I just think all these directors using CGI, they’re movies are going to look dated later in time. I watch Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, any M.Bay film and the CGI already looks dated. It’s a good film, and it calls for CGI because of it’s content, but it’s a movie that will lose a lot of audeince because of crappy CGI.
Wenders said that?wow…..cute…
Miyazaki,Kaplanoglu and Petzold were also nominees last year…and let me not mention Mamoru Oshii and Schroeder,festivals are supposed to cheerfully reward,not prepare someone for the fuckin’ Oscars!!!!and Venice is like another Sundance,all for the money…
Blue K,
Joseph Campbell wasn’t New Age since he predates the New Age movement. But it wouldn’t be a stretch to call him an influence on the movement. He was also more of an analyst of mysticism/mythology than a mystic or mythologist himself. That said, I’m not that impressed by Campbell and find him to be watered down Jung for the masses (and I’m not much taken by Jung either).
In any event, Aronofsky in the Fountain is trying to create his own personal and individualist mythology by appropriating other culture’s religious traditions. Again, if that’s not New Age mysticism, I don’t know what is. I’m really not sure how The Fountain is thematically that different from, say, The Way of the Peaceful Warrior (that said, I’m sure the Victor Salva – yes, the child molester who brought the world Powder – adaptation of that book must be on par with The Fountain in its badness). It’s interesting to me that calling The Fountain “New Age” has ruffled people’s feathers. In any event, I think people should explain to me why the film isn’t New Age because if you look at the positive reactions to it on the previous page they are all couched in New Age rhetoric (from Jim’s opening post that it moved him in a way that he couldn’t explain, Ben’s description of the film as being both “spiritual” and “universal”, Major Tom’s comment about the point of the film being “you love because you are free to let go”, or Kanefire’s “It was a Trinity of stories, representing the trinity symbol for which its themes are the metaphor of” or Josh’s “it’s not Western but Eastern through and through” – which makes no sense since it’s speaking in a Western film idiom and that it’s a “love poem to death”). Maybe The Fountain is New Age for people who think that they don’t like New Age but secretly do.
I’m actually not using hyperbole when I call The Fountain one of the worst films of the decade (although maybe you want a qualifying statement – “in my opinion”). To be an epically awful film requires having grand scale ambition, talented people involved, an intensely personal vision, and an interest in making some kind of “grand statement” about the human condition. Obviously, teen comedies and slasher films don’t qualify. I found The Fountain absolutely agonizing to sit through. And truth be told, I’d rather sit through My Bloody Valentine in 3D than have to suffer through Aronofsky’s portentous nonsense again.
Blue K,
Joseph Campbell wasn’t New Age since he predates the New Age movement. But it wouldn’t be a stretch to call him an influence on the movement. He was also more of an analyst of mysticism/mythology than a mystic or mythologist himself. That said, I’m not that impressed by Campbell and find him to be watered down Jung for the masses (and I’m not much taken by Jung either).
In any event, Aronofsky in the Fountain is trying to create his own personal and individualist mythology by appropriating other culture’s religious traditions. Again, if that’s not New Age mysticism, I don’t know what is. I’m really not sure how The Fountain is thematically that different from, say, The Way of the Peaceful Warrior (that said, I’m sure the Victor Salva – yes, the child molester who brought the world Powder – adaptation of that book must be on par with The Fountain in its badness). It’s interesting to me that calling The Fountain “New Age” has ruffled people’s feathers. In any event, I think people should explain to me why the film isn’t New Age because if you look at the positive reactions to it on the previous page they are all couched in New Age rhetoric (from Jim’s opening post that it moved him in a way that he couldn’t explain, Ben’s description of the film as being both “spiritual” and “universal”, Major Tom’s comment about the point of the film being “you love because you are free to let go”, or Kanefire’s “It was a Trinity of stories, representing the trinity symbol for which its themes are the metaphor of” or Josh’s “it’s not Western but Eastern through and through” – which makes no sense since it’s speaking in a Western film idiom and that it’s a “love poem to death”). Maybe The Fountain is New Age for people who think that they don’t like New Age but secretly do.
