Knowing my own tendencies to appreciate something that I've been anticipating too much (recent example being Pirates 2 which I absolutely fell in love with in the theater but the more and more I think about it, the less I remember), I decided to hold off on my review of this film (and score) for a little less than a week. The first time I saw the film, it was at two o'clock in the morning on a cold Tuesday. I had been expecting the film since director Darren Aronofsky had announced it as his next project (following Requiem for a Dream) and - at that time - it was to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Eventually, the film entered pre-production hell and Aronofsky lost his initial cast and Warner Bros. initial funding. I remembering being absoultely devasted. Here was a growing filmmaker - so close to be an auteur - who wanted to bring a personal, original vision to the screen and was shut off. Since that time there have been a few notable entries of great films, but Hollywood seems to love recycled dreck in recent times (though it's not a new thing). Aronofsky travelled for a few years before coming back to the original screenplay and realizing more of its potential. He scrapped all initial drafts and rewrote it to fit into a smaller audience and a smaller budget; and he couldn't have done a better job. For the past few years, I've cautiously avoided any and all spoilers; instead, opting to make up my own conclusions that I was sure would eventually disappoint me upon final viewing. Thus, walking into the theaters with a close group of friends that night/morning I was nervous (this same thing happened at Miami Vice and I walked out furious) and stiff. Very little to I find myself as entranced in a film as I did here. At first, it might seem as though it's a film about life; but after two more viewings throughout the Thanksgiving weekend, I've come to a conclusion that it's a film about what is after death, and why we should anticipate it. Many filmmakers have experimented with the ideas found in this film (Kubrick will be the biggest comparison); but seeing as though Kubrick was a little more of a colder director, I think Aronofosky might have a one-up on him. Tom and Izzi's story is so simple, yet the possibilities of your understanding of the materials put in front of you (as only film can do, visually) will help you grasp and understand the film more. Visually, the film is a masterpiece. The lighting evokes Spanish paintings of the 16th century and thematically works as the story progresses into the space segments. The acting is nothing short of amazing, as well. I've been known to heckel Hugh Jackman in the past, but after The Prestige and this, I feel he's a certified great actor; and he really needs better films to showcase what he's capable of (Scoop was also a step in the right direction). Rachel Weisz is a thing of beauty, and, like in The Constant Gardener, she makes her character believable. I would do everything Jackman's Tommy attempts to save her life as well. One thing must be told before you immediately rush to the theater: this is an art film, the characters can be seen as cyphers for the ideas in the film (thankfully the actors rise above this with their portrayals of the character(s)). As will be noted, the film is about mid-level (50%) on Rotten Tomatoes; this isn't a film for everyone. This is a love it or hate it film. It will be called pretentious without knowing the true meaning of the word. This film best works on your own level, create your own feeling towards it and share it with friends. All of my friends that I've seen it with have different ideas as to what the images in the film mean. So will everyone else. To have exposition or to have Aronofsky explain his ideas would de-mystify it. But, if any of this interest you, this is a film I would recommend wholly to see in theaters. The visual and sound is alone enough reason.

