Tuesday, January 09, 2007

"The Fountain"

Darren Aronofsky's movie The Fountain is one of those rare but pleasant surprises in which a movie you go see is exactly as advertised. If you've watched the trailer, the movie will feel and sound familiar to you, but you the story hasn't been ruined.

The Fountain is Aronofsky's meditation on love, death, birth, immortality and the meaning of life, which he conceived, if I'm remembering aright, after turning 30, while his partner (Rachel Weisz, also the lead actress in the film) was pregnant. In fact, it was hearing the story of his efforts to make the film that made me want to see it (which story you can read at Entertainment Weekly). Like the other movies he's made (pi and Requiem for a Dream), it's non-linear and highly atmospheric -- I would call the whole thing more of a feeling than a story. But it's quite the ride.

Though it's three parallel stories, the primary story is set in the present day (the director wisely, in my opinion, chooses something familiar in which to ground his metaphysical musings), where Tommy Creo (Spanish for "I create") is a doctor working on a cure for the disease that's killing his wife, Izzy. The other stories take place in Spain and South America, during the Inquisition and the reign of a much-fictionalized Queen Isabel, where Tomas is a conquistador; and in space, in the future (2500 AD, according to the trailer), where Tom is ... floating. All three Tommys are played by Hugh Jackman, with variations of hair to tell them apart, as the Izzys are played by Weisz.

I didn't have trouble keeping track of the story, as I'd originally feared. At the beginning not everything made sense, but all important loose ends were tied up by the end, while still leaving room for viewer interpretation. It was cinematically just what a mood piece should be -- filled with shots and camera angles that are meant to draw our attention, music that is itself moody but enhances rather than overwhelms the story (from Clint Mansell, who also composed the similar but more repetitive score for Requiem), repetition of story elements for emphasis and explanation -- and yes, it was occasionally heavy-handed. There isn't much character development. Everyone is who they appear to be (as far as personality and values), and the past and future stories feel even flatter. There are few sets and few extras -- I felt eventually claustrophobic with the tunnel vision focus of the story.

Tom/Tommy/Tomas does come to some sort of resolution in the end, which I hope reflects Aronofsky's, though I could write an essay about what it says of his world view (I'll put some of my thoughts in a comment so that you can read it once you've seen the movie). Don't go in looking for spiritual advice; it's not that specific a movie. Don't go in looking for something generally uplifting, either; it's not that sentimental. But Hugh Jackman can make me believe anything, and I believed in his Tommy.

Overall, I think I have to agree with the EW reviewer's take: "...it's an entirely mood-dependent experience enhanced by identification with romantic/spiritual/kabbalistic/journal-or-blog-keeping tendencies of one's own, and ruined by impatience... but I'm perfectly content to float with him even if he doesn't solve the riddles of the universe."

Labels: , ,

1 Comments:

Blogger Abigail said...

Danger! Spoilers ahead!

Please don't read this if you're going to see the movie, because you really will ruin a bit of it for yourself. There's a lot of payoff in finding out what happens to Tomas and who the heck that bald guy is.

Are you sure I can't talk you out of spoiling it for yourself?

Fine. Here goes.

In my mind, the story (not the movie) was as much about obsession as about love. Tommy loved -- loves -- Izzy, no doubt. But he takes his love to the point of being obsessed with finding eternal life for them, and nearly misses the little of the present he has left with her.

I considered Tom to be the same Tommy, who has found the cure for aging and lived for hundreds of years. Of all the things he could have done with that gift, he decides instead to take a space trip to a dying star. Alone with nothing but memories, he starts to go a little crazy.

His big revelation is that he's going to die, and he's okay with that. That's what the movie, not the story, was about, and it's basically the only conclusion that a meditation on immortality could come to. The Grand Inquisitor is supposed to be a villain in the story, I think, but his words ("death frees all souls," "your Queen is searching for eternal life here, a false paradise") ring truest.

The use of the Tree of Life (from the garden of Eden) as both symbol and literal thing is fascinating, but the existence of Tommy's predicament itself is proof that God was right to hide from us the ability to live forever on earth. How could we have borne the suffering? The truth is, we all will live forever, and we can only hope that life on Earth is the worst we have to experience.

11:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home