I’m actually not using hyperbole when I call The Fountain one of the worst films of the decade (although maybe you want a qualifying statement – “in my opinion”). To be an epically awful film requires having grand scale ambition, talented people involved, an intensely personal vision, and an interest in making some kind of “grand statement” about the human condition. Obviously, teen comedies and slasher films don’t qualify. I found The Fountain absolutely agonizing to sit through. And truth be told, I’d rather sit through My Bloody Valentine in 3D than have to suffer through Aronofsky’s portentous nonsense again.
Blue K,
Joseph Campbell wasn’t New Age since he predates the New Age movement. But it wouldn’t be a stretch to call him an influence on the movement. He was also more of an analyst of mysticism/mythology than a mystic or mythologist himself. That said, I’m not that impressed by Campbell and find him to be watered down Jung for the masses (and I’m not much taken by Jung either).
In any event, Aronofsky in the Fountain is trying to create his own personal and individualist mythology by appropriating other culture’s religious traditions. Again, if that’s not New Age mysticism, I don’t know what is. I’m really not sure how The Fountain is thematically that different from, say, The Way of the Peaceful Warrior (that said, I’m sure the Victor Salva – yes, the child molester who brought the world Powder – adaptation of that book must be on par with The Fountain in its badness). It’s interesting to me that calling The Fountain “New Age” has ruffled people’s feathers. In any event, I think people should explain to me why the film isn’t New Age because if you look at the positive reactions to it on the previous page they are all couched in New Age rhetoric (from Jim’s opening post that it moved him in a way that he couldn’t explain, Ben’s description of the film as being both “spiritual” and “universal”, Major Tom’s comment about the point of the film being “you love because you are free to let go”, or Kanefire’s “It was a Trinity of stories, representing the trinity symbol for which its themes are the metaphor of” or Josh’s “it’s not Western but Eastern through and through” – which makes no sense since it’s speaking in a Western film idiom and that it’s a “love poem to death”). Maybe The Fountain is New Age for people who think that they don’t like New Age but secretly do.
I’m actually not using hyperbole when I call The Fountain one of the worst films of the decade (although maybe you want a qualifying statement – “in my opinion”). To be an epically awful film requires having grand scale ambition, talented people involved, an intensely personal vision, and an interest in making some kind of “grand statement” about the human condition. Obviously, teen comedies and slasher films don’t qualify. I found The Fountain absolutely agonizing to sit through. And truth be told, I’d rather sit through My Bloody Valentine in 3D than have to suffer through Aronofsky’s portentous nonsense again.
I’m glad that you bring up Joseph Campbell, BlueK, since I’m not comfortable either with the “New Age” tag being placed on this film. Flawed as the movie may be, and whether it successfully or unsuccessfully attempts to address metaphysical questions via tradition, or fantasy, it’s not New Age.
I do feel that The Fountain is best considered as a man’s attempt to cope with the untimely demise of the person he loves the most. And in the face of that the nature of life and death itself becomes even more of a struggle to understand.
I thought much of The Fountain was beautiful and much of it moving, but I do agree that it somehow falls short. I’m not sure exactly how, because I didn’t find the story incoherent. I’ll admit to bringing much with me in the viewing of this film, and do think it’s worth a second viewing.
Ari,
We read you the first time, lol. Triple posts aren’t too endearing even when they are as interesting as yours.
As to your argument as to why The Fountain is one of the decade’s worst movies, I do find almost an irrational and an intensely biased streak in it. I mean, what’s the point of citing a completely unrelated film like The Way of the Peaceful Warrior and mentioning that the guy who adapted the film is a child molester? Huh? Talk about resorting to a totally random ad hominem attack! I mean, even if you are right, and most of us in this thread are all wrong and we’re really just acolytes of the New Age movement and just too cowardly to admit it as you suggest, why would you even cite something like that? The point is…? People who liked The Fountain must condone child molestation? I mean, I’m sure that’s what you weren’t saying, but that is the crux of your logic.
