[tmbchr]™

The Fountain



I went to see Darren Aronofsky’s new movie last night, The Fountain. I’ve never seen any of his movies before and went into this one without any knowledge of what I might find. I had seen the trailer, but the trailer made it seem 100% different than what it was.

All I can say is that this is the most symbolically loaded and esoterically intriguing movie that I have ever seen. It literally put me into an altered state of consciousness. I was literally transfixed by it and found much to my surprise that this movie seemed to literally draw on a vast store of personal imagery and historical occurrences from my life. That is, there seemed to be specific elements which were targeted at me directly as a person. I went with two friends who reported similar results as well. We all felt the same way about it, and after we saw the movie and walked home, we began having extraordinary synchronistic hits related to symbols and content within the movie.

I have probably at this point said too much though and spoiled it. But I don’t think I could, even if I went through a scene-by-scene analysis of it - which I could very easily and happily do and which I would find extraordinarily rewarding perhaps at some point in the future. In any event, if you want to see basically what I would consider a movie that ties together in dramatic format (what seemed to me like) all of the themes I have been exploring the past month, but also maybe the past seven years of my life, then I wholeheartedly recommend you go see it as soon as you can. And also don’t waste time reading other people’s reviews of it, because they are complete nonsense. This movie is “for those who have ears to hear.”

So yes, consider this my strongest recommendation possible. Enjoy! And if people want to talk about it (”spoilers”) afterwards, perhaps we can do so in the comments without giving anything away or prematurely tainting it for anyone who hasn’t seen it. If you haven’t seen it, please don’t read the comments. I think you will be doing yourself a disservice.

, , , , , , ,





19 Reader Responses

  1. Tim Boucher Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 3:23 pm

    And here is what this movie is about in no uncertain terms, courtesy of our good friend Philip K. Dick:

    http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_tcs4.htm

    32. The changing information which we experience as world is an unfolding narrative. It tells about the death of a woman. This woman, who died long ago, was one of the primordial twins. She was half of the divine syzygy. The purpose of the narrative is the recollection of her and of her death. The Mind does not wish to forget her. Thus the ratiocination of the Brain consists of a permanent record of her existence, and, if read, will be understood this way. All the information processed by the Brain — experienced by us as the arranging and rearranging of physical objects — is an attempt at this preservation of her; stones and rocks and sticks and amoebae are traces of her. The record of her existence and passing is ordered onto the meanest level of reality by the suffering Mind which is now alone.

    33. This loneliness, this anguish of the bereaved Mind, is felt by every constituent of the universe. All its constitutes are alive. Thus the ancient Greek thinkers were hylozoists.

    That’s the nutshell version. I consider PKD’s full Tractates to be the best possible “review” of this movie anybody could write. I sort of see it as our equivalent of the movie he describes in “Valis” by the same name.

  2. Tim Boucher Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    Also: this movie is about the difference between living forever and “life everlasting,” two things which are completely confused nowadays

  3. Richard Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    I too had that same reaction as you did, though to be fair it was also with an understanding that even though it seemed “targeted” to “me” as an “individual”, it was also probably “targeted” to the other multiple “me’s” out there. (Ugh. And so I become one of those I hate, who put “quotes” around practically everything”.”)

    (”:)”)

    Three thoughts of specific notions: There was a scene of Izzi’s face that was a flesh-and-blood representation of the glyph for Mayan Day-Sign Death (aka Cimi or Kame).

    Also, a psychic years ago told me that I had a past life as a doctor in Medieval Spain who had gone into research into bone diseases because I had married a woman who was suffering from an excruciating bone disease that eventually killed her. One interesting thing was that I was a gay man in that life and also had a passionate romance with a fellow who went off and fought and died in the Crusades. But my wife in that life was the love of my life, even though it was pretty much a nonsexual relationship.

    Last, my partner and I were struck by the imagery of stars and the attention paid to light, especially the soul-light as evinced in the inestimable H. Jackman’s eyes. (Ah, I could fall in love with those eyes!) The whole aspect of light seems to be making itself known, perhaps because we’re heading to the Winter Solstice, and “the return of the light”, but it’s also interesting that Pluto conjuncts the Galactic Center for the first time in 248 years on 12/29. I could go on and on about this, but I’m very happy to have seen this film, and for me it just might be the “best” film of the year. (”Prairie Home Companion” by the late Robert Altman is a very close second.)

