor but he also praises Hugh's technical knowledge in film-making. He believed this technical knowhow was developed by Hugh while working in big budget action movies!

**He was amazed by Hugh's originality and creativity in the way he physically moves... and after Hugh did better work compared to the stunt double, they did away with the stuntsmen for Hugh. Darren confirms that Hugh did the actual fast tree-climbing in one long shot! He also said that Hugh was such a fast runner that the steady cam ( and its operator) could not keep up! He also impressed Darren with the 2-day underwater work he did to illustrate the lotus position in space ( the first father).

**He was also very impressed with Hugh's intensity - an intensity that was so tremendous that they did some scenes in one long shot, without any cut, so as not to lose the actor's moment!

**He cites a few scenes which he said were pretty impressive --

***In the scene after the funeral for Izzy where Tommy walks away and bitterly declares that " death is a disease...", Darren says this is a very difficult scene to film because the dialog about death being a disease needed to be credible. He said that initially Hugh was not able to deliver the way Darren was envisioning the impact - so much so that Darren was not keen to keep it on. But Darren said he " finally surrendered his faith to Hugh" and Hugh delivered to Darren's delight, adding how impressed Ellen was by the way Hugh acted that out. He said that "Hugh's anger was so inspired".

***He calls the moments showing Tommy expressing his grief as one of the great moments. He said that he realized how great an actor Hugh was - as he watched him break down, take after take after take - until he became dry, and tears could no longer flow because he was "dehydrated and cramping at the calves" - Hugh was done! (Jo's note -- I wonder if this was the scene which left Hugh so emotionally drained... that he said that when he reached his trailer, he could not do anything but lie on the floor!).

Darren said that the sight of men crying like that made many felt uncomfortable, both men and women, because they did not know what to do with such intense grief!



*Darren also shared that when he suggested that Hugh go bald for the future, Hugh was somewhat scared because he was conscious about the size of his head, how he used to be called "peahead". Darren reassured him that his head was perfectly proportioned.


*One other note about the future -- Tom lived in balance with the tree -- each one drawing from each other, but with Tom slightly pulling away, with the tree eventually on the verge of dying...by which time, Tom was about ready to reach Xibalba! Darren was so elated about those closing scenes as Xibalba explodes and Tom is ripped apart, with his body particles raining down on the dead tree and giving new life to the tree!


There were many more which Darren shared ( about Rachel, who was suggested by Hugh for the role, and other actors in the project, as well as details on the research done, the cinematograpy, the production design, the tight filming schedule, and how long the project had taken of his life (it turned out to be a 5-year project!). Sorry, it was going too fast for me to take full notes


Jo

[mamaleh]

Fascinating tidbits, Jo. I never realized that was not Hugh's finger. I guess I was fixated on the tattooing and not how bony it was. I also didn't realize that it was Tom's body particles that gave new life to the tree.

Maybe someday a collector's edition Blu-ray (or whatever format is then current) will be issued. The film certainly does seem to be growing in respect.

Ellen

[jo]

Ellen,

Just in case you recheck the scenes of the faux-Hugh hand

One secret he divulged - because Hugh was busy somewhere else during filming, the finger that was tattooed with the wedding ring and another hand shot did not actually belong to Hugh. He also said that the second hand they used was not fair to Hugh - they were bony and arthritic - LOL! I guess they were trying to meet filming deadlines and Hugh had to attend to something else.

There were two hand shots. The first substitute hand belonged to someone who already had tattoos on his hand and Darren enticed him to add another interesting one. The second hand shot ( not sure which this one was -- the other hand shot I remembered was when he re-finds the ring as the future Tom or when he touches Izzy's neck towards the end -- but I could be wrong) was with someone whose hand was bony and arthritic.

Talking of faux Hugh hands -- did you notice in Les Miserables that Hooper also used someone else's hands ( the convict Valjean when he was warming his hands near the fire during his early attempts to seek shelter) - very old and full of old veins. Those were not Hugh's hands! I think Hooper tried to find hands that looked like they belonged to a convict who did a lot of physical labor and who probably did not have much to eat -- but they contrasted too strongly with the hands of Papa Jean Valjean, as Cossette tried to touch them ( which he withdrew right away to hide the scars on his wrist).




Jo

[jo]

THE FOUNTAIN is revisited once more, this time in connection with Hugh's latest movie CHAPPIE.

It takes at a different look at the future, compared to the dystopian future of CHAPPIE, highlighting the visual beauty and meaning of the future in THE FOUNTAIN --

www.yahoo.com/movies/hugh-jackman-the-fountain-space-scenes-113180349692.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

[mamaleh]

"Jackman's operatic emoting quickly becomes exhausting"? On that score, I don't think the writer got it right. Maybe he didn't realize that the desperate Tommy is a character of heightened emotions, living and working feverishly on the edge; therefore, Hugh's portrayal of him, often in that key, is logical and fitting.

I'd like to see the Oscars one day create a category, Best Criminally Underrated Movie.

Ellen

[jo]

The Fountain has so inspired or influenced thinking that it brought out one formal paper submitted in college --

docs.google.com/file/d/0Bwc9gwU8DCIISjVBb3FBT21TVEE/edit?pli=1