Darren Aronofsky's sci-fi epic "The Fountain" set to go (1 Viewer)

[JediFonger]

ah ok, that makes more sense, so the book and the fiction portion is fake but modern+future are both real.

i liked the zen poses >).

 

[JohnRice]

Actually, the way I interpret it is the past and future portions are the novel, only the present "really" happens. Izzi specifically states early in the film that the novel starts in Spain and ends at Xibalba.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I believe the past is the novel, and represents Tommy's opinion on death. The present and future are "real", in that Future Tom is Tommy 500 years down the road.
I also don't think the "what's real" discussion is terribly critical to the film. What's real is that Tommy has to come to terms with death, and it's place in the universe.
Fun discussion

 

[Patrick Sun]

For the newcomers to this film, try reading some of the posts starting with page 8 of this thread. Plenty of interpretations, which makes it interesting to read about and discuss.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

I believe the past is the novel, and represents Tommy's opinion on death. The present and future are "real", in that Future Tom is Tommy 500 years down the road.
I also don't think the "what's real" discussion is terribly critical to the film. What's real is that Tommy has to come to terms with death, and it's place in the universe.
Fun discussion

Quoting Chuck, I agree on all counts!

 

[JohnRice]

The nice thing about this film is how it is so open to interpretation. However, the reason I ultimately interpret the future as being the novel is because when Izzi first tells Tom she has started on the novel again, she points out that it begins in Spain, but ends at Xibalba. Ultimately, I see the acceptance Tom finally achieves in real life resulting in him ending the future storyline of the novel with failure, reflecting his "failure" in real life. Failure to save Izzi, that is. This is what Izzi hoped for and what she constantly alluded to by telling Tom he knew how the novel ended.

Notice, that the last words Izzi wrote in the novel were "All he could see was death." Her wish was to help bring an end to this.

In fact, I believe that viewing the future as "real" actually dulls the point of the story. Izzi wanted to help Tom to NOT obsess over this for the rest of his life. If the future is "real", she failed miserably because he ended up obsessing not only for his normal life, but for 500 years. If it is the novel, she succeeded. Plus, if the future is "real" the final scenes of the movie don't really make sense, because Tom would not have been in the present accepting Izzi's death.

 

[Patrick Sun]

My early interpretation had the future being Tom's section of the book that Izzy wanted him to finish in order to come to understand that it was okay to let go, regardless of how much he loved her. And the future story being Tom's extrapolation of which it meant even if he succeeded in finding the sap of everlasting life, it meant nothing without embracing the circle of life and death as the sap only prolonged the eventual completion of the circle of life and death, never really eliminating the pain from the void of losing their loved ones.

I also dislike the notion that Tom pined away for almost 500 more years before he truly understood what Izzie was trying to get him to comprehend and understand about the nature of life and death how love provides the glue for the intervening time span between such events for each one of us. If the future is the story of showing Tom's expression of his love for Izzie, then it succeeds in making the point that he never quit in his search to find a way for both of them to live forever for all those centuries, but her love (and final request for Tom to finish the book she start) actually found a way to convince Tom to accept the circle of life and death and embrace the sum total of experiences along the way on the road to awe.

 

[JediFonger]

one thing i really liked was the detail in the design of the symbol to locate the nebula from the past on the knife, in the present on the jewelry and science references to the tree and the in future.

of course, from the trailer i liked the angle of the traveling on horse, car and globe.

 

[Chris Atkins]

I've been watching this one in bits and pieces ever since I watched it all the way through two weeks ago. Can't seem to shake the film and there is just so much presented to digest.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Rich, I think you misunderstood or I just poorly expressed where I think the source of the end of the novel was, or more accurately, what I consider to be the "end" of the novel. I think Izzi started the future portion of the novel. I take the novel to read in the same order as it is shown in the movie. The part Tommy wrote is the parts where acceptance is shown. Where the tree dies, then he eventually understands the cycle of events in all time periods.

