(no subject)
Hi, I'm new to the community, and a big fan of Aronofsky. I loved the Fountain, but am still trying to make sense of it. Here is my interpretation, also posted on imdb. I am interested to know if anyone agrees.
I'm really sick of everyone calling this film pretentious, and saying that it doesn't make sense.
I think it does make sense. The problematic part of it for me was 'what connects the three couples in different centuries? Why are they played by the same actors?'
If you look on it all as having ACTUALLY happened, then it doesn't make sense. What are the chances that the plot of the book and two people in a former life should magically slot together?
I think the first thing you have to do is eliminate the past. What we are seeing is what is in her book, and it is inspired by such things as the Incan (?) exhibition she takes him to, her situation, and even the piece of art on the wall in their house (which is the reason why Aran. treats it to a close-up with jungle sounds). This is why Aranofsky does not bother to really conclude the strand: what happens to the queen? Why does she want to live forever, how did she find out about the tree? It doesn't make sense unless you view it as an extension of her present self's state of mind, the wishes and obsessions of a dying young woman.
If you eliminate the past as being unreal, then the film works up to a certain point. One could argue that he uses the drug to keep himself alive, and floats in a bubble of oxygen provided by the still-living tree, keeping himself alive on its trunk and her in a state of being alive, underneath.
Problems, again, occur. How did he defend it against the rest of humanity, and how did he manage to guide it towards a star that is lightyears away, and not by any means the closest to the earth? Some people excuse this by saying that it is all about spirtuality, but I don't think this is the answer here.
My understanding of the Fountain is that the only 'real' thing in the film is the present. I think that the Spanish bit represents his hopes, via the medium of her book, and the future bit is his despair. It is significant that the footsoldiers' attempt to spoil his hopes parallels the medical workers' revolts. The angel with the fiery sword (like the guardian of Eden) kills him, (his hope) but it is his despair and understanding (the future self) that brings him to the tree ... he finshes the book by having himself die when he is so close.
In the present, remember, he finds a tree that speeds up the regeneration of cells. When he thinks he is close, she dies. In the past this is represented by his hope dying, in the future his despair (fed by her/ the tree) witnesses the thing that sustains it die.
In both, he reaches the object of his quest - the tree of Life in the first, and the place the Dead go in the second - in both, thinking he is doing it to save her. In both, he himself is destroyed; but in the despair (which is necessarily after her death and therefore, I think, is representative of his reconciling himself to her actual death, as opposed to reconciling himself to the fact she is going to die, which the first is a process of doing) he voluntarily destroys himself. In both he then becomes one with his surroundings; as flowers, or particles.
Where is Aran. going, then, if this is a legitimate interpretation, and one that he intended? The film, essentially, is a journey towards reconcilement with the fact of death; at the end, the hero accepts his wife's death; the tree under which she is buried, symbolic of his final hope of saving her, dies, and he accepts the fact that he himself is going to die. There is then a sort of spirituality in the fact that they are basically in heaven, and the recurrence of 'we will live forever' - not in the corporeal world, but the spiritual one (the journey of the future self, in fact, may also be his route to spirituality, or 'road to awe' and via spirituality, acceptance of her death and the fact that he himself will die). We know then, that he finishes the book by killing his false hope, he finishes his suffering after his despair leads him into spirituality, and he finally accepts her death: but the film is revolutionary in that we never see this happen in the present, but after a period of suffering that is never shown in the film: it actually ends off-stage, as it were. The last 'real' thing shown in the film (as far as I recall) is the planting of the acorn, symbolising the journey he is about to begin to disillusionment towards evading death, and then acceptance of it.
The second purpose of the acorn is to bind the 'apparent' events together so that the film works on two levels. This is so one may enjoy it with or without a great deal of thought. This ambiguity, I feel, is what has caused the confusion about the film, even in those who champion it. The real thing in which he over-reached was blending the metaphoric and the real together: so that in the end everything was interpreted as real. I don't think that I fully understand the film yet; but I really do think this is the closest anyone's come to being able to explain all the things that happen in it.