But anyway, the prerequisites you mentioned for a film to be epically awful as you say—“grand scale ambition, talented people involved, an intensely personal vision, and an interest in making some kind of grand statement about the human condition”—are pretty much the prerequisites for a film to be truly great. Now, I’m not saying The Fountain is a great film, or anywhere even close to being one, but isn’t it at least admirable that Aronofsky did try so hard for something that wasn’t formulaic and cliche? Basically, your argument is that since you personally and intensely dislike the ideas in The Fountain that you find to be “New Age-y” (I personally don’t find it to be New Age-y and neither do many others, but I don’t think we will ever come to agree on this point) The Fountain is worse than My Bloody Valentine. Umm, okay… So I guess unless one is ASSURED that his work of intensely personal vision is bound to be a piece de resistance, he shouldn’t even try, right?
God forbid that an artist try for an ambitious project, because if he fails in the opinions of people like Ari, he should be condemned to the ninth circle of Dante’s inferno with child-molesting bad filmmakers like Victor Salva. I mean, would you really prefer that talented filmmakers like Aronofsky just completely forgo artistically ambitious projects and turn out commercially safe and artistically pedestrian material? Don’t we have enough of those?
The only time an artist (any artist, not just a filmmaker) can fail is if s/he risks. If s/he just turns out predictable, safe material there is no chance of failure.
And, btw, the ideas in THE FOUNTAIN are not New Age … they’re Age Old.
“The Fountain” is as much an Existentialist film as it is Buddhist.
To call it New Age is the most superficial analysis possible.
Interesting. First, BELLWHETHER – comparing this film to movies like Transformers is a little silly. Aaronofsky actually went out of his way to minimize the CGI… all those insane visuals in the “future” sections are created from underwater macro photography. CGI was only used for the color correction and compositing, from what I understand. The use of analog photographic process is one of the things that makes this film really great-looking, in my opinion, with its vision of a primordial far future.
All this disagreement seems to be coming about because we’re looking at this film on a couple different levels. The people who dislike the movie often seem to be seeing it on the “philosophical underpinnings” level, and they seem to be looking for the film’s purpose on this level, and finding it kind of empty and cliched. I can understand that… its discussions of mortality and the everlasting power of love are a little trite. “I will die!” Isn’t that the line that the main character repeats three times as a philosophical climax? If you’re a high-level thinker, looking for the most abstract concepts this film represents, you might dislike it. I could even understand tagging this film as “new age,” since it’s got a generically spiritual and generically literary feel to it. Some people think love and death are the only themes worthy of art… others are tired of these grand ruminations, and would rather see something a little more real.
I was a big fan of The Fountain when I saw it, but it was less for the high concept, and more for the treatment and execution… the attention to details, and weaving of various thematic threads. The feminine force takes on different forms in each era — the queen as mother to the nation and her people, the wife as lover and caretaker, and the tree as force of nature and bastion of organic life. The threads of the film were woven really tightly, and the themes, though melodramatic, were well-executed. I never minded melodrama.
I’ve cooled off a lot on the film, though… perhaps because of the aforementioned thinness of its philosophical underpinnings. As my specific memories of the film recede further into the past, I remember it more and more as a pretty film about fairly generic literary themes. I have it somewhere on DVD… it’s probably time I rewatched it, to see if my enthusiasm returns.
I love the movie because i connected to it on an emotional level and thought it was a visual and aural experience. Quite frankly i haven’t over-analyzed it as some of you have because it shows some very basic human emotions, such as love, obsession, and fear of death. I was moved to tears by it and left in awe at the end. That’s it.
I thought it was a great film, second only to Children of Men as far as ‘06 is concerned. It may even be Aronoksky’s best
Blue K,
I can’t explain the inexcusable triple post. Perhaps the vehemence of my disgust for the film made me hit the enter button overzealously. Again, what’s interesting is that instead of actually addressing my criticism of the film, there’s just substanceless retorts (it’s “Age Old not New Age” – egads, all New Agers spout that nonesense – and Tom’s, it’s just “superficial” without actually defending his point or offering any serious rebuttal to what I wrote). Even saying that you connect to it on an emotional level is essentially meaningless without a coherent explanation (people can connect emotionally to all kinds of crap like Forest Gump, Patch Adams, or Taco Bell commercials). Considering the entire thread began with someone asking why people hate this film I think people who defend it need to offer something more substantial than empty criticisms of people who dislike it.
