The Fountain!!!!!

[F-Man]

I just reread Jhiggy23's interpretation. I recall reading it before but didn't pay too much attention last time probably because I was in a hurry.

It is perfect! I love how you provide an explanation to him eating at the tree of Izzi's grave. This is shown in the movie so slowly that it always seemed like it had to have an important double meaning other than just showing an astronaut eating what he can to survive a flight to a dieing star.

It did always seem odd that Tom would have found his cure for death and jumped the movie into such an extreme science fiction vibe when so much of it is metaphorical rather than fictional fact. I think Aronofsky always mentioned the science fiction aspect of the story as being real. It would be real if Tom didn't get his epiphany at first and went on with his experiments to become immortal. The director decided to let the viewer ask himself: did it take the death of Tom's wife to evolve his character, or the death of the tree planted on her grave? By choosing how realistic you want the movie to be, you are also deciding how quickly the main character comes to his ultimate realization.

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Lets give Czar some credit here: first Schindler's List, then The Fountain!

I agree. He's trying something different and that's commendable.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by F-Man

I just reread Jhiggy23's interpretation. I recall reading it before but didn't pay too much attention last time probably because I was in a hurry.

It is perfect! I love how you provide an explanation to him eating at the tree of Izzi's grave. This is shown in the movie so slowly that it always seemed like it had to have an important double meaning other than just showing an astronaut eating what he can to survive a flight to a dieing star.

It did always seem odd that Tom would have found his cure for death and jumped the movie into such an extreme science fiction vibe when so much of it is so metaphorical rather than fictional fact. Aronofsky always mentioned the science fiction aspect of the story as being real. It would be real if he didn't get the epiphany at first and went on with his experiments to become immortal. He decided to leave the viewer wondering: did it take the death of his wife to evolve his character, or the death of the tree planted on her grave? By choosing how realistic you want the movie to be, you are also deciding how quickly the main character comes to his ultimate realization.

That is a nice insight. Yeah, I remember I saw the film in theaters the weekend it came out and only two or three other ppl were there. At the end, a 50s something guy threw his hands up in confusion and started laughing. It really annoys me when ppl don't have the patience to truly think about films.

I was lucky enough to have a copy of the film on my computer, as well as Aronofsky's commentary. In total, I've probably seen the film close to a hundred times. Each time I find something new, both as part of my analysis and as part of my thematic understanding and appreciation.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I've had ppl watch it through my lens and pm me saying they agreed with it after viewing the film again, and I've had ppl view it through my lens and come back with their own original insight!

wow dude, i just read your post in the linked thread. i hadn't read it before, or even knew that you had developed such a great interpretation. i've only seen the movie 4-5 times, which is nothing for this film. i'm going to have to re-watch it through the "jhiggy lens" and see what i find out. i particularly liked your explanation of

[Show spoiler] tom deciding to kill himself off with the tree of life, and that the future tom isn't real. i had read other interpretations saying that, and honestly had wanted to go that route, but they weren't as developed as yours.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

That is a nice insight. Yeah, I remember I saw the film in theaters the weekend it came out and only two or three other ppl were there. At the end, a 50s something guy threw his hands up in confusion and started laughing. It really annoys me when ppl don't have the patience to truly think about films.

I was lucky enough to have a copy of the film on my computer, as well as Aronofsky's commentary. In total, I've probably seen the film close to a hundred times. Each time I find something new, both as part of my analysis and as part of my thematic understanding and appreciation.

is Aronofsky's commentary on the blu-ray?

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ountain&page=4

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I've had ppl watch it through my lens and pm me saying they agreed with it after viewing the film again, and I've had ppl view it through my lens and come back with their own original insight!

Yep good times My own interpretation is on page 5

In addition to the great story open to philosophical interpretation, it's easy to forget that this film is also a visual wonder.

[Kryptonic]

Really adore this film. If you haven't, listen to Clint Mansell's score. One of the best of the decade.

[Teabaggins]

the first time I saw this movie I thought it was one of the most heartbreakingly beautiful and aching romantic movies I had seen in a while. I love it.

It's not as grimly tragic as Brokeback Mountain but it's up there as far as pulling at the old heartstrings goes

[Q?]

Wait a minute!
I have another theory...

[Show spoiler]The future is REAL! Think about this, He found the cure for death and that planted that seed at his wife's grave, the tree grew and in the future he went up that that nebula (?) to cure his wife or revive her?
Only then did he realise immortality wasn't worth it?
If it were like this there's a lot to reconsider again.

Of course I'll have to see it again if it makes sense in this context.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Lets give Czar some credit here: first Schindler's List, then The Fountain!

Agreed!

And Czar..... stick with it.... The Fountain is really thought provoking..... I would read Jhiggy's take on it, and watch it again..... you may not agree with everything, but the film will certainly take shape and make more sense....

[Teabaggins]

wait a sec... no POLL?!?!?!?!?

[vega2K]

Doesn't it get under your skin when they say The Fountain sucked and then they turn around and say Transformers 2 was Awesome.

The Fountain is one of my favorite movies. I have watched it countless times - always trying to keep an open mind about it's meaning and I always take away a little something new from it. I even love the making-of feature which talks about the roller coaster ride making the movie was, how they made some shots, and you get some insight into its meaning. Aside from the visuals, the soundtrack is one of the best in a movie, sometimes I have put on the movie more to hear the music. Very glad the OP re-kindled my feelings towards this movie. Also to the OP watch it again!

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Lets give Czar some credit here: first Schindler's List, then The Fountain!

but where's the Video Review of 2001 that he promised??? (and yes, Czar, I will find the post, don't test me)

[Rblu-Dblu]

I rented the fountain a couple of months ago. After the initial viewing I thought it was a great visual display but I was confused by the movie as well. I thought I'd never want to watch it again, but now after thinking about it I would like to see it again. I've read some of your theories about the movie and it does make more sense. I'll have to watch again to see if I can come to a better understanding of the movie.

