Revisiting THE FOUNTAIN

[jo]

A tenth anniversary screening for fans of THE FOUNTAIN ?

[jo]

A podcast ( slightly over an hour long) on THE FOUNTAIN.

flicksxrayed.com/2016/12/06/the-fountain-season-01-ep-30/?utm_content=buffer976f6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Don't be turned off by the initial irreverent ( almost disrespectful, occasionally) initial banter -- it is a serious and thoughtful discussion of the movie. They discuss their understanding of the movie, their impression of the motivation of Darren Aronofsky, the links of the three stories, the effect of the film score, their interpretation of how it all ends, even the lack of support from Warner Bros ( they suggest listening to the YouTube upload of Aronofsky's director commentary which WB refused to finance) -- all very serious thoughts on how the movie can unsuspectingly draw one in. If you are a fan of the movie -- the podcast may be long but it is almost a fascinating listen. I couldn't stop listening to it, as the initial banter turns more serious.

At around 36'39", they discuss Hugh's phenomenal acting ( they even cite his other films) lengthily, citing among other things how, as a true actor, he didn't mind being portrayed with "ugly crying" ( which they loved) or being shown "bald and body hair- shaven" which they say would not jell with other more self-conscious actors. They mention some of other roles that he has accepted, which creates the impression of an actor who seeks roles, not fame ( such as Chappie, Real Steel, even Eddie the Eagle). They are not aware ( or so it seems) that Hugh is both an actor on film and on stage!

If they only knew how Hugh volunteered to do the movie, after reading the script overnight after that night's performance of the stage musical THE BOY FROM OZ! That shows how motivated Hugh Jackman is as an actor who seeks versatility in his acting portfolio almost all the time! To me, the Wolverine movies is/was the anchor that allows him to dip his toes into other portrayals that do not necessarily guarantee box office but gives him the full latitude of acting, such as in THE FOUNTAIN!


Jo

[jo]

This reminds me of when I saw the movie -- I took 2 friends with me, who I thought would have the emotional quotient or some intellectual heft to appreciate the deep themes of the movie. One was very quiet during these moments ( as if she was absorbing what she was seeing), while the other just laughed outright ( which surprised me because she is the deep thinker and is very well-read). Me - I was so touched because I thought this was the most thought-provoking message of the film. It was the cycle of life... and even subtly suggested the message of Lent - regeneration and redemption!

Different strokes

[jo]

vaguevisages.com/2016/03/25/we-failed-this-film-darren-aronofskys-the-fountain-2006/

Film: Darren Aronofsky’s ‘The Fountain’ (2006)
By Dylan Moses Griffin on March 25, 2016 •

We Failed This Film is a series about underrated films that simply didn’t receive the love they deserved upon initial release. For the 17th entry, we’re taking a journey through time and confronting our mortality with Darren Aronofsky’s ambitious and underloved The Fountain.


How We Failed It

After breaking out with small indie films like Pi and Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky went about his first endeavor working with a studio and A-list stars. It was a rocky experience from the beginning. He jumped into his most ambitious project yet, The Fountain, almost immediately after Requiem for a Dream, nabbing Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett to star, with a massive $70 million budget from Warner Bros. Unfortunately, weeks before production was set to begin in 2002, Pitt pulled out of the film over issues with the script. Aronofsky couldn’t find a suitable replacement in time, and the film was shelved.

Years passed, Aronofsky pursued other projects, but he eventually couldn’t keep himself away from The Fountain. In 2004, he rewrote the script to a more stripped down version that would cost less and got Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz (then his wife) to star. Aronofsky also convinced Warner Bros. to finance the film at half the cost of the previous attempt, and they were willing to try to make back what they had already spent on sets (plus any studio will sign a check if Wolverine is your lead). Production resumed once more, and Aronofsky finally got his passion project made.

Aronofsky’s experimental narrative follows three different storylines — Tomas, a conquistador during the Grand Inquisition searching for the Tree of Life in the Mayan jungle for Queen Isabel; Tom Creo, a neuroscientist studying brain tumors and trying to save his dying wife Izzi; Tommy, an astronaut floating through space (with a tree) on an expedition to the center of a dying star. Hugh Jackman plays all three roles, and Rachel Weisz takes on the role of Izzi and the Queen Isabel in each of the storylines.


That was only half the battle, though, as the film still had to be released and do well critically and commercially. The Fountain opened to a dismal $3 million, topping out at only $10 million domestically, with foreign markets only kicking in an additional $5 million, leaving it at $15 million worldwide — all against a much larger $35 million budget. To be fair, it’s really hard to market an art film that follows three storylines across time that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to a large audience. It’s a wonder that this film got made at all, and it’s surprising that it received a fairly wide release of almost 1,500 theaters.


Critics were fairly split and middling on the film, as it’s a polarizing and elusive one. A.O. Scott had a fair reading of The Fountain with both praise and criticism, noting the undeniable ambition of the work: “The three stories are not told in linear order, but in a circular, swirling pattern that suggests a mandala or a Mayan calendar. Circles also figure prominently in Mr. Aronofsky’s visual scheme, and he seems to be trying, with a seriousness of purpose that few American filmmakers attempt, to subvert the essentially sequential nature of film. Like a story by Jorge Luis Borges, The Fountain dispenses with everyday assumptions about time, space and causality and tries to replace the prose of narrative cinema with a poetic language of rhyming images and visual metaphors. I wish I could say that it succeeded. At his best — which is to say as a maker of gorgeous, haunting compositions (exquisitely rendered in Matthew Libatique’s cinematography) — Mr. Aronofsky can achieve an eloquence that suggests a blend of Andrei Tarkovsky (speaking of rhymes) and comic books. But his commitment to conveying meaning and emotion through painstakingly constructed images also gives the movie a static, claustrophobic atmosphere. (When Queen Isabel notes that “these are dark times,” she seems to be commenting mainly on the relentless chiaroscuro of the lighting design.)”


A year after its release, Roger Ebert revisited the film with an even hand: “I will concede the film is not a great success. Too many screens of blinding lights. Too many transitions for their own sake. Abrupt changes of tone. And yet I believe we have not seen the real film. When a $75 million production goes into turnaround and is made for $35 million, elements get eliminated. When a film telling three stories and spanning thousands of years has a running time of 96 minutes, scenes must have been cut out. There will someday be a Director’s Cut of this movie, and that’s the cut I want to see.”


Why It’s Great

The first time I watched The Fountain, my reaction was somewhat middling as well. I could tell that what I had just watched was very well made on a technical level, and that the performances were great, but at the same time I had no idea what any of it meant. As much as I appreciated the craft, I didn’t connect with the film on any intimate level. It lingered on in my mind, though, and about six months later I revisited The Fountain, and suddenly it all clicked. After a rewatch, The Fountain revealed itself to be a beautiful and mesmerizing meditation on love, life and death. I was a wreck on this viewing as The Fountain seemed to whisper directly to me about all my fears regarding death and what comes next, and to help me ultimately confront and accept death as a part of life. I know I’m probably too young to have serious fears regarding death and the afterlife, but I have them, and next to Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal, The Fountain is the most personal a film has gotten with me regarding these themes.