Ah, I see. I considered the end of Izzi's portion to be where the story left off after Tommy had spent the night reading it (which I believe ended at the initial encounter between conquistador-Tom and the Mayan priest).
I took Tommy's part to include all of that portion depicting his resistance to the truth that had enlightened Izzi in her dying days and his ultimate acceptance of that truth. The resistance part is depicted in the early portions of astral-projection Tom's journey in the ecosphere and his (futile) attempts to keep alive the Tree of Life, which at that point had become a metaphor for both Izzi and the falseness of Dr. Tommy's quest. A very clear point is here made between his incessant tending of the tree and continual ignoring of Izzi's whispered exhortations. This tension is juxtaposed against Tommy's memory of his denial of their "walk" together in the first snow of winter.
So, just as the first part, written by Izzi, is largely about her own resistance and then acceptance of death - after all, it was her character, "Queen Isabella", who initially sent conquistador-Tom in search of the tree that would "save" her - the second part, written by Tom, is about Tom's resistance and acceptance.
In the end, they both left this existence without fear of death, and with an understanding of what is truly worthwhile in life. Ruefully, for Tom, this understanding came after Izzi had died, and so he re-envisions his last days with her, taking the time to walk in the first fallen snow of winter (a metaphor for death?), and communing with the person he loves in the time they have left.
I feel I need to see the film again to render that clearer in my mind, but even moreso because I don't get at all why some of you are of the opinion that the "Tom in the ecosphere" portion of the film is meant to be taken "literally". It makes absolutely no sense to me how that could be a valid interpretation, and I agree with Patrick that it would seem to really undermine the themes of the film, as well as unnecessarily complicate the narrative nearly to the point of incoherence.
So, I'm trying to understand your viewpoints on this, preferably before I watch the film again. Particularly, how do you account for what seems to me to be completely apparent: that Izzi partially writes a book titled "The Fountain" that metaphorically depicts her and Tom's relationship, and which she deeply wants him to read for "his own good" really, and then takes time to expand on that by explaining just exactly what is the Mayan's metaphor for life's great journey and ultimate conclusion, even allowing Tom to view the nebulla through her telescope (a metaphor for her own perspective). Finally, she requests - essentially as her dying wish - that Tom "finish it".
As I saw it, Tom does exactly that using the same metaphors, even incorporating pre-enlightened Tom (the conquistador) and post-enlightened Tom (astral-projection baldie in the ecosphere), and ending it just as Izzi had telegraphed in Shabalba. But, clearly, this is not how many of you saw the film.
So, before I watch it again, can you guys please explain what specific portions of the film leads you to conclude that the events involving astral projection Tom in the ecosphere and his journey to Shabalba are intended to be taken literally? I just don't get it...

 

[Lou Sytsma]

one thing i really liked was the detail in the design of the symbol to locate the nebula from the past on the knife, in the present on the jewelry and science references to the tree and the in future.

of course, from the trailer i liked the angle of the traveling on horse, car and globe.

Also, the melting snow on the skylight in the lab.

 

[JohnRice]

Rich, I think we are basically in agreement. I don't tend to analyze to quite the extent you do. Once I get the basic structure I tend to go more with the overall concept and not get too wrapped up in the details. Still, as I was watching the first time, I was getting the feeling the story was going to be that Izzi and Thomas truly were Tomas and Queen Isabelle and they would ultimately live throughout all three stories. Of course, it was far more imaginative the way the story actually panned out.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Can't really add anything to the current discussion per se, but it's amazing that Hugh Jackman has come a long way since Wolverine. He's done some amazing work in this film and The Prestige. I can't imagine Brad Pitt in this role.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

? I just don't get it...

Just filmmaking langauge, on my end, Rich. The opening sequence goes until Izzy stops writing, and then segues directly to Future Tom (not present Tom). Transitions take place from the present to the future in enough ways to make me think the present is Tom's recollections.
That said, I don't think it matters. Whether it's Future Tom or Tommy finishing the book and coming to terms with his place in the universe is irrelevant to the themes. Tommy and Future Tom have the same emotional maturity at respective points in the film. I can't refute your logic, and I don't think you are wrong.
Either way it works for me. The journey is the same.

 

[Chris Atkins]

On first viewing I thought future Tom was the end of the book that Tom was finishing. After a second viewing I backed away from that a bit, but I agree with Chuck that it's ultimately irrelevant to the themes of the story.

 

[JohnRice]

FWIW, I think it has an enormous effect on the story. In fact, it is incomprehensible to me how someone could recognize the two possibilities and think they made no difference.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

FWIW, I think it has an enormous effect on the story. In fact, it is incomprehensible to me how someone could recognize the two possibilities and think they made no difference.

It would be beneficial when making a statement like that if you included an explanation as to why.

As to why it makes no difference its because regardless of whether Tom lives it or writes about it, he understands it. To repeat, the journey is the same.

Though for myself, future Tom being real holds more resonance.

 

[Steve Kuester]

When I first saw The Fountain in the theater, I thought future Tom was real and was trying to bring Izzy to Xibalba like he thought she wanted.

After a second viewing in the theater and reading here, I believe my original thought to be incorrect.

I can't say either thought makes me enjoy the film any less.

 

[JohnRice]

It would be beneficial when making a statement like that if you included an explanation as to why.

Because I see an enormous difference between it taking 500 years of futile striving and agony to reach a realization and it taking a year or two.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Because I see an enormous difference between it taking 500 years of futile striving and agony to reach a realization and it taking a year or two.

I do too, which is why I actually prefer the interpretation that future Tom is part of the book and not real.
If future Tom is real, then it took him 500+ years to truly understand and embrace his humanity, and he only found comfort at the very end of his life.
If future Tom is not real, then there is hope that present Tom learned to love and live without fear for the rest of his natural life.