anybody heard anything recent?
aronosfky.net has some stuff, but all of it is dated from last september. imdb.com recently included it in it's aronofsky page listing it as "announced". while that's somewhat reassuring, i'm still dying for some recent updates.
more generally, aronosfky is amazing. in my opinion, he has the best chance of being this generations kubrick. and from the script reviews that i've read, the fountain will take a giant step in that direction. pitt would've been amazing for this role. like cruise in magnolia. the hollywood hunk forced to actually act. damn brad for backing out. how could anyone turn down the opportunity to work with aronofsky. christ, haven't you seen his movies. didn't you see requiem. are you an idiot?! (sorry bout that, got carried away there.)
this whole situation boils my blood. i was really looking forward to it as well. i imagine the project is scrapped. did they already start principal photography, by the time brad quit? i can see the studio just pulling the plug and writing off their loses. i hope they allow him to make it still.
I was anticipating this movie more than any other. Did you read the script review on AICN? It sounded like such a stunning project. Destined for greatness (and box office failure, but that's a given).
The sets were built but photography had not yet started when WB pulled the plug. Arronofsky wants to resurrect the project though, with another lead actor. Joaquin Phoenix's name was bandied about somewhere...
That's two projects Brad Pitt has been attached to that had the potential to be truly great movies...this and the Coen's adaptation of 'To The White Sea'...and both were dropped by the studios. A shame.
from what i've read aronofsky's pretty committed to getting this made, so hopefully it'll happen
phoenix would be great. WB was demanding a big name like gibson or crowe after pitt pulled out, i don't like the sound of that (might assure aronofsky of his own oscar invitation, but i still don't like it) phoenix would be much better
the AICN review was fantastic. aronofsky the bold!!!
I actually just went to a Q&A with Aronofsky tonight. He was very vague in all of his answers and besides answering the normal "why did you ______hiphop montage_________?" questions he gave a little insight to his next project, but still he wasnt really giving much because he said he doesnt like to talk about it. Anyways.....
-He is still developing The Fountain and plans to make it someday but will not be his next movie.
-He at one point wrote a Batman script but that project is dead
-His production company owns the rights to a childrens book, I think something about a bear, that he wants to make
-He gets offered a lot of scripts and really really wanted to direct Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
-His company has the rights to the book "Flicker" and the author was there too so it looks like that is next.
Another thing he said was how that style of Pi and Requiem with hiphop montage and quick cuts he wont ever probably use again, he wants to do something different and he just needed to get that out of his system. He said he wants to develope other styles but doesnt know if he could ever do a "slow" movie
Quote from: Duck SauceAnother thing he said was how that style of Pi and Requiem with hiphop montage and quick cuts he wont ever probably use again, he wants to do something different and he just needed to get that out of his system. He said he wants to develope other styles but doesnt know if he could ever do a "slow" movie
:(
Quote from: cbrad4dQuote from: Duck SauceAnother thing he said was how that style of Pi and Requiem with hiphop montage and quick cuts he wont ever probably use again, he wants to do something different and he just needed to get that out of his system. He said he wants to develope other styles but doesnt know if he could ever do a "slow" movie
:(
no sad faces!!
while i loved the visual style in pi and requiem, i'm impressed by aronofsky's desire for change. he's young, many more movies to make in his career...gotta keep trying new things, keep pushing the envelope.
i hope he said something about casting marlon wayans again!!!!
Quote from: DanTMcGovern[
i hope he said something about casting marlon wayans again!!!!
He did, he said Marlon really wanted the role and was really dedicated to getting it. He didnt shower for a week and came to the audition in character and took it really seriously. And then he kept coming back and showing up and he really wanted the role. Aronofsky said he always pictures the character to be a comedian in a way and that Marlon was really good at relieving tension on the set.
Other interesting things,
-Harry was originally going to be running towards his mother on the pier
-Milla Jovovich was Aronofskys original choice to play Marion
good times
I want to see this movie more than anything. Here are some of my choices to replace Brad Pitt with:
Christian Bale
Adrien Brody (cliche I know, but he has the talent)
Collin Farrell (maybe?)
Edward Norton (maybe?)
Quote from: tremolosloth
Adrien Brody (cliche I know, but he has the talent)
Original choice to play Harry.
NEAT
Quote from: tremoloslothNEAT
Defenitely. He'd do a good job.
Quote from: tremoloslothI want to see this movie more than anything. Here are some of my choices to replace Brad Pitt with:
Christian Bale
Adrien Brody (cliche I know, but he has the talent)
Collin Farrell (maybe?)
Edward Norton (maybe?)
Lemme throw Billy Crudup in there.
Quote from: polkabluesQuote from: tremoloslothI want to see this movie more than anything. Here are some of my choices to replace Brad Pitt with:
Christian Bale
Adrien Brody (cliche I know, but he has the talent)
Collin Farrell (maybe?)
Edward Norton (maybe?)
Lemme throw Billy Crudup in there.
Johnny Depp!!! That would be fucked up...I'd love it. I love the guy.
I thought he was already in it (another character)
I think IMDB had him on there for a while, but it was just a rumor that was later debunked. He would be cool, but I'd actually prefer to see Bale, Brody or Farrell in the role (hopefully, Colin will take Brad Pitt's cue and at least try to take on risky material).
am i the only one who hasn't jumped on the colin bandwagon here? what has this guy done that's so amazing? maybe i missed that movie.
but i thought we were told that this will not be his next movie, so why are we discussing the casting.
that being said:
pitt would've been amazing...now he's an ass.
depp is amazing...when this pic is revived, get johnny depp.
btw...anybody see the inside the actors studio w/ depp, this guys just awesome, and he ended the show by saying that he would be excited to play a woman...not a transvestite or a transexual or anything, just a woman. anybody else find that a little odd. i'm trying to write it off as odd in a johnny-depp-is-the-coolest-guy-in-the-world kinda way, but it's a bit hard.
Well, I mean, I'm not gay or anything, but he is a handsome man. That seems to be enough these days. He was pretty good in Minority report and stuff, although he doesn't vary his characters much.
That would be so awesome if Depp did that! He's had a little practice I guess, moreso in Before Night Falls than Ed Wood, but I bet he could pass for a hot chick.
Anyway, Colin Farrell has yet to appear in a really good movie (although some people would argue that Minority Report is really good, and I'm almost inclined to agree with them). But I think he's pretty damn talented.
Quote from: GhostboyThat would be so awesome if Depp did that! He's had a little practice I guess, moreso in Before Night Falls than Ed Wood, but I bet he could pass for a hot chick.
Anyway, Colin Farrell has yet to appear in a really good movie (although some people would argue that Minority Report is really good, and I'm almost inclined to agree with them). But I think he's pretty damn talented.
Yeah, I dont really like Farrell, I liked Minority Report but didnt think he was that great in it. Id vote for Depp or Adrian... Aronofsky told a story about how he wanted to cast him as Harry, and then he saw him right after he won an oscar and told him "could have been your second" so maybe there is a relationship there and with his new oscar power maybe the movie could get made,.
Quote from: GhostboyAnyway, Colin Farrell has yet to appear in a really good movie (although some people would argue that Minority Report is really good, and I'm almost inclined to agree with them)
Did you not like "Tigerland?"
Quote from: PawbloeQuote from: GhostboyAnyway, Colin Farrell has yet to appear in a really good movie (although some people would argue that Minority Report is really good, and I'm almost inclined to agree with them)
Did you not like "Tigerland?"
Thank you for posting that so I didn't have to.
Thank you for posting so that I thought there was some news on The Fountain only to be crushed when there was not
Brad Pitt backs out of another movie...
Brad Pitt Says Goodbye to Mr. and Mrs. Smith
Source: The Hollywood Reporter Tuesday, August 5, 2003
After losing leading lady Nicole Kidman a month ago because of scheduling conflicts, Brad Pitt is close to leaving Regency Enterprises' Mr. and Mrs. Smith as well.
Pitt is in Mexico filming Warner Bros. Pictures' Troy until next month. Following that, he would have done "Smith" before segueing to Ocean's Twelve in February, but none of the actresses he had approved of for "Smith" - including Kidman, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Angelina Jolie - was available in Pitt's window between projects.
The project isn't dead, however, as other names are being bandied about to replace Pitt, including Will Smith and Johnny Depp. The story centers on a bored married couple who discover that they are enemy assassins hired to kill each other.
Oh, I thought there was news on the greatest movie that never was. Thanks, bitch
Christ, twice in a row
Quote from: tremoloslothOh, I thought there was news on the greatest movie that never was. Thanks, bitch
Christ, twice in a row
i'm starting to see what macguffin was talking about. posting the news is a thankless job.
::throb::
Someone steal the script. STEAL IT!
Fountain Set and Props Going on the Auction Block
Source: NineMSN
NineMSN reports that a set and props for what would have been writer/director Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain are being auctioned off this week. Brad Pitt dropped out of the project last year to go film Troy instead. Here's a taste of the article:
A 10-story-high Aztec temple built for Brad Pitt and Inca costumes that should have been worn by Cate Blanchett will be auctioned on the Gold Coast this week, ending any hope of resurrecting one of the biggest films ever planned for Australia.
Darren Aronofsky's $US100 million ($A153 million) science fiction adventure The Fountain had begun pre-production on the Gold Coast when Pitt suddenly withdrew from the project a year ago.
However, before The Fountain's collapse producers had spent an estimated $A18 million, some of it building elaborate sets and creating amazing costumes.
Any hope The Fountain could be revived at a later date will be dealt a final blow on Tuesday with the auction.
The centrepiece of the film - a high-rise Aztec temple - is included in 800 movie set lots that will go under the auctioneer's hammer.
Senior auctioneer Andrew Webber said there had been strong interest in the steel and foam temple, which will be sold in pieces but could be rebuilt as a theme park attraction.
"A lot of people who have worked on the set have rung and they want bits and pieces to say this would have been the biggest production movie they were ever going to work on that never got off the ground," Mr Webber said. "A piece of memorabilia that never was."
Other items to be auctioned include 200-year-old Bibles, conquistador saddles, horse armour, animal skeletons and set sketches.
Before its cancellation last year, The Fountain gained national headlines after a report that Pitt had refused to work on the Gold Coast, prompting a tug of war for the film between NSW Premier Bob Carr and Queensland's Peter Beattie.
Cate Blanchett was also to star in the movie.
:( .that is the most depressing thing i have read in a while...So i guess The Fountain dried up completely.....damn this sucks all that stuff sounded like the makings of a classic (aronofsky+big budget=masterpiece of unprecedented levels.IMO....but still, having that production stuff being auctioned like that reminds of someone selling everything they own for crack .utterly depressing and sad.....But i am glad to hear of this.. at least so i can finally let go and REALIZE that this(however badass it was/would have been) will not get made.....Now i can concentrate on hoping FLICKER will get made....i read somewhere the premise of the film and it sounded like the perfect project for Aronofsky......
I wonder if this will become some sort of Hollywood legend
Hope no one was expecting any new news when they clicked on this.
I was thinking about this movie's fiasco the other day and wondered what problems Brad Pitt REALLY had with the scipt.
I mean, he was into the project enough to grow that beard and then copped out because of the 3rd or whatever draft, yet he had no problems with a script like The Mexican. Don't get it.
You commit yourself to something like this, a director you're a fan of and then don't find some way to make it work?
There's something else behind this project's failure, I believe.
There's official press releases and there's what really happened.
Rich, talented and famous? No? You'll never know.
We'll never know.
"I will be in Aronofsky's next film The Fountain which will be filming in the fall". - Ellen Burstyn from the Golden Globes
...does this mean that it's been resurrected?
Quote from: themodernage02"I will be in Aronofsky's next film The Fountain which will be filming in the fall". - Ellen Burstyn from the Golden Globes
Quote from: Onomatopoeia...does this mean that it's been resurrected?
Praise Jesus.
Quote from: Onomatopoeia...does this mean that it's been resurrected?
either that or Ellen Burstyn's gone insane.
ohhhh my God yes
Quote from: SlorgOh, I thought there was news on the greatest movie that never was. Thanks, bitch Christ, twice in a row
Quote from: Slorgohhhh my God yes
it was my duty to break the news.
Third time's a charm.
well..........finally............aronofsky........will.........bring.........this.....soon.....to....
be.......(neo)classic.........to ........life.........so......all........those.....aronofsky...
....haters.......can......kindly........shut..........up...........................
I think she's a way better choice than Brad Pitt
Does anyone know who is taking over Brad Pitts role? I am trying to picture Ellen Burstyn with that beard......
Quote from: filmboy70Does anyone know who is taking over Brad Pitts role? I am trying to picture Ellen Burstyn with that beard......
my $$$$$$$ is on crudup....
Quote from: NEON MERCURYmy $$$$$$$ is on crudup....
Yeah, could be. His schedule is quite open considering he doesn't have to worry about raising his kid (because he dumped the mom when she was 8 months pregnant :shock: ).
let's judge him.
does anyone have a link to the script or synopsis of the Fountain?
thanks.
Quote from: bigideasdoes anyone have a link to the script or synopsis of the Fountain?
thanks.
http://aronofksy.tripod.com/newsarticle28.html
Hugh Jackman Eyes Aronofsky's Fountain
Source: Variety
There is new life in Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain, with Hugh Jackman starring instead of Brad Pitt and a smaller budget. The film was originally set for a Fall 2002 start on a $75 million budget. The project would now be budgeted between $35 million and $40 million.
Little is known about the story, says Variety. Originally the film followed its main character on a psychological journey set in the present, but with a plotline reaching centuries into both the past and the future. Among the themes explored are love, death and immortality.
Still at issue is roughly $18 million in pre-production costs incurred in prepping the first time around, adds the trade. Some of that money went toward sets built in Australia -- in some cases, for scenes not even in the latest script. A seven-figure sum was also owed to Blanchett, who had made a pay-or-play deal on the pic.
Aronofsky is also developing a live-action version of Lone Wolf and Cub, based on the Kazuo Koike-created samurai graphic novel collection, which is set up with Mutual Film at Paramount.
Wow, I wonder if Arronofsky developed a Coppola complex down there in Australia. Hopefully, the eventual DVD of the eventual film will have a good documentary on the aborted version.
This sounds good except the budget cut. Didn't he say he really needed more to get it right?
hugh's a good choice.......at least he's classically trained and does broadway...
unlike pitt.......right?
and budget cuts suck....
in the new EW, Hugh says about joining The Fountain "It's not 100 percent, but it is looking good."
Jackman Confirms Fountain Role
Hugh Jackman confirmed to SCI FI Wire that he will have a major role in Darren Aronofsky's on-again, off-again SF epic movie The Fountain. "I play three characters, and it's basically about the search for the Fountain of Youth," Jackman said in an interview while promoting his next movie, Van Helsing.
Jackman had high praise for writer/director Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream). "It is really an extraordinary [film]," he said. "I think Darren could become, in the final analysis, another Kubrick. I think he's an amazing director, and he's written a script that is just phenomenal. I'm honored to be a part of it, I really am; I'm very excited about it."
Brad Pitt was once attached to The Fountain, but dropped out. The movie was also delayed for a year when co-star Cate Blanchett got pregnant. Reports had suggested that the filmmaker was courting Jackman to replace Pitt.
Wow, yet another Kubrick comparison. Just hope he can live up to the hype. It's been too long since Requiem. Hope that's not something he plans on sharing with Kubrick.
