The Fountain
Rated: PG-13
No film this year has enraptured me quite like Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain. 
I've seen this film twice in the past two weeks and yet I still have no idea how to review it. One of the film's two mantras echoes in my head: "Finish it." But I don't know how. There's so much to digest, both within the framework of the film and since I'm writing this review post-release, the general reaction among critics and the general populace. I guess the best place to begin would be at the beginning. Aronofsky isn't so chronologically restrained but he's much smarter than I am. Darren Aronofsky tried making this film before. He tried making it with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in the staring roles. But for the usual reasons (money and time), the film fell apart in pre-production. But Aronofsky never gave up on the project. First he made it into a graphic novel. Then, he slimmed it down, streamlined the story and budget, and signed Hugh Jackman and wife Rachel Weisz. And he finished it. His final product is a film that has, is, and will continue to baffle, seduce, enrage, confuse, and provoke an entire index of reactions. It's a tough film to follow and even harder to deconstruct. I'll attempt the former and leave you to the latter. The film takes place in three time periods. In the year 1500, the film follows a fictional tale of a conquistador named Tomas (Hugh Jackman), appointed the task of finding the Tree of Life in order to free Spain from the impending control of the mad Grand Inquisitor Silecio. A love of Spain and an even greater love for its Queen (Rachel Weisz) drive Tomas through the Mayan ruins as he hunts for the Tree. 
But that story is unfinished because in the year 2006, its author Izzi (Weisz) is dying of brain cancer. Her husband Tommy (Jackman) struggles to find a cure. It's a hopeless quest and a bit of a selfish one. Thankfully, the scenes between Jackman and Weisz contain so much chemistry that their love is believable its imperfections only enrich the love story. Finally, in the year 2500, Tom (Jackman) is haunted by both his decision to focus on his work instead of spending what little time with Izzi he had left and the unfinished story appointed to him to finish as Izzi's last request. Rather than finish the story, Tom has decided to defeat death through science and his quest has brought him to the dying star/nebula, Xibalba. Accompanied by the Tree of Life, he is hoping that the energy from Xibalba's imminent death will rejuvenate the Tree, now clearly a symbol for the wife he couldn't save. This is just the broad overview. The film's 96 minute runtime is packed with visual rhyming, symbolism, themes, meditations, and yet it all clicks together never leaving the film feeling too fat or too lean. It's an intricate framework but never feels sterile due to the energy radiating from both the actors and the direction. Each shot is perfectly measured. Each frame is a painting. Each note is haunting and soul-stirring. The film is perfectly crafted and there's not one weak link in the structure. 
But I do have one problem with the film and it comes from the other mantra: "Death is the road to awe." It's a line that seems to come from one who has not experienced enough death. This is not to say that I have, but I do hear stories from my father who works hospice and the end of life is not always as awesome as Aronofsky hopes it to be. The general idea seems that if you accept death, then it can be a beautiful experince rather than a terrifying one. But death works in so many ways. You're not going to always go in your sleep. Sometimes you're going to die in incredible pain and even if you accept death, that doesn't mean the pain is magically going to go away. That is if Aronofsky's talking about real death. Medical death. The harsh death where you're going to lose bladder control and start to decay unless you get frozen and pumped full of embalming fluid. But Aronofsky is talking about death as an act of creation. That death can only cause pain through loss and that loss is negated through creation. 
And with this brief tangent you can see how the film can leave your head spinning on a thematic level. These are just the grand ideas. I'm not even going into the symbolism of the wedding ring, the dagger, Xibalba and so forth. This is a film that requires a dialogue and deep thought and looking over the sharply divided reviews, I find it all too tempting to brush off those who viewed it negatively as "stupid". However, I do have very little respect for those that labeled the film "pretentious" because the bigger problem that some might have is not that The Fountain is pretending, but that it's too damn earnest. Not only is it confident in the ideas its expressing, confident in its direction, but most daunting, confident in its love. At its end, The Fountain is a fragile, delicately crafted love story and one that works incredibly well if you don't smash it with the Hammer of Cynicism. Otherwise, a guy who just can't get over his dead wife for 500 years seems dumb. If you don't buy the love story, there's nothing I can say that will convince you because ultimately that's a personal matter. I will say that it had me tearing up by the end, but that's just me. Aronofsky doesn't play the futurist and neither will I (some call the film sci-fi, but there's very little science in the film, despite Tommy being a scientist and part of the film taking place in the future. As a film critic, my job is to steer people towards or away from films. With The Fountain, I'm sure some people will hate it and yet I believe that they should see it because they'll have a rewarding conversation with those who love it. Whether you love it or hate it, all I ask is that you don't dismiss it. The amount of work, energy, and emotion on display demands your attention. But if you end up loving it like I have, you'll realize that there's too much there to ever really "finish it." Words by  |