Incidentally, obviously if someone has grand scale ambition they risk grand scale failure. That was my entire point. And that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try but I’m not going to appreciate them on effort alone. The more monumental the ambition, the larger the failure. That’s a risk. And I don’t admire Aronofsky for his colossal self-indulgence. In any event, ambition has to be measured by the results rather than admiration for ambition alone. Hitler and Stalin were quite ambitious and risky, you know, but I give them no points for that. My point about Victor Salva is not an ad hominem attack but that I think content wise The Fountain is on par with the Way of the Peaceful Warrior (I actually read that godawful book) in the New Age platitude that equates transcendence with acceptance of mortality. In other words, I don’t see them being unrelated at all.
Alright, not to be a party pooper, but I think the New Age/Old Age argument has run dry. What I really would like to hear is some more constructive criticism of this film. Many have already said that it has failed to say something important or meaningful, but I am not sure what you think he is trying to say in the first place. I am not sure what he is trying to say, yet I still feel like this is a great film. Also, saying that this is one of the worst films of the year is ridiculous, for the imagery alone elevates it above many, if not most of the films of the year.
The film is about dealing with and accepting death as a natural part of life. That pain and struggle is part of what it is to be human. When you can find peace with that, you can find peace with anything, and life—all of life—becomes beautiful.
The film could have just dealt with this in a straightforward narrative way, but it doesn’t, and therefore elevates itself into a great film.
1. Narrative: the present-day timeline—this allows the audience a way into the main narrative
2. Literary: the past timeline—this expands the narrative to a discussion about symbolism, the creative process, and a historical perspective that lends depth to the overall theme
3. Symbolic: the future timeline—this allows the film to become a work of art, to encapsulate the film in a simple sphere, the tree of life, and a sole human being, highly archetypal, but still dealing with the same things as the man in the main narrative. It also allows for the film’s most beautiful and transcendent imagery, and thereby seals its message to us.
Obviously, I think it’s a great film. I get that it doesn’t work for everyone, and I’m not trying to convince you, just trying to add some clarity from my perspective.
There are very few films that have more of an emotional impact on me than The Fountain does, and I think Aronofsky was trying to make a cinematic experience rather than a narrative one. It’s seemingly supposed to be an aural journey, and it’s very meticulously shot so that it focuses less on the people involved and more on recurring symbolism. I think one of the reasons people find it difficult to understand is because they’re looking in the wrong places. This is a love story, but it’s not necessarily about the love of two people; that’s the surface. It’s about the bigger picture of death and rebirth and the Eastern idea of “eternal” love.
I just watched The Fountain yesterday, and my feelings about it are still decidedly mixed. I’m not a very spiritual person at all, so all the life/death philosophizing that carries through the entire movie didn’t really touch me on any emotional level. I felt like it was adequately acted, but I never found myself able to emotionally connect with anything on the screen. It might have been because my analytical head gear was on through the entire movie, and I was really concentrating on making sense of the narrative pieces as a whole.
What I did love about it was the film techniques and narration. The linking of the stories through pure graphic matches, the beautiful color saturation and hues (especially gold). The motifs of rings, trees, Mayan culture, and dying stars. The parallels in each separate story, and how each related to the other. It was an interesting film to say the least, and I applaud it for its ambition. I think I’d need to see it again to give a better opinion of it, however.
“I felt like it was adequately acted, but I never found myself able to emotionally connect with anything on the screen.”
Which is the real problem, the emotions are generic and not specific enough to the characters. You spend 90 minutes with these people and i defy anyone to tell me what their like as people. Describe the wife as a person. What kind of personality type is she? That’s the problem when you set out to make a grand(iose) vision about “LOVE,” you end up with platitudes instead of passion. Has anyone seen Altered States? The storyline is very different but the new agey themes are similar. The difference is the two main characters are very specific people who you feel like you have gotten to know a little when the movie is over.
Terrible, pretentious, and badly acted (can Hugh Jackman convince in anything?). I’m with Ari: one of the worst of the decade.
The critics didn’t like it because there were spiritual motifs throughout the film…what one might consider new age even. And it certainly is in vogue to wear your atheist pin with pride.
I love the film though. Christianity didn’t ruin God for me.