As perfect as he is as Wolverine, it’s almost easy to forget that Hugh Jackman is also capable of delivering incredible performances, that he’s not just a watchable movie star (also see: Prisoners). He’s playing three different roles here, but it’s not that challenge that makes his performance(s) so memorable and impactful. It’s the way he oscillates between the three and how they each relate to each other. Each character is feverishly determined to bypass the dichotomy of life and death, and Jackman puts out a raw emotion in portraying this existential battle. Between The Fountain and The Prestige, 2006 saw one of the best years for Jackman. Rachel Weisz is as fantastic and empathetic as ever in her roles as well. She makes Izzi a glowing figure in her brave performance of confronting death. The chemistry between herself and Jackman feels authentic and romantic. Aronofsky regular Mark Margolis and Requeim for a Dream star Ellen Burstyn contribute supporting roles as well.


Clint Mansell delivers his finest work in a great career with a mesmerizing score. He worked with the Kronos Quartet and members of Mogwai, and there’s an intriguing mixture of powerful strings and intimate piano pieces, each of them fully enveloping the emotion on screen. Full disclosure: his score for The Fountain is my second favorite score of all time. The Fountain is also worthy of a home release with material to enhance the film, as the current home release has next to nothing, not even a commentary track. Aronofsky released a commentary track for the film online, although it is no longer available.


Aronofsky’s creation of the space and stars around his astronaut is both  innovative and breathtaking. Rather than spending millions of dollars on visual effects in post-production, he filmed microscopic imagery of microorganisms and enhanced them to create stars. Bypassing the easy and traditional route of costly visual effects, he creates something far more stunning and lasting. Ten years later, these effects still look incredible.

The cinematography from Matthew Libatique is striking, each image that he and Aronofsky create make the film worthy of a shot-by-shot analysis as the visuals are all devoted to the themes of rebirth, life and death, with several images reappearing in each storyline to suggest the interconnectivity of these themes across these vast timelines and characters. Images of the hairs on trees are recreated with the hairs on Izzi’s neck. The dying star of Xibalba is referenced in how the snow appears with the light on a sky window. The astronaut Tommy does tai chi, his figure a black silhouette against the stars to communicate his connection to the universe. The look and feel of The Fountain is reminiscent of Tarkovksy and Kubrick in its grandeur and feverish otherworldliness.


The film’s winding themes all come together when the astronaut finally realizes his impending mortality, and he announces to himself, “I’m going to die.” He begins to tear up, from both happiness and sadness, and he almost chuckles at the realization of it. It was in this moment during the second viewing that hit me the hardest. I’m going to die, and that was okay. There is a beauty in death. Tom plants a tree over Izzi’s grave so that she will become a part of a new life like a story that she told him, and that tree becomes the one that accompanies the astronaut on his journey to Xibalba. When that dying star ends, it will give birth to new stars. Death gives birth to life. Death is the road to awe.

My three best portrayals on screen for Hugh are LES MISERABLES, LOGAN, and THE FOUNTAIN! They are all multi-layered performances and we see Hugh giving his all in each of these portrayals in each film.

PRISONERS and THE PRESTIGE also count but because his roles are relatively focused on one major aspect ( PRISONERS was a depiction of a survivalist father whose actions go haywire when his daughter is taken while THE PRESTIGE was a story of complete obsession by one man touched by an early tragedy), I tend to favor a role where he shows different sides!

Will the number of favorite portrayals increase when we see THE GREATEST SHOWMAN? Emphatically hope so!!


Jo

[jo]

I posted the awed comments from Matt Goldberg of Collider last year, during the 10th anniversary of the release of the movie.

What I forgot to mention was how meaningful and thought-provoking many of the 48 comments on his piece were!


collider.com/the-fountain-explained/#image

Check out the comments after Goldberg's piece.

Many do agree that --
*It is one of the most thought-provoking movies of all time.
*The film score ( Death is the Road to Awe) is one of the most brilliant ever composed for a film.
*Hugh Jackman is a true revelation -- beyond the charisma and presence, there is a truly brilliant actor out there!

Do check out the comments -- one of them, the first one, is even longer than the piece by Goldberg of Collider


Jo

[jo]

Devin Faraci wrote an intense and heart-filled tribute to the movie in his review -- here he interviews Hugh Jackman about THE FOUNTAIN :

www.chud.com/8057/interview-hugh-jackman-the-fountain/

INTERVIEW: HUGH JACKMAN (THE FOUNTAIN)


written by
Devin Faraci
posted on
11.20.2006

In the jungles of 15th century New Spain, he’s a bearded conquistador. In the operating room of a modern research lab, he’s a driven husband. In the nebula surrounding a dying star, he’s a bald astronaut on his own. In each of these time periods he’s Hugh Jackman, delivering a performance unlike anything we’ve ever seen from him. The movie is Darren Aronofsky’s masterpiece The Fountain, and in many ways this is Jackman’s movie, as he’s in every single scene of the film, at least when he’s not acting against Rachel Weisz or the tree of life.
Jackman’s been best know for playing Wolverine, and until this year his non X-Men films have been dodgy at best. 2006 has been fantastic for him, though, with fine turns in Scoop, The Prestige and a career-best effort in The Fountain, all finally proving that he has more going on than the charisma and star power we’ve seen. In person that charisma is strong, and he had the women at my roundtable wrapped around his finger. Some of the men, too.
I’ve been talking up The Fountain for months now, and we’re in to the final three days before it’s finally released. This Thanksgiving take a couple of hours and dollars out of your weekend to go to the theater and give thanks that challenging, smart movies still manage to get made and released.



Q: You got started in this how long ago? How did you get involved with Darren?

Jackman: I met him January 04 when he came backstage at The Boy From Oz in New York. I knew about The Fountain, and my partner John Palermo said I should ask him about, this was where it was at, that he was looking to get it up, he’s looking for actors. He really enjoyed the show – I was surprised that he was there, but he’s a huge musical theater fan; he sees everything. He came backstage and I said, ‘I heard about The Fountain and I would really love to read it.’

And he said, ‘I don’t think so.’

He rang me the next day and said, ‘Were you serious about that or were you just saying that how actors say to directors…’ I said, ‘I meant it.’ So he sent it to me and I read it that night and I rang him the next morning and said, ‘Look, I don’t want to be presumptuous but I was so moved by it – if you can wait until September, when my contract finishes, I’m in.’

It wasn’t as easy as that; he showed me some things and then he gave a little speech to me – and any actor would have said yes, but I’m glad I listened to him. He said, ‘I’m going to ask more of you, Hugh, then you’ve ever been asked for on film. I’m going to take you places maybe you thought you would never go to on film. Are you ready to do that?’ I said yeah, and for me that was thrilling. And he did. He worked me.



Q: We heard that you had to do a lot of training – yoga for the underwater work.