Speakin of sound, the title of my thread mentions the score by Clint Mansell. I purchased it the morning after seeing the film and - at this moment - it's hard to pull it away from my ears. Mansell is on my sh!t-list of composers; only Sahara and the Kronos Quartet portions of Requiem stand out to me. Like Requiem, this score also utilizes the awesome talent of Kronos Quartet and along with their work with Philip Glass and Elliot Goldenthal, this is my favorite. Anything they perform sounds magical, and the awesome thematic of Mansell's music adds to what they have. The use of avant post-rock group Mogwai is also noteworthy as their dynamic guitars and melodic bass add to the overall nature of the darker sections of the score. I'm noticing perhaps three main themes that intertwine to form the overall thematic nature of the work. Some pieces may remind you of Zimmer's guitar work in Mission: Impossible 2 and later repeated in Steve Jablonsky's The Island. Many of the darker, more action inspired pieces remind me of Elliot Goldenthal and Robert Elhai orchestrations: the guitars of the rock group provide a dramatic backdrop to the Quartet's string work. This can especially be heard in the tracks "Holy Dread!" and "Tree of Life". The final cue from the film exists on the album as "Death is the Road to Awe", it features a tense string adagio of the primary theme ("The Fountain Theme" perhaps?) and leads into Mogwai's drums and guitars as they lead into a light choral backdrop set to the theme played at a different tempo and arpeggio out into a beautiful display of all the talent involved with this score. Overall it's haunting work, and the themes are so simple and memorable that I guarantee and listening of the soundtrack and appreciation of the film will have you humming them at work. The album closes with the cue that plays over the end credits. Mogwai's Randy Kerber beautifully performs the score's main themes on piano as we're left in awe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Thanks Franz. Usually when I write these I'm so worried about spoiling things but on second looks it seems I'm usually very good. i put that spoiler warning just in case. I hope you enjoy the film and score; it's a damn shame you have to wait until February to see it. You'd think the international film community would've found a way to distribute more films at the same time. Now you know how us Yanks (especially me) felt about waiting for Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story, The Proposition, and Park Chan-Wook and Wong Kar-Wai films.

---

Well, we only got TRISTRAM SHANDY in July here... Didn't you guys get it last year for Oscars?

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
Well, we only got TRISTRAM SHANDY in July here... Didn't you guys get it last year for Oscars?

(If it is eligible for this year's Oscars, then it must be nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay, at the very least, for the LOVE OF GOD!)

---

Well, I'm thinking we got Tristram Shandy around that time as well. It wasn't playing in Atlanta so I had to wait until the DVD release. And I firmly stand by you on the notion that it at least deserves a nod for Best Adapted Screenplay. Luckily, with the advent of Charlie Kaufman, the Academy has started to realize the screenplay as a most important function in a film. In the case of Tristram Shandy, Martin Hardy's screenplay is a prime example of how to adapt a challenging and seemingly unadaptable novel successfully; something Cronenberg also did with Naked Lunch and a majority of the work on the Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas script using Alex Cox's and Gilliam's input. Good to see eye to eye on something around these parts.

Now, back to The Fountain; by the way, thanks for your review Demetris.

I might see this soundtrack for sale today... if so I might pick it up. It's going to be a long wait until February though, when the film gets its Australian release. <HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

February!?! Man, it's driving me crazy having to wait until NEXT WEEK for Casino Royale and until December 26 for Déja Vu and Babel! Grrrrrrrrr me angry at Australia. hehe Thanks for the review nuts, though I only read the last few sentences since I can't have the film spoiled: Does Howard Shore get iced by a giant monkey? Because if he does that'd ruin it for me for good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
Thanks for the review nuts, though I only read the last few sentences since I can't have the film spoiled: Does Howard Shore get iced by a giant monkey? Because if he does that'd ruin it for me for good.

---

Well, according to Franz, my review isn't too spoilerific; and since I mainly describe the acting and direction I think you might be safe to read more.

And, as per your question: yes, Howard Shore does get trampled by a giant monkey in the film's climactic sequence on Broadway. The giant monkey then proceeds to break it's way through New York City in search of Jet Girl (Tank Girl, anyone?) while the Pianist follows after, trying to stop the ole' lug. The big ape throws some 1930s cars around a studio lot (or maybe its a green screen); and finally (through chance that only Paul Thomas Anderson can work in), Jet Girl arrives in the middle of the street . . . freezing cold because she's only wearing a night gown (but I'm sure the weather is nice on the soundstage). The monkey grabs her and they set off to Central Park to ice skate! It's so romantic that you almost want them to kiss before you realize that it's really just a CGI ape and a blonde actress (the same thing almost happened to me with Alien vs. Predator). Then, the evil American army (circa 1930s) blows a hole in the ice using a big cannon. To make a long story short, the gigantic monkey climbs the Sears tower with the freezing blonde in his hands and then some aeroplanes try and shoot the thing down and they eventually do after about forty-five minutes and then the Pianist finally reaches the top of the building and (at last) puts a jacket around Jet Girl as that damned dirty ape falls to his doom. You see, it wasn't the fall that killed the beast, 'twas beauty that killed the beast. I believe Nacho Libre says that in the film's final moments. I hope I didn't spoil anything.