>>it’s “Age Old not New Age” – egads, all New Agers spout that nonesense<<
Shucks. And here I though I was being clever and original. As I’m not a New Ager (but am interested in world religions), I have no idea what they say.
But it strikes me that putting down a film because of alleged New Age tendencies is as “so what?” a criticism as critiquing a director’s ability based on his sexual predilections. I think this is what is known as an opinion, not a criticism.
Sure, Harry, I fully agree with you. I think that the film is New Age is beyond repute and isn’t an inherent criticism. It’s subject matter and treatment of the subject matter is New Age. Now I fully admit that I don’t like anything that reeks of New Age but even as a New Age film, I will say that the film is awful. It’s just that people who loved the film picked up on that and didn’t like the connotations. I think that says something more about them than me. I think you could also perhaps make the claim that the ending of 2001 is New Age. I don’t have a problem with that (I’d say its hippie consciousness is what makes it a high point of that era) and still appreciate the movie (and more than just appreciate it, I can say that I’m moved by it as well even if I don’t agree with its premises).
For people who think that the claim that the film is superficial, should check here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/newage.htm
And see how the film’s themes and what’s listed there are similar.
I was always curious why the film has such a high IMDB ranking. I guess I can see it from here. What’s amusing to me is how lovers of the film make such specious and spurious accusations against those who can’t fathom its transplendant greatness. First, it was that they can’t appreciate it for being non-narrative and poetic. And now with Trelk’s post, it’s because they are anti-religion and atheists. What a load of crap. I don’t like Scientology and Hare Krishna. Does that make me anti-organized religion? It’s the same bad logic.
The Fountain competes against Last Year at Marienbad for the position of being the best film I’ve ever seen.
Most films try to succeed via plot or characters or atmosphere. The Fountain does succeed because of the path rarely trod that is raw emotion. Part of the reason why I think the film is so divisive is because if you don’t click with the raw emotion and get drawn in by it then the film doesn’t seem to be offering all that much. However if you do click with it then the film is one hell of a ride – for a film to simultaneously make me cry so profusely and elevate me to an almost otherworldly level of tranquility is truly amazing. It is an incredibly moving, spiritual (and this is coming from an atheist!), beautiful, personal film and I absolutely adore it.
If only I had the ability to connect to a movie to the state of crying. I dream of that. Does that disqualify me as a cinefile, I hope not, it’s scary.
The discussions present were illuminating.
Ari, labeling The Fountain ‘New Age’ is okay, if that’s what you see in it.
But I think the main reason why your insistence on that label doesn’t ring true for me, is because the label ‘New Age’ is rather old-fashioned and outdated: it doesn’t really mean anything anymore. It was a label given to spiritual ideas without religious dogma, ideas that spirituality can be universal and inherent to humanity without specific religious affiliation, or the culling of ideas from many different religions to form one’s own spiritual identity.
Darren Aronofsky does this with The Fountain – he intentionally combined ideas from many different religions, cultures, and traditions and found a common ground between them that speaks to what makes us all of us human – it is not based in any one religion, but rather within the basic common ground of the human spirit. This is especially valid because we live in a time in which we are increasingly connected with others around the world, and can share ideas with greater ease, for greater insight into the human condition. And it’s also especially valid because we live in an age of both rampant materialism and violent religious fundamentalism. This matter of finding the common human spirit will only become more relevant as time goes on, and the world grows smaller.
That’s how I see it – and I can see how that could fit firmly into your definition of what you call ‘New Age’. But that’s a term that’s fading fast from the common lexicon. That’s because it was based on a superstition of the new and anti-establishment ideas that were brought into the open in the ‘60s by the same ’hippies’ who enjoyed Kubrick’s universal take on humanity in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Again, as you said, that film also fits firmly within your definition of ‘New Age’. But personally I don’t think that matters – because, for instance, 2001 hasn’t been remembered primarily as a ‘New Age’ film – especially because that vague terminology doesn’t mean much in describing it.
Which is I think why broadly labeling films such as 2001 or The Fountain as ‘New Age’ can be offensive as well – because it’s a broad oversimplification and trivialization of the ideas presented within the films, and conveys a suspicion of new ideas that challenge established orthodox thought. At this point in time, I think the label ‘New Age’ has more connotations with feeling offended and/or threatened by the content, or at the least just disagreeing with it, than anything else.