Jackman: Yeah, three days underwater. At the end of it I dunked him, though.

We were all wrapped, and I saw him going back from the edge of the pool, because he could tell something was going on. I got out of the pool and I pretended I had a bad knee, pretended I hurt my knee doing the lotus position. I looked over at him and he wasn’t coming forward. He said to the nurse, ‘Go check out Hugh,’ because he knew something was going on. Literally it was ten, fifteen minutes, and finally I laid down and said, ‘Get the stretcher,’ so they got the stretcher to lift me. At that point he came over and as soon as he came over I picked him up and I ran and dunked him in the pool. He was really pissed off, because he knew I was going to do it.




Q: I’ve never seen you be so emotional on film before. Was that something you were worried about, since when you read the script you must have known what the role would call for.

Jackman: Before this I never felt I had a script that warranted that. Yes, it’s always a little frightening – it should be a little frightening for every actor, otherwise it’s not challenging. I knew it was a kind of rawness that he wanted that would be difficult to get to. But at the same time I felt like some of the challenges I had at drama school were bigger than the movies I’ve been getting. Erskinville Kings, the first film I did, had an emotional intensity and rawness to it similar to this, but in between it was six or seven years where nothing demanded it. It wasn’t that I was just looking for a role where I would be emotionally pushed, that’s not a reason to do it. Finally I had a script that had a lot of potential.



Q: You’re playing three incarnations of a character. How do you approach them? Do you approach Tomas the conquistador different from Tommy the scientist and different from Tom the astronaut?

Jackman: There is an essential similarity in what drives them, but physically we wanted to make them different, and not just in look. I created a different physicality for all three. For Tommy I made him like a question mark, we had this image of him as a question mark. Darren and I spent hours in rooms, rehearsal rooms, and I would walk around and around the room, trying different things until we felt it was right. Tommy is very weighed down by the world and what he’s doing. If you look at the film, he’s always hunched over, head forward, like a question mark. His lab is underground, everything is under, under, under. He’s always going down steps. If you look at the design it’s brilliantly done.

Back in time, Tomas the conquistador is a warrior, so while he’s strong and ready to fight, his head is down. He’s like a racehorse – nothing will stop him, he’s got blinkers on. Then Tom in the future has worked out – even though he hasn’t fully come to terms with who he is, he still has some problems – he knows how to be physically at his ultimate. He does tai chi, he does yoga, he meditates. All of these things are about maintaining the physical form, so he’s more about being at ease.

I was doing yoga first of all every morning for a few hours but then also in between every shot. The other thing – I remember this from drama school, one of our teachers said that people hold emotions in their body. If you don’t express them, they get locked in your body. Men have very tight hips – a yoga teacher told me this, which is why the lotus position it was so bloody hard for me to do it – they have tight hips because that is where emotion is stored. Women are generally more emotional and they’re a lot looser in the hips. Certain yoga positions were excruciating, but I had to do them, particularly on those emotional days, I would sit in that position for a half an hour for a time.

My teacher took me to this thing called the Polar Bear Club in Montreal, where it’s minus 25 degrees Celsius, and we would jump into the river. For like a minute we would sit with our head under the river and then we would go to the sauna, the steam room, and do one yoga pose. You would do fifteen minutes in one yoga pose. Then we would jump in the river again. You do that eight times. After three hours it was like… it was an experience everyone should do. I had a bald head at the time, too, so it was amazing. It was like I was on fire. There was steam coming out of my head. It was an incredible feeling.




Q: What was it like shaving your head?

Jackman: Great. I’ve always wanted to do it. I’ve always wanted to swim with a bald head and see what it felt like. But I really have no attachment to my hair at all. I’ve never had the same hair once. For the last fifteen years I’ve dyed it this color, that color, chopped it off, but I’d never been completely bald. I just can’t stop laughing when I see myself. I look like a character out of Lord of the Rings. I look ridiculous, but the feeling is incredible. To have a shower with a bald head is the best way to wake up in the world. It’s heaven.




Q: This year alone you’ve worked with some signature directors – Woody Allen, Christopher Nolan and now Darren Aronofsky. Is there a quality they share?

Jackman: They’ve all got very different qualities. Woody leaves you alone a lot to do your own thing and offers you very little direction. If he doesn’t like it, he reshoots it and then says what he wants. Chris is very low key in a Woody Allen-ish kind of way, laid back and low key. He’s a great communicator, Chris. He has a way of telling you one thing that will completely transform a scene for you and yet leave you to do your own thing.

Darren, we worked together for a year. Every week we would meet once or twice, increasingly as we got up to the film. He had this film in his head for six years – he knew every shot and everything that was going on, and yet he loved that moment of creation, seeing what would happen. It was very interesting – he would run the camera, put a mag on and roll, never cut. He hated that moment, which is true, when you call cut and someone comes in to fix their hair, and because someone is fixing their hair the lighting guy changes a light. Everyone finds something to do, so every time you cut it’s ten minutes. He would just keep rolling the film – a mag is ten to twelve minutes – and he would just put another mag on and tell you to go again. It took him three or four weeks to view the footage when we were finished.



Q: You’re going to be starring in Baz Luhrmann’s Australian WWII epic. How is he so far?

Jackman: Baz is a little bit in the Darren school. We have six weeks of rehearsal before we shoot, we have a workshop in December for a week, and we’ve been working already. I have to do a lot of horse riding in it, and even though I can ride a horse, I have to get to another level, which I’m excited about. He’s full on. I love that. I loved working with all of them, and it’s really whetted my appetite for working with directors who are auteurs, who are visionaries with strong opinions for what they want?



Q: Do you want to direct?

Jackman: I’m too indecisive. I’d be a terrible director. ‘What do you think, Hugh, the red dress or the yellow dress?’ ‘Yeah, they’re great.’ ‘Which one, the red or the yellow?’ ‘I don’t know!’



Q: But you’ve been getting into producing.

Jackman: This is where I’m good as a producer – when I know something, I know it. When I spot a script I know if it will work and I will fight for that to the end. But day to day, directors make 300 decisions. Producers are there to back them up and help them, but when it comes to choosing the right director, you don’t have to do that under duress, you don’t have to do that on the spot, and you don’t have 400 people waiting for you.

Plus I’m liking the partners I’m working with, it really works. We have different strengths. I love it.




Q: How is the TV side compared to the movie side?

Jackman: It’s the golden age of TV at the moment. There are so many great writers and so much talent. And it’s so fast! We, a month ago, pitched to CBS this remake of Blackpool, which I think is fantastic and will translate here. We’re going to do that. Yesterday I was in a room with 30 people doing pre-production – this is a month after they said let’s do it! It’s so fast and exciting and really intoxicating.



Q: Was there anything that you and Rachel worked on that made it into the movie that wasn’t originally in the script?

Jackman: I’m sure we did. The thing is, we spent a year, and I can’t remember now… it all happened, it all came. Our relationship – Darren wanted to create a very real, close bond between these two. It’s a love story, and you have to buy that. But it all just happened on set, and I was very lucky to have Rachel. I’d work with her on anything – she’s incredibly generous.



