Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here. And that’s not me being snotty as a guy who likes the film, saying, “You didn’t get it, dude,” either. This guy says in his review that the film just plain confused him. That’s totally valid. I know what I think the film means, and I’ve talked to several people with different but equally solid interpretations. To me, that’s a really great sign of how rich a film is. Let’s see what this guy thought of it overall:
First time writer in with a preview of The Fountain. This is coming from a pretty big Aronofsky fan, I have a signed Requiem poster hanging above my workstation. I wouldn't bear his children or anything, but we need every brave, imaginative auteur we can get. I caught a preview screening at NYC's IFC joint in the west village. And who knew? Aronofsky was there to open it up. He appeared only as a kind of surprise (read: corporate favor) to WIRED magazine, who sponsored the screening as the opener of their NextFest. It was also mentioned that there'll be a large spread in the November WIRED getting intimate with Darren and his work on The Fountain as it spanned six years, so keep your eyes open for that. I feel doubly privileged as I saw Darren open Requiem in times square in 2001 (hence the poster.) Just like then, he seems to be a genuinely nice and open guy. But this time there was no Q&A after the film. And by god I wish there would have been. In short, The Fountain confused the hell out of me. I walked in with expectations and they were shattered in the first twenty minutes. This is not the film I expected. It's without a doubt the most potent story Aronofsky has tried to tackle, and told in a scattered timeline. You all know by now, three time periods, three stories, one throughline: the Mayans protect the tree of life, the fountain of youth, the key to eternal life. It's in Guatemala by the way, so get your tickets. Beyond that? Which stories are really happening? How literal are these events and stories? What has occurred by the conclusion? Beats the everliving fuck out of me! See what I did there? Everliving... Eh, piss off. The Conquistador bits are my favorite story. It has the best production design, the most at stake, the best bits of action. And there I do mean bits, as they're few and slim. The Inquisition was done frighteningly well - for the two scenes it gets. Next, the present day moments grated on me as melodrama. I understand loss and grief, but something about the sheer degree of drama had me oversaturated by the third or fourth major scene. A lot of this was soundstage work, and felt like it. And then there's the future sequences. Man oh man. What the fuck is up with this crazy bald guy? Sorry, I understand he's mad with lost love and countless years of travel- but that's not really up on screen, is it? I just have to accept it. I mean, what's on screen is about twenty scenes of a very bald, tortured Hugh Jackman talking to himself in a literal bubble and hallucinating about the past, hugging a tree and yes, eventually tonguing it sensually. Seriously. That said, the film is heavy on performance, almost like intimate stagecraft. I have never seen this much crying in a film. Heavy on the tears, all the time. Sometimes its moving, other times it falls flat on its face. The usual Aronofsky pals are in the supporting cast, along with some new tertiary fare. Rachael Weiss is... convincing. Ellen Burstyn is radiating in an odd but effective secondary role. Hugh Jackman is amazing, though by the end I'm tired of seeing his despair. The music doesn't help, either. I thought the score was two fists-full of muck. This is the film where Aronofsky should have split ways with Mansell and tried something new with his scoring. I know as a director he seems loyal to his collaborators and I loved Clint Mansell's work with Kronos on Requiem. This stuff just felt all over the place- choppy themes, cliche violins, hollow through-lines, bad cues, heartstrings heartstrings heartstrings. Maybe not bad music in itself, and Mogwai brought new things to the table, but it was certainly out of place and took me out of the moment more often than not. Sound design was awesome, cinematography was mostly amazing, visual FX were spiffy for the low budget. But the story (aka : what's really important) felt incomplete, despite all its dramatic and temporal wandering. So these three stories are revealed in a pattern repetition. This pattern builds well, keeps the pace moving, and remains comprehensible until all three stories build to a climax. A confusing, vexing, immediately unsatisfying climax. I left wondering first and foremost what the hell I just saw, and second just how much of that was actually oldschool rubber and optical FX. There were a lot of digital and 3-D credits and it looked like a good amount of digital work. But do I recommend seeing this in theaters? Yes! Buh? Because I feel like I just walked out of this generation's bastard-child 2001. A puzzle to be solved! My friend and I went over it the whole subway home and we're still going back and forth now. It resonated. Am I going to see it again in November? Yes. It's not the best movie of the year like I'd hoped, but it's certainly the best post-movie discussion of the year. Pity he couldn't knock this one out of the park. Call me Jackhalfaprayer