Quote from: MacGuffin"I play three characters, and it's basically about the search for the Fountain of Youth," Jackman said in an interview while promoting his next movie, Van Helsing.
Haha, after all that time that Darren said it wasn't about that
Weisz takes sci-fi plunge in 'Fountain'
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Rachel Weisz is jumping into "The Fountain."
The actress is on board to star opposite Hugh Jackman in the sci-fi pic being directed by Darren Aronofsky, who also is producing via his Protozoa Pictures shingle. Also producing are Protozoa partner Eric Watson. Regency Enterprises and Warner Bros. Pictures are co-financing.
Much of the story is being kept under wraps, but it is known that it follows one man's journey in the present as well as 500 years into the past and future, while dealing with the themes of love, death and immortality. Aronofsky wrote the screenplay with Ari Handel, who also is Protozoa's president.
Jackman coming on board in February resuscitated the project, which languished when Brad Pitt left in August 2002 after many delays.
Weisz steps into the role that Cate Blanchett was originally going to play when Pitt was still involved.
A November start date is planned.
The CAA-repped actress will be seen in the upcoming Warners film "Constantine." Her credits include "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns" as well as "About a Boy" and "The Shape of Things."
looks like aronofskys digging through stephen sommers vets for his replacement cast. curious.
It would seem so, but in fact it makes perfect sense; they've been dating for a few years now, and I think are engaged.
Hopefully, he'll bring out the best in her; she's no Blanchett, but I've enjoyed her work now and then.
steven sommers is engaged to darren aronofsky?!?! just wait till AICN gets a hold of this news!
:lol:
RACHEL WEISZ JOINS JACKMAN IN ARONOFSKY'S "THE FOUNTAIN"
Source: HollywoodReporter
Hollywood Reporter reports that Rachel Weisz is set to star opposite Hugh Jackman in the sci-fi pic "The Fountain," which is being written and directed by Darren Aronofsky, who wrote the script with Ari Handel. The Regency Enterprises/Warner Bros. project will start shooting in November.
Much of the story is being kept under wraps, but it is known that it follows one man's journey in the present as well as 500 years into the past and future, while dealing with the themes of love, death and immortality.
Jackman's coming on board in February resuscitated the project, which languished when Brad Pitt left in August 2002 after many delays. Weisz steps into the role that Cate Blanchett was originally going to play when Pitt was involved.
Weisz will next be seen on screen opposite Keanu Reeves in the upcoming comic book based film "Constantine" for Warner Bros.
wow, it's like page 4 all over again.
this will be the greatest thing ever next to a new lynch film.
this will kick assand be nominated for 2 oscars but only winning one
this will have the 2nd greaest teaser trailer
the soundtrack will rule and will go gold [sell at least 500,000 copies]
the comentary track on the dvd will be informative.
the US theatrical poster will be purchased by many.
this is easily the most anticipated film in production
after alls said and done it this film will recieved two thumps up and the hot ticket crew will be split on this. and it will have a 92% postitive tomato rating. and everyone will bow down to aronofsky's greatness.
Courtesy of Twitch (http://www.twitchfilm.net):
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twitchfilm.net%2Fpics%2Ffountain.jpg&hash=41ec39618e666c2b782c075e0638eb41b9d9384d)
:yabbse-thumbup:
that's the last shot of the movie.
Is Matthew LaBoutique (however it's spelled) shooting this? That image looks rather plain. I'm sure there are more... wacky images yet to be seen.
Quote from: matt35mmIs Matthew LaBoutique (however it's spelled) shooting this? That image looks rather plain. I'm sure there are more... wacky images yet to be seen.
Yup he is: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0508732/
Also, don't dis the pic, they can't all look like Jesus. The next fragmented cut goes to a Snorrie cam shot, so no worries.
It's just a dull on-set still. You can tell from the way the vines are arranged on the wall, and the way the light is hitting them from the upper left side of the set that it'll probably look extremely nice in the film.
Moriarty from AICN is visiting the set - he's gonna have a report about it next week, supposedly.
*admin edit: ultimate lesson of the movie spoilers, strange first sentence.
Rachel Weisz on The Fountain
Constantine, opening Friday, is currently filming director Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain with Hugh Jackman.
"It's phenomenal. The most original, incredible screenplay," she says about the film. "It's an original story and Hugh Jackman plays my husband. It's a love story, a great, big ginormous love story. It has a kind of science fiction element to it. We haven't done it, but a little bit of the film is green screen."
Weisz adds that Aronofsky is "like the happiest guy in the world. He spent six years trying to get something made. It's his dream. It's his dream come true, so he's as happy as anyone can be."
In The Fountain, a quest for immortality - via a "tree of life" found in Central America - is attempted in three different centuries, the ultimate lesson being that death, as part of the process of rebirth, is to be embraced, not feared.
Stay tuned for much more from The Fountain set!
is ginormous THE hip new word or what? and the snow in that picture looks fake.
Weeeeee!!! :-D
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jackmanslanding.com%2Fgallery%2Ffilm-stage-tv%2Fimages%2Ffountain%2Flookfountain.jpg&hash=eef8513363423815732e8de3f963bb53b4fdb3f3)
:yabbse-thumbup: :yabbse-thumbup:
or...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jackmanslanding.com%2Fgallery%2Ffilm-stage-tv%2Fimages%2Ffountain%2Flookfountain.jpg&hash=eef8513363423815732e8de3f963bb53b4fdb3f3)
EDIT: I thought I deleted this post...well...
It's really only gonna work if you copy...
http://www.jackmanslanding.com/gallery/film-stage-tv/images/fountain/lookfountain.jpg
... into your browser and go to it, because it's not gonna let you link up to view the image. At least that's how it is for me.
Whoa that's one weird photo
That's awesome, although Jackman's beard isn't as killer as Brad's was.
Not exactly a catchy title though, is it?
"Hey, let's go see The Fountain this weekend.."
:yabbse-undecided:
and that's why you're who you are
Quote from: matt35mmIt's really only gonna work if you copy...
http://www.jackmanslanding.com/gallery/film-stage-tv/images/fountain/lookfountain.jpg
... into your browser and go to it, because it's not gonna let you link up to view the image. At least that's how it is for me.
It worked before. :(
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/Aussie021/Hugh%20Jackman/Movies/The%20Fountain/2.jpg
thats some creepy shit man. :yabbse-thumbup:
A Reincarnation Story That Won't Stay Dead
By DAVID CARR
Published: March 20, 2005
ONTREAL
INSIDE a giant warehouse ringed by trailers and generators on the outskirts of this frozen city, dozens of Mayan warriors stood ready, all armed with spears. The polyglot atmosphere on the movie set thickened at every turn: bare-bottomed men who spoke Mayan received directorial instructions in Spanish from Americans who also have enough French to make nice with the local crew of "The Fountain."
The movie is a science-fiction epic that spans three historical periods and rides on a bit of time travel. It is directed by the Brooklyn-born Darren Aronofsky, who came to out of nowhere with the mathematics-themed thriller "Pi" and followed up with the addiction drama "Requiem for a Dream," both of which were produced with a lot of moxie and very little money and played to major critical acclaim. Backed by Warner Brothers, "The Fountain" was supposed to be Mr. Aronofsky's breakout studio movie, with a budget approaching $100 million and Brad Pitt in a lead role. But just weeks before it was scheduled to shoot in 2002, with crew and actors already ensconced in Australia, Mr. Pitt abandoned the project for "Troy," saying he had issues with the script. In Hollywood, that generally would be the end of the story.
It was a crushing disappointment for Mr. Aronofsky; he vividly remembers flying back to Australia from Los Angeles to tell the crew that the film had collapsed. But his refusal to let go of a project he had been working on for years, along with surprisingly durable support from Warner, means the movie is back, albeit with a reduced vision. "The Fountain," which is about the search for eternal life, seems to have its own grip on the concept.
"For four or five months, I tried to find something else," Mr. Aronofsky said, working a salad in his trailer during a lunch break. "But every time I started to circle a new idea, I realized I was closer to making 'The Fountain' than any of those other films."
So Mr. Aronofsky continued to push his improbable epic, even though Warner offered him the opportunity to direct a number of large films, including "Batman Begins" (which eventually went to another sophisticated young director, Christopher Nolan.)
"How many different projects was he offered?" said Jeff Robinov, Warner's president of production. "But he came back to me and said, 'I want to make my movie - what can I do to make that happen?'" Mr. Aronofsky whittled his budget to $35 million, replaced Mr. Pitt with Hugh Jackman of "X-Men" fame, and, finally, the movie was his to make.
With his fleur-de-lis baseball cap and wispy beard, Mr. Aronofsky, 35, could be one of the French-Canadian grips if he were not quietly running the show. On set, the project did not have the feel of a movie saved from turnaround - it felt more like a caper. During a fight scene, a chunk of Mr. Jackman's beard was ripped away and the entire crew, including Mr. Aronofsky, scanned the ground, trying to distinguish the gray wisp from the abundant moss.
"The beard has been found!" one of the grips shouted triumphantly. "The beard has been found!" came back a mock joyful chorus from the rest of the crew.
Mr. Aronofsky has been making films with the same hardy band of familiars for 10 years, and now they are working with all the fancy toys and support that go with big studio work. Their project is very ambitious: "The Fountains" is a love story that spans 1,000 years as a man searches for a cure for his terminally ill wife.
On the set, Mr. Jackman, cast as a Spanish conquistador in the 1500's for a portion of the film, crept down a high-walled corridor near a Mayan temple with two soldiers behind him. Jungle vegetation hung everywhere and mist machines overhead made sure everything was dank. Mr. Aronofsky gave a signal and suddenly the warriors were streaming into the scene, overwhelming Mr. Jackman as he flailed at the mob. Once subdued, he was hoisted on their shoulders to be presented to the Mayan spiritual leader who was ensconced at the top of the temple. Mr. Jackman, who spent the day getting the stuffing knocked out of him in take after take, said it was all terrific fun.
Mr. Aronofsky, staring down at a videoboard in his hand to see a playback, said: "We put a lot of time and money into this shot because it is the third scene in the movie. I have been thinking about this scene for six years." In his trailer during a break in shooting, he continued: "It has been birth, death, rebirth for this film, which is interesting because it is very much what the movie is all about as well. Each time the movie has died and come back, it has come back leaner and meaner. What we shot this morning used to be a $15 million scene."
Mr. Aronofsky is making do, something he is more than used to. "Pi," a percussive black-and-white portrait of a not-so-beautiful mind, was made for $60,000, with his best friend as the star while his mom managed the catering operation. "Requiem for a Dream," a portrait of relationships addled and then curdled by drugs, cost $5 million.
"Pi" earned Mr. Aronofsky the Sundance directing award in 1998, and Ellen Burstyn received an Oscar nomination for her role in "Requiem." So the filmmaker's currency grew to the point where a number of studios and producers were knocking on his door.
"The fact that we're in Montreal and that we have huge sets and a big crew that can do almost anything is different," he said. "But I end up spending my days doing exactly the same things, worrying about the same issues and focusing on the same things."
And, he said, the stakes are actually no higher than they were before: "There's always been a lot of pressure and tension on the line. If 'Pi' didn't work out, I have no idea what my career would be. I don't think I would have gotten another shot at it. If `Requiem' didn't work out, they would have called me a 'one-hit wonder with a sophomore slump.'
Mr. Aronofsky wrote "The Fountain" with Ari Handel, a long-time associate who happens to have a Ph.D. in neuroscience."We spent time walking around the streets of Manhattan for two years," Mr. Aronofsky said. "It took us a long time to write. We basically talked story, and then I would go off and disappear and write, come back and then we'd talk about it."
The outcome, a love story with scenes that go off into outer space, is not exactly "Hitch." "It is about a man's search for the fountain of youth at the core," Mr. Aronofsky explained. "It's about a man who's searching for eternal life whose wife is dying, who comes to terms with his own mortality and comes to terms with his own life and his own existence through trying to save his wife. It is not that simple, but it is true in a way that attracted me."
Mr. Jackman, sitting on a canvas chair after his morning of getting pounded on by the Mayan extras, Mr. Jackman said the rigors of the project suited him: "It is the hardest job I've worked and by far the most satisfying. Darren wants blood. As a director, he is very much inside my head."
Certainly, Mr. Aronofsky and his collaborators - including the producer, Eric Watson, and the cinematographer, Matthew Libatique, with whom he has worked in the past - have taken pains to bring authenticity to the sprawling project. Some 20 of the 70 extras cast as Mayan warriors are Mayan. And the day job of the man cast as Mayan spiritual leader is, well, a Mayan spiritual leader. When the Mayans got off the plane from Guatemala in Montreal, it took them 20 minutes to get over the fact that they could see their breath.
There will be lots more shooting, to capture Spain and Central America in the 1500's, a present-day American city, and then a trip out to a nebula near Orion anywhere from 150 to 500 years into the future.
But it's not as esoteric as it sounds, Mr. Aronofsky said: "There's major best sellers that are about living forever. It's the biggest theme in our society. If you look at all the extreme makeovers and all that stuff, it's all about staying young. This movie taps into a lot of those themes."
thats a good read. props cowboy.
if any of you internet savy peeps can find some info on this film [anything] please post...this film and the new world are the only reason to watch films this year.
and what is neuroscience ? is that brain stuff?
AICN Set Report to get you all riled up here: http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=19803
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1541%2Farticle.jpg&hash=09d4a4cffd89a1b0572cdf0f39285f7a6ca38569)
According to Warner Bros, Darren Aronofsky is the next Stanley Kubrick. It may be hard to believe that any filmmaker can be compared to what many consider the greatest filmmaker of all time. But Aronofsky’s new movie The Fountain starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz may very well prove Warner Bros claim correct. The Fountain combines elements of Braveheart, a love story and 2001: A Space Odyssey into one film where a man discovers the fountain of youth and all throughout history he tries to save the life of the woman he loves.
Visiting the set for The Fountain was so much fun and very exciting. I remember first seeing PI and while it didn’t grab me as much as Requiem for a Dream later did, I knew that Aronofsky was a major talent. Of course Requiem later proved that but everyone wants to know what he could do with a large budget. Walking into the assuming Montreal building that houses the sets for The Fountain you would never think that genius is afoot in there. After getting settled we were led into a monstrous room that held the last set that has been constructed for the film. It’s a giant spaceship that was built to look like it was made out of a tree. A freshly bald Hugh Jackman says something to Rachel Weisz, and then something else happened that I couldn’t see!
Daniel Robert Epstein: So is this an official teaser?
Darren Aronofsky: It's not really a teaser because we just threw it together. I didn't pick the performances. I just threw it together to get the crew psyched so they would show up on time [laughs].
DRE: When I spoke to your producer, Eric Watson, I mentioned that in the footage you showed us that there was no camera strapped to anyone’s chest. He said “I think we’ve worked through that one.” Is that true?
ARONOFSKY: Yeah I think that every film has its own grammar. I mean, every story has its own film grammar so you have to sort of figure out what the story is about and then figure out what each scene is about and then that tells you where to put the camera. This was just a very different film. I think that Pi and Requiem for a Dream are connected because on Pi we had such limited resources and on Requiem we had a little bit more money and so I was able to explore some of the visual ideas that I had. But I just wanted this film to look like its own thing. So I think that there are connections to other things, but I think that it is own piece.
DRE: Were you going for a statelier feel?
