The Ending of The Fountain

Expect to see spoilers below:
I went in to The Fountain expecting a blow-your-mind thinkfilm in the manner of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but got a small and precise film instead. This isn't a bad thing -- it's just not what I expected. (Although visually the movie was large in scope and quite beautiful.) Death is such a huge subject to tackle, and rather than go for a Babel/Traffic/Syriana-type story -- all the rage these days -- covering fear of Death in all its permutations, or even for a symbolic approach like Bergman's masterpiece The Seventh Seal, director Darren Aronofsky strips down the philosophical side of things and simply observes how two or three basic characters accept, deny, fight against, and embrace Death. As far as that goes, The Fountain is a minor accomplishment.
In the Las Vegas Weekly, local reviewer Josh Bell called The Fountain a "feature-length fortune cookie" -- peel back some of the dismissive contempt and I might agree. But take this indelible (and inedible) quote from the philosopher Spinoza, whose outlook on death as summarized by Bertrand Russell I find to be quite useful: "A free man thinks of nothing less than of death; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death, but of life." Russell then goes on to say:
It is only death in general that should be so treated; death of any particular disease should, if possible, be averted by submitting to medical care. What should, even in this case, be avoided, is a certain kind of anxiety or terror; the necessary measures should be taken calmly, and our thoughts should, as far as possible, be then directed to other matters. The same considerations apply to all other purely personal misfortunes.
What's tragic about The Fountain is that Tom Creo (Hugh Jackman) directs his thoughts toward death entirely for hundreds of years (if you accept the sci-fi interpretation of the film, which Aronofsky seems to have intended), and only after a final, desperate moment does he assume the lotus position and embrace death. His wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz), on the other hand, has no such problems and is a Spinoza follower all the way. Her problem is with convincing her husband to feel the same way, and her eponymous fable about the conquistador Tomas is her modus operandi. A simple morality play, perhaps, and maybe its message sounds clichéd in the telling, but as David Foster Wallace is always at pains to make clear, that shouldn't take away from its veracity nor its sincerity.
<<< Winter Bells Soy is the food of the devil! >>>

Well, CM, I have come to trust your opinion enough to keep an open mind on the film (and your commentary is always appreciated). However, what in God's name made you expect "a blow-your-mind thinkfilm in the manner of 2001: A Space Odyssey" --did we see different previews? Or were you highly predisposed to like Aronofsky?
The latter, yes, but it also came about from reading interviews with Aronofsky in which he described his inspirations behind the film. Plus, you know, awesome visuals = deep movie, right?
the 5th element sure made me think.
Pretty much going into a movie expecting 2001 is going to result in disappointment. For some, that's even true if the movie you're going to watch is 2001.
Remember all those interviews with Luc Besson about the Fifth Element. He kept talking about how he came up with the film when he was 16. Like that wasn't obvious.
I wouldn't say I had contempt for the film; I honestly do admire Aronofsky's ambition and persistence, and I was really looking forward to seeing the movie, which probably played a part in my eventual disappointment. I think the all-consuming drive that allowed Aronofsky to make the film in the first place was probably what made it seem so myopic and pseudo-profound; anything you have to care so much about for so long is bound to lose some perspective.
Yeah, perhaps "contempt" is too strong a word for your review, but "dismissive" isn't. I think the profundity of the movie is a function of the viewer's beliefs, religion, and life experiences. It's easy to expect something profound because of the 1,000 year timeline, the non-linearity, and the deliberate cinematography but in fact Aronofsky has created a simple fable. Perhaps it will be easier to see the movie this way in ten or so years once expectations and hype and other such things are forgotten.
You found it simple, I found it simplistic and schematic, and the characters flat and broad. I felt like all of the elements that you mention would lead one to expect something profound were just smoke and mirrors covering up the fortune-cookie sentiment at the center.
Post new comment