This morning, I am so over winter (and here it's only the end of November) that not even Jethro Tull and the approach of Cephalopodmas and all its wriggling, besuckered holiday tentacles will console me
( Read more... )
'that, to their credit, leave virtually no one straddling the fence, even if they have inspired far more more contempt than the appreciation they deserve'
I'm not much given to quoting Biblically, particularly since I'm not a Xian, but comments like that always remind me of Revelation 3:16:
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth.
Most works of art/entertainment are lukewarm. You wish they were either dazzlingly good or dazzlingly bad, so that they could inspire passion one way or the other. Occasionally something emerges that's a real parting-of-the-ways, love-it-or-loathe-it object. Some will find movies like The Fountain or Tideland hot, others cold, but nobody will find them lukewarm.
I saw The Fountain the other day, too, and it was just sublime. One of the most stunning films I've ever seen....
Yet it did not move me as profoundly as Solaris did because, ultimately, The Fountain--though definitely steeped in transhumanism--ultimately is a Zen movie about the acceptance of one's place in the natural cycle of birth/death/rebirth. Though I'm quite a fan of Zen thought, that's one facet I will never settle with: The "natural order" must be overthrown. Death is a disease to be cured, not embraced.
Now, that is NOT to say--in any way--that The Fountain isn't the best damned sci-fi/mythic film that I've seen all year, and definitely the best that I've seen since Solaris. It's just...damnear perfect.
I was amazed by people who said the Soderbergh version was too slow. I wanted to ask them, 'Um, have you seen the original?' Soderbergh's, I believe, came in at under 90 minutes. Tarkovsky's goes on for about, oh, eight, nine days...
I mean, Tarkovsky's version is stunning, but like all his films, it moves like molasses. (Not that I minded; I enjoy a glacial pace as long as there's something feeding the eye/ear/brain.) So I was like, 'Dudes, if you don't even have patience for Soderbergh's version, try Tarkovsky on for size.'
Re: FountainheadsgreygirlbeastNovember 27 2006, 19:34:18 UTC
I'm scared to see 'Tideland' or 'The Lady in the Water.'
They're very different films, and yet share a great deal in common. And I think one must approach them both with a certain awareness that they are dealing with issues of innocence and story and childhood.
The Fountain was amazing, the only anoyance was a row of teens behind us that were uncomfortable with enlightenment, thus making me wish for an R rating. They began giggling towards the end when ones brain was required to think.
I rushed out at ten in the evening to find the soundtrack and magically found it, I was also hunting down his other movie "PI" as well, but no luck there, I am still thinking hard on it.
I try to imagine Brad Pitt and Kate Blanchet in it instead (as it was originally planned) and cannot even fathom it.
Glad you liked it, it seems to be a movie that will either hit big, or fall flat, all depending, I feel at least, on ones internal workings.
If given the chance check out the website, its pretty nice, www.thefountainmovie.com
The Fountain was amazing, the only anoyance was a row of teens behind us that were uncomfortable with enlightenment, thus making me wish for an R rating. They began giggling towards the end when ones brain was required to think.
Fortunately, I saw it at a small indie theatre. A googleplex audience would have ruined it. Audiences have largely forgotten how to be audiences. I only go to screenings at googleplexes early in the day, when I'm sure the turn out will be low.
And my lesson was learned, we just knew that the visuals and sound would be so much better on the larger screen of the googleplex, as the indie theatre is not up to date.
but the second viewing will take place at the smaller thetre for sure.
And my lesson was learned, we just knew that the visuals and sound would be so much better on the larger screen of the googleplex, as the indie theatre is not up to date.
I did regret that the sound wasn't better, as the soundtrack is so exquisite and crucial. But, on the other hand, we got a flat screen. I hate those curved screens.
What's this mean. To get all crazy, are you implying that you may stop writing if this book doesn't do well? Or that the majors will be done with you? Finish the fucking story, what about the glands?
Comments 26
I'm not much given to quoting Biblically, particularly since I'm not a Xian, but comments like that always remind me of Revelation 3:16:
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth.
Most works of art/entertainment are lukewarm. You wish they were either dazzlingly good or dazzlingly bad, so that they could inspire passion one way or the other. Occasionally something emerges that's a real parting-of-the-ways, love-it-or-loathe-it object. Some will find movies like The Fountain or Tideland hot, others cold, but nobody will find them lukewarm.
Reply
Yet it did not move me as profoundly as Solaris did because, ultimately, The Fountain--though definitely steeped in transhumanism--ultimately is a Zen movie about the acceptance of one's place in the natural cycle of birth/death/rebirth. Though I'm quite a fan of Zen thought, that's one facet I will never settle with: The "natural order" must be overthrown. Death is a disease to be cured, not embraced.
Now, that is NOT to say--in any way--that The Fountain isn't the best damned sci-fi/mythic film that I've seen all year, and definitely the best that I've seen since Solaris. It's just...damnear perfect.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I mean, Tarkovsky's version is stunning, but like all his films, it moves like molasses. (Not that I minded; I enjoy a glacial pace as long as there's something feeding the eye/ear/brain.) So I was like, 'Dudes, if you don't even have patience for Soderbergh's version, try Tarkovsky on for size.'
Reply
Reply
They're very different films, and yet share a great deal in common. And I think one must approach them both with a certain awareness that they are dealing with issues of innocence and story and childhood.
Reply
I rushed out at ten in the evening to find the soundtrack and magically found it, I was also hunting down his other movie "PI" as well, but no luck there, I am still thinking hard on it.
I try to imagine Brad Pitt and Kate Blanchet in it instead (as it was originally planned) and cannot even fathom it.
Glad you liked it, it seems to be a movie that will either hit big, or fall flat, all depending, I feel at least, on ones internal workings.
If given the chance check out the website, its pretty nice, www.thefountainmovie.com
Reply
Fortunately, I saw it at a small indie theatre. A googleplex audience would have ruined it. Audiences have largely forgotten how to be audiences. I only go to screenings at googleplexes early in the day, when I'm sure the turn out will be low.
Reply
but the second viewing will take place at the smaller thetre for sure.
Reply
I did regret that the sound wasn't better, as the soundtrack is so exquisite and crucial. But, on the other hand, we got a flat screen. I hate those curved screens.
Reply
What's this mean. To get all crazy, are you implying that you may stop writing if this book doesn't do well? Or that the majors will be done with you? Finish the fucking story, what about the glands?
Reply
I just don't know. It's just a feeling I have. I need this book to do a lot better than the last two (Low Red Moon and Murder of Angels).
Reply
Leave a comment