ARONOFSKY: Really the whole design of the film is a crucifix actually. So almost everything is straight behind, straight in front or from the sides or straight above or straight below. That just came out of trying to define it and basically in trying to figure out how to shoot the spaceship because it's like a circular, spherical shape and how to put the camera into a sphere was really a challenge. So I tried to put some order onto it and then I realized that there was a crucifix of the Conquistadors and it sort of played in very well and then it sort of evolved into all the other time periods.
DRE: Could you talk about why The Fountain fell apart the first time? I read you and Brad Pitt had creative differences.
ARONOFSKY: That's not true. The reality of it is that Brad and I worked on it for about two and a half years. So it's kind of like if you had a relationship with someone and you broke up after two and a half years and you had to define the actual reason. Is it because they leave the toothpaste cap off? It's never just one reason. The ultimate reason it shut down is because of Brad, but Brad didn't do it. He didn't come to Australia but why he didn't come has to do with a lot of things and has to do with many politics of his own life as well as what had happened before that on a film. That had to do, I think, mostly with the fact that it's a very different movie and I think that it's scary for anyone to get involved with it. That just shows you the bravery of someone like Hugh.
DRE: When Hugh Jackman took the part how much changed?
ARONOFSKY: Well, what happened is that after the film fell apart in October 2002 or 2003. I tried to find something else to do and I started working on other projects and developing other ideas and then about six or seven months later I couldn't sleep one night and I was sitting in my office and I realized that I was an independent filmmaker. That's where I started so we know how to do things cheaply. We did Pi for $60,000 and Requiem for $4 million. So there must be a cheap way of doing this movie. I decided to figure out the cheapest way to do it that still preserved the vision and the big concepts that I wanted to explore. What resulted is that I worked for about two weeks and the script just came out better. I think that what happened was being seven weeks out from production and having spent a lot of money to get there we really understood exactly what things cost and what would be expensive and what would not be expensive. The scope of the battle scene has changed. What I wanted to do at the time was hundreds of people versus hundreds of people but that was before Troy and King Arthur came out. Six years ago I was sort of writing that going, “Wow. Look how cool Braveheart was. Now Hollywood can do cool battle scenes. So I'm going to do a battle scene.” But there've been so many battle scenes that now when you see Troy or 'Lord of the Rings, where the scope of the battle scene was so huge, they have to be reinvented because they're not interesting no matter how big it is. So I decided to reduce it to what it's really about which is one guy trying to get through overwhelming masses. To do that was a lot cheaper than having all these Conquistadors and Mayans. Ultimately the same film but it's just really boiled down to its essence.
When the film fell apart I kind of reinvented it and said, “I only want to work with actors that really get it and make it work.” I didn't want it to be a star driven thing anymore. I wanted it to be much more of an independent film. That's how I wanted to approach it even though the budget is bigger than a normal independent film. I wanted to approach it purely as an independent film. That was the whole idea. No more bullshit and lets just make this thing purely independent. So Hugh was of course someone whose work I knew, but I didn't really know his work beyond X-Men which was a very specific thing, but not being a big comic fan or X-Men fan I didn't really know who Wolverine was until Hugh Jackman did it. But I went to see The Boy From Oz [on Broadway] and even though the role was so much different from what we're doing here, almost the complete opposite in fact, but the amount of talent that he displayed onstage was just overwhelming and I was like, “This guy is great.” Then I met him and he was really an amazing guy and I could just see that it was the right time for both us because he needed a role that could show a lot of dimension. He gets to play three different time periods and three different characters. When Hugh joined the film we met every week for a couple of hours and worked on it. So I think that it evolved somewhat and I kept rewriting it.
I just needed someone who could give that commitment. This film would not be possible without Hugh because technically and emotionally he's just so good. It's just hard to believe how good he is. If you ask any person on this crew what they think of Hugh Jackman they'll admit that they've never seen anything like it. I'll give him an emotional note and he'll hit it every time. He'll physically be there and then emotionally he'll be there. It's just remarkable and a great pleasure. Rachel read the script and just really was very aggressive about getting it. What I like about Rachel is that she's sort of like Hugh in that there's not a role in American cinema that completely defines them so that they can become part of this and make it their own. I knew that she was very talented and then when I started talking to her about the material she was thinking about it. A lot of people don't really think about that stuff. They just do whatever.
DRE: The original script you did for Brad Pitt is now becoming a graphic novel from Vertigo. How do you look at that now?
ARONOFSKY: I don't know if it's better but it is different. The thing is that it's always an evolutional process. It's constantly growing and constantly changing. I think that if we'd have made that film it would've been a great film but it would've been a very, very different movie than what this is because in many ways I've already made that film. I got so close to shooting it and I was completely cast and I was completely ready to go and the sets were built and psychologically I thought I was shooting. So I did everything but shoot it and show it to people. The whole lead up to that is one of the biggest parts of the job so the shooting is such a small part of it. Emotionally, I've kind of made that film and this film is different film. It's kind of like my fourth film even though it is the third film that people are seeing. To me it feels like a fourth film because even though I say it's better it's a different film. I mean, I hope that Requiem is better than Pi. I hope that Pi is better than my student films and I'm hoping that I'm getting better as I get older.
DRE: What’s the essence of The Fountain?
ARONOFSKY: It's weird because I talk about Pi which is about God and math and Kabbalah and paranoia. So I don't really make the typical genre film that fits into a clear section. Pi could be sci-fi or drama or an art film. It could be an indie film so I don't know where this fits. I've been saying that it's a psychedelic sci-fi film which is the only thing that I can think of and there's a long tradition of psychedelic sci-fi films. It's a good genre, but I don't know how to describe it. For me, one of the big things was the fountain of youth which I thought was a really cool theme. It's an old theme and one of the oldest stories that mankind has been telling. It's in Genesis with the tree of life. It's in Gilgamesh and Ponce de Leon searched for it. But Hollywood hasn't really done much with it unless you count Nip/Tuck and Extreme Makeover. However it is this big theme in society. In The New York Times magazine there was an article about this doctor who thinks that aging is a disease and can be cured. There's this huge quest in our culture now to stay young and we do it mostly physically. Although, there are always health diets that are supposed to keep you young. People are living longer so I was thinking about what the repercussions are on people and on love because now that people are living longer you're not just married to someone for 20 or 30 years but for like 50 or 60 years.
People are saying that our kids are going to live to a 110. What does that kind of lifetime mean? They don't give us any tools in high school or elementary school to think about dying and death. The only thing that they do is to tell you to collect autumn leaves and say how beautiful they are. But they don't ever tell you that when we look at old people we sort of shut it off and lock them up in old age homes and don't include them in our lives. So it was interesting to start exploring that literature as I started to get a little older.
DRE: I was one of the last people to interview Hubert Selby before he died. He was so wonderful but he said he was unhappy and ready to die. Did working with him on Requiem kind of inspire you to do a story about the fountain of youth?
ARONOFSKY: I don't think so. It's weird, I turn 36 on Saturday. So I think that I started on The Fountain right about the turn of the millennium right when I turned 30. It's a little pathetic to say, but when you turn 30 it's the first time that you're not in your 20’s anymore and you start to go, “Oh shit.” There are all these kids that are in their 20’s and they're the youth now. It's just interesting how that changes, and then you start thinking about, “Wow 40 isn't that far.” In fact, that there's a short story that Selby wrote about those big markers in life. First it's 18, then it's 21 then 30 then 45 then 60 then 75. They get further and further those big markers. But turning 30 was when I started to think about it and also my parents both got cancer and were fighting it and beat it, but their mortality started to get to me. Everything wasn't as hunky-dory like it was.
I think that he just made me start thinking. I don't really remember the whole evolution of the idea. I mean, it's very much like Pi in that when I write an original it's kind of more of a tapestry. I'll take different threads from different ideas and weave a carpet of cool ideas together. So I was reading something about the conquistadors. There's a book by Bernal Diaz called The Conquest of Spain. He was one of Cortez's foot soldiers and he wrote a story. It's an amazing book. I read that. The space stuff I think was influenced a little bit by Space Oddity by David Bowie and that's probably why the character was named Tom.
DRE: Did you talk to Bowie about doing some music?
ARONOFSKY: Yeah, well not music, but hopefully a third Major Tom song. It'd be cool. He's working with Clint [Mansell] our composer. So we're talking and hopefully that'll happen. So there was that influence and then present day stuff. But Ari, who co-wrote the story with me, was getting his PhD in neuroscience and so that whole world of neuroscience sort of influenced the present and then we just sort of sewed it together.
DRE: Both Mark Margolis and Ellen Burstyn were in Requiem for a Dream and now they are in The Fountain. How is it working with them again?
ARONOFSKY: I like it. It's easy when you have a shorthand. They understand and do what you want.
DRE: Did you have them in mind when you wrote the parts?
ARONOFSKY: Yes, I wrote Ellen's role for her and I wrote Mark's role for him.
DRE: The Fountain seems a bit more hopeful than your other films, was that conscious?
ARONOFSKY: It was a little conscious. I sort of wanted to do something more like this when I finished Pi but the opportunity to do Requiem came up. It wasn't really an opportunity, but the chance to fight to get it made and to actually have it happen came up. Requiem was very much my twenties and I really felt I should do it and finish it. Those themes, the TV addiction, the relationship between the mother and the son was stuff that I had written about and then I found it in Selby's book almost exactly like I had done it, but much better than I could ever write. So I sort of owed it to myself to make it. But I think that thematically I was already starting to think about a happier ending. It's not about selling out or anything. If you look at this film it's nowhere near selling out. It's the hardest film to get made. Literally, every single person in Hollywood said no to this movie at least once including the people making it. It was very difficult to make and I think that the reason is because it’s not an absolutely clear genre film. Really, at the core of this film is just a simple love story.
DRE: Do you think The Fountain graphic novel, that Kent Williams is drawing, will spoil the movie you are making?
ARONOFSKY: I don't think so. People go and see Batman and everyone has read a Batman comic so I don't think that hurts you at all. I think that everyone who's going to spend 30 bucks on a comic book is going to spend the ten bucks to go and see the movie. It's a different experience. What’s nice about this is that it's not a comic book based on a movie so it's not like one of those cheesy comic books where they do likeness of the actors. It's not going to be one of those that they sort of pump out just as another medium. This is its own thing. I mean, you can look at the artwork and doesn't look like Rachel [Weisz]. Kent Williams didn't know who was cast in it.
DRE: How similar is the story in the graphic novel to the one in the movie?
ARONOFSKY: The story is similar but there are some things that are different. I think that it'll just add to the conversation. If people see some of the images beforehand, that's what is going to happen anyway. I'm hoping that we'll just get more people excited about coming to see the movie and vice versa.
DRE: Was the first Kent Williams book you ever read Havok and Wolverine?
ARONOFSKY: No. I'm not a comic book guy at all.
DRE: But you did Pi: The Book of Ants through Dark Horse a few years ago.
ARONOFSKY: That was just the studio. I made a comic book and what happened was that in college one of my college roommates who I now work with, Dan Sandler, was into comics and he showed me Frank Miller's stuff and so I started reading that stuff. But as a teenager I didn't have comic books at all. I think that I tried to start collecting for a week but I just never got into it. Then when I was older and I read Watchmen, Ronin and Dark Knight so I got really into it. I didn't actually know Kent's work. When the film fell apart the first time, before I even went to Warner Bros, I made sure that we could preserve the rights to the comic book. I said, “If Hollywood gives me a problem, I'll make a comic book out of it.”
I had to go to DC first. That was the deal, but then I had the rights to shop it. And it's not like it was a money thing because there's no money in comics. So I saved the rights for that and then when it fell apart I got in touch with DC and Karen Berger at Vertigo.
DRE: So The Fountain graphic novel will be a Vertigo book?
ARONOFSKY: It's Vertigo and I sort of knew them from before and they turned me on to artists.
DRE: When the graphic novel comes out who is going to be credited?
ARONOFSKY: It'll be Kent Williams. I wrote the screenplay. Ari [Handel] and I wrote the story so it's written by Darren and story by Darren and Ari.
DRE: How involved are you with the page by page interpretation?
ARONOFSKY: It's Kent's interpretation. I'm going to write and place the words and stuff. But he's completely interpreting the stuff and it's amazing that it's very close to what we were planning.
DRE: As a film fan yourself, can you look at your film career objectively and go “What will my tenth film be like?”
ARONOFSKY: I have no idea. I think that right now I never want to make another movie [laughs]. But it's day 56 of shooting. I remember at the end of Requiem all I wanted to do was get a DV camera and just do a small film. It changes. After shooting in front of a greenscreen for the last week, I never want to do a special effects movie again, but then the hunger comes back. So I think that the goal is just to make good films every time or at least try to make a good film. When The Fountain fell apart I thought that it'd be great just to take an assignment and shoot something. But I couldn't do it. I'm not one of those filmmakers that can just show up and shoot because I think the only way I can make a film that has good images and stuff is by pushing everyone. The only way that I can push myself and other people is that I think that I'm actually doing something that's exciting. You have to wake up wanting to do it and there will be days when you'll wake up and you'll not want to get out of bed and you have to have something that pulls you out and gets you going.
DRE: You had amazing websites for Pi and Requiem for a Dream; will that be the case for The Fountain as well?
ARONOFSKY: We're working on it. The Pi website was one of the first film websites out there and when we first started it, Sean Gullette, who was the star of the film, was very hip to the web and we were all hip because we were of that age group when the web first started. We were just coming out of college then and so we had all these ideas. We wanted to put it into USENET Groups that Max Cohen really existed and put this fake fiction in there which Blair Witch ended up using from the same company [Artisan Entertainment]. I won't mention anything about that just compare the posters. But we had those ideas and then we designed that Pi website and they were all like, “What is this stuff?” We were like, “We don't know what it is that it's called.” Then when Requiem came around films had started doing this, but they basically were billboards to tell where they were playing and they're still like that. Ninety percent of them suck.
DRE: How did the Requiem site come about?
ARONOFSKY: I knew that there were interesting experimental artists working in the internet and I sat next to some guy on an airplane that knew all these different cool artists were out there. I found these artists out there who had their own website and I sent them an email. They were in Europe and I asked if they would be interested. Turned out that they knew Pi and they had ideas and they came up with that whole sort of interactive thing. It was like one of the first film sites to do that and then they went on to do Donnie Darko and all these other award winning ones. I'd love to find something new, but I don't really know what you do now. Now there is so much expertise and brainpower it's hard to be at the cutting edge of what's cool and not go do something that's totally geeky. You want to do something that's actually interesting like those were and I'm not sure what that is yet. So I don't know yet.
DRE: You came really close to directing Watchmen.
ARONOFSKY: I got involved and I got that setup at Paramount and then they fired me. Well they didn't fire me, but they wanted to go now. They wanted to be in pre-production in January and I've been working on this for six years and I clearly have a hard time doing two things at once. I can do one project well so I couldn't really do it. As soon as we setup, they got really excited and wanted it in the summer of '06 and I was like, “This isn't a film you can rush because if you fuck it up there's going to be a lot of angry people.” The funny thing is that when I went to meet Bowie, one of the first things he said was, “Oh, are you doing Watchmen?" It turned out that he was developing an opera out of Watchmen. I was like, “If I do this film and I fuck it up, I'm going to piss David Bowie off.” The reason that I got involved is because David Hayter’s script and I thought that it was a great adaptation. I thought that it was better than any of the Sam Hamm scripts. I wish them all the best luck but I can't do it that quick. I have to take my time.
