A Long Half-hour

Rating: 8/10 (27 November 2006)

Being a fan of something creates both expectations and leniency. As a fan of Aronofsky, I had both high expectations and the willingness to let him take me wherever he chose to go. I wasn't disappointed, but of all of his films this seems the one least likely to be universally appreciated, mostly because it puts a lot on the viewer.
Of course that means I love it. Anybody who's willing to let the audience figure the movie out for themselves has my appreciation because it's a lot more fun to observe. However, I think what really shows the power of this movie is that it feels like it's only a half an hour long... though probably one of the longest half hours you'll ever experience in cinema.
Mixing Buddhist, Mayan, and Christian theologies surrounding creation myths and the Fountain of Life, Aronofsky shows a man searching for eternal life in three different times: Conquistador Spain, Modern America, and some unnamed, emotionally spent, seemingly post-apocalyptic future. Thomas's search for eternal life involves his love of Elizabeth (Izzy) who haunts him with her plea to "Finish it"... the plea that anyone versed in theological implications of eternal life understand immediately. Eternal life involves the acceptance of death, and the drama here is Hugh Jackman's second obsessive character of the year learning to look past his own arbitrary existence.
What makes this movie brilliant, to me, is the patterns. One of the difficult things about this movie is a huge saturation of overhead shots that feel distracting and needless, until one feels the pattern behind the movie. The movie is filled with patterns (even literally in the mise-en-scene, such as when Thomas looks at the wallpaper in the elevator or looks through the glass in the hospital), some that only reveal themselves in the third act. The overhead shots in the first act which seem so confusing are mirrored by the overhead shots in the third act which are visually amazing--the sweetest nectar for the eyes. If this movie has problems, it's that the first and second acts are entirely set-ups for the grand eloquence of the third act, a pretty difficult move to make and one that Aronofsky barely succeeded at. In this instance he could have toppled over, but he showed just enough reserve and foresight to hold the movie together with a strong emotional glue.
Hugh Jackman helps with that glue. Hugh Jackman is one of the best mainstream actors out there, constantly rising in my opinion to greater achievements. The Prestige and The Fountain show what he's capable of, and I'm getting that contemporary directors are beginning to notice. We shall probably see some huge Oscar-centric role for him very soon.
On the other hand, we have Rachel Weisz. Rachel Weisz is very photogenic, has amazingly perceptive eyes, and is a terrible actress. She works best when she's not delivering or intoning, and unfortunately as the love interest of Thomas she gets a bit more close-up than she can handle. I think if anything ruins this movie, it's Weisz's acting. Her modern character, Izzy, was unfortunately the weakest written, and adding the weakest acting to it made it a little difficult to get through.
ON the other hand, one of the things Aronofsky seems much more interested in this case is the science fiction elements that tie everything together (and create one of the most breathtakingly visual cine-paintings I've ever seen). While the first act feels confusing and the second act can get a bit melodramatic, the sudden rending of space and time into a complete organism makes the third act change EVERYTHING. Suddenly all the difficulties with the movie disappeared. All of the patterns emerged, and the long plodding story suddenly shrinks to a half an hour in length. If a film has ever created time travel in the audience, it is this one.
The themes and story I leave for other people to appreciate. The visuals and construction of the narrative are why I stress that people should see this movie.
--PolarisDiB