Q: When you’re on the set, do you have any idea how it’s going to cut together? What are you going on?

Jackman: Trust in Darren. I just see his movies and I know that if it’s a Darren Aronofsky movie, I’m going to see it, no matter what he’s doing. Look – he gave me all the information. I’m being a little facetious, but the movie I ended up seeing was cut very differently. He warned me about that. He said, ‘It’s going to be different than you expect.’ He cut around a lot of things, and the music is so lovely.

But that’s Darren. With a lot of directors you’re not going to let them shoot the whole mag again and again, because you’ll think, ‘I don’t know if this guy’s good enough to know which is the best take.’ But with Darren, you just let it go.



Q: You were in Australia when the film hit the festival circuit and got that polarized reaction. What did you think of that?

Jackman: I was surprised. I shouldn’t have been, in a way, because it’s a Darren Aronofsky movie, and people will always be polarized. But I was surprised that people were vehemently against it. I think even if you didn’t get it or it wasn’t your cup of tea, there’s such artistry, even on a technical level. I would have thought people would have appreciated that.

Again, this is a love story about death and life, and it’s going to touch nerves.



Q: It’s also very earnest.

Jackman: Which is different from what Darren has done before, so people weren’t expecting that. There’s a real purity – it’s a romantic film, even though it deals with difficult subjects. It’s probably uncomfortable at times.

But the best story that never got printed came out of Venice, that infamous screening where people hooted and whistled – it actually broke into a fight. There were fisticuffs down in the front between two people. I thought for a filmmaker that’s the holy grail! That’s awesome!

It was a film director ( not sure but it might have been Alfonso Cuaron) who challenged the audience member booing the film to a fistfight. Cuaron was in Venice for CHILDREN OF MEN, if I remember correctly.

Children of Men had its world premiere at the 63rd Venice International Film Festival on 3 September 2006

Interestingly, if you have seen the movie, it is evocative of LOGAN...or actually it is the opposite : LOGAN is evocative of CHILDREN OF MEN. It is also noteworthy that they share the same rating on ROTTEN TOMATOES ( 92%).


Jo

[jo]

Another retrospective on THE FOUNTAIN --

www.tasteofcinema.com/2017/6-reasons-why-the-fountain-is-an-underrated-masterpiece/

6 Reasons Why “The Fountain” is an Underrated Masterpiece
01 June 2017 Features, Other Lists by Shane Scott-Travis

American filmmaker Darren Aronofsky has never been the kind of writer-director who shies away from controversial qualities in his films, or to sidestep surreal flourishes as well as story elements that may confound or confuse audience expectations, and his third and arguably most ambitious feature, The Fountain (2006), exemplifies such considerations.

A psychedelic science-fiction fantasy and a historical romance that miraculously maneuvers multiple meanings, ideas, themes, and storylines in an epic triptych that ambitiously spans a thousand years centering on the celestial space pursuance of everlasting life represented in a mythical tree. Sound familiar? Of course not. There’s never been a sci-fi spectacle quite like this.
Starring Hugh Jackman in three roles; as Tomás Verde, a 16th-century Spanish conquistador; Tom Creo a 21st-century neurologist; and Tommy a space traveler in the far future en route to the golden nebula of Xibalba, each fighting to save his beloved (Rachel Weisz) from death, The Fountain takes the biblical tree-of-life from the Book of Genesis and Kabbalah.

There’s also a gripping and speculative through line binding neuroscience and Spanish colonialism as well as Mayan myths glimpsed from an indigenous lens, as well as a playful yet profound intermingling of David Bowie’s “Major Tom” pop chronicle which all earned the film some not unwarranted comparisons to Kubrick’s classic, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).

The Fountain, which took over six years to complete, underscores Aronofsky’s gifts as a visionary steward of substantial cinematic head trips that reward patient viewers with a complex, emotional, and deeply rewarding film that will stay with you for some time. And that The Fountain presents a saga-like triptych on the fear of death and dying, it’s certainly a film that will resonate with adventurous and inventive audiences.
The following list seeks to add to the viewer’s experience and understanding of what’s one of Aronofsky’s most personal, imposing, and provocative of films.


 
6. Matthew Libatique’s stunning cinematography

One of The Fountain’s most immediate pleasures in director of cinematography Matthew Libatique’s dazzling visuals. Libatique, who worked with Aronofsky on numerous creative projects in the 90s, including his directorial feature debut, Pi (1998) and then after that success on 2000’s Requiem for a Dream (in fact they’d continue a semi-regular working relationship also including 2010’s Black Swan and 2014’s Noah).

Certainly Libatique’s creative tack and expert as well as experimental lensing helped bring life to the epic romance with distinct visual cues and looks for each era the story unravels in as well as an often floating camera-feel that helps the ethereal and romantic elements appear more palatable as in the meticulously detailed and beaming bright with candles 16th-century Spanish court ruled by Queen Isabella (Weisz), ruler of Spain; or the darkened yet intricate chambers of the fanatical zealot Grand Inquisitor Silecio (Stephen McHattie) which a gold-lit fringe that dazzles with an Hieronymus Bosch-like lucidity.

Aronofsky and Libatique also share a fondness and love of close-ups and we repeatedly see sumptuous glances or long and lovely looks of Jackman and Weisz––in proximity that would surely be lauded and loved by the likes of Ingmar Bergman, for one––in cinematic portraiture that smartly underscores the film’s movement from darkness into light.

Regardless of how some viewers might feel about the overall film and some of it’s poetic flourishes and ambiguous angles one point is irrefutable; it looks like a miracle.


 
5. Peter Parks’ macro-photography

The Fountain was a project plagued with numerous difficulties and a soaring budget. At one point the film was well into principal photography with A-lister Brad Pitt in the lead role(s). When this version of the film was scrapped for numerous reasons, many tied to a ballooning and out-of-control budget, the entire project needed a major rethink in order for it to be saved from the scrapheap.

Part of the solution to revive The Fountain hinged on ways to make it as special effects driven and as filled with psychedelic visuals as Aronofsky envisioned, without incurring a massive cost. Partially for these reasons Aronofsky decided to avoid costly CGI and stick to practical effects and this is where Peter Parks, a macro-photography specialist, enters the picture.

Parks achieved considerable fame using macro-photography to capture deep-sea microorganisms in 3-D while doing research and studies in the Bahamas and he used a similar approach when Aronofsky brought him on board The Fountain, specifically for the portions of the film set in deep space.

Working closely with Aronofsky’s visual effects team of Jeremy Dawson and Dan Schrecker––who shot chemicals and bacteria reacting together that Parks provided, with a wide knowledge of fluid dynamics and other in-camera techniques he’d used with microorganisms. These mysterious looking visuals became the essential and strange elements that surround Tom’s ship as it moves towards its interstellar objective.