DRE: What about a Lone Wolf and Cub film?
ARONOFSKY: We're developing Lone Wolf and Cub. It's a fun but very hard piece to adapt. We're turning it into a western. You can't really do a samurai story.
DRE: Are you excited to see Sin City?
ARONOFSKY: Yeah, sure. I can't wait to see what they did. I love Robert Rodriguez and it looks cool. I've seen all the trailers. Frank Miller is great. He's directing and I'm really glad for him because for so long, so much of Hollywood wanted them to make it and he just wouldn't let go of it. He doesn't have that much anger when you talk to him which is amazing. With Batman I was like, “I'll only do it if you involve Frank Miller.” They thought that was a radical idea. I was like, “The guy is responsible for your moves ultimately.” He's responsible for making the whole title cool again.
I'm really excited to see Batman Begins. I think that it looks great. It's a hard thing to do because you have to make it for a real audience. Chris Nolan is a real filmmaker, there's no doubt.
Comic books and graphic novels are a great medium. It's incredibly underused. Since that great year of 1987 when Watchmen and Dark Knight came out, there've been very few things that have been that revolutionary. There's been great stuff, but nothing like that. So I think that it's a great medium to play with.
DRE: Do you have a quieter just talking type movie you want to do?
ARONOFSKY: A Kevin Smith type of thing?
DRE: A movie where nothing horrible is happening to the main characters, maybe something autobiographical.
ARONOFSKY: [Laughs] Pi is sort of autobiographical. That's my life, sitting in an apartment alone. I imagine that there's a limit of what I'll be attracted to wanting to do down the line so that's definitely possible. For some reason right now, when I go to movies I generally want to be taken to another world and I kind of like that. So I edge more towards Terry Gillian than I do John Cassavettes. But I do love Cassavettes movies. That's my general taste.
DRE: Do you have any tattoos?
ARONOFSKY: I'm too scared of needles. I don't get that concept.
DRE: Have you heard of SuicideGirls?
ARONOFSKY: Yeah. I do know of SuicideGirls.' Someone sent me a link at one point and I thought that it was very funny.
mac and mod, thanks for that great shit!
i am really really excited to see this bitch. more so than the new world.
i honeslty think that this film could be a a decade defining moment in history. i loved heasring about the possible bowie involvement. and the shit with the flowers going out of hughs mouth :shock: ............ clint mansell, libatique..........and i love the comparisons to kubrick. at least i am no tthe only one who thinks aronofsky is the next big thing. fuck all those fake up and comers [richard kelly]
that makes me feel like this wasnt such a bad statement:
Quote from: on june 1, 2003 NEON
He is currently THE BEST NEW DIRECTOR OUT THERE (imo)...
yeah, now that i know this movie ACTUALLY exists you can probably move it way up near the top of my most anticipated movies. i am getting super-hyped for this.
ekzellent interview. highlights..
Quote from: MacGuffinARONOFSKY: Really the whole design of the film is a crucifix actually.
ARONOFSKY: it's a very different movie and I think that it's scary for anyone to get involved with it.
ARONOFSKY: Conquistadors and Mayans.
ARONOFSKY: The only thing that they do is to tell you to collect autumn leaves and say how beautiful they are.
ARONOFSKY: good images and stuff
DRE: Do you have a quieter just talking type movie you want to do?
ARONOFSKY: A Kevin Smith type of thing?
haha. that last line really means "sumthing without ambition?"
Comic-Con 2005: IGN Interviews Darren Aronofsky
We chat with the writer/director of The Fountain.
When you're dealing with subject matter as weighty as immortality, chances are your film is going to be quite an epic. Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain – which spans over 1,000 years and three parallel stories, dealing with the nature of existence, life, death, and the essence of humanity – is an epic on a human scale.
We got a chance to chat with Aronofsky about life, death, and where The Fountain fits into his career thus far…
IGN FILMFORCE: What was the concept that initially hooked you into doing The Fountain?
DARREN ARONOFSKY: I think it was... I mean, it's hard to say, because it was a long time ago. But I think one of the things that was interesting was that no one had ever made a film on the Tree of Life. You know, here...the Fountain of Youth is one of our oldest myths from Gilgamesh to the Bible. You know, in the Bible, in Genesis, it says ... there were two trees: the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. And then, you know, Ponce de Leon, and there's always been stories and our culture is totally fascinated with...
IGNFF: Youth and extending life...
ARONOFSKY: ...Nip/Tuck and all that stuff. So I decided to start there and make something about the Fountain of Youth and it sort of snowballed into this thing called The Fountain. It's kinda how I always start, with Pi, it was...I remember in math class when I was in high school, the teacher saying that there was mystical elements to pi, and that kinda stayed with me and...
IGNFF: Well, it seems to be a bit of throughline for your films...
ARONOFSKY: Which is what?
IGNFF: Finding this sort of mystical overlay, over mathematics and then you go into this sort of dependency culture...
ARONOFSKY: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't know...
IGNFF: ...and sort of a move towards some kind of enlightenment in one way or another.
ARONOFSKY: Well, Fountain definitely moves towards some type of light...the whole film's about moving towards the light. I don't know why. That's...I don't know. That's the big question, I think. Everyone sort of talks about, thinks about.
IGNFF: Do you think in some ways your films are about, good or bad, some kind of fulfillment being sought?
ARONOFSKY: (Thoughtful pause.) Mm. That's a good point. I'd say...run with it, but I don't know. I'd have to think about it.
IGNFF: I don't think I'll be running with it in any way.
ARONOFSKY: I don't think that much about it, to be honest. But I think there is something to be said, that...yeah, those themes...
IGNFF: But within the writing process, there must be a direction that would dead end it, that you draw away from, when you go, "You know, this is more the direction I'm going in." I mean, what kind of themes... there must be conscious themes that you are drawn towards.
ARONOFSKY: Yeah, yeah, yeah...I think, you know, a big theme in the film is about how, in the West, you know, we have absolutely no tools to deal with death. Basically, everyone looks at old people and they just think they're...they just want to be away from them. We lock 'em up in old age homes and we shut it off and...
IGNFF: Or don't click over on the call waiting.
ARONOFSKY: And yet as kids, when we're in third grade, we're told to collect autumn leaves...which is basically death. So we can admire the beauty of a dead leaf, but we can't admire the beauty of, you know, a dying person.
IGNFF: Well, people plan vacations around viewing those leaves.
ARONOFSKY: Exactly, exactly. And I think, I think that's a big question is...if you were to live forever, are you still human? Or is being human...is dying part of our humanity?
IGNFF: Knowing that it's a finite existence?
ARONOFSKY: Knowing that...I think the experience of death is...
IGNFF: Which is kind of a bookend when you think about pi...
ARONOFSKY: Absolu—in what way?
IGNFF: Well, you look at the infinite nature of pi...
ARONOFSKY: Right, right, right.
IGNFF: ...and the finite nature that you're exploring in...
ARONOFSKY: Yeah, yeah. Or you could say it doesn't necessarily have to be finite, you can look at death as just an experience that everyone has to go through. And certain people believe...you know, the Hindus believe that it's infinite, you get reincarnated. But it is an experience that you go through. So the question is...you know, that's really what the film is looking at, is what is that experience...for a guy dealing with his wife dying and then dealing with his own death.
IGNFF: What was the block that...I mean, was there...because obviously this is something you've been working on for quite a while...was there a block that you hit at any point where you said, "I just can't crack this thing"?
ARONOFSKY: Oh, there were many. There were many, I can't even tell you. It's so funny that you ask that but there were...so many, that were endlessly just stopping us along the way, but you know, the reality is then...you attack it from a different way.
IGNFF: Is it generally character points or plot points that will hang you up?
ARONOFSKY: Well, they're very interconnected, because I mean, my films, the lead character's there all the time. If you look at Pi, the guy's there all the time. And Requiem, it's either Ellen's story or the other actor's story. It's not like, you know, I cut away to the bad guys...
IGNFF: It's not like you can cut over to the car chase and...
ARONOFSKY: Yeah, exactly. It's not that happening in the film. So, you know, I think they were one in the same.
IGNFF: So...I mean, when you look at...has there ever been a sort of conflict internally of pursuing more commercial films...because...
ARONOFSKY: Has there ever been any what? A conflict?
IGNFF: Well, I mean, obviously people have tried to push you in a certain direction.
ARONOFSKY: I would love to be able to do it. I would love to be able to do it.
IGNFF: Because Batman was something you were vetted for quite a while.
ARONOFSKY: Yeah...I don't think it was ever real for me. I mean, for me, it was about...I had a take on it that I knew they would never go for. And it was me and Frank Miller got to write it and have fun with it and do something cool. But for me, I was always making The Fountain. That was what I always wanted to do. And they were like, "Well, how about doing Batman?" And I was like, "Look, let me do The Fountain and then we'll talk." And, you know, I handed to Warner Brothers: they completely got the Batman they wanted, and I loved it. I thought it was great.
IGNFF: And you got the film you wanted.
ARONOFSKY: Exactly.
IGNFF: So, a good tradeoff.
ARONOFSKY: It worked out fine.
IGNFF: So what's coming up next?
ARONOFSKY: You'll have to wait and see. But something's brewing already.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comic-Con 2005: The Fountain Trailer First Look
Con attendees get a glimpse of Darren Aronofsky's next.
We love Darren Aronofsky. With just two features under his belt (Pi and Requiem for the Dream), he has established himself as an impressive visual stylist with slavish devotion to story and concept. For the past six years, he has been toiling away on what he calls his "personal passion," the amazing looking The Fountain.
The film has had a rocky start, almost lifting off in 2002 with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchet in the title roles, but was shelved due to the good ol' standby: "creative differences." Aronofksy seems to have found the perfect cast though with Hugh Jackman as Tom and Rachel Weisz as Izzi. Praise for Jackman has been effusive. Says Aronofksy, "You haven't seen anything from Hugh Jackman yet."
Set in three time periods, 1500AD, 2000AD, and 2500AD, the film follows Tom and Izzi throughout history as they experience love over 1000 years, gaining strength presumably from a fountain of youth represented by a tree. OK, we may be off there, but that's what we gathered from a trailer. Aronofsky himself said to the crowd: "Confused? Well, there's 90 more minutes of the film."
We cannot wait for this one. The few minutes we've seen has some truly iconic imagery, some brutal battle sequences, and an absolutely transcendent moment when Tom (Jackman, bald) is meditating in front of a tree while floating in space. The 5500 or so people in the auditorium became absolutely hushed during the sequence, as if they knew they were watching something special. The film during that sequence recalls the quiet space of Kubrick's 2001, Zemeckis' Contact, or even Douglas Trumbull's Silent Running.
The film should be releasing this fall.
let the man talk! geez, worst interviewer ever.
Quote from: Pubricklet the man talk! geez, worst interviewer ever.
Almost, but not quite, as bad as that Suicide Girls interview with Gus Van Sant.
I wonder how they'll go about releasing this. It seems like a short festival run, like at Toronto, Venice and NYFF, might behoove it. I'd hate to see it dropped like the challenging-and-therefore-supposedly-audience-estranging film it probably is...
my prediction is this will bomb like Solaris but rule anyways.
Oh it's gonna bomb like a mo fo. And it will be on all those E! shows like "Biggest hollywood blunders" even though it will be the greatest movie of all time. As long as I get to see it, I don't care.
And that interviewer was a pompous ass, but Aronofsky is also a bore of an interview. This isn't the only one he's boring in, he's boring in all of them. I think hes a republican.
Quote from: StefenAnd that interviewer was a pompous ass, but Aronofsky is also a bore of an interview. This isn't the only one he's boring in, he's boring in all of them. I think hes a republican.
nah this one was alrite: http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=181477#181477
Photos:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv720%2Fithica45%2F2.jpg&hash=7b00525bec6fe254bc5f05233093205797e5d347)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv720%2Fithica45%2Fdreamwatch01.jpg&hash=25803f9b676211192c3145313e42bee3047ec2eb)
can anyone see those photos - they are dead on my comp
I can see them, kurt.
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
damn........that flaming sword guy is sickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
this will be better than the new world.......
please gimme more shit....
we aere so lucky that this will be in theatres [hopefully] by december....
this is the movie event of the year....
sorry malick :( ...[ still love ya though]
Photos, shmotos. The official site is up. (http://www.thefountainmovie.com)
Still no trailer, though. Or anything else for that matter. Still, it's something.
Is there more than lava?
A downloadable screensaver.
im only gettting a lot of lava
At the very bottom.
EDIT - It's the same image, by the way.
i hate lava now.
Just looking at these pictures is one of the most intense cinematic experiences of my lifetime. No but, come December, The Fountain being a great movie or The Fountain being a good movie, it is clearly going to fucking light the celluloid from which it comes on fucking fire. That much is obvious.
Aronofsky making this movie cements him as a ballsy director, and it also is this big obvious statement that clever and capable directors need to be doing edgier material and not Batman Begins.
he wouldnt have done Begins, he would've done Year One. and from what i've read of the script, it seemed pretty edgy.
that lava is disgusting.
I don't think it's lava. It's something more microscopic.
bring on the trailer...i am getting pissed...although the music on the films site is cool...i want this bad...the more pictures i see and the more i find out about the story the more excited i get...ins't there something more out there....i need you guys to search.... please give me a fix...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1645%2Farticle.jpg&hash=8511af9a999f6137bb093c8daf4cd6e1a7fe6447)
Clint Mansell was the lead vocalist and guitarist of the British band Pop Will Eat Itself. But now he is scoring major Hollywood movies such as Murder by Numbers, Suspect Zero and the upcoming videogame adaptation DOOM. But he is in the middle of his biggest challenge right, scoring The Fountain for his long time collaborator Darren Aronofsky. I got a chance to catch up with Mansell on the Montréal set of The Fountain.
Daniel Robert Epstein: I heard you just did some gigs again with Pop Will Eat Itself.
Clint Mansell: I did! We haven’t really spent any time together since the band broke up and I’ve been living in America since then. We’ve seen each other but we haven’t really all gotten together. About two Christmases ago we made a big arrangement to all go see The Buzzcuts who by some bizarre coincidence were playing in our hometown back in England. I was going to go home for Christmas anyway so we went out, got rip-roaring drunk and decided we could still rock. We ended up just working on some new ideas together, about half a dozen new songs. When the word got out that we did that people were asking us if we were going to play. It didn’t seem feasible because a lot of our work was done with samples and no one knew where the samples were. Lo and behold they turned up in a friend’s garden shed and suddenly it was possible to do it. We were just on the cusp because in another couple of years we physically wouldn’t have been able to do it.
We did five sold out shows and it was great. I guess the audience had ten years of foreplay for them to be as excited as they were. We really put a lot of effort into it because we looked at it as if we were still part of the band so we wanted it to be something we could be proud of. We had this fantastic lightshow because we used this giant LED curtain that is basically a computer screen we could program with graphics, logos and moving lights. For a bunch of nerds like us it was pretty exciting.
DRE: How was it being onstage again?
CM: Yeah it was great. I’m not in the best shape of my life and I’ve gotten so used to not being that person you have to be onstage. But it came back pretty quickly. I did have to spend about a week in bed after five shows. It’s too much like hard work.
DRE: Have you started composing or writing music for The Fountain yet?
