comment #1

JD says ...

I liked The Fountain, but -- just to prove how subjective these things are -- I wasn't impressed with the visuals at all. Don't get me wrong, it's clear that a lot of work went into those images, but that's part of the problem. It felt storyboarded to death.

Since we're all thinking about Robert Altman these days, look at the amazing, effortless grace of his visual style. He consistently avoided glossiness in favour of a more spontaneous style that was much harder to pin down. You could never verbalize exactly what effect Altman was going for with the camera, but you could feel it. I think the opposite is true with Arronofsky: you understand exactly what he's trying to do with every shot and, as a result, the shots lack feeling. It's still a worthy movie, but not the groundbreaking visual feast some people want it to be.

comment #2

The Movie Man says ...

This is a beautiful, criminally underrated movie. It can be irritating how the critics are always clamouring for something different but then shit on it when that something different finally arrives. This movie needed the critics' help, and they totally dumped on it, some of the headlines that I read on Rotten Tomatoes were jokey and half assed and seemed to me to have an authentic contempt for what they were watching. Flawed as it is (and it IS flawed) Aronofsky should at least be commended for taking this on and for giving us one of the most haunting films of the year. Think Solaris (Soderbergh) or 2001 if they didn't keep their characters' humanity at arm's length.

comment #3

cjKennedy says ...

I know most reviewers aren't being critical, but I'm getting a little tired of The Fountain being passed around as some kind of stoner epic. It's too easy to dismiss such a thing without really contemplating it and this beautiful film deserves much more.

To the extent a person needs chemical enhancement to meditate on the workings of their own emotions and intellect, then I guess they'd need the same to appreciate this movie. However, don't let the idea that it's some kind of acid tinged cinematic mindfuck keep you from seeing one of the saddest, most beautiful and interesting movies of the year.

I don't want to get into spoiler territory but the supposed convolutions of the multiple plot threads are really not that complicated when you see them for what they really are and it was all pretty clear to me after 15 or 20 minutes of paying attention.

That Hugh Jackman isn't getting any notice from The Guru's of Garbage or whoever is reason number 4721 that I put no stock in Oscar or the people who tout them.

comment #4

cjKennedy says ...

When I said "I know most reviewers aren't being critical" I meant that the films trippiness wasn't being leveled as a criticism against it, not that critics didn't hate the film. Clearly many of them did.

JD has an interesting point about Aronofsky compared to Altman. I'd expand the comparison further to Altman disciple PT Anderson. Though his films are Altmanesque, they also seem scrupulously detailed and planned. This isn't a criticism from me about either filmmaker, just an observation. I love PT Anderson's work as well as Aronofsky's, but Altman's films for me always seem to spring up organically and surprisingly from the messy cracks in between his narratives rather than from the narratives themselves. I'm not sure you can plan that out.

Sorry, I've rambled enough for one day.

comment #5

Devin Faraci says ...

I don't see the point in comparing Altman and Aronofsky beyond both having last names that begin with As. They're coming from very different places and trying to do very different things. Also, THE FOUNTAIN proves Aronofsky can make a scifi movie, while QUINTET proved Altman couldn't!

At any rate, as a once copious user of psychotropic substances, I don't think THE FOUNTAIN would benefit from being high. I mean, the space stuff is sort of trippy looking, and the final minutes of the film rely on a kind of dream logic - anyone looking for narrative sense of some of the stuff at the end will just be confused, it's all about thematic and emotional sense - but the movie's mostly a heavy examination of death. That's the sort of thing we used to like to trip on when I was in 12th grade and heavily into The Tibetan Book of the Dead, but it doesn't make a good movie trip, imo. Especially since the film examines this stuff from an emotional perspective, the kind of thing that would have made me have a very, very bad trip.

comment #6

cjKennedy says ...

Devin, I took JD's comments as an opinion on the men's differing styles rather than a direct comparison of same. Surely a comparison of apples and oranges isn't going to lead you to an intellectual truth, but a person can certainly ilke one better than the other.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the mango. You can keep your whole family of melons though.

comment #7

JD says ...

I actually think PT Anderson's work has a visual spontaneity that's similar to Altman's, even though his style is much more intricate and varied. Whereas Anderson is constantly using surprising, unconventional shots, camera movements, and cutting patterns, the editing in The Fountain has a very text book, linear, unsurprising rhythm. You can never predict how PTA will visualize a scene, but I feel like you know exactly what Aronofsky's doing visually within about 10 minutes and he never surprises you after that. But again, I don't think this is a fatal flaw and the movie ultimately has a great deal of merit.

As for the critical response to The Fountain, I think it's the kind of film that exposes the problem with new film critic hiring policies. The new breed of film critics -- who are really glorified "entertainment journalists" -- are terrified to appear pretentious or out-of-step with the mainstream. They think like Hollywood executives and have no patience for initellectual or aesthetic ambition, particularly anything that might be perceived as self-indulgent. Truly committed critics have the spine to stand up and fight for ambitious films, even if they're flawed. I had some frustrations of my own watching The Fountain, but I can't see why anyone would dismiss it outright... and yet that's the majority opinion among North American film critics.

comment #8

jeffmcm says ...

I think both 2001 and Soderbergh's Solaris are more emotional and intimate movies than The Fountain, which I found to be kind of, I don't know...predictable. Overly schematic, maybe.

comment #9

The Movie Man says ...

"are terrified to appear pretentious or out-of-step with the mainstream. They think like Hollywood executives and have no patience for initellectual or aesthetic ambition, particularly anything that might be perceived as self-indulgent. Truly committed critics have the spine to stand up and fight for ambitious films, even if they're flawed."

Thank you very much JD, that is EXACTLY the problem, even Corliss in his Tim Magazine review said something like "I know I'm going to be kicked out of the critical community for saying this but I liked The Fountain." It's a desperate to be hip, herd mentality. I like that The Fountain risks being silly, and wears its heart on its sleeve and actually has an emotional core to it. I thought it was a very rattling experience, similar to the feeling I had walking out of Aronofsky's previous (superb) picture "Requiem for a Dream". It's also how I feel about PTA's pictures, Anderson and Aronofsky are probably my favorite two guys of the new school, and guys who will continue to challenge and reward.

comment #10

aspiringcrackaddict says ...

CK I guess it's not everyday you get a word up from a crack head or maybe you do but you go boy.

Yeeeeah

Ps just in case You go girl

Yeeeeah