How was my first attempt at a Sean-style review?

NP> John Morris' The Elephant Man (*****/*****)

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
How was my first attempt at a Sean-style review?

---

Finally got a first look at this highly anticipated movie on my list and it was as outstanding as I thought it would be. The film is so far beyond what Hollywood audiences are used to. No wonder it got booed at festivals. It asks its audience to actually meditate on the biggest question of all... the question of life and the beyond. The simple message I took from the movie was about "letting go" just simply "letting go" of the tangible that we hold most dear because that is all we know. I love the moment when the the main character Thomas realizes this and just "lets go" It is simply beautiful and the movie is beautiful in the message it give us...albeit a sad message, but comforting, nonetheless. The film, while shot very tightly in the frame based on the even tighter budget is visually and audibly a matching craft of beauty.

Weisz is perfectly cast and radiant in this role. Jackman does very well, although I was kind of wishing I could see Brad Pitt in this role. I think it could've been one of the best roles (maybe not as widely accepted)of his career, one he could've looked back on as an actor and be very proud of. Or I thought Daniel Day-Lewis would've been a great choice. This is a very demanding role and while Jackman pulled it off I think it could've been played even better. A couple other moments in the story bothered me, but overall I was ecstatic about the result. Everyone should go and meditate on what's most important to us along with this film.

[Message edited by Turkish on 12-05-2006]

I can hear why people have been comparing this to Elliot Goldenthal's HEAT. That masterstroke combination of electric guitars and string quartet is in evidence here - giving the whole thing a spare, austere, timeless feel. Sadly it's lacking that 'fuller' symphonic string support - brilliantly orchestrated - from Goldenthal's score, which marks the difference between a great composer writing for film (Goldenthal) and a lesser-if-more-idiosyncratic one writing a fine film score (Mansell). (Not to forget the added element of the choir here, but not the Goldenthal score.) I don't think it's brilliant music - more compelling than brilliant - but I can imagine it serving it's film well, and enjoy it as an album. 'The Last Man', the penultimate track and the piano solo end credits (now playing) seem to be the highlights. (Heat is one of my 20 favourite scores from the 90s, so it's tough competition for Clint Mansell.) 3.5-4 out of 5 overall, higher in parts.

After having seen this film for myself (I had been dying to see it since July, no pun intended) I don't understand the accusations leveled at the film for being pretentious, silly or absurd by so many critics. I've seen silly pretentious arthouse films before and this doesn't even come close! It is certainly one of the best films I've seen this year and should at least receive an Oscar nomination for some technical aspect or for the the score if they can't bear to nominate it for its beautiful story.

NP> Mark Isham's The Black Dahlia (*****/*****) - Another film I fell in love with and keep my dedication to.

Conrad, for what it's worth, 'The Fountain' is a better film score than 'Heat' to me, but I must say I'm not a huge fan of Mann's film and never was (am a large fan of Mann, though). I adore Goldenthal, and as far as orchestrations go, I'm not sure there's a better film composer alive (or dead). But I really found Aronofsky's film to be special, if flawed (like all the best work eh?!?!?!?), and the score holds a great deal of ideas and emotional associations.

~Jason

And the score is as dour and dull as the movie itself.

Oh yeah, and it's probably the most visually uncompromising movie I've seen in a decade.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SPQR:
Self-important twaddle. Little wonder the Venice audience booed. Of course, had I been in that audience, I wouldn't have been booing, I'd have been laughing uproariously.

And the score is as dour and dull as the movie itself.

---

I love your arguements as to why. Hastaj00's comment has much more resonance as to why the idea of seflness is an important theme in the film. He used examples. And secondly, the film was briefly booed at the critics screening (and this doesn't necessarily mean everyone stood up and hissed while they threw rotten apples at the screen like you might assume); at the festival screening the film recieved a short standing ovation.

Thanks also to Hastaj00 for admitting the film is flawed and, like all great work, is rightfully so. Nothing is perfect.