[F-Man]

Originally Posted by Q!

Wait a minute!
I have another theory...

[Show spoiler]The future is REAL! Think about this, He found the cure for death and that planted that seed at his wife's grave, the tree grew and in the future he went up that that nebula (?) to cure his wife or revive her?
Only then did he realise immortality wasn't worth it?
If it were like this there's a lot to reconsider again.

Of course I'll have to see it again if it makes sense in this context.

That's not so much a theory as just accepting what the movie shows you as fact and not metaphorical. Basically accepting the surface narrative over the subliminal narrative. Are the ghosts in The Shining real?

[JTStarkiller]

I could talk about this film for hours, but to keep it short, this is my favorite film of all time. No other film has emotionally connected with me as much as this one. I really understood Tommy's intense obsession, and loved how incredibly honest and good he was, despite his flaws. I've seen it probably five or six times, and I find something new every time.

Mansell's score also is a huge part of its distinction, as I've heard literally nothing before that sounds like it.

[Dexter Morgan]

::adding to Netflix queue::

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by kevinbr100

i had the same reaction

Well atleast I dont feel out of place then! Got Em!!

Originally Posted by Q!

Here my understanding of the movie CZAR.

[Show spoiler]To me the movie is about accepting and coming to terms with death and our mortality.
Hugh Jackman is trying to save his wife from her deadly cancer in all of the different times, or if I remember correctly the past is the wifes book that she's writing.
The future is the last chapter that has to be written by Jackman.
It's in three different times, past present and future.

Past is the wife as the Queen of Spain or the country that is invaded (cancer), this is the wifes book that she is writing in the present.
Present is obvious
Future is Jackman in a spacebuble as a monk trying to save the tree of life (wife), this is Jackman finishing the book, the last chapter.

In the past The Queen (wife) is threatened by invasion (cancer) and Jackman is trying to save her and the country by looking for the tree of life.
In the present he's looking for the cure, he even talks about curing death ALL TOGETHER.
Remember she wrote a book in the present and left one chapter for her husband to finish? that was all about Jackman had to come to terms with death and accepting it and finishing the book.

In the future the tree of life is his wife and he tries to save it/her by going to the star (cure). But he breaks the bubble and accepts death. He accepts death, that's his last chapter that he finishes for his wife.

Also in the past Jackman dies while drinking too much of from the tree of life, greed, that could be understood as him trying to find a cure for cancer and death all together, but ultimately missing what was important.
Remember were the wife says something about "come out to the snow" at their home? It's shown several times and Jackman said no, he should have just said YES and spend more time with his beloved wife instead of pursuing the cure to death and he should've just accepted death as a natural part of life.
Anyways that is my confusing take of the movie
Go!!

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I've written almost 20 pages about the film, as it is my favorite, with the intent to add it into my (delayed) forthcoming book. Here is the link to a shortened version of my analysis, as well as some other analyses for your perusal Czar:


https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ountain&page=4



What I love about the film is that everyone takes something different away from it. I state, quite presumptively, that there is only one true analysis based on the facts and scenes set forth. However, I love hearing other ppl's takes on the film even if they aren't supported by the film, because when it comes down to it all that matters is what the film means to you personally.

Good read from both of yall. Yes I figured u could make your interpretion of what took place and what it was really about! After reading these interpretions it does make more since. I had ideas but didnt want to assume the wrong thing. I liked some of the actors in the film also which didnt hurt! Got Em!!

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Lets give Czar some credit here: first Schindler's List, then The Fountain!

Originally Posted by assydingo

I agree. He's trying something different and that's commendable.

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Agreed!

And Czar..... stick with it.... The Fountain is really thought provoking..... I would read Jhiggy's take on it, and watch it again..... you may not agree with everything, but the film will certainly take shape and make more sense....

Thanks to the 3 of u! Yea man I am trying. I have so many movies to see so why not start now! I know they are both different movies all together but since we rate a lot on this sight and I love rating films I liked Schinder's List better than the Fountain. After 1 viewing anyway! Got Em!!

Originally Posted by Teabaggins

wait a sec... no POLL?!?!?!?!?

Haha not for this one, but stay tuned! Got Em!!

Originally Posted by surfdude12

but where's the Video Review of 2001 that he promised??? (and yes, Czar, I will find the post, don't test me)

Yea like I told Q, I go on vacation after this friday so I will get in some good movie time! Got Em!!

Originally Posted by Rblu-Dblu

I rented the fountain a couple of months ago. After the initial viewing I thought it was a great visual display but I was confused by the movie as well. I thought I'd never want to watch it again, but now after thinking about it I would like to see it again. I've read some of your theories about the movie and it does make more sense. I'll have to watch again to see if I can come to a better understanding of the movie.

Exactly my take and thoughts as well! Good read! Got Em!!

[jeo393]

I love to see live (new threads/film promotions) given to such a wonderful and HIGHLY under-rated masterpiece. No other film have I ever been so careful at recommending to select viewers. Viewers that I know will appriciate, relate, understand and truly get something from this movie. Everytime I suggest this movie, I highly recommend the featurettes as well for a more complete understanding. You only get a fraction of what this film is with only a single viewing and no director commentary. The score, and visuals are still to this day mesmorizing and very tranquil/new age. No other film has had the replay value as this film has. It grows with you.... as you experience things in life.... it's like the film evolves with you when you watch it again, because you keep finding new things to relate to or come to understand better. If a film gets you thinking like this, it has done it's job! BRAVO!!

[CZAR]

I read originally Brad Pitt & Cate Blanchett were supposed to star in this film! Got Em!!