CM: Well Darren [Aronofsky] probably first told me the story of this about five years ago. There have been a lot of ideas and things we’ve tried since then. I’ve written a lot of stuff some of which you may have heard if you saw that teaser but I wrote that three years ago. While the ideas might still be relevant it’s three years ago and it wasn’t written expressly for that teaser. It works pretty well but now that I’ve got images to look at, it will change.
DRE: Did you do historical research for the period part of the movie?
CM: I do a lot of research for all the stuff I do. I don’t know how I deep I go because I’ve just done a film that needed African music and I don’t consider myself a scholar of African music after doing that. I just tried to get involved with African music to apply it properly. But I try to find things that I can relate to. I’m not the sort of person who sees that it’s 15th century Spain so I decide that we can only use the lute or whatever. I don’t really feel that you have to be that picky about it because it’s about being true to the film. 15th century Spain is, of course, different from the future in outer space so you have to make that all work together. For me it’s more about bringing in elements to create our world that is about these places.
DRE: Is there a distinctive sound for each time period even though they are all related?
CM: At this stage, I don’t know would be the short and honest answer. Looking at it from the outside you would think you would have to differentiate but who knows if it will end up that way. Maybe it becomes more fractured so you can be less fractured with the music. We have a long way to go. When we did Requiem [for a Dream] we went in with all these ideas we wanted to do so we did them but the film just said no. Then we had to go rethink and do something else. You can only go in with your arsenal well stocked and once you start working with the film it tells you what you need and if you don’t get it right then you’ll know it.
DRE: This movie is very personal for Darren and your music is very personal for you. But do you feel a connection to this movie before you put your music to it?
CM: My connection to it will always be when Darren first told me about it. The script has been through various stages and for me I’m always trying to remember and capture the initial excitement of the story and what was in his mind when he told me about it.
DRE: For Requiem you worked with the Kronos Quartet, what will you be doing for The Fountain?
CM: We’ve talked about a number of different things and we’re trying many things. But until the film is done it’s tough to make those decisions. My sense is that it will need to be quite organic. I think there is room for an electronic and orchestral element but I don’t know if they will fall into the traditional areas of where those two things might apply. The things that I am excited about for this film, musically, has been music like Mogwai, Godspeed You Black Emperor and Sigur Ros. Things that are very emotional but also very intense with a real human element to them that breathes. That’s what this film needs. The main character [played by Hugh Jackman] seems distant because he is dry but he has a deep emotional core to him that makes me think of electronic music like Joy Division. On the surface Joy Division may seem cold but with very emotional undertones.
DRE: Do you work up your ideas on computer before deciding what to do?
CM: Yeah I do. It’s the only way I could work because I’m not classically trained and I don’t read music. It’s just about what sits together well for me. That just might be me plinking away on instruments and building it up on the computer. I suppose it’s like a glorified tape deck but that’s just the way I put it together. It’s great now that I’ve got that element but it’s quite easy to bring a musician and have them work with me. But I haven’t orchestrated it out yet.
DRE: I’ve heard the Requiem soundtrack on a few different movie trailers like Lord of the Rings and David Cronenberg’s Spider.
CM: I didn’t even know about Spider.
DRE: What’s that like for you?
CM: I thought it was pretty cool. It’s my music but in a totally different context and it made me realize that it’s possible for me to do things like that. It’s a different arrangement and different concept but I’m a punk rocker so it’s all about The Ramones with just a bass guitar and drums with vocal lines. It’s just applying it differently which was quite an eye opener.
DRE: How involved is Darren with the score?
CM: He comes in with ideas. For instance it was his idea to use Kronos Quartet [on Requiem]. It’s very collaborative but it’s not as if he sits and looks over my shoulder. But he will bring me things he is thinking about and things he’s seen and vice versa. About four years ago we went to go see a Taiko Drum group. That became part of the research and seeing how we can use that.
DRE: What does coming to the movie set do for you?
CM: It’s sort of more in line with when I first heard the story because it’s impacting. When I walked in yesterday and I saw the tree spaceship after sitting around for four years looking at little models and drawings it became something that will stay with me. It’s like seeing a great painting or great building and saying “Christ look at that. That’s what I have to live up to.”
DRE: Do you think you have it in you to become as diverse as someone like Mark Mothersbaugh who composes music for R-rated films like The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, children’s television like Rugrats and still tours with Devo?
CM: I would probably say no because I don’t think I am excited enough by all that diversity. I do like different things but you spend a long time with these things and at the end of the day it doesn’t just become about the project because I really need to like the people I’m working with and be excited by what excites them. I pretty much will take most any job that comes along right now because I need the experience. I don’t know if I will be suited to everything across the board. I’m willing to try but there will be certain areas I’m better in.
mas fotos
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap13.jpg&hash=707586a7dbb3d0e00ebee13b8f304e665c7d9650)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap1.jpg&hash=7ed30ae127651eb6304ca3bca9f4f44747fbddfc)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountainonset.jpg&hash=fb7bb1dd7c20d4c800fee40c8b9e43390b353985)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountain03.jpg&hash=cae29e92e0c437b07fc4183b2a73807841d7762b)
Quote from: Hedwigmas fotos
menos showing up
Quote from: PubrickQuote from: Hedwigmas fotos
menos showing up
fixed
those two first caps have some really odd subtitles.
Besides the film at hand [The Constant Gardner], Weisz also spoke briefly about her upcoming work in The Fountain...
*Some Spoilers*
Next up for Weisz is The Fountain, which is Darren Aronofsky's highly anticipated follow up to Requiem for a Dream. "It was emotionally challenging because it's very, very raw and I think Darren's the kind of director that gets, if you think of Requiem, the performances in that, he gets his actors to be very exposed, emotionally exposed. I play someone who is dying of cancer. It was very emotional - I had to dig deep kind of a role…"
The demanding role in The Fountain required a great deal of research and preparation. "I went to many Hospices, learned a lot about the Hospice movement… I read a lot. My character had a brain tumor, so I worked very closely with some Neurobrain surgeons in Montreal who worked with a lot of young patients who had brain tumors and who were dying. I read a gazillion books about death and dying… We don't think about death… But it's a love story! It sounds really depressing. (Laughs) It's very beautiful, it's a romantic love story about love and loss and death and life and all that stuff…"
When you play a part as intense as this, it can be hard to put it all behind you at the end of the day. "Oh yeah, it's completely in your consciousness day and night for the whole time you're filming. I would think most actors would say that. It's deep… You can carry on about your life, but it's in you, with you, around you all of the time. That's not a bad thing, that's just what happens."
is that Cool World mac?
Quote from: squintsis that Cool World mac?
Please, allow me...yes.
well, i got sort of news i guess. i was flipping through an issue of EW and they had an article on wiez and they said the fountain will be ou tnext year. which pisses me off. but premiere's fall preview said it will be this year. which makes me happy. but darren said it will "definately" come out this year. but i assume it's all up to the studio. which makes me confused.
its almost october and theres no trailer, release date, poster, etc. theres no way they can get it out by dec. :( hopefully they wont make us wait another year to put it out like NEXT november and they'll just give it to us in march or something when it can bomb in peace.
I actually got a chance to see some of the SFX segments this summer (they looked awesome). The company I interned for in Montreal is doing them. They seemed to be pretty far ahead on them, and that was back in June, so I cant imagine itll be too much longer.
I'm really hoping they play it at Harry Knowles' buttnumbathon this year. Since Harry wrote the review on the insert for the Requiem DVD, I assume they're pals - and if the film is done, I think there may be a good chance.
Recce, to what extent were the effects you saw digital? I know they talked about doing very little, as far as that goes...
you've been invited to darren's birthday party!
when? tomorrow
what? brand new hd teaser
where? apple
bring a bathing suit and a towel!
cant WAIT.
AICN interview with Aronofsky here...
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=21778
Quote from: sickfins on November 08, 2005, 12:07:39 PM
you've been invited to darren's birthday party!
when? tomorrow
what? brand new hd teaser
where? apple
bring a bathing suit and a towel!
because we'll be swimming in the fountain.
ITS HERE.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thefountain/
now who's going to change neon's shorts?
HOLY SHIT!
I watched it about ten straight times, my god that shot of the horse, car, and spaceship......this movie is gonna be crazy! AHHHHHH! Man, I've never had a geek orgasm before, but I just did.
To totally rip off an AICN talkbacker:
1 BONER
:cry: stupid Jaguar not letting me download Quicktime 7 to see it.
:shock:
fuck! i have windows millenium. why must apple fuck with me so?
oh my gawd.
every single image in the teaser is brilliant/beautiful/breathtaking..
the font, the music.
watch it frame by frame.
praise the 'Nofsky.
has anyone here seen another teaser as powerful as this one?
SPOILERISH SCREENCAPS
i just capped about a zillion pics from this beauty, including:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap2.jpg&hash=8e788b5e5c5744d940257a92c2deac808db21188)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap19.jpg&hash=9c8d0333cca41f53c1021d988df99261ea22581c)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2F7f4407f1.jpg&hash=6752e8dc54297b8512c3c21153285ae83c4b6584)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap8.jpg&hash=fbedfbba1a0564c65660a11ea7bb604919e0e333)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2F76a82dd0.jpg&hash=58993411a7341cfda07846fc16d906f0a8c5430f)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Fbbdcb3cb.jpg&hash=663d86fc41e225a6ac35ce8ff681b994f7806d72)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap27.jpg&hash=91deb6329fd76d1198512d8f9a37216ecb57ae00)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap32.jpg&hash=d5af3c469c5d187e6d47d1e632480e9ffd1f58ac)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap34.jpg&hash=170f3ceea0e1c4a65b966fb4f031d878ca98f206)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap36.jpg&hash=38b7f646fa08e3d0236f52408eccd82294f92b70)
The Cell: Part II?
Quote from: ddiggler6280 on November 09, 2005, 08:47:20 PM
fuck! i have windows millenium. why must apple fuck with me so?
Cause you have Windows ME.
This trailer is GLORIOUS!
It's also like crack, a quick 40 sec high leaving you wanting more. HARD. This plus A Scanner Darkly all in the same year equals possible greatest year ever.
this trailer seems to hide the future Weisz after "1 LOVE" with a second present.
Quote from: modage on November 09, 2005, 07:56:59 PM
ITS HERE.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thefountain/
now who's going to change neon's shorts?
the three shots following 1000 YEARS physically stuck a knife into every pore of my being and jiggled the blade, just a little bit.
goodbye weekend, hello teaser.
please mod, when the spoilerful trailer comes along, don't spoilatar it. this is all i wanna see from this one. :(
Quote from: mogwai on November 10, 2005, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 10, 2005, 02:37:05 AM
The Cell: Part II?
can i get a ouch?? anyone? hello? :doh:
ouch.
also, certain shots from that totally transcendant teaser made me think about alex grey, particularly stuff like this, "Theologue-The Union of Human and Divine Consciousness Weaving the Fabric of Space and Time in which the Self and its Surroundings are Embedded." (http://alexgrey.net/a-gallery/theolg.html)
I'm sure actors love the thought of this:
DA: There are just these amazing things you can do with VFX now that are very, very subtle things, which I learned. You can do... you can split the screen now. Say you have two actors sharing the screen, and the timing between their lines is not quite right. You can actually split the screen and speed up one side. You can off-set the timing on one side, so that you can change how their interaction works.
Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 10, 2005, 11:40:33 AM
I'm sure actors love the thought of this
kotte might :ponder:
This will be the cinematic and sexual climax of the year.
If you can, watch it in HD. Beautiful.
Even in this short glimpse, it looks like they've totally maximized their budget constraints.
Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 10, 2005, 11:40:33 AM
I'm sure actors love the thought of this:
DA: There are just these amazing things you can do with VFX now that are very, very subtle things, which I learned. You can do... you can split the screen now. Say you have two actors sharing the screen, and the timing between their lines is not quite right. You can actually split the screen and speed up one side. You can off-set the timing on one side, so that you can change how their interaction works.
That could totally be Lucas from the TPM dvd doc. Just sayin.
Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 10, 2005, 11:40:33 AM
I'm sure actors love the thought of this:
Considering this movie is a little over 90 minutes, and it's supposed to be an epic, I think a utility like this would be useful to someone working with such an economic length.
And Hedwig, is Alex Grey the guy who did the art for Lateralus?
Quote from: Gamblour on November 10, 2005, 05:27:34 PM
And Hedwig, is Alex Grey the guy who did the art for Lateralus?
yep.
Quote from: Gamblour on November 10, 2005, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: cowboykurtis on November 10, 2005, 11:40:33 AM
I'm sure actors love the thought of this:
Considering this movie is a little over 90 minutes, and it's supposed to be an epic, I think a utility like this would be useful to someone working with such an economic length.
Taking that into consideration - I'm sure they still love the thought of it.
MORE SPOILERISH TEASER SCREENCAPS
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap10.jpg&hash=58686881130911b0a79622f9a9b199a7d5332f38)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap12.jpg&hash=fba94df801e45d7461826817602691a0b8fe2c10)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap17.jpg&hash=8bde80f2be3ed1723e57630f9660e6d485db525e)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap26.jpg&hash=f31d535c7dfcb9cfa25588263e1ab060c1aa324f)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap29.jpg&hash=5ad9df2913686ad803ba883b3d9fc529cd475ddb) (this is the one that reminded me of alex grey)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap23.jpg&hash=ad199c9d2763fa26a23761eb81ddc8984631653f)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap37.jpg&hash=d12ca84327cd4724ade993de70f8af02db812dbf)
best teaser ever. :)
Quote from: Hedwig on November 10, 2005, 09:33:23 PM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap17.jpg&hash=8bde80f2be3ed1723e57630f9660e6d485db525e)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap19.jpg&hash=9c8d0333cca41f53c1021d988df99261ea22581c)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Ffountaincap26.jpg&hash=f31d535c7dfcb9cfa25588263e1ab060c1aa324f)
this is the bit. that's the movie right there.
Quote from: Gamblour on November 09, 2005, 08:15:01 PM
my god that shot of the horse, car, and spaceship
Yeah man, I totally feel it. It's so powerful. I'm gonna go watch it again.
Quote from: modage on November 09, 2005, 07:56:59 PM
ITS HERE.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thefountain/
now who's going to change neon's shorts?
haha, they need chang'n but not from cum stains but rather shit stains... fuck apple. even with dial up for something like this its worth the wait but it doesnt work regardless. thanks hed for posting puics. and i know this will be the greatest thing ever....i guess i ahve to wait 8ntil i can do a windows media player thing. but until then i must wait..and for all those haters who talked shit about aronofsky when i started a thread about him years back....um, fuck you! i was right he is a fucking genius :yabbse-grin:
this film will be talked about for years....somewhere kubrick is smiling
Quote from: killafilmThis plus A Scanner Darkly, INLAND EMPIRE all in the same year equals possible greatest year ever.
I have a dilema. Ever since Apple updated their trailers page, none of them will play for me. I have tried everything. I've downloaded everything I can think of to see the trailer for the fountain. Does anyone know of any site that has a possible non-quicktime version of the trailer instead of the usual link to apple.trailers? To quote the man responsible for stealing Amie Mann's Oscar, "I've been waiting for this moment for all my life."
you need QT7 probably to play it.
yea, it's unfortunate, but if you're not running windows 2000 or XP, you can't download and install quicktime 7, which means you basically can't watch quicktime movies anymore. so if you're like me and still have windows millenium, you're shit outta luck
Quote from: ddiggler6280 on November 15, 2005, 04:14:36 PM
so if you're like me and still have windows millenium, you're shit outta luck
i think you were shit outta luck the moment you installed windows millennium.