“When these images are projected on a big screen,” says Parks, “you feel like you’re looking at infinity… the same forces are at work in the water—gravitational effects, settlement, refractive indices—[that] are happening in outer space.”


 
4. Gorgeous production design

The Fountain is a grand-scale epic in many respects and part of what struck me when I first saw the film theatrically back in 2006 is how it also cleverly functions as something of a pastiche, at least to my mind, of D. W. Griffith’s towering silent-era narrative Intolerance: Love’s Struggle Throughout the Ages and A Sun-Play of the Ages (1916).

Griffith’s picture, like Aronofsky’s, was first and foremost an art film, and each feature parallel storylines that span the centuries with death and love as dominant themes. Also, both The Fountain and Intolerance feature opulent imagery, with often overpowering and ornat visuals that epitomize the concept of a grand perceptible feast.

In The Fountain the use of art and visual design convincingly recreates the 16th-century, the present day, and 26th-century space travel all with a feeling of profound and proper closeness and veracity.

Aronofsky and Libatique worked closely with production designer James Chinlund––whose many remarkable achievements in The Fountain include a vivid Mayan temple, an ornate Spanish court, and a meticulously detailed neurosurgeon laboratory––to add heightened thematic energy and enhanced visual flash.

For instance, all three creatives agreed upon a limited color palette with added value to the repetitious use of gold and white. The latter bearing much spiritual significance for Weisz’s characters, who are repeatedly in a state of surrender and closest to death.

The art and visual effects department working on the film numbered just over one hundred technicians, all striving for an achieving a mesmerizing and unforgettable look and tactility to, amongst other things, 26th-century space travel, which appears as both awesome and oddly, utterly authentic.


 
3. The powerful and emotive soundtrack by composer Clint Mansell

Part of what makes The Fountain’s heavy sci-fi and fantasy elements so imaginable and tenable is owed to the virtuoso work composer Clint Mansell, who also wisely chose contributions from first-rate talents Mogwai and the Kronos Quartet.

Today Mansell, an English musician who first came to fame via his influential and excellent 80s and 90s-era alt-rock band Pop Will Eat Itself, is perhaps now best known for his exemplary work doing film scores (Moon, High-Rise, Requiem for a Dream, and Stoker, along with The Fountain, of course, rank amongst his best work).
Just as The Fountain was hugely ambitious and risky for Aronofsky as a filmmaker, so to was it for Mansell in composing its wide-ranging score. He sought to find the most organic and bounded ways to link the three storylines knowing that both orchestral and electronic elements would work best. This is most certainly why post-rockers Mogwai were included in the mix, helping add what Mansell describes as “a real human element that breathes.”

Combined with classical music from Kronos Quartet’s immaculate use of strings and a haunting vocal choir, it’s not surprising that the soundtrack to the film received a wealth of award nominations.


 
2. The vibrant and powerful performances from Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz

It’s unfortunate that The Fountain was met with a great deal of critical confusion and misunderstanding upon its initial release as the entire tightrope act of far flung speculative fiction is given so much veracity and verve from it’s two outstanding leads. First and foremost is Hugh Jackman in three disparate roles that each display a vulnerability and a humanity that is so rare in a mainstream motion picture.

“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.”
– Darren Aronofsky

Whether Jackman is the Spanish conquistador Tomás Verde, sent to the New World by the queen of Spain to locate the biblical tree of life, ambitious and distracted neurologist Tom Creo bent on curing his wife’s terminal cancer, or enlightened, meditative, and guru-like space traveller Tommy (yes, his name is a deliberate reference to Bowie’s “Space Oddity” superhero Major Tom), his flawed but impassioned characters are wholly believable and entirely sympathetic.

In fact, in the latter storyline where a 30-second sequence shows Tommy gracefully and naturally assume the lotus position while in his space bubble was the result of Jackman training in t’ai chi for some seven months.
“Filmmaking is an exercise in paranoia. When one writes, the goal to relate every scene to your main character, to your theme. That’s exactly how paranoid schizophrenics look at the world. They believe everything in the universe revolves around them. So in effect, all characters in a film would only be truly conscious if they were paranoid.”
– Darren Aronofsky

While it is terribly tragic that the obsessive and preoccupied Tom shrugs off Izzi’s many attempts to connect and be in the moment with her during her final, fleeting days and moments, it elevates the emotional investment the audience has for the tragedy that we, unlike Tom, can see coming unavoidably right at us.

Izzi’s grace and acceptance in the face of annihilation is also incredibly authentic feeling, and demonstrably stirring. In preparing for her role, Weisz spent time in hospice care facilities where she visited with young people who were dying, in addition to all the more traditional research and prep that serious actors would undertake. But the time Weisz spent amongst dying people certainly gave Izzi that dignity and refinement that makes her passing so much more moving and poignant.

Both Jackman and Weisz are perfectly cast in The Fountain, and their commitment to the film, each other, and the audience, provide much of the intensity and enlightenment that’s crucial to the film’s success and sustain.


 
1. In Aronofsky’s own words

“[The Fountain] was the film I wanted to make. Of all my movies, to the people that are fans, it’s almost like a cult religion, they get tattoos and I’m constantly getting long letters from people saying it helped them come to terms with something. So I think it works for a much smaller audience because ultimately the film is about coming to terms with your own death, which is not a big commercial idea for a lot of people… “
“The way we treat old people and people who are dying is just… with all our advances in science we’ve just become incredibly cruel with how the end of life is dealt with—especially in the States, it’s really messed up. And the beginning of life too—giving birth in America you have to do it in a hospital and there are very few options for natural childbirth. So Western science has taken control of the way we are born and the way we die, and there’s really no spirituality to it any more. This is why [The Fountain] wasn’t a commercial movie.”
– Darren Aronofsky

I wonder if they have ever considered re-releasing the movie on a limited scale? Maybe as part of a festival of film classics?

Hugh's portrayal here is universally praised -- the very first time that I have ever read his actor's skills as worthy of Oscar attention!

Btw: Matthew Libatique's ancestry is from the Philippines

[jo]

For its 25th anniversary, the Hampton International Film Festival is showing 25 films representing each year --

variety.com/2017/film/news/hamptons-international-film-festival-hiff-1201983079/

The year 2006 will be represented by THE FOUNTAIN.



Can't find a link that is accessible and downloadable yet -- but I can quote some of the excerpts from various links.

1 - Hamptons International Film Festival
hamptonsfilmfest.org/blog/

5 days ago - THE FOUNTAIN | HIFF 2006 Wednesday, July 26 | 7:30pm Mandala ...

Hamptons Film Festival HIFF SCREENING Of THE FOUNTAIN By ...
Hamptons.com-6 hours ago
In THE FOUNTAIN, acclaimed filmmaker Darren Aronofsky (PI, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM) eloquently explores the question, "Does death make us human, and if ...

I found one link and the rationale --

www.withoutabox.com/03film/03t_fin/03t_fin_fest_01over.php?festival_id=1160

You have to scroll way down ( Selected recent film highlights include:...)


THE FOUNTAIN had its USA premiere at the Hampton festival back in 2006!