What I do think is that a lot more interpretation, based on a lot of the above, will come among critics, and that in the future this will be thought of as a truly great film. I think Aranofsky will make some absolute masterpieces in the years to come.
I'm really sick of everyone calling this film pretentious, and saying that it doesn't make sense.
I think it does make sense. The problematic part of it for me was 'what connects the three couples in different centuries? Why are they played by the same actors?'
If you look on it all as having ACTUALLY happened, then it doesn't make sense. What are the chances that the plot of the book and two people in a former life should magically slot together?
I think the first thing you have to do is eliminate the past. What we are seeing is what is in her book, and it is inspired by such things as the Incan (?) exhibition she takes him to, her situation, and even the piece of art on the wall in their house (which is the reason why Aran. treats it to a close-up with jungle sounds). This is why Aranofsky does not bother to really conclude the strand: what happens to the queen? Why does she want to live forever, how did she find out about the tree? It doesn't make sense unless you view it as an extension of her present self's state of mind, the wishes and obsessions of a dying young woman.
If you eliminate the past as being unreal, then the film works up to a certain point. One could argue that he uses the drug to keep himself alive, and floats in a bubble of oxygen provided by the still-living tree, keeping himself alive on its trunk and her in a state of being alive, underneath.
Problems, again, occur. How did he defend it against the rest of humanity, and how did he manage to guide it towards a star that is lightyears away, and not by any means the closest to the earth? Some people excuse this by saying that it is all about spirtuality, but I don't think this is the answer here.
My understanding of the Fountain is that the only 'real' thing in the film is the present. I think that the Spanish bit represents his hopes, via the medium of her book, and the future bit is his despair. It is significant that the footsoldiers' attempt to spoil his hopes parallels the medical workers' revolts. The angel with the fiery sword (like the guardian of Eden) kills him, (his hope) but it is his despair and understanding (the future self) that brings him to the tree ... he finshes the book by having himself die when he is so close.
In the present, remember, he finds a tree that speeds up the regeneration of cells. When he thinks he is close, she dies. In the past this is represented by his hope dying, in the future his despair (fed by her/ the tree) witnesses the thing that sustains it die.
In both, he reaches the object of his quest - the tree of Life in the first, and the place the Dead go in the second - in both, thinking he is doing it to save her. In both, he himself is destroyed; but in the despair (which is necessarily after her death and therefore, I think, is representative of his reconciling himself to her actual death, as opposed to reconciling himself to the fact she is going to die, which the first is a process of doing) he voluntarily destroys himself. In both he then becomes one with his surroundings; as flowers, or particles.
Where is Aran. going, then, if this is a legitimate interpretation, and one that he intended? The film, essentially, is a journey towards reconcilement with the fact of death; at the end, the hero accepts his wife's death; the tree under which she is buried, symbolic of his final hope of saving her, dies, and he accepts the fact that he himself is going to die. There is then a sort of spirituality in the fact that they are basically in heaven, and the recurrence of 'we will live forever' - not in the corporeal world, but the spiritual one (the journey of the future self, in fact, may also be his route to spirituality, or 'road to awe' and via spirituality, acceptance of her death and the fact that he himself will die). We know then, that he finishes the book by killing his false hope, he finishes his suffering after his despair leads him into spirituality, and he finally accepts her death: but the film is revolutionary in that we never see this happen in the present, but after a period of suffering that is never shown in the film: it actually ends off-stage, as it were. The last 'real' thing shown in the film (as far as I recall) is the planting of the acorn, symbolising the journey he is about to begin to disillusionment towards evading death, and then acceptance of it.
The second purpose of the acorn is to bind the 'apparent' events together so that the film works on two levels. This is so one may enjoy it with or without a great deal of thought. This ambiguity, I feel, is what has caused the confusion about the film, even in those who champion it. The real thing in which he over-reached was blending the metaphoric and the real together: so that in the end everything was interpreted as real. I don't think that I fully understand the film yet; but I really do think this is the closest anyone's come to being able to explain all the things that happen in it.
What I do think is that a lot more interpretation, based on a lot of the above, will come among critics, and that in the future this will be thought of as a truly great film. I think Aranofsky will make some absolute masterpieces in the years to come.