Quote from: Pubrick on November 15, 2005, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: ddiggler6280 on November 15, 2005, 04:14:36 PM
so if you're like me and still have windows millenium, you're shit outta luck
i think you were shit outta luck the moment you installed windows millennium.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spayusa.org%2Fmain_directory%2F02-facts_and_education%2Fbenefits_animation.gif&hash=b7ae035cff305b6c2e7ff94c25424877ec2ad1ae)
Um...I've got a G4 iMac, and apple.com has basicly fucked me too. QT7 won't run on anything before OS 10.3.9. So if you have 10.2.8, like me, apple doesn't care about you. I wish they didn't care enough to stop advertising to me.
why cant you upgrade to the latest OS version?
I can't upgrade because my internal CD drive is broken... I usually use my external CD drive for everything, but the computer won't upgrade from the external drive. I've tried.
But my computer is a good 4 years old now. Perhaps it is time to buy a new one anyway.
Quote from: Pubrick on November 16, 2005, 03:00:35 AM
Quote from: killafilm on November 16, 2005, 02:49:26 AM
Quote from: Pubrick on November 15, 2005, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: ddiggler6280 on November 15, 2005, 04:14:36 PM
so if you're like me and still have windows millenium, you're shit outta luck
i think you were shit outta luck the moment you installed windows millennium.
fixed
fixed.
yea, it came with the machine, which is running on 5 years old now. it used to be so sexy, now it's just old monday night stripper hot.
The Fountain GN Review
Darren Aronofsky's upcoming film gets top-billing in a new graphic novel from Vertigo.
by Hilary Goldstein
For Pi director Darren Aronofsky, realizing his latest vision, The Fountain, has been an incredible challenge. Over the next year, however, his story of love and immortality will enjoy two lives. Originally written as a big-budget feature film, the movie was canned in 2002. Aronofsky, however, was so determined to bring his idea to an audience that he converted his film script into a graphic novel. As artist Kent Williams began sending in pages for the book, Aronofsky found renewed inspiration for bringing The Fountain to the Silver Screen. He re-wrote the script, slimming it down and making it affordable. While audiences must wait until 2006 to see the finished film, they can take a deep drink from The Fountain in the newly-released oversized hardcover graphic novel from DC's Vertigo imprint.
The graphic novel version of The Fountain should not be considered an adaptation of the movie. As Aronofsky explained at this summer's San Diego Comic-Con, the book and film are two different interpretations of the same story. Those who read the book will get a more complete view of the director's original movie, while those who see the motion picture in 2006 can enjoy the same themes in a slightly different package.
The Fountain spans a thousand years, from the 16th century to 2005 and 400 years beyond. Central to each time period is Tomas and his love Izzi, a woman fated to die. Though the book and film star the same characters, you won't see a graphical representation of Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Williams began his incredible artwork for the graphic novel long before the film was re-cast. It's still difficult not to place those two actors in the title roles for the first few dozen pages of the graphic novel, but Aronofsky's writing is so strong, Williams' art so vital, that those images fade in time. For those who read The Fountain, it will be impossible not to see the images from the comic when watching Jackman and Weisz on the big screen.
The story begins in the 16th century, with Tomas as a strong-headed conquistador determined to defeat the Mayan army and uncover its greatest treasure. "The Fountain" refers to the mythical pool of immortality sought by Ponce de Leon, but there is no water sanctuary to be found in this story. Instead, this fountain is the Tree of Life, whose sap prolongs existence for any daring enough to cut through its bark. Izzi, in this era, is Tom's Queen and secret love.
We are quickly sent from the Mayan culture far into the future, to view Tomas in the 25th century, bald and covered in tattoos -- each ring wrapped around his body representing a year of life. Though he mysteriously has access to the Tree of Life, it is dying, having been almost completely drained. And if the Tree dies, so will Izzi. Amidst the stars, Tomas makes a daring gamble. It is at this point, with the introduction of such a heavily surreal environment, that I lost a little focus on the story. All sense of reality gives way and the story could easily have gone spiraling into nonsense. Wisely, Aronofsky soon grounds us, finally, in the modern day.
The narrative core of The Fountain is set in 2005, with Tomas as a cancer researcher married to Izzi, a woman with a terminal brain tumor. Williams leaves the richer colors of the previous scenes for softer hues that almost play like a watery memory. The effect is calming and adds dual layers of sadness and romance to the scenes.
The story hops back and forth between times from there, but it is the modern-day tale that lays the true groundwork for the emotional payoff of the final scene. Without the modern tale, there would be no context for the far less literal worlds of the 16th and 25th centuries. Ultimately it leads to a quiet, beautiful and sweet finale that proves more powerful than expected.
Aronofsky's sardonic wit, seen in Pi and Requiem for a Dream is absent here. Instead, he provides a science-fantasy tale that is more sweet than cynical. When I first finished The Fountain, I thought it was a good, but not quite brilliant piece of fiction. However, writing this review, I found the memory of the story resurfacing emotions, so much that I had to sit down and read The Fountain a second time. Though I still think Aronofsky needed to provide us the stable environment of the modern-day tale sooner, the story has an even great resonance upon a second read.
I have no idea how the story of The Fountain might change for the feature film, but if it carries the soul of the graphic novel, it may just be one of the best movies of 2006. Even if the movie ends up falling short of expectations, Aronofsky has succeeded, at least in one medium, of providing an incredible journey of love and loss across the centuries.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcomicsmedia.ign.com%2Fcomics%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F667%2F667907%2Ffountain-20051117044655977.jpg&hash=df6a554a1af786afa5c34021781db77f688491fe)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcomicsmedia.ign.com%2Fcomics%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F666%2F666595%2Fthe-weekly-gallery-november-16-2005-20051114033552120.jpg&hash=f6091d650fdfd7b9621b148de2cbe25cd1ac0c78)
Quote from: andyk on November 17, 2005, 11:17:07 AM
why cant you upgrade to the latest OS version?
Mm-hmm, mm-hmm, and every time I try to it'll tell me the file can't be written at this time. I think apple wants more money from me. They're got over 2k dollars of mine already, you'd think they would consider movie trailers to be advertising and force me to watch it, not make me pay for it. But such is that way of true evil...The best ad firms in the world make money by getting people to pay THEM to advertise for them. Nike?
Quote from: MacGuffin on November 18, 2005, 12:16:12 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcomicsmedia.ign.com%2Fcomics%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F667%2F667907%2Ffountain-20051117044655977.jpg&hash=df6a554a1af786afa5c34021781db77f688491fe)
wow...thats just beautiful.
oh yeah, i went to a friends house and saw the teaser. i hyped myself way to much for this. i thought the teaser image wise, was great. but i didnt like the "1 love" thing and the other titles. nor did i like the drumming. but i did like how the images were cut/edited to the music. i still think the best teaser ever was the requiem one. regardless, this film will own.
mutinyco will hate/disregard it because the film will have spiritual elements...[he hates that kind of stuff]
Nice little interview with Da Man from chud.com...
This summer Nick got a chance to talk with Darren Aronofsky at the San Diego Comic Con. I was jealous, truth be told, since Aronofsky is one of my favorite modern filmmakers. With just two movies under his belt - the brilliant Pi and the masterpiece Requiem for a Dream - Aronofsky has set himself among the ranks of the truly original visionaries. The real test is going to be his third film, though, the science fiction epic romance The Fountain, which has been on its way to movie screens for years. It first began as a Brad Pitt movie; when the funding dried up all looked lost. But Aronofsky stuck with it and managed to bring the project back from the dead - The Fountain has finished shooting, and the director is now working on post-production.
That was where I found him. Or rather, where he found me. After a couple of weeks of trying to get schedules aligned, I finally got a phone call from Aronofsky. He didn't have a lot of time to talk, and he was knee deep in work, but he was incredibly gracious about taking twenty minutes out of his day to keep CHUD.com's readers up to date on his film.
Aronofsky: I was just looking over some shots. They had to pull me out. What did you think of the teaser?
Q: I loved it. And I have to tell you that the reaction to the teaser on our site has been so positive it's almost frightening.
Aronofsky: Oh, good!
Q: One of our readers said it was like someone is finally using film to its full potential.
Aronofsky: That's pretty sweet.
Q: So this is looking like your most mainstream thing to date. Is it fair to say that?
Aronofsky: [laughs] Yeah, I think so. I don't know, everything you hope is mainstream, but then when you realize that you're making a black and white film about math and God that maybe you're the only person that thinks it's mainstream. But then again, when I did make Pi I thought it was for a very small audience, but I'm always surprised that I'll go off to Europe or Japan and people are really enjoying the film. Audiences really enjoy seeing things that are different. I think there's all this panic going on about box office and everything and I just hope that it's pointing people at the studios into making films that are new experiences and a bit different. I've been complaining that for the last few summers there's been great ideas and great hype on films, and then when you go to the movie theater it's really rare that you actually see something where you feel really fulfilled.
Q: It seems like the best work is being done in marketing.
Aronofsky: [laughs] Exactly! They always seem to have these great ideas and you're always excited, because the concepts are great but the executions don't always fulfill the expectations. But then King Kong is coming and you know that's going to fulfill all expectations and go past all of them – or so we hope.
But they're far and few between. I'm one of those people who likes video games and watching movies at home, but everyone still enjoys going to a movie theater and getting lost and having a total experience. That's sort of my goal, always, to try and make something that is experiential, something that you want to see with a crowd of people on a big, big, big screen.
Q: And The Fountain is that kind of a film.
Aronofsky: I hope so! That's what we're going for. We're trying to make it big with the limited resources we have. Everything is on the screen. We've all been struggling all these years because we all believe in it. I think if you work on something hard enough and long enough, no matter how it turns out, people will appreciate all the labor and pain that went into it.
Q: And a lot of pain went into this.
Aronofsky: Oh yeah. It's been a long road.
Q: Do you know yet when this road is going to end?
Aronofsky: For us we're going to probably finish up the film end of February, early March. Then it becomes the big boys and big girls' decision on when to release it. They want to take their time and see it before they decide when to release it.
Q: What do you still have left to do that's going to take you through til February?
Aronofsky: We've got a bunch of visual effects to finish up, which should get done in a month or two. And then we have to do normal things, like mixing and scoring, and that takes a bit. We picture locked a couple of weeks ago and once you picture lock it's still two or three months until everything is done. My composer is actually in the next room blasting, you might be able to hear some stuff.
Q: Who's composing?
Aronofsky: Clint Mansell. Everyone is in the same building now, on the same floor. The editing room is on one side, and then the other side VFX, and the producers and the sound department and the music department. It's fun because we're all here together.
Q: Was it surreal to hear Clint's Requiem music in the trailer for The Two Towers, and in so many other trailer since?
Aronofsky: I have to admit, I was a little upset at first. That's such a big movie with endless resources, but you know I think – Clint's just walking by. [to Clint] I'm doing an interview for online. They asked how it felt when Two Towers used the Requiem score.
Clint Mansell: The bank account felt great!
Aronofsky: Unfortunately, my bank account didn't feel shit! You owe me a beer, Clint.
But it was cool, and it was very flattering. Clint deals with that a lot because Clint writes music that – I remember being down in Argentina, and the tube down there, the train down there, was using the Pi music. It was the most bizarre thing in the world. You're standing on the train and instead of Muzak, they're pumping in Pi.
That's always exciting because you're hiring people that are doing good work. They definitely dug it, which is cool.
Q: One of the questions I have for you is related to post-production. Spielberg has Munich coming out in December, and the post for that has been insanely fast – something like six to eight weeks. I think a lot of people see that schedule and don't understand why it's unusual, they don't understand what goes on with editing. Can you talk a little bit about how you approach that phase?
Aronofsky: Spielberg's a special case because he's been making films – I remember as a kid going to see ET, waiting on line. He's been making films so long. I saw and I loved War of the WorldsWar of the Worlds. My producer and I went to see it, and it blew us away. There are shots in that film – I know he had his pre-production running sharp, but there are shots in that film that would take me and my team months upon months to even design. But Spielberg's been doing this so long that he's a master at this point. He can just blow up the Bayonne Bridge through the back window of Tom Cruise's car and it's just an afternoon's work for him! I think he's really at the prime of his game. I can't wait for Munich – I think it's going to be awesome. I think he has a team and a mind and an ability to pull that off. I can't move at that speed yet. Hopefully in thirty years I'll be able to come up with shots that quickly.
I think also he has more financial resources.
Q: Oh yeah, he has a lot more money. But how does editing work for you?
Aronofsky: We start from scratch. I'm more of an old school guy; as soon as the film finished shooting, me and Jay, who is the editor, will watch every single shot – from camera on to camera off – that we shot in the movie. In this case we shot hundreds of thousands of feet of film, and it took us about ten weeks to go through every single frame of film. The reason we go through every single frame of film is that we want to see... sometimes after you call cut and the camera is still running, you get really interesting things. And sometimes before you call action you get some interesting things. You want to be able to watch every piece of footage because sometimes you get this little gems that you didn't expect.
So that can take a long time. And then we just started doing assemblages and getting it more and more and more refined. There's really no process – you kind of keep working on it. It's kind of like sculpture in that you have a piece of clay and you work a little bit over here, and a little bit over there. If you work in one place too much then the rest of the film doesn't catch up. So you slowly have to dig away. Then you show it to some friends and you get some feedback. And then you show it to some more friends and you get some more feedback. Slowly but surely you get a feeling and a sense of what's working and what's not working.
Q: You're in New York right now, right?
Aronofsky: Yeah.
Q: Me too. Good for New York! What is it that keeps you in New York? Why haven't you made the move to LA?
Aronofsky: I grew up in Brooklyn and I lived in LA for two, three years to go to film school. But I always knew I wanted to set up shop in New York. Most of my heroes are New York filmmakers, and being from Brooklyn, it's really hard to get away from it for too long.
Q: Where are you from in Brooklyn?
Aronofsky: I'm from Manhattan Beach, which is down by Sheepshead Bay and Coney Island, south south Brooklyn. The real Brooklyn! Not Williamsburg, which was the real Brooklyn once, but now everybody says they're from Brooklyn and I don't think they're really from Brooklyn.
Q: I think everybody in Williamsburg is from Iowa.
Aronofsky: Exactly. They're from all over the place. I want to start a t-shirt chain called "Original Brooklyn" and only sell it to people who actually grew up in Brooklyn.
Q: I'm happy to say I could buy one of those t-shirts. I was born in East New York!
The graphic novel is out now, right? How does that work – is it going to spoil the picture for people?
Aronofsky: I don't think it'll spoil the picture for people. I think it's definitely filled with spoilers and it gives you a vibe of what the film is but... it was my decision to release it now. The studio wanted to wait until the film came out, but me and Vertigo and the artists were like, 'Think about it – Batman has millions of comics, does that spoil the movie? Superman has millions of comics and we're all excited to go see those movies.'
It's a completely different take on the material, in the sense that Kent Williams, the guy who drew the comic, did his own take on the material. You won't see Hugh Jackman, you won't see Rachel Weisz, you won't see Ellen Burstyn. What you see is his artistic take on it. It's kind of cool; it's more of a sister project than a rip-off, just trying to make money off of it. What we were trying for, and what I think Kent did, is that it's an art book in it's own way.
Q: A lot of filmmakers are crossing over to comics lately. Would you ever consider doing an original comic book series?