Which is why I agree with Harry: calling a film ‘New Age’ is an opinion, not criticism. You’re not going to convince those of us who like the film, because perhaps that label doesn’t ring true for us, doesn’t hold significant current relevance, or sounds like a broad oversimplification; an opinion, being forced upon us as fact.
I’m sorry if you feel that those of us who like this film have made personal attacks or accusations against those who don’t (though that’s not how I see it). But you must understand that by dismissing our very individual experiences of a very personal film with a broad, umbrella term, you risk offending. This is a film that inspires very personal reactions, and it’s a sign of its emotional power that people either love it or hate it. I don’t mind at all if you don’t like the film, that’s only natural, as its very nature inspires such a 50/50 response. Because of that, we are compelled in our reviews and comments to respond to the criticism with reasons why the film works for us. There’s no reason to take offense if you don’t see anything resembling what we see in the film; The Fountain is intentionally vague, and therefore leaves the viewer at the center of the film, thus making it a highly subjective experience. We are naturally going to want to point out why we see this as a brilliant film, and why it may not be for everyone, which is okay.
I don’t think there’s anything to ‘get’ in The Fountain; it seems far too intuitive for that. As William said, it either clicks with you, or it doesn’t. It has little in common with traditional narrative cinema, and is not trying to make a philosophical statement in the western rationalist tradition either – It is more of a poem, a meditation, a reflection. It offers experiences rather than answers. Those are some of the reasons why I like it. You may think it’s the worst film of the decade, while I think it’s the best – and that’s okay!
And also, in response to Mike Spence:
It’s true that the film’s emotions are generic and non-specific to the characters. Which is one of The Fountain’s greatest strengths I believe, and one of the reasons why I like it – it would be a completely different film otherwise. The emotions are intentionally generic and non-specific to the characters because the characters are meant to be you or me, or anyone else. All we know about the characters are their situations – situations which we all must face. What is interesting then, is their decisions in the face of their experiences. If it got more specific than that, then the film would be about them, rather than about us.
They are generic characters just like the hero in an epic is generic: Luke Skywalker, Frodo, Odysseus, Beowulf: which puts us in their shoes and makes the world around them instantly relatable to us. This is important because, just as in The Fountain, these characters are dealing with broad themes of life, experiences and decisions that we all face, in one way or another. That’s the way I see it at least.
Altered States is a fascinating film too, one that deals with similar themes with a completely different approach. If Altered States is more character driven, then The Fountain is more symbolic. Neither is a ‘better’ approach than the other, just each a different approach to filmmaking and the age-old questions, by two very talented filmmakers. Which is why I love film: the possibilities are endless. : )
Ben, thanks for your spirited (no pun intended) defense of the film. I probably should not wade into this discussion any more than I have already but I find people’s reactions to this film so puzzling that I can’t help myself. First off, I don’t think “New Age” is old-fashioned and outdated a label. It’s an umbrella term, sure, but a useful descriptive one. I hate having to pull out definitions but let’s turn to Wikipedia for this: New Age is a decentralized Western social and spiritual movement that seeks “Universal Truth”and the attainment of the highest individual human potential… It combines aspects of cosmology, astrology, esotericism, alternative medicine, music, collectivism, sustainability, and nature..The New Age Movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions… combined with science and Gaia philosophy: particularly archaeoastronomy, astronomy… the Gaia hypothesis and physics. New Age practices and philosophies sometimes draw inspiration from major world religions: Buddhism, Chinese folk religion, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism; with particularly strong influences from East Asian religions, Gnosticism, Neopaganism, New Thought, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Universalism, and Western esotericism."…. Okay, let’s stop right there and compare it with your description of the film:
“Darren Aronofsky does this with The Fountain – he intentionally combined ideas from many different religions, cultures, and traditions and found a common ground between them that speaks to what makes us all of us human – it is not based in any one religion, but rather within the basic common ground of the human spirit.”