    That’s my NYU M(other F(ucking) A(rts degree) in Dramatic Writing $.02 –worth .0134 Euros, btw, or has it gone down?

  4. Tim Boucher Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    it was also probably “targeted” to the other multiple “me’s” out there.

    Yes, I know exactly what you mean.

    But my wife in that life was the love of my life, even though it was pretty much a nonsexual relationship.

    I don’t know a whole lot about it, but it struck me that their relationship, especially as the queen to the conquistador was very much about that kind of courtly love that Joseph Campbell talked about the troubadors having “invented” in Europe - but which probably comes directly from Sophianic gnosticism, and all the Western Esoteric stuff about the “bridal chamber” which I have only a loose understanding of.

    Also notice that during most of their interactions in the palace, she is separated from him by a “veil” and the conclusion only occurs in the movie when he puts his “finger” through the “ring” if you catch my drifting use of “quotes” here

    I need to see this movie again. Its one of the few films I would use the word “perfect” to describe it. Sublime works too

  5. Tim Boucher Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    Also from the Tractates

    38. From loss and grief the Mind has become deranged. Therefore we, as parts of the universe, the Brain, are partly deranged.

    39. Out of itself the Brain has constructed a physician to heal it. This subform of the Macro-Brain is not deranged; it moves through the Brain, as a phagocyte moves through the cardiovascular system of an animal, healing the derangement of the Brain in section after section. We know of its arrival here; we know it as Asklepios for the Greeks and as the Essenes for the Jews; as the Therapeutae for the Egyptians; as Jesus for the Christians.

  6. David Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    It is truly a beautiful film, and those versed in esotericism, whatever stripe, may glean more from it than others, although its emotional effects can be universal and very real.

    I knew I was in for a rewarding experience when I heard early on that the film divided audiences. That sometimes is a real sign of greatness.

    I am not even an Aronofsky fan in particular. His third feature though is a triple or even a homerun. (Actually given the use of the sacred “3″ in the film’s structure and symbolism, perhaps “triple” is the best choice.)

  7. Richard Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    The review I read in the Albany Times-Union said there would people who would Hate this film. Hate it. Whenever I read that a film is polarizing, I personally MUST make way to see it.

    This is also the first Aronofsky film I’ve seen. When he did Pi, I was working at the law firm that employed the attorney that worked with D.A. The J.D. was strictly unimpressive as a person–well, he is a lawyer, and I have no idea if he was successful at what he did, or if D.A. is still rep’d by R. Arar. (his middle initial is Not D, which would make him R.D. Arar– r.r.r.) Anyway, I sort of developed a block about seeing it b/c of him, which is totally unfair to Aronofsky. He also directed Requiem for a Dream which came out coincidentally at the time I became sober. My sponsor at the time said it would be bad for me to go see this film at that time–hell, I was crying at the horrid Jim Carrey Grinch movie because I thought the eponymous character was a lonely boozer and that was the source of all his problems. (Little known factoid, Dr. Seuss went to AA co-founder Dr. Bob Smith’s alma mater of Dartmouth College, the small college on the hill I also (g)radiated from. The school’s colors are green and white, so I don’t think it’s an accident that the Grinch is green and a closet boozer to boot!)

    Interesting I should have these odd coincidences KEEPING me from seeing Senor Aronofsky’s peliculas peculariares. There are no accidents.

  8. Tim Boucher Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 5:51 pm

    I had a revelation after watching that movie and meditating which relates to Christmas trees. Interestingly I was just researching some of that, and came across the Christian symbolism page on Wikipedia which included this graphic

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tri...d-Anglican-Episcopal-Coat-of-Arms.svg

    The triangle part of which I hope should be familiar to people who saw this movie. Oh and here we go:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

  9. Michael Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    oh yeah… i havn’t seen the movie yet, proboly won’t get a chance for a while….

    When i saw Borat, the trailer for The Fountain played and i was like “thatlooksfuckingamazing” but the friends i was with were like “what are you talking about, that looks horrible” and then i was like “no, you don’t get it” and almost went into one of my gnostic rambles, but then Borat started and i forgot about it for a while…

  10. Tim Boucher Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 7:00 pm

    Significant lines from the Wired article on Aronofsky’s homebrew special effects:

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/outsider.html

    “They made a pilgrimage to the Guatemala location used by George Lucas for the rebel-base scene in the original Star Wars film, high in the crumbling temples of Tikal.”

    And:

    “But he couldn’t get the aborted project out of his mind. He had come so close to shooting The Fountain that he felt it existed in some parallel universe.”

