the kind of studio picture that won't do very well at the box office, but has 'cult' written (or floating) all over it

Rating: 9/10 (28 November 2006)

I wasn't totally sure what to expect from Darren Aronofsky's the Fountain, but I knew from the trailer and the buzz that it would be extraordinary- for better or worse- and it could possibly have been a combination of both. Walking out of the theater was interesting in and of itself, as I tried to process what had exactly 'happened' in the last ten minutes of it, which is so loaded with abstractions it gives Inland Empire a run for its surrealistic money. It's the work of a director who one can tell is so obsessed and drawn by what he wants to convey to the viewer that its bound to not make complete sense. No bother- the Fountain works really on a few levels though, some much more harrowingly and amazingly than others. One things for certain, at least for me (and I do need to re-watch Requiem for a Dream very soon so this could change), this is one of the best directed pictures- or at least most ambitious in vision and scope and purpose- of the last several years.
If I didn't find it to be altogether a total masterwork maybe it was to be somewhat expected, or perhaps not. I still can't tell completely, but I think it probably has to do with the filmmaker skirting so along the edge of his unique, otherworldly vision of one man's search for not just life but a belief in it, that it runs the risk of running off the rails into pretentious land. One thing that worried me were the early negative reviews (i.e. 'Zardoz anyone?'), and the comparisons to Jodorowsky made me feel iffy, if intrigued, as well. If there is any one thing though that's compelling about the Fountain it's that we're given really an emotional context for most of the way, and a sort of bedrock that can be sort of fallen back on. Like Aronofsky's Pi- and maybe Requiem to an extent- it's about going past the limits of potential, or not even knowing what the limits are, in a certain goal. At the end of The Fountain I was definitely left with more questions than answers, and not necessarily in the greatest grandiose '2001' way either (befuddlement does need a little more rhythm then what comes out towards the end).
But, as I said, I really did get very much involved with the picture, and the struggle of Tommy (Hugh Jackman, in one of his best performances), to try in the present day to find a cure for tumors, in order to possibly save his wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz, very lovely if not as compelling overall as in something like Constant Gardener). There's an element of the movie the Neverending Story, I felt, that came into the movie quite well, as Tommy starts to read a book Izzi is writing about a Spanish conquistador in a search for her Queen (also Jackman and Weisz respectfully), called the 'Tree of Life', as said in the Bible. It's here that the theme is really interesting to me, and carries over for a big chunk of the film. What does it mean for someone to believe in something so fantastical that it can possibly be? Can Jackman save Weisz after death? Can death be 'cured' by this possible solution or tree or whatever? Aronofsky might be quite optimistic, or perhaps not, the ending only leaves a certain hint of what may or never be.
It's within though this framework that Aronofsky, with his technical crew from Requiem (DP Libatique with his amazing use of lights and close-ups, editor Rabinowitz for the different sense of pacing, and this time James Chindlund's stunning production design), with an added touch of magnificent, original special effects. From what I read not everything was CGI, which in and of itself is unique to me, that they apparently used what bacteria looks like for the certain "future" scenes and visions. But what had me all the way into the material was how Aronofsky pulled it off- even when a scene or two wasn't very well written (like some of the 1500s scenes) or when they just made about as much sense as a dog leaving a bone alone. One might say that it's too 'trippy' and hallucinatory for its own good, and as I said in the last ten minutes the onslaught of wild abstractions almost got to me. However I could never let go of how strong and commanding the visual style went with the material. And certainly filmmakers shouldn't complain much when seeing that a film like this, which looks like it costs a hell of a lot more than 35 million, cant make do with 100 million or more for theirs.
Bottom line, I'm sure it will divide a great many viewer, and unlike some other of the fantastical films I've seen in 2006 (i.e. the Science of Sleep, A Scanner Darkly, Tideland), I'm not sure if it will really improve or seem more illuminating or revelatory on repeat viewings, and unlike Tideland it's not even really ahead of its time as much as it's in its own time-frame. Like its main protagonist, it's uncompromising and daunting in what it sets out to accomplish cinematically, and 90% of the time I was hooked in. And it's a credit to Aronofsky that his main influence, Jodorowsky, comes through in all its weird, mystical glory. I mean, where else will you get Hugh Jackman (in the space scenes with the tree) looking like David Carradine in Kung-Fu? Overall, it'a stirring, romantically charged piece of art.