Btw, 2006 was also the year of THE PRESTIGE.

Two among 6 HJ film releases in 2006 ( The Fountain/The Prestige/Happy Feet/Flushed Away/Scoop/XMen-3)


Jo

[ruby]

I saw The Fountain at the Hampton Film Festival. Met Darren Aronofsky and attended his Q&A with him and the DOP. Interesting insights from both but it didn't help me understand that movie

[jo]

The DOP who has worked with DA on several projects, Matthew Libatique, was originally from the Philippines.

The movie is subject to many interpretations. Even the issue of who the real present protagonist is ( usually between Tom Creo the astronaut and Tommy the grieving husband) has had different opinions ( although there was an interview with DA where he said the real present is the third story with Tommy in space). What it is all about is also a very contentious issue. I did get the graphic novel book and the book of photographs ( which included the script) by DA. Reading the script carefully as well as the reviews/discussions on IMDB ( where it has a fairly high 7.3 rating from over 200,000 raters, compared to LOGAN'S 8.2)) and Readers Review on Amazon ( both of which included excellent interpretations as well as the expected can't-understand-what-it-is-all-about views helped me form a tentative idea of the message of the film. The interview of Hugh by Rachel Weisz ( part of the special features) was also little enlightening. Too bad I lost the link to very informed articles and interviews with Hugh and DA on a screenwriting site -- that was very insightful !

It seems that it also premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2006.

But I agree that it begs for a definitive interpretation. Or is it because its message has to be personal to the person viewing it ? Is it a straightforward story or more of an instrospection and meditation?

Some of us followed the project development ( once it fell on Hugh's hands) and there were also helpful insights gathered as they started and completed filming. We were also so, so disappointed at the reaction at the VENICE FILM FESTIVAL. And from one of those screenings in Venice was the story of how noted auteur-director Alfonso Cuaron ( whose film Children of Men was also part of the festival) challenged someone to a fistfight because the viewer was booing the movie!

DA wrote the initial screenplay after having had to deal with the fact that both of his parents were suffering from cancer -- so presumably his thoughts were meditations on the beauty of life and the surprising spiritual impact of dying.

One thing, though -- the film score by Clive Mansell is loved by practically everyone -- it is haunting and poignant and also uplifting!

There has been a lot of revisionist thinking of the movie and one filmsite even included it among the best of the decade. It even had a re-screening to mark its 10th year of release in 2016.

Maybe I should watch it again


Jo

[mamaleh]

As to "understanding" THE FOUNTAIN, sometimes I think Aronofsky himself doesn't have a cut-and-dry conception of the movie. He seems more interested in simply having the audience--and himself--"meditate" on the concepts of life and death.

HJ's acting is sublimely beautiful as all three characters, especially the grieving husband. He was truly robbed of recognition at awards time.

Ellen

[jo]

A teacher and film writer...and co-winner for a Pullitzer Prize... explores the beauty and mystery of THE FOUNTAIN ( which he calls a New Classic)--

www.artsbham.com/the-new-classics-the-fountain/


Excerpts ( conclusion of article) --

Jackman has rarely been as raw and heartfelt, across three separate performances, as he is here; he makes what could be seen as silly (floating in a bubble with a tree!) seem passionately real and grounded. Perhaps his finest moment as an actor is late in the film in which Tom gives himself his first tattoo. Without his performance — or the marvelously luminous Weisz — it might be difficult to connect with Aronofsky’s vision. Not that it still, to some degree, isn’t, but I am not convinced that the film’s structure is as difficult as it appears to be, nor that the totality of the vision “The Fountain” presents is actually all that difficult to grasp. As complex as it comes across in its cross-cutting, this is more a film you feel than a film you analyze. One needs to only lower one’s defenses, to be as curious and probing and sincere as Aronofsky is willing to be, to risk coming across as uncool or sentimental, to feel the deeply sad, deeply beautiful story “The Fountain” presents.

[jo]

Perhaps his finest moment as an actor is late in the film in which Tom gives himself his first tattoo.

The scene showing Tommy tattoing his finger for the lost ring is one of Hugh's most emotionally-affecting movie scenes!

Other Hugh portrayals that compare on a similar level --

*The finale scene in LOGAN ( "So this is how it feels") followed by the cross being inverted to look like an "X".

*The finale scene in LES MISERABLES - where he asks God to " bring me home!" ... then his farewell to Cosette and telling her how much she meant to his life ("It's the story of one who turned from hating, A man who only learned to love when you were in his keeping!").

*That scene in PRISONERS as he saw the bloodied sock of his lost daughter ... and silently started shaking in grief.

*That scene towards the climax in Erskineville Kings when he embraces his estranged younger brother and confesses how he eased their father's dying misery.

*On stage ... in A STEADY RAIN... but not too obvious ( unless you could see him at very close range) ... when tears started to well in his eyes and one tear courses down one cheek - as he reminisced their youth with his close friend... and as he was already likely contemplating ending his life.



I easily react rather emotionally to scenes like that

Jo

[jo]

THE FOUNTAIN, even if it had been released 11 years ago, is included among 8 sci-fi films that are highly underrated and underseen.

www.theweeklyreview.com.au/play/8-underrated-underseen-science-fiction-films/

Darren Aronofsky’s opus is a meditation on mortality that is all too rare in Western cinema; one that doesn’t rage against the dying of the light, but accepts that there are other worlds than these. The Fountain takes place across three timelines – the present day, the Spanish Inquisition, and in the far future – but its emotional core is simple and lovely, anchored by astonishing performances from Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackman. It’s a film that tells us acceptance can be more courageous than resistance, that change is as important as it is hard, and that there can be no new beginnings without endings. It is wonderful. – HR

[jo]

Darren Aronofsky's latest movie "mother!" is very controversial, probably the most controversial he ever created, based on numerous reviews.

In this context, his work is each reviewed briefly --

www.columbiatribune.com/entertainmentlife/20170914/mother-of-invention-more-often-than-not-demanding-director-aronofsky-gets-what-he-wants

Audiences waited six years before “The Fountain” was released, after a series of starts and stops in production thanks to budget issues. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz play multiple characters over various timelines searching for eternal youth.

Many called the ambitious flick pretentious; yet, the story gracefully delved into tricky ideas about romanticism and science fiction that expanded upon themes from “Pi” for a richer experience. “The Fountain” is one of those lost, modern classics worth revisiting. Or visiting.

[mamaleh]

As many predicted, it did become something of a cult film. Deservedly.

Ellen

[jo]

Well-reasoned out attempt to rank Aronofsky's movies --

www.looper.com/86852/every-darren-aronofsky-movie-ranked-worst-best/


THE FOUNTAIN is the top-ranked film!

But Black Swan isn't the best it gets for Darren Aronofsky. That spot belongs to his 2006 sci-fi stunner, The Fountain, starring Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, and Ellen Burstyn. Hear us out, 'cause we know you've probably got very specific feelings about this film. Yes, it's overflowing with narrative contortions. Yes, it often errs on the side of melodrama. And yes, its intellectual reach tends to exceed its grasp. So what? The film earns its place at the top based purely on the overwhelming passions that propel it.