Going back to the score for a second... Usually I don't stay throughout all of the credits of a film, but I happened to see 'The Fountain' with a friend who does... so I stayed. So, towards the end, when Mogwai's name came up alongside the musical credits, I was a bit shocked.

Mogwai is easily one of my most cherished bands, and I've listened to every one of their albums endlessly; I guess I was simply surprised that I hadn't somehow heard of Mogwai's attachment to the project. That and, to be honest, I thought the score felt very much like Mansell (which is not saying much, as I've only heard his 'Requiem for a Dream'). Anyhow, I wasn't so much pleased after viewing this fact as I was confused -- what exactly did they contribute?

And that's the question I pose here. You mentioned Kerber performed the piano bits -- awesome info I wasn't aware of. Anything more? The percussion definitely recalls Mogwai, mostly, as do the (hardly audible, though contributive) guitars... I guess mostly the question I have is -- did they WRITE any of the material here? Or just perform?

The first paragraph of that review concludes with this:

"With the soundtrack supplying appropriately moist oohs and aahs."

OK... so where ARE these oohs and aahs exactly?

"Aronofsky has not only aspired to make the most strenuously far-out movie of the 21st century, but the greatest love story ever told."

I think that this statement is absurd. This is not a love story, in the traditional sense of man and woman. Maybe he only saw the film's trailer.

To offer a counter that I agreed with mostly is Walter Chaw's review: http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/fountain.htm

Is it me, or do most negative reviews of this film find the critic either exaggerating, lying, or desperately performing to their wits end in an attempt to be entertaining? I've read some reasonably unfavorable reviews that were balanced and thoughtful, but Holberman's isn't so much a review as it is a tongue-in-cheek circus act of film criticism. And I'm one for well written, comedic essays on **** -films, of which his doesn't apply.

Graphic novel origins, SPQR? You're ill-advised on the films conceptions and after Warner canned the film originally, Aronofsky wanted to at least allow his story to be told someway. He allowed artist Kent Williams to interpret his original script and use his skills to visualize Aronofsky's story; in it's original form. Owning the graphic novel, I can admit that both mediums are entriely different. The story told in the graphic novel is a little more "far-out" and not as grounded as the tighter film version.

In retrospect, chauvinism is a prominent theme in the film due to Aronofsky's own troubles with the script and the film. We've brought up Tommy's selfish nature; it's evident to us why the film is chauvinistic. It's made by a man who encountered trouble in his life at the time of his inspiration, he encountered more trouble trying to bring the film to life, and he's incountering even more trouble upon its release. Men react to these situations in ways that may not be evident on first glance. How didn't the dialog translate the character's emotions? The conversations all appeared to serve the drama at hand. What was wrong with the ambiguous film structure? The actual structure is thematic in repetition. Visuals? The entire film is littered with visual storytelling; it is a visual story. It's ambiguous. One of my closest friends had a problem with this fact about the film. He thought it was too ambiguous. And he is in love with Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Speaking of which, I'm growing tired of the "even 2001 recieved unfavorable reviews by critics and audiences". Why, especially considering my unabashed love for Aronofsky's film? Because, to this day, I still feel Kubrick's film gets a strange rep. It's nowhere near his best film (which, IMO, is Dr. Strangelove and Barry Lyndon) and it still gets a bad rep from people both claim to understand its ambiguity and those who find it boring, pretentious narcisist cinema. As much as I like Kubrick's film, I'm growing more toward Aronofsky's simply because it is a warmer picture (though not as much as people think, like Hasta pointed out, it's not a film about love at all) and seems more grounded in the artists imagination because this is something he worked to his best potential to achieve.

I have to agree. It seems these days that most "film criticism" falls into this category, which is why I pretty much bypass most critics' opinions.

I appreciate your overview of the film, nut score. I've had these arguments with others over the structure of this film. Why do some people object to non-linear storytelling? I think to reject a film that uses ambiguous structure right out of hand is narrow-minded

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
As much as I like Kubrick's film, I'm growing more toward Aronofsky's simply because it is a warmer picture (though not as much as people think, like Hasta pointed out, it's not a film about love at all) and seems more grounded in the artists imagination because this is something he worked to his best potential to achieve.