Again, to me, what you’re saying is that the film is New Age. You might not like the label but there’s a certain irony that you (like others who have defended the film in the same way) are inadvertently giving a textbook definition of New Age while explaining to me how that label is offensive, inappropriate, dismissive, simplistic or stupid. You might not like that label and find it an opinion but your very words betray you. This idea that there’s this universal wisdom of what unites us as human beings that the film is somehow tapping into through its synthesis of world religions like Buddhism, Maya, and astrophysics and science all reveal this. Again, this might work for Westerners but I do wonder if Mayans react the same way to it. Or other global cultures. The fact that you say it’s universal doesn’t mean it is. In fact, I think the film’s superficial and Western-centric treatment of non-Western religious is part of the film’s problem. Apocalypto, as bad as it is, shows a better understanding of Mayan religion/culture than The Fountain.
You say I trivialize the film’s content, but then say it’s vague and intuitive (as if you just have to “feel it”). Obviously, there’s no point of debate if you leave it at that. It becomes the equivalent of pointless theological disputes between believers and non-believers where nobody convinces anyone of anything. But I think the film needs to hold up further than that and I ask people who reacted so positively to it to give a more coherent account of what the film is saying. For example, you say that the Fountain “found a common ground between them that speaks to what makes all of us human” but you should then please enlighten me as to what this is. Defenders of the film seem to love these kinds of empty generalities of the film’s “wisdom” without actually explaining it and then lapsing into incredibly vague mysticisms. Is what really “makes all of human” the banality that we as human beings all die? To me, that is, you know, quite obvious to say the least.
And this is the crux of my problem with the film. I really don’t think Aronofsky has a grasp with what he’s playing with either besides these kinds of pseudo-profundities. To use a different example, I liked Pi quite a bit when I first saw it but it’s the kind of film that suffers on further viewing when you realize that Aronofsky has such a superficial understanding of Kabbalah that he makes Madonna seem like Gershom Scholem in comparison.
Ben, I couldn’t agree more. Come to Dallas and I’ll buy you a drink.
Ari: Agreement is out of the question, which is fine, but clarity between our points of view is everything.
You don’t have to look past Aronofsky’s own words (I’m looking for the quote) to understand what he was ‘playing with’, and it wasn’t “pseudo-profundities”.
They are very basic, simple, and very profound pillars of Eastern philosophies that date back thousands of years. I can’t see how this is missed, but you may interpret it differently.
@Ben
First I have to second Ari’s comments. I think your entire second paragraph, if read aloud, would sound like a new age speech if I heard someone saying it.
The problem with generic heroes is manifold. One problem is that we no longer live in simple times and writers who pretend we do often seem like they are fruitlessly attempting to go backwards. Odysseus holds up partly because of when it was written. The countless Odysseus imitators since Homer don’t hold up as well because they seem less like “us” than like Odysseus.
Joyce recognized this when he remade the generic Odyssey template into the very specific Ulysses. He understood that for those of us in the present, in order to identify with another human being it helps to see what is specifically human about them. Aronofsky, by his casting two hot hollywood “types” and putting them in cliched bathtub and snowy wonderland scenes, deprives his Tristan and Isolde parable from having enough meat to justify his sauce. The more you cut into it the more you come up with nothing but sauce.
Symbolism is a tricky thing. To use Joyce as a comparison once more, he compared his method with Dubliners to that if the catholic mass, wherein ordinary objects (bread, wine) become extraordinary. This method is difficult but is generally more advisable than trying to make the average audience member see themselves in a timeless love story where the main characters are heroic and beautiful non-entities who don’t even appear as if they eat bread.
It’s a pretty picture but if his only point was the timelessness of love he should have kept it to himself or tried to explore it using real characters instead of cliches. The film is short as it is, a few more scenes with the two lovers actually speaking about their daily lives (assuming these scenes were interesting) might have made the new age spirituality more palatable for me
The “timelessness of love” is a distraction. The real theme of this film, as revealed by the director, is much more simple and profound.
Life Is Death. Death Is Life. The sooner we accept this the quicker we obtain bliss.
Nothing more, nothing less. And that’s not new age—that’s ancient.
apursansar
I agree with Dimitris, it´s rather strange that a film like The Wrestler won the Golden Lion in Venice, but on the other hand did Wim Wenders point out that there were no real alternatives, and that he wouldn´t want to be jury president again.