The Fountain

There's a sense watching The Fountain that Darren Aronofsky wanted to make his version of 2001, something that's substantially profound. Indeed, Aronofsky points out that 2001 still looks great today even as it's been almost 40 years since it was made since it didn't really use any CG, at least, nothing like what's available now.

Indeed, Aronofsky's main conceit is that he used no CG effects whatsoever, creating a bizarrely dreamy effect.

The story, I suppose, could be rather confusing to someone, though I found it relatively straight-forward. Basically, this is a story of Tommy, a doctor, and his wife, Izzy. Izzy discovers she's dying, and Tommy wants to save her life. Only she doesn't particularly care to be saved. She gives him a book she's been writing named, well, The Fountain (not, say, The Fountainhead), which presumably tells the quest of a conquistador off the new world to find eternal life from the tree of life.

There is a third part, which takes place in, well, the future? Hard to say what that part is, but it hints at a kind of distant future. That's where much of the unusual non-CG effects take place.

But what is this film about? Think about a traditional kind of fairy tale. Knight saves damsel-in-distress. It's shown as an act of love when you can save your loved one (typically, male saving female) from danger, and yet, that's the best one can do, right? After all, we're all mortal, and as much as we can stave off certain kinds of dangers, we can't live forever.

Or can we? A dream that dates at least as far back as Ponce de Leon's quest for the fountain of youth, the desire to evade death is something that humans have craved. In those days, magic was seen as the solution. These days, we look to medicine to achieve immortality, though, to be honest, we again try to fight off the more immediate dangers of disease.

And it begs the question--why do we want to live forever. The film posits something simple. Love.

Love's not a topic that Kubrick cared that much about. His films were known to have chilly characters. He eschewed sentimentality, which is perhaps why his films have a creepy quality that persists to this day.

The problem with making a film that wants to be more than just a basic love story is that it places a premium on the love story. So, we have Tommy who's so caught up in his work, which is to save Izzy's life, that he doesn't pay as much attention to Izzy as he should. Izzy is, well, not really a character, as some kind of idea. Filmed in radiant light, she's transcendent. Heck, even Dr. Guzetti (the elderly female doctor, looking rather Judi Dench) says she's amazing.

Point is, do you really believe that Tommy and Izzy have a real relationship. What does she see in him? The story isn't therefore about a real relationship, but a kind of idealization.

And even as you get drawn into the emotion and mood of the story, its conclusions are pretty lightweight. Basically, it says we all die, and that in dying, there is new life. So deal. Even more trite, it's really saying, be with the person you want to be with, because that time may be short. Tommy says he has to be away from his wife doing research because it's all for her (to save her life). But, of course, what kind of life is it, when he's not there with her to share life.

It's a little too bad that there's not something more profound to say given that the actors do a pretty good job throughout.

I was watching a clip out of Mulholland Dr. and realizing how David Lynch has a peculiar mastery of film, how he creates a creepy effect. The scene involves the two lead women attending a theater, listening to a guy talk about illusion, and a woman apparently singing Blue Bayou in Spanish. From my weak French, it sounded like she was singing about death.

Despite the dark X-Files like effect in the hospital, the weird non-CG effects, the music over many scenes, and the tight closeups everywhere, The Fountain still has an air of conventional story at its core, and therefore never quite reaches the transcendency it seems so desperate to achieve.

I suppose there's something novel, in this day and age of dysfunctional families and people, that Aronofsky would tell a story of love so powerful that it spans time and space (almost literally), and yet, it's really hard to buy into this love.

I'd watch it because it's engaging (eventually), but I think Aronofsky's missed the mark.

Hmm, I'd say B for both liking it and being good.