---

While I can't argue with the first reason - which is evident in the soundtrack (my only exposure to FOUNTAIN to date) - I must question the second remark. As someone who has read just about every bio of Kubrick, I think it's no credit to the person who remarks that a film: "seems more grounded in the artists imagination because this is something he worked to his best potential to achieve."

Perhaps you mean FOUNTAIN seems more personal to the film-maker? I can see how that impression might arise, as Kubrick always had a curiously objective, near (nay, almost certain) comic tone about even his most serious films. (The comic element is an aspect of most of his films, and particularly 2001, too often ignored.) 2001 is not about identifying with any personal quests, and probably seems very impersonal next to Aronofsky's film (which, again, I haven't seen).

Personally, though, I adore this manner of filmmaking, because it's generally devoid of emotional manipulation and has much more room to gut out ideas, from an intellectual and observational perspective.

Most of my favorite films are the cynical, the fatalistic, usually resulting in either a tragic or, yes, comedic disposition. I recently saw a reviewer refer to Kubrick as misanthropic (not pertaining to one of his films, but all), and in a sense, I see this as true. And, really, it is, partly, out of my spite for our reality that I get such gratification, or even catharsis, from Kubrick's films, and the type I mention above. At the same time, though, I resent this scornful nature both in me and those who possess it to the extreme; so Kubrick's films , while I adore them on so many levels, have a coldness that ultimately leaves me a bit hopeless.

'The Fountain' is far more sentimental and poignant a film than any of Kubrick's I've seen, and therein comes the warmth nuts_score describes. Despite my near-unconscious contempt for the kind of malign I can see brooding in Kubrick's most vicious moments, I still couldn't say one way or another whether I find this warmth -- if done with ravishing beauty AND possessing an intellect within that warmth -- "one notch up"; it just feels like another side of a coin. In a way, Kubrick's oft non-feeling lets me connect with the part of myself that is as much as Human as any feeling of love -- hate, fear, mystery. Yet, I am Human; amongst all my bruises, my disenchanted spirit a result of my plethora of scars, I do have a beating heart, and I worship a film that can truly move me. Conrad mentioned 'The Thin Red Line' in an unrelated context, but it must be said it is my favorite film, and no other exudes the sheer love, compassion, or affinity that Malick captures. AND, he does it with so many of the same observations that Kubrick and so many other filmmakers tackle, but he feeds off of these to produce a hugely different effect -- when it's all said and done, a portrayal of Human love. Least that's my opinion; I've never seen a more religious piece of cinema than Malick's ponderous reflection on war and strife within the Human condition. I mean, really, though I won't claim one particular filmmaking philosophy or manner of expression is "up a notch" from the other, I will say that I am, too, like nuts_score in the resultant intimacy and closeness I feel so deeply with films that display this general, Human affection.

WOW -- I'm rambling. Aronofsky's film IS of this mentality, to me. It it utterly subjective, and the complaints so many seem to have with the film generally bypass this whole emotional experience, instead having unforgivable issues with it from a more objective stance. Why they're not connecting with the subjective emphasis varies from person to person, of course, but to me, it's this impassioned tackling of Human character that is the unmitigated core of 'The Fountain'; frankly, and in opposition to so many who dislike the film, I am with the utmost forgiveness to any of my problems from an objective standpoint (not that I have many in the first place), simply because I find it irrelevant to this picture -- it's ideas and themes in the subjective sense are so exquisitely rendered that it simply matters not. The same goes for 'The Thin Red Line'; these are films that use objectivity to their advantage, but surely are not near the level of detail or profundity that someone like 'Kubrick' exemplifies. Yet, this is not where the filmmakers vision and soul are dedicated ; it's obvious most of the energies are focused on other matters -- the heart, more or less.