Aronofsky: Oh yeah, definitely. I enjoy the process. When you work there's no physical limitations in where you can stick a camera. You can dream up any shot you want to shoot, and on any scale – you don't have to worry about how many extras are in a scene. In a lot of ways, as far as a storyteller, it's very exciting. I think that's why Jodorowsky ended up in comic books – his ideas are too way out there.
Q: Are there any established characters you would want to tackle?
Aronofsky: I don't know. I didn't grow up reading comics that much. When I was in college I discovered the graphic novel – Frank Miller and Watchmen. That to me was like reading real literature in a whole new way. That's when I got into it.
Q: Speaking of Watchmen, it's back at Warner Bros, and it looks like Paul Greengrass, who had been attached to direct, may be too busy – he has a 9/11 film and then The Bourne Ultimatum coming up. Would you go back to Watchmen?
Aronofsky: My only fear with that whole thing was, is there a way to do it the right way? Because if you're going to do it, you have to do it the right way. Last time they started rushing to production and they wouldn't wait for me when I had to do The Fountain. They just wouldn't wait. I thought that was the complete wrong attitude, to rush that thing to production. There are too many people out there who would hate me if I fucked it up, so I would only do it with great care and diligence.
Q: But if they came back to you and gave you the time to do it, would you be interested?
Aronofsky: Oh yeah, I think it's a great piece of writing. It would be very interesting.
Q: I wanted to ask you once last question – when you're doing Lost, do they let you say, 'Jack is my favorite character, so I want to do a Jack episode'?
Aronofsky: My thing on it is that I just love the show. I'm not going to be Darren Aronofksy when I make Lost, I'm just going to be a fan. I feel bad because everyone might want some crazy shots or stuff, but I think they do that show really well and it's shot really well, so I want to be a gun for hire for them. Just because I enjoy it – I like the actors, I like the mystery. For me it's more of a vacation from my filmmaking. It's doing what they do best and just helping them do that for a while and having fun with the actors and stuff. It's not about putting my fingerprint on it, it's more about having a good time. [laughs] Is that a terrible thing to say?
Q: And going to Hawaii too can't hurt.
Aronofsky: I figured two weeks in Hawaii, actors I like, a great show... it's their baby, I really respect that. I'm not going to change it, I'm not interested in converting it into a monster.
Q: So no hip-hop montages.
Aronofsky: No hip-hop montages!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, so the movie won't even be done until February or March, and who knows how long after that they'll get around to releasing the fucker. Still, it's nice to hear Aronofsky being a little more coherent than he typically is in interviews. And there's even a little new bit of false hope for us "Watchmen" fans.
I hate waiting for movies. I want them now.
thanks polky that interview was both nice and little.
who knows with Watchmen, i'm just happy greengrass might not be doing it. i'd rather no one do it if it's not done right, like my mate darren says.(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2Fsmileysquig.png&hash=159de7233d6cece856837de2965cdf9e7ea0c985)
From all the interviews I read he seems like a really cool guy.
I wonder how old he was when he got so cool.
So the other day I read that Rachel Weisz is married to Aronofsky. I had no idea. Thanks for keeping me in the know.
She's also pregnant by him.
As far as he knows.
What the hell? she is?! I'm out of the loop!
Quote from: Bethie on February 01, 2006, 11:55:45 PM
What the hell? she is?! I'm out of the loop!
That's what happens when you fall asleep during the Golden Globes.
where am i? what's the date?!
guys, i don't know her. just so you know.
For Bethie, who's been living under a rock:
Darren Arofksy + Rachel Weisz
Tom Cruise + Katie Holmes
Brad Pitt + Angelina Jolie
Paul Thomas Anderson + Maya Rudolph
Heath Ledger + Michelle Williams
Ellen Degeneres + Portia De Rossi
Paul Bettany + Jennifer Connelly (I'm still a little depressed about that one)
Peter Sarsgaard + Maggie Gyllenhall
Billy Crudup + Claire Danes - Mary Louise Parker
Natalie Imbruglia + Mia Kirshner (I can dream, can't I? Can't I?!?)
Now back to business. Doesn't anybody have any wild speculation about when The Fountain will come out and how awesome it'll totally be?
prediction: by the time it comes out, one of the above couples will no longer be together. :yabbse-sad:
haha :yabbse-thumbup:
more images you may not want to see
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kino-govno.com%2Fimages%2Ffountain%2Ffountain_7.jpg&hash=d323a2ed560e401c49e81ab31f4e0f75b33aff5b)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kino-govno.com%2Fimages%2Ffountain%2Ffountain_6.jpg&hash=549e9ec563cf78910fb20d471df622102d55c7fa)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kino-govno.com%2Fimages%2Ffountain%2Ffountain_5.jpg&hash=e984cf8b620f38e47786b8707f89da4c46ddd0a7)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kino-govno.com%2Fimages%2Ffountain%2Ffountain_2.jpg&hash=05a06abc34e9f3f899bd2424a8189b0f94fa9b32)
and minor spoilsy image (http://www.kino-govno.com/images/fountain/fountain_8.jpg)
Okay, So Cal peeps listen up...
get yourself over to The Grove in L.A. (maybe call first). I was there yesterday and got two free tickets to a test screening of The Fountain for Wednsday night. Yes, that is right. Check it out, see what's up.
I hardly ever go out that way, so talk about being in the right place at the right time!
Way jealous.
I work Wednesday. Might call off.
Why the fuck doesn't The Grove know about this.
Theater employees don't often know what the screenings they're hosting will be, especially when they're test/research screenings. They don't organize them, in other words - they just provide the space.
if they knew what was best for them they would reschedule this for next wednesday when i'll be back in socal
Yeah, I should've been more clear. It was one of those dudes that stopped us and asked if we wanted to go to a free screening. As soon as those words The Fountain came out of his mouth, you could imagine what sort of music that was to my ears. I didn't know who he was with exactly, just assumed the theater would know about it and wanted as many of you guys in the area to go as possible if it was accessible.
Something still doesn't feel right about this though, I can't place it. Just haven't heard about any screenings or anything is the thing. Then some shlub with a clipboard says, "yo, you wanna go or what?" I've been cursed lately (left an id at a far away bar, downloaded episodes of Lost with no sound, someone backed into my 3 month old car leaving no note) this could either be the icing on the cake or a new beginning.
What pozer should do is post the phone number you need to confirm reservations.
Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known As on March 27, 2006, 07:06:26 PM
I've been cursed lately (left an id at a far away bar)
well, at least you still have your ego and superego.
1. thats funny. when i clicked on this thread i was thinking 'i hope no one has seen the fountain yet cause then i'd be jealous. and then this news.
2. its not a joke. this is how these test screenings happen. as mac said, a dude with a clipboard stands outside a theatre with a stack of passes usually some kind of colored paper with a little synopsis and info about the screening on it. you have to call the number on the paper to confirm your reservation so they know how many and who to expect. they will want to know your age/sex/ethnicity/etc. so they can put you into a demographic. get there early as fuck because there will be a line and if you aint towards the front, you may not get in. especially if they have to hit certain demos and all the geeks your age who get there earlier than you will be the first ones in. and if you're in the middle/end and they need a few more black women they will pick further down the line to get them and you will be fucked (but sent away with a comp pass to any film playing there if they're nice). the theatre wont even really know whats going on. outside dudes who think they're important rush around to make sure things get done so even if you had a friend who worked there it would be no use. the theatres guarded and (as mac said privately rented). you cant get in unless you have a paper, which could POSSIBLY be xeroxed onto some of the same paper but you'd have to change a reservation number usually handwritten on it to be something else and that could get tricky but you'd probably get in. there wont be any word or advertising about this because they like to keep it as top secret as possible. if you're not lucky enough to wander by when they're handing out passes its unlikely you'd ever know about one. i used to be one of those assholes, it SUCKED.
Yeah, what he said. I'd give out the reservation number, but it wouldn't do any good without the ticket number. Sorry dudes. I called and the guy told me it's a first come first serve deal and to get there as early as possible. Good luck to me I suppose.
If you want you can cover my shift and I'll go.
Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known As on March 27, 2006, 12:55:22 PM
Okay, So Cal peeps listen up...
get yourself over to The Grove in L.A. (maybe call first). I was there yesterday and got two free tickets to a test screening of The Fountain for Wednsday night. Yes, that is right. Check it out, see what's up.
I hardly ever go out that way, so talk about being in the right place at the right time!
hey you lucky son of a bitch..if you actaully go see this tonight...you better post some long series of thoughts..this is number two on the year for me behind
empire..so, let me know if it will live up to my hype....thanks.
Allow me to say this first and foremost: I loved The Fountain so much. There is so much to say about it, but I truly don't know how to.
I want to talk about that image - that wonderful first image our eyes were introduced to of Jackman being lifted up and carried over by ugly native looking men. I want to tell you what that image is like as it's brought to life on the big screen. I want to say how enchanting the music is that follows that image as Jackman is brought to a flight of what seems like never ending steps. And I want to talk about what those steps lead him to as the story of The Fountain begins.
I want to talk about how Adam and Eve, Mayan civilization and Spanish inquisition comes into play. I want to talk about what the Tree of Life, the monkey and the ring meant to me. I even want to talk about how and why I am so happy that Hugh Jackman ended up doing this over Brad Pitt. I want to talk about all of these things, but I do realize that it's something I need to keep with me for now as I dissect it in my sleep.
I will say this though: Many will not like The Fountain. And it's such a shame to because so much creativity and imagination was poured into this story - into each visual. Hopefully you go into this too with only baring witness to the teaser trailer cause that's all you want. You can tell the studios' arms are up in the air with the marketing of the film which is completely understandable - they really asked us a ton of questions regarding this. Many positive and many negative remarks were heard from the mixed audience.
And I am so proud to say two things tonight, my friends. I got to be a part of the very first audience to see The Fountain and I got to watch it with Darren Aronofsky.
:bravo:
Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known As on March 30, 2006, 01:30:38 AM
And I am so proud to say two things tonight, my friends. I got to be a part of the very first audience to see The Fountain and I got to watch it with Darren Aronofsky.
Envy doesn't quite describe what I'm feeling after reading your teaser comments. I'm actually more excited to see it knowing that not everyone will like it and the studio has no idea how to market it.
Man, just the idea of this film makes me so excited I could cry.
When you say many people will not like the Fountain, are these Xixaxers as well?
From what you saw, what do you think the MPAA will rate it?
Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known As on March 30, 2006, 01:30:38 AM
Many positive and many negative remarks were heard from the mixed audience.
Not to pile more questions on you but...
Were the negative remarks intelligent criticisms or was it just the usual "This movie sucks! It made no sense!"?
Probably most here at XIXAX will share my enthusiasm, but some will disagree.
Rated R for sure.
Most of the negative was "I didn't care for it", "I'm not sure how I feel about it", "I just don't get the point of the movie." The fans all definitely appreciated it save for one that I heard comment it "didn't meet expectations." If you're looking for a more thorough review than mine check out these at AICN: http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=22892. I agree with what these guys say. Go with the second review cause seriously, you don't want to know anything about this movie going in.
I know this: I can't stop thinking about the film today and want to see it again RIGHT NOW. And SOUND, wait 'til you see what he does with sound in this film. Aronofsky made The Fountain I was anticipating!
Exciting review, can't wait, definitely my top pick of this year.
What is the current run time?
1:40ish. My first reaction was that I wished it was longer. I wanted more from the 1600 stuff some how. Did I mention Matthew Libatique is God?
Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known As on March 31, 2006, 11:03:59 AM
1:40ish. My first reaction was that I wished it was longer.
That's incredibly surprising. From everything I've allowed myself to read, I was assuming and hoping it would be a lot longer than this.
The length was one of the few things about the movie that I did read about, I read on AICN's interview with Aronofsky that they had locked it around 1:30-40. It's amazing that it's an epic tale told with such economy.
From Variety:
The 59th annual Cannes Film Festival will have a strong Hollywood presence thanks to Fox's "X-Men: The Last Stand" and Warner Bros.' "The Fountain," both starring Hugh Jackman, plus a 20-minute preview of Paramount's Oliver Stone pic "World Trade Center" and a slew of other U.S. pics, including toons and docs.
****
Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain," in which Jackman stars with Rachel Weisz, will be showing "somewhere" in the official selection, per fest insiders, as will actor-director John Cameron Mitchell's heavily sexual New York ensembler "Shortbus," Rolf de Heer's Aussie Aboriginal drama "Ten Canoes" and Rachid Bouchareb's "Days of Glory," a big-budgeter about North Africans who fought alongside the French in WWII.
i'd give my left nut to go to this thing, as long as they kept it on ice and gave it back to me on the last day.
So apparently last night there was another test screening of this in California, but ALSO one in Boston. I live in Boston, and didn't here about it until this morning. Needless to say I am kicking myself, but I was wondering if anyone here went to the one in Boston, or knows where it was held.
From AICN.
Darren Aronofsky's THE FOUNTAIN has a release date at last!!!
Hey folks, Harry here... finally for the first time in well... forever, we have a secured nailed down theatrical wide release date for Darren Aronofsky's THE FOUNTAIN. Warners, being extremely nurturing with Aronofsky, took the release date demons away and allowed him and his editors the freedom to explore and find the rhythm of this rather complex and beautiful story. October 13th, 2006 is the date when we'll get to see what I believe we all feel in our hearts is going to be one of the best films period this year!
cool. i imagine it will come and go pretty quickly Solaris style after the initial opening weekend buzz from stars jackman and weisz fades and nobody sees it. but atleast we'll have it and thats what counts. :yabbse-thumbup: to WB for dumping money into something that cannot possibly make it back.
hey. maybe it will. there's a lot of good tv spot material.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fpics%2Ffountainposter.jpg&hash=349f15046471132f66782824d5b3c87ac1eece52)
Bitchin. I got chills when I saw that this morning.
Aronofsky's Fountain to Have a Fantastic Premiere
Austin's Fantastic Fest has snagged itself a pretty swanky closing film: Darren Aronofsky's long-awaited and seriously cool-looking The Fountain, an apparent sci-fi mind-bender that stars Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz.
Here's a sneak peek at a few of the 60-some titles they'll be offering: Sturla Gunnarsson's Beowulf & Grendel, Robbie Fraser's GamerZ, Anders Banke's Frostbiten, Shinya Tsukamoto's Haze, Albert Pyun's Infection, Billy O'Brien's Isolation, Simon Rumley's The Living and the Dead, and Terry Gilliam's Tideland. Plus there's two dozen additional titles (including shorts!) and several more that haven't been announced yet.
In addition, the festival promises a Greatest Hits Presentation from Greg Nicotero, a 3-D screening of Charles Band's wonderfully bad Parasite (starring Demi Moore!), and a big-screen revisit with the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre!
http://www.fantasticfest.com/
Quote from: MacGuffin on July 17, 2006, 01:48:39 PM
Aronofsky's Fountain to Have a Fantastic Premiere
All of a sudden, a hundred bucks isn't sounding that bad.
When you add it up based on Tideland, this, and the brother's Quay movie alone, it's not too bad a deal.
All of a sudden driving 8 hours, missing a week of school/work, and dropping $160 sounds like the best idea i've ever had.
full length trailer will premiere in front of Lady In The Water. It is not attached, but will play with most prints. Darren Aronofsky just sold a movie ticket to a film he has no relation to
Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thefountain/trailer1/)
now THAT is a fucking trailer. that looks AMAZING.