The Fountain is the very definition of a passion play for Aronofsky. He once had the film greenlit as a $70 million epic, only to see that project fall apart just days before principle photography began. Like the film's protagonist, Aronofsky refused to let the passion die. He rewrote the script to operate at half the budget and moved forward with a leaner version of The Fountain. But lean didn't mean less ambitious.

The Fountain's narrative still sweeps across time and space in search of answers about love, mortality, science, and faith. That narrative is as heartbreaking in its humanity as it is exhilarating in its execution. Even when The Fountain's reach does exceed its grasp, one has to marvel at Aronofsky's ability to reach further. That passion and ambition is what makes The Fountain resonate. It's why, out of all Aronofsky's films, it's the one that continues to inspire genuine awe. And why it's the one that seems destined to live forever.

[jo]

One more very thoughtful analysis on the many layers of interpretation of THE FOUNTAIN --

www.syfy.com/syfywire/revisiting-the-fountain-a-masterpiece-on-dealing-with-grief-through-storytelling

Revisiting The Fountain, a masterpiece on dealing with grief through storytelling

Contributed by

Tricia Ennis
@triciaennis


There are movies you keep coming back to again and again over your lifetime. These stories change on subsequent viewings, or contain perfect visuals. Perhaps they strike a chord within their narrative that requires repeat consumption to fully understand, or become more relevant to the lives of viewers at certain points in their lives.

In 2006, director Darren Aronofsky released a film titled The Fountain which fits perfectly into this category. Its beautiful visuals were intended to withstand changes in technology in the hopes that they would stand the test of time. Its story and inherent meaning are a moving target, allowing audiences to view the film differently depending on their own experiences and understanding. When it was first released, The Fountain found middling critical appeal and a very low box office return, but time has been on its side as some current critics continue to cite the film as a masterpiece in storytelling.


The story itself takes place across three different time periods. In the 1600s, a Spanish queen sends her most faithful conquistador to "New Spain" (South America) in search of the mythical Tree of Life. In the present, a man attempts to find a cure for the brain tumor that threatens to claim the life of his wife. Centuries into the future, a man travels through space in a bubble with a tree he believes holds the soul of his beloved, heading toward a dying star that will restore her.
On the one hand, The Fountain is a masterful epic spanning centuries as three different couples (played by Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackman) search for the key to everlasting life. Whether you believe this is done through time travel or reincarnation depends on your point of view when you watch the film. But there's another interpretation, one where the story becomes much smaller, much less epic and much more personal. It is a story of death and grief and finding solace through storytelling. That's because the only timeline really happening is the one taking place in the present.


All throughout the present day story the couple, Izzi and Tom, deal with Izzi's illness in very different ways. Tom deals by not dealing. As a medical researcher, he is determined to solve the problem. He wants to cure her tumor so he never has to consider her death a reality. Meanwhile, Izzi attempts to force him to face the fact that she is dying because she has already accepted it. The whole time, she has been writing a book about love transcending time and death through which she has come to see "death as an act of creation." She presents the book unfinished to Tom, telling him it is up to him to complete the story and implying that he will only come to understand how it ends after she is gone. He reads through it in her final days, and through that story we can see the journey that Izzi has traveled through her own grief, playing out the stages in prose.


That story begins in the 1600s during the Spanish Inquisition, where a beautiful Queen faces a powerful enemy. Like Izzi's cancer, the High Inquisitor grows more powerful with time and threatens to destroy Spain from within, killing its heretical Queen. The Inquisition itself is even a conflict of the mind - two warring ideologies - which inflicts physical pain and death on those who become its victims. The Queen, like Izzi, has stopped fighting that particular fight. For her it is no longer about whether she lives or dies because the villain has become essentially insurmountable. It is not about whether he will kill her, it is when. For this reason she dispatches her most loyal conquistador - Tomas - to seek out the Tree of Life in order to offer the both of them everlasting life.


This part of the story, the half of the novel that Izzi has written down (though she claims it is all but the last chapter of the book) tracks very well with her own journey coming to terms with her own mortality. As the person who faces the prospect of her own death her journey is very different from Tom's. She fights the villain directly, while he can fight it only from the outside. The reality of her death is far more palpable for her than for him. She deals with what is next while he tries to halt time itself.



The narrative also creates parallels in how Izzi seems to view Tom's endless work to find a cure for her brain tumor before it claims her life. We see scenes of her wanting to spend time with him, wanting to be together before she's gone. At the same time, the Queen in her novel wants Tomas to seek out the Tree of Life. Placed against the story of Izzi and Tom, one could argue that it's a way for Izzi to say that she sees his work as a noble, if not potentially futile, quest that sadly must take him away from her.

Izzi's contribution to her own novel ends with her still not having quite made it past the fear of death. It is only through further research and introspection that she has gotten to that point. The final scene she is able to write is of Tomas the Conquistador facing down his final opponent, the guard weirdly the fiery sword at the gates to the garden. The chapter ends with Tomas ready to face his death at this man's hands. It is here that she is forced to stop, and here that Tom must now pick up the story and continue.

For his part, Tom is also able to work through his own, more traditional form of grief thanks to Izzi and the project she has given him. Over the first two acts of the film, Izzi imparts many of the stories she has learned in her travels and research into Mayan mythology. They are not all necessarily correct, but they are a means of comfort for her so it's hard to fault her inaccuracies. For instance, she shows Tom the Orion Nebula in the night's sky, an object the Maya named Xibalba after their own underworld. The Milky Way was seen as a pathway to Xibalba. She also talks about the Mayan Tree of Life, which came into existence at the beginning of the world. In the version Izzi tells, the tree sprang from the body of a man, itself a symbol of her "death as an act of creation" belief.



When Tom's part of the novel picks up, we follow his own struggles with death from that of conquerer to acceptance; in many ways, through the five stages of grief (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance). His version of Tomas does not accept his death at the hands of the guard. He faces him, then strikes him down. He is a man with a single purpose: to command and defy death. He finds the tree beyond the garden gate and immediately drinks of the sap, claiming his immortality.

Tom's half of the story also includes a futuristic narrative running in parallel with the rest of the film. It follows a man in the future who is on a journey to bring the Tree of Life (which he believes contains the soul of the woman he loves) to Xibalba, literally taking this new version of her to a dying star within the Orion Nebula in the belief that when the star explodes she will be reborn. However, the closer he gets to the center of the nebula the more the tree dies. He pleads with it to survive just long enough to get there but eventually, he discovers that it is only through accepting death, through accepting his own death specifically, that they can live forever.

Through this narrative, Tom is exploring a more scientific form of spirituality; one which comes in many ways from the first law of thermodynamics. In its most basic form, it says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it is only transformed from one form to another. In a supernova, the energy (and matter) within a star is expelled, creating the building blocks of new stars and planets and living things. As Carl Sagan said, "we are all star stuff." In Tom's story, it is when the man accepts that the destruction of his body, and of his beloved tree, will allow them to exist in a brand new form that he completely understands and accepts "death as an act of creation."