But, in all honesty, I loved your post. It's the exact kind I was looking forward too. I think, subjectively, that all of the filmmakers that I consider to be auteurs are very cold filmmakers. Kubrick, Cronenberg, Welles, Hitchcock, PTA, Fincher, Allen, Altman, Jodorowsky, Lynch, Wong (Kar-Wai). It's great you bring up Malick too; as he's my second favorite and most influential filmmaker. The strange thing is, he's one of the warmest directors, but I consider him an auteur. All four of his films have touched me in ways that no other filmmaker can claim (I might consider Victor Erice and maybe Guillermo Del Toro but I think Del Toro can be cold at times and I've only seen two of Erice's films) and for that he's a remarkably talented man.

In that tense, I respect Aronofsky. He's vying for my heart; and no matter how warm I think The Fountain is, it's still a cynical movie at heart. Pi is a near-masterpiece IMO but it's as cold and bleak as a film comes (and how I long for the day when Aronofsky might consider adapting Umberto Eco). I'm fairly negative towards Requiem for a Dream but I'll recognize the talent because I see it and feel it. The Fountain is the first time I've wanted to call Aronofsky an auteur but I think he's got plenty of room to grow and I'm hoping he follows the themes and warmth he gave to The Fountain. And, for the record, I thought the comedic moments in the film were very appropriate.

NP> John Williams' AI: Artifical Intelligence (****/*****)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hastaj00:
Oh yeah, and it's probably the most visually uncompromising movie I've seen in a decade.

---

What does that mean, by the way? That the film never once lets you forget what colour yellow is? How can something be visually uncompromising? I would have thought something more austere like CACHE would have been a film more deserving of the title 'visually uncompromising', because it often refuses to edit when an edit would be expected.

I did have one very funny moment while watching THE FOUNTAIN. During the 'Death is the road to awe' sequence, (SPOILER) when Jackman finds the Tree of Life and puts the sap on his wound, I joked to my girlfriend that it would be funny if a plant sprouted from his wound, as we'd just seen a plant sprout from the ground when the sap hit it. She elbowed me for suggesting levity at such a serious moment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hastaj00:
No offense personally, but I find that taking "visually uncompromising" at even the most vague level is quite understandable... use your imagination.

---

No offense taken... Not to be overly literal, but should I take your reply to mean a visually uncompromising film requires you to use your imagination to understand the visuals, making no compromise to viewer who lack intelligence?

If that were what you meant, then I'm afraid I don't really agree with you. There's nothing terribly uncompromising about the visuals of THE FOUNTAIN. We are not required to imagine a 'tree of life' that provides life everlasting - we see it. We are not required to summon without any visual cue what it looks like to reach Xibalba - the film shows it.

What is uncompromising about the film is the narrative explanation of those images - the ideas are not explained textually as they are presented. We may be presented with an image that requires no augmentation on the viewer's part, e.g. a Conquistador glutting himself on the sap of the Tree of Life. However we have to apply a bit of thinking to understand why we were shown that - why it isn't arbitrary and non-sensical. We are not given some hamfisted explanation about how the hero's search to stop death is ultimately selfish, not selfless.

To me however, we hardly need to be given such an explanation. Because the narrative is not uncompromising, no more than Michael Cunningham's quite similar novel THE HOURS at least. Aronofsky's script makes a number of concessions to those who aren't paying attention or slow on the uptake. Scenes are repeated throughout, dialogue repeated, and ideas clearly linked by the intercutting of the three periods and rhyming images. It surprises me that this is considered by some a hard film to figure out - several points are well and truly hammered into the audience before the story runs its course, with scenes repeated multiple times.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hastaj00:
Conrad, for what it's worth, 'The Fountain' is a better film score than 'Heat' to me, but I must say I'm not a huge fan of Mann's film and never was (am a large fan of Mann, though). I adore Goldenthal, and as far as orchestrations go, I'm not sure there's a better film composer alive (or dead). But I really found Aronofsky's film to be special, if flawed (like all the best work eh?!?!?!?), and the score holds a great deal of ideas and emotional associations.