    See also: http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/11/15/the-metaphysics-of-media/

    And also from Wired:

    New projects are already piling up on the director’s desk. Aronofsky and Watson are planning an adaptation of Flicker, Theodore Roszak’s novel about a critic who sees subliminal portents of the apocalypse in B movies. Aronofsky will also produce an original animated musical by Dawson and Schrecker this fall and is rumored to be developing a script based on the life of Timothy Leary.

  11. David Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 7:09 pm

    Tim, re: the trinity symbol and the triune structure and references in the movie, check this out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Three

  12. Chase Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 9:10 pm

    His other movies are amazing! I have yet to see the Fountain but soon!

  13. Brooke Says:
    December 1st, 2006 at 11:57 pm

    Though I lack the background in gnosticism or esotericism to appreciate this on as many levels as do most of you here, I was completely and utterly moved and entranced by it. I cried often, felt confused even more often, yet sublime at the same time, and on some deep level it did all make sense. I’ll be owning this one, and watching it multiple times.

    I didn’t know it was by the maker of Requiem for a Dream. Wow. I have never been so intensely effected by a movie as I was by that one. It left me feeling almost physically ill. I began bawling my eyes out, for what seemed like an eternity, the minute I got home from seeing it. That one I won’t be subjecting myself to again, but for it to have had such a powerful effect on me, I have to give it a lot of credit. Few movies make me cry. No other film ever has made me feel almost suicidal.

    I’ve heard only good things about Pi, but haven’t seen it yet. Anyway, The Fountain gets my full, wholehearted endorsement as well. Go see it while it’s still on the big screen.

  14. Supernatural Things » The Fountain By Darren Aronofsky Says:
    December 2nd, 2006 at 12:08 am

    […] Go see this movie. It is a thing of beauty, and that’s all I’m going to say. If you must read a review first (it’s not necessary or even recommended), go read the thread on Pop Occulture. […]

  15. Emerson Says:
    December 2nd, 2006 at 3:18 am

    Another huge recommendation for it. And, some head shaking at the commercials. I was openly mocking it every time the commercials came on. I never would have seen this at all, if I hadn’t caught someone on dig complaining that movies like this almost never make it to the screen. Going by the adverts, I was under the impression of it being a pretty lame action movie.

    Instead, I have to say this is among the single greatest movies I’ve ever seen. And I say that as someone strongly, actively, looking for immortality in the flesh. For anything to get past that bias within me, it has to be AMAZINGLY powerful. And this movie is…….it’s a spiritual cannonball.

  16. Krishna Hermes Says:
    December 2nd, 2006 at 3:40 am

    Its telling that its not doing as well as something hideous like Borat’s “cultural learnings.”

    People don’t seem to want to think about the future, literary sci-fi is dying, but fiction like the “Left Behind” series and vicious films like “Passion of Christ” blow up huge. Everyone wants to see the fictional antics of an ignorant post-soviet clown, but most people really don’t seem to want to face the future.

    The reality of huge deficits and endless war has made the idea of the future ugly and too scary to face. With global warming and the vicious oil juggernaut running out of control

  17. Chris Says:
    December 2nd, 2006 at 3:46 am

    I think most people have seen his most famous work, requiem for a dream, but who has seen pi? I’ve heard it’s really great, supposedly about some guy who is looking for some unifying pattern in the digits of pi. Seems like there would kind of be a sacred geometry/higher order theme to it, which is interesting.

    I do plan to see the fountain, but probably after I’m dragged to see casino royale a second time.

  18. SubstanceM Says:
    December 2nd, 2006 at 9:00 am

    1. Thanks, I wouldn’t have gone to see it except for the recommends here
    2. Krishna, lighten up - Borat makes you laugh. What could be better?
    3. Chris - Pi is interesting for sure. Worth a watch.

  19. james Says:
    December 4th, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    I agree with Chris & SubstanceM: Tim, rent “Pi” immediately. I can’t believe you haven’t already, what with the content of your blog and all.

    I respectfully disagree with Krishna (and in a way agree again with SubstanceM): “Borat” is not only funny but a twisted send-up of the American Dream and those tired Horatio Alger-esque tales about the immigrant making good in “Land of Free Home of Brave”… It’s a pointed satire on America’s deep-seated hatred for foreigners and also a subtle mockery of The Hero’s Journey.



SURROUND YOURSELF WITH STRENGTH.