Which brings us back to Tomas and what happens after he drinks the sap from the Tree of Life. Instead of having his youth and vitality restored, he is transformed into vines and flowers. New life is created from his own. He lives forever, but not as a man. Through the story Tom constructs as he slowly deals with the realities of his wife's death, he begins to understand that eternal life is possible, so long as you accept that you have no control over what form it takes. It is about the preservation of the soul beyond the preservation of the body.



This entire premise can be seen as quite meta. Aronofsky has spoken about his inspiration for the film, as he first wrote it in the time shortly after his 30th birthday when he was dealing with his own existential crisis in getting older, coupled with both of his parents facing cancer diagnoses. He wrote the film in an effort to confront his own feelings about mortality, seeking to tell the story of a man who seeks to save a loved one by conquering death. In some ways then the modern story is his own, itself a way of working through his own grief and fear despite the fact that his parents did not die from their illnesses.

Telling stories, even if they are only for ourselves and not for a mass audience is a way for us as humans to understand concepts too difficult to face head-on. Narrative, myth, allegory and metaphor offer us the room to explore our fears and emotions in ways that protect us from the pain of relating them to our own lives directly. In the case of The Fountain, Aronofsky presents us with a multi-layered masterpiece of storytelling via a means of coping for the audience, a philosophy on life and death and spirituality, and a window into his own grieving process. As a viewer, it can provide you a path to peace in your own life, can simply be a means of entertainment, or can simply offer comfort in the fact that there is no one way to grieve.

It seems most interpretations of the storytelling focus on the story of the doctor/wife&patient tale as the only true story in the trifecta narratives.

But I cannot forget that Aronofsky once said that the tale of the astronaut in his floating ship is the real present-day narrative!

However it comes to the viewer, the appreciation of the film likely creates a tie with the viewer's personal experience and outlook.


Jo

[jo]

[jo]

On another thread, there is an Instagram gallery of behind-the-scenes photographs by Niko Tavernise from THE GREATEST SHOWMAN.


But when I checked out his website --

www.nikotavernise.com/tablet/film.html

And looked at specific sections -- FILM and STILLS


it brought back memories of another time, when I thought I encountered his name before.


Guess what -- remember Darren Aronofsky talking about a documentary put together by a talented young man about the making of The Fountain? That turned out to be Niko Tavernise!

It is here, if you scroll down in the FILM section!

That was 13 years ago ( they filmed The Fountain after The Boy from Oz - late 2004 to early 2005)!

Enjoy -- it is a gem ( especially some scenes of Hugh while filming)!


PS: In the STILLS section, there are 3 photos from THE FOUNTAIN.


Jo

[jo]

The documentary is about an hour long -- the first part is all about the initial efforts...but then it goes into the actual filming experience.

After watching it -- it leaves one with a feeling of having a deeper and keener appreciation of the movie (which by itself already evokes such a deep feeling of empathy with the characters).

What this documentary added --

*That film-making involves such a total commitment -- it involves painstaking and enormous mental and physical, even emotional, efforts to commit to reality one's initial cinematic vision. I think those who feel that stage is a nod above filmmaking would be entirely wrong. Agree with me or not -- but I think filmmaking is actually the one that involves the higher art form! All the creative energies needed to put together one scene, let alone an entire film, are laid bare in this documentary. Aronofsky, mistunderstood or not, is a very fine example of film auteurs!

*That Hugh Jackman is really such a fine, fine actor! His work here, especially that he is portraying a trifecta of characters, is immensely admirable! And the documentary did not even show the most poignant dramatic scene in the movie ( the tattoing of the ring on his finger) -- but his efforts in some scenes, such as the flower-spouting moment, are tremendous. The physicality needed to portray the nebula-reaching moment, as he hung in space, was awe-inspiring! And even the effort to climb the tree in the tree-ship tells us that it is not all mental or emotional when it comes to acting -- it is also very physical! Plus sacrificing looks in favor of realism, without batting an eyelash, speaks of a professional dedication!

Had the AMPAS voters been fair -- this should have been his first Oscar nomination...nay, maybe even a win!

*I wonder, is Niko interested in filmmaking himself since he conceived and put together this documentary mostly by himself?


Merci bien! -- as Niko himself thanks the people who helped him make this hidden gem documentary. Too bad there is no longer a message board on IMDB where this can be shared with the fans of THE FOUNTAIN!


Jo

[jo]

On a sidelight -- did they ever go to Spain itself to film that scene at what seemed like one of Cordoba's most famous structure? It seemed they did because given their $ 35 million production budget, they could not have recreated the Mezquita ( with its unusually beautiful architecture and elaborate Moorish carvings) on that budget. Maybe it was cheaper to simply go to Spain and ask permission to use that. The documentary seems to show them actually filming inside the famous Mezquita ( and not simply superimposing previous photographs to actual film scenes).

www.google.com.ph/search?q=the+mezquita+cordoba&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXk5C-7sTZAhWH6Y8KHS_2BeUQ_AUICigB&biw=1093&bih=678&dpr=2.1

Jo

[jo]

www.nikotavernise.com/tablet/stills.html


Please scroll down to the last row of photographic stills --

*a familiar silhouette

*a scene at the Mezquita

*Rachel

[jo]

While discussing the latest sci-fi movie ANNIHILATION, there is comparison with THE FOUNTAIN by Rolling Stones.com --


www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/annihilation-modern-weird-sci-fi-renaissance-w517110

His open-ended, daring films are in good company with other great recent left-of-center sci-fi, most of which bombed at the box office or were micro-budget productions hiding on the margins. Before Darren Aronofsky scandalized viewers with mother!, his greatest provocation was 2006's The Fountain, a gusty, loopy sci-fi romance about a doctor (Hugh Jackman) trying to save his wife (Rachel Weisz) from cancer. But it's not just about that: The movie moves between parallel storylines involving a conquistador and a baldheaded cosmic traveler (both played by Jackman) that eventually intersect. Audiences stayed away in droves, but the boldness of The Fountain's vision overcame its flaws, attaining that rare sensation of bewildered exultation that only really trippy sci-fi can produce.

[jo]

Occasionally we get messages of love for THE FOUNTAIN … and even critical revisits from the negativity that initially greeted it. I cannot forget the very first review that came out of the Venice Film Festival where it premiered ( 1 of 4 stars) and my heart sank

Translated from Turkish by
Microsoft
"The Fountain" 2006 Darren Aronofsky film. I'd also like to point out Hugh Jackman because the film is built on him. I've seen this movie a hundred times, and I can watch it hundreds of times. I have no idea why I did this to myself at night. "I think" is the most beautiful movie in the universe.

The other day, someone said that there is this movie where one can grow flowers from one's body and he couldn't remember what it was, but Hugh Jackman was in it - LOL!