~Jason

---

Just to come back to this earlier point, I found Goldenthal's score contained more variation in its own uniquely minimal way, even though it was far more sparely spotted than Mansell's relatively continuous underscore. (Of course comparison of the two is spurious, since they're united solely by palette. But it wouldn't surprise me if the Goldenthal score had been an influence.) For a movie where music was so foregrounded, I find it a little unfortunate that the music was hitting the same points at the end that it was at the start. (Quite literally actually - as versions of 'Xibalba' underscore the opening and closing scenes.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
[B]Ah, but Franz, repetition seemed to be an important underlying theme for the film; many of the "repeated images" are shown three times.

---

You're mistaking my remark that many things were repeated as a criticism. Consider the context again - I was trying to explain why I didn't feel it was hard film to understand, and that I felt that repetition was used to 'grease the rails' for viewers slow on the uptake. Not a criticism. Just having a go at Hasta's notion that this story is uncompromising.

quote:

---

The color yellow is featured because Aronofsky and DP Matthew Libatique were greatly inspired by Spanish paintings from the time period in which the Inquistion frame exist (also relating to a conquistador's lust for gold).

---

I figured it was representing emotion in a Storaro fashion, but what you say makes sense. Again, I was not criticising the use of yellow above - parodying it slightly, but not because I don't think it looked absolutely splendid. I could well joke that a Wong Kar Wai film like 2046 can't seem to keep anyone in the anamorphic frame, but I also understand (and love) the mise-en-scene thinking behind that.

quote:

---

Since the beginning of the film's inception, I've understood that the film was a metaphysical look upon religion's underlyings; so I wasn't expecting a 2001. Aronofsky claims only to be inspired by 2001 (as well as Star Wars and The Matrix) in the fact that he wanted to break new ground in sci-fi imagery and film (though certainly not "brand new" from Solaris perspectives).

---

Ok, if he brought up the comparison in 2001, then I can understand why people are thinking of that. To me it doesn't really seem like you would compare this to 2001 at all - the intent of each film is so different. While I like FOUNTAIN a lot more than THE MATRIX, that seems a more suitable comparison in a way.

quote:

---

He wasn't out to make the "next-2001" as many critics have assaulted. In fact, I think the film relays closer themes to that of Altered States with its hallucinatory perceptions of time and displacement as well as the idea of astral-projection.

---

I really must see that film!

quote:

---

Kubrick's idea in 2001 was to create tension between man and the machines that they had given themselves (the same with The Matrix); whereas Aronofsky's plan lies in the literal and metaphysical translations of many religious subtexts.

---

Well, I think Kubrick did approach the relationship of man and machines within the framework of a series of encounters with an undefined higher power, so religious themes were still very much there for those who chose to read it that way. But FOUNTAIN is definitely the more religious of the films.

Nuts, where are you on the Mansell score? I take it you weren't driven nuts (mind the pun) by its rather slender building blocks by the end of the film? Mind you I love the album - was listening to it yesterday - but it felt like it wasn't enough for that film.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
Nuts, where are you on the Mansell score? I take it you weren't driven nuts (mind the pun) by its rather slender building blocks by the end of the film? Mind you I love the album - was listening to it yesterday - but it felt like it wasn't enough for that film.

---

First off, I appreciate your thoughful comments (as always, you're one of the few I can have intelligent, provoking film conversation with on these boards)). Now, onto what I quoted you on and a direct question pointed at me. As you may well know, Mansell's The Fountain ended up at the prestigious number three spot on my top 20 for 2006; so, off the bat, you know that I appreciate that score tremendously. In the film, your arguements are valid. In fact, the sound mix at both of my screenings was so terrible that I can't help but blame the film and not the theater (being two different theaters). Especially considering the fact that I had heard Mansell's score nearly a week before viewing the film I knew when the climactic moments of the score would occur. So, for a cue like "Death is the Road to Awe" the sound needs to be in perfect harmonization with the films visuals; it was not, and I can't help but fault the film for that. As for the music on the album, I think it's a complete collection of what themes and patterns Mansell worked into the score, as it does serve repetition in the film to some varying degree; though not to a distracting level.

And yes, you must see Altered States. Have you heard Corigliano's score?

NP> Thomas Newman's The Good German (*****/*****)