Quote from: modage on July 21, 2006, 05:38:42 PM
now THAT is a fucking trailer. that looks AMAZING.
oh i'm not so sure, i heard it was coming out on the 3rd wednesday of the month, and my numerologist/accountant tell's me that's a bad thing.
i'm torn between what is obviously a brilliant high concept story with a trailer that delivers to whatever preconceived expectations i've created for the film, and i dunno, whatever would make me automatically love one preposterous film and hate another.
no, it looks good.
Quote from: Pubrick on July 21, 2006, 05:56:31 PM
i'm torn between what is obviously a brilliant high concept story with a trailer that delivers to whatever preconceived expectations i've created for the film, and i dunno, whatever would make me automatically love one preposterous film and hate another.
:ponder:
Um... what?
EDIT: Never mind, I just read the "Children of Men" thread.
I started to watch some of the new trailer but then midway through I stopped it. I just don't want to ruin it anymore. I want to try really hard to go into this without seeing anything more of it or even reading any reviews. It already has my money on hold.
looks like some changes may have been made. can't put a finger exactly on it, but some of the trailer was unrecognizable. simply cannot wait to see this... again. shut up you pozer.
Quote from: modage on July 21, 2006, 05:38:42 PM
now THAT is a fucking trailer. that looks AMAZING.
yeah, word to that...i wish ono would say something..he thought i was an idiot when i first came on this board and made a thread about how aronofsky was going to the the next great director...but i think he is lost..i think he may have gotten married, i think he got tired of this board and went to michigan, i think he might be playing halo, i think he turned into a vampire, i think hes out having sex alot b/c he knows alot about that, i think he might be writing a book, or he might have changed his user name
but i cant wait to see this film............
From Pitchfork Media:
QuoteWell I'll be. Mogwai have once again boarded the soundtracking ship, this time with Captain Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream). Makes a little more sense than Miami Vice, doesn't it?
The band contributed to the score for Aronofsky's upcoming film, The Fountain, playing music written by Clint Mansell. No surprise party there. The Kronos Quartet are also on the soundtrack.
I don't really like what I've heard of Mogwai. But I think Mogwai playing music written by Clint Mansell will most likely be very very good.
FUCK! please dont slide out of 2006...
he release date for Daren Aronofsky's THE FOUNTAIN has changed more times than Paris Hilton's changed Greek shipping heirs (well, maybe not that much). The last release date was October 13th and now according to Box Office Mojo, that's recently been changed to November 22nd. Who knows if they'll actually keep this release date and let us actually see the damn movie. Maybe the film is like a unicorn and that's why the release date's been changed so much. It's mythical and awe-inspiring but it cannot be contained by a mere single release date. It must have many release dates over many years to truly do the film justice.
this makes the fantastic fest showing definitely worthwhile.
Quote from: modage on July 26, 2006, 05:51:58 PM
this makes the fantastic fest showing definitely worthwhile.
Yes. Yes it does
oscar positioning...
but is that a good thing?
Quote from: modage on July 26, 2006, 05:51:58 PM
FUCK! please dont slide out of 2006...
better not go into 2007, that would ruin the whole trailer thing with the years.
Quote from: for petes sake on July 28, 2006, 04:51:00 PM
oscar positioning...
but is that a good thing?
i dont think it will make the slightest difference. as i've said before, this will likely be perceived as Solaris was a few years back, which i believe also was released in november.
Back to future: WB changes 'Fountain' date
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Warner Bros. Pictures said Monday that it has moved Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" to Nov. 22, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. The move now pits "Fountain" against Buena Vista's Thanksgiving release, the Tony Scott-directed "Deja Vu."
Both films center on the theme of a man time-traveling in order to save the woman he loves.
Starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz, "Fountain," from Warners and Regency Enterprises, centers on one man's thousand-year struggle to save the woman he loves. "Deja Vu" is the story of an ATF agent who travels back in time to save a woman from being murdered, falling in love with her during the process.
At this point, Buena Vista has no plans to shift its release.
"We are so proud of 'The Fountain,' and opening on the Wednesday prior to Thanksgiving will give more people a chance to see what we think is Darren's finest work," Warners president of domestic distribution at Dan Fellman said.
The film, which will play the 63rd Venice Film Festival in early September, originally was slated to bow Oct. 13.
"The extra month will also allow time to build a bigger long-lead campaign and generate greater word-of-mouth in the weeks leading up to the opening," Fellman added.
Other films set to bow during the holiday weekend include MGM's "Bobby," from director Emilio Estevez; 20th Century Fox's family comedy "Deck the Halls"; and the Universal Pictures comedy "Let's Go to Prison."
While maybe posing a pointless risk on the film, I don't think The Fountain and Deja Vu have too much in common. They're definitely going to play to different audiences. And does Deja Vu have anything to do with the Nintendo game?
Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on August 01, 2006, 03:12:26 PM
And does Deja Vu have anything to do with the Nintendo game?
Nope.
Quote from: MacGuffin on July 31, 2006, 08:52:04 PM
MGM's "Bobby," from director Emilio Estevez;
Director Emilio Estevez?
Quote from: SiliasRuby on August 02, 2006, 01:19:48 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on July 31, 2006, 08:52:04 PM
MGM's "Bobby," from director Emilio Estevez;
Director Emilio Estevez?
With one of the most incredible casts ever assembled (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=7642.msg206884#msg206884), no less.
Unofrtunately what'll probably happen is Deja Vu makes more money because it's an action flick (I'm assuming, being a Tony Scott picture) and then the studios will say "well I guess we should have taken that approach!" Unless The Fountain gets some Oscar nominations, I guess.
The Fountain
Source: Entertainment Weekly
Darren Aronofsky's creative rep is marked by the heady pursuit of pure cinema — mind-spinning image rushes like 1998's pi and 2000's Requiem for a Dream — but the indie icon doesn't see himself as a moviemaker: ''I think of myself as a tapestry maker. I just weave all the things that interest me into a film.'' Around 2000, the things that were intriguing Aronofsky were conquistadors, David Bowie's ''Space Oddity,'' and neuroscience. Together, they inspired The Fountain, a trippy meditation on love and death. What happened next is either the stuff of Hollywood legend or just auteur heartbreak. In 2002, just seven weeks prior to shooting, Brad Pitt bailed on the $72 million production, effectively killing it. Devastated, the director rewrote the script and turned his costly epic into a $35 million non-epic, and soon The Fountain was gushing again, with Hugh Jackman taking over the lead, playing three different characters (or are they?) in three different time periods, each one driven to impossible romantic quests, like finding the fountain of youth.
The shoot was ''raw and exhausting,'' says Jackman, and the love scene with Rachel Weisz, who happens to be the director's fiancée, was very, very awkward. Recalls Jackman: ''I remember Darren telling me that we were only going to kiss. So we started kissing. Rachel takes off my shirt. Still kissing. And then I hear Darren: 'Take off his pants! Take off his pants!' I started laughing and said, 'Sorry, Darren, this is getting too kinky.'''
QuoteSo we started kissing. Rachel takes off my shirt. Still kissing. And then I hear Darren: 'Take off his pants! Take off his pants!'
ooo that's hot.
id take off his pantswinks and all that
it's in the Vancouver Film Festival.
Quote from: picolas on September 02, 2006, 07:50:29 PM
it's in the Vancouver Film Festival.
It is? Do you have schedule or something? The only big name I heard going into VIFF was "Volver", and that I'm not even sure of.
If it is, I am soooo there.
Quote from: OrHowILearnedTo on September 03, 2006, 02:05:23 AM
It is? Do you have schedule or something? The only big name I heard going into VIFF was "Volver", and that I'm not even sure of.
If it is, I am soooo there.
use the internet (http://www.viff.org/home.html).
dude vancouver is a happenin city, which is why it made no sense when you said you miss out on things cos of where you live.
What the fuck is the internet?
Technically I don't live IN Vancouver(used to), rather a suburb, and with no car and with friends who won't do anything for movies except for famous players, It's hard for me to make it to things like the VIFF, not to mention my amazing ability to create run on sentences.
Now that the Cinema Paciificthique has finnally decided to show classic and foreign films I can now get a more international flavour which I couldn't before.
And the whole thing about not geting a variety of films is mainly about DVDs. I have only seen one place (an HMV :saywhat:) that sells criterions and whatnot. I will definately be attending the VIFF this year though.
BTW that link has no info on a schedule of what films are playing...unless my damn eyes are decieving me AGAIN!
Quote from: OrHowILearnedTo on September 03, 2006, 03:09:25 AM
And the whole thing about not geting a variety of films is mainly about DVDs. I have only seen one place (an HMV :saywhat:) that sells criterions and whatnot.
Future Shop sells criterions.
Quote from: picolas on September 03, 2006, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: OrHowILearnedTo on September 03, 2006, 03:09:25 AM
And the whole thing about not geting a variety of films is mainly about DVDs. I have only seen one place (an HMV :saywhat:) that sells criterions and whatnot.
Future Shop sells criterions.
Yea, exactly the store in Vancouver where I bought The Leopard. Seems like forever ago...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/film/jackmans-scifi-film-gets-a-cool-response/2006/09/04/1157222072099.html
Jackman's sci-fi film gets a cool response
Garry Maddox
September 5, 2006
HUGH JACKMAN'S new science fiction film, The Fountain, has divided viewers at the Venice Film Festival.
The first screening, a late-night session for the media, brought a smattering of boos and responding applause at a festival where audiences are known for making their opinions felt.
Jackman plays a scientist trying to find a cure for the cancer that is killing his wife, played by Rachel Weisz, who won an Oscar this year for The Constant Gardener.
But a time-travel element to the film was more enigmatic. Jackman's character, Tomas, is at times a Spanish conquistador searching for the Tree of Life in 16th-century Mayan culture. At other times he is a shaven-headed monk-cum-astronaut travelling to a distant nebula in the 26th century. Weisz also plays the Queen of Spain.
The director, Darren Aronofsky, who has previously directed f and Requiem for a Dream, has said The Fountain is about love and coping with mortality during three vastly different time periods.
"The desire to live forever is deep in our culture. Every day people are looking for ways to extend life or feel younger," Aronofsky said.
The film was originally have been shot in Australia with Brad Pitt in the lead role and Cate Blanchett in the Weisz role, but the plan collapsed.
Aronofsky reputedly scaled back the budget to get it made and cast Jackman after seeing him on stage as Peter Allen in The Boy from Oz.
Jackman has joked that after reading the script for The Fountain he slept outside Aronofsky's door until the director gave him the job.
"The story presents a modern myth," he said.
Partners Weisz, Aronofsky brave film collaboration
Film collaborations between real-life partners are not always happy affairs, but Rachel Weisz and Darren Aronofsky say it is 'so far, so good' after making "The Fountain" together.
Weisz, who won an Oscar for her role in "The Constant Gardener," plays Izzi in her fiance's new film about a man in three different eras seeking to save the one he loves.
Australian Hugh Jackman plays the lead in a fantasy film about love and coming to terms with loss and death.
"I'd be honored if she'd work with me again," U.S. film maker Aronofsky told a news conference on Monday, when asked if the fact that he was engaged to the female lead might work against him.
"Who knows? I've got to call her agent and see if we can get a deal," he joked.
Director and actor Peter Bogdanovich had an unhappy career slump when he cast his then partner Cybill Shepherd in films like the 1975 flop "At Long Last Love."
Director Guy Ritchie was widely derided for film projects starring his wife Madonna, particularly "Swept Away" in 2002.
INTIMATE SCENE
Asked about his reaction to filming an intimate scene between Weisz and Jackman, Aronofsky replied:
"I'm a pervert, so I had no issue with it. I enjoy shooting sex scenes very much. She's an actress, he's an actor ... when you call 'cut', it's over."
Briton Weisz, who has a young son with Aronofsky, added: "Actually, Darren was shouting to me: 'Take his trousers off!"' during a scene in which a clothed Jackman gets into the bath with her.
Aronofsky has little experience to date of bad reviews, with his 1998 movie "Pi" and 2000 follow-up "Requiem for a Dream" widely praised. The Fountain is his first film since then.
Critics' reaction to his latest movie, however, could be more mixed after the film was booed by some in the audience during a press screening in Venice, where it is one of 21 films in the main festival competition.
The project was delayed for several years after Brad Pitt, originally cast in the leading role, pulled out, according to Hollywood trade publications.
Aronofsky used unusual filming techniques to conjure up a clear "bubble" craft drifting through space in the futuristic storyline set in the 26th century.
Rather than using only computer-generated images, his visual effects team enlisted a photographer who shoots photographs of tiny chemical reactions on a laboratory Petri dish.
"We didn't want anything to be from the inside of a computer," Aronofsky said, adding that science fiction movies had become "super-dependent" on special effects. "You don't know if you're watching a cartoon or live action."
The Fountain is due for release in November in the United States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from Premiere Magazine:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.premiere.com%2Fassets%2Fimage%2F2006%2FQ3%2F882006125556.jpg&hash=bd9e1544228ab5305ac2f590300c050850ff098e)
Premiere: In the most futuristic scenes in The Fountain, you're floating in a biosphere bubble in deep space, talking to a tree, and your head is completely shaved. What was that like?
Hugh Jackman: I used to be called Pea Head at school. The moment I saw myself, I started laughing hysterically. All I could see were my mates going, "Pea Head! Pea Head!" I'd always dreamed of shaving it, because I love swimming, and with my head shaved, it was the most exquisite feeling.
No pangs of vanity?
Never. I like experimenting. I also had to shave my legs, chest, and arms. After the first couple of days, it became a real pain: wrists, underarms, everything.
But we hardly see your skin.
I know, but we weren't sure when we might, so I had to be ready.
How did your son like you bald?
He was pretty freaked out. I told him beforehand, "If you want, you can cut your hair off with me." He thought that was a great idea—until he saw me. Now he's obsessed with growing his hair long and never having it cut.
And shaving your head was minor compared with other things you did in that film—I think you played every possible emotion.
I haven't before, and I doubt I'll ever again, have an opportunity to do so many different things in one movie. Just to give you an example of Darren's commitment, the whole year I was on Broadway, we would meet once or twice a week. He would come with me to do research, he would send me books, I was doing tai chi, yoga. I had to do the lotus position in a scene; it took me about 14 months to get there.
What part of the research interested you most?
I watched surgeons remove a brain tumor from a woman. They told me she was going to die anyway, they were just trying to extend her life. What I didn't realize is they'd have her awake. They had her doing these video games the whole time, so they could make choices as to when to stop cutting out the tumor. The moment I met her—she had blond hair just like my wife—my blood literally went cold. All I could think of was my wife on that table. As much as I'd read the script and theorized and practiced philosophy, I knew in that moment that I was so not ready for death. It was probably the most scared I'd ever been. I remember going all cold. I couldn't look at her for a while. Then they started operating, and I cut my vision to just the brain so it became more clinical. But it certainly moved me, made me appreciate what I have in my life so much more.
What was the hardest scene to film?
The scene in space where my character finally admits, "I'm scared." I had to break down. We started first thing in the morning, and right up till lunchtime, I was just crying. Darren would stop shooting, and I couldn't stop crying. It was late in the film; I was already exhausted, almost broken. When he called, "Lunch," I thought, "Thank God." I didn't even know if I could walk to my trailer. I literally lay down on the floor, couldn't eat. At the end of lunch, Darren said, "Okay, mate, we're picking up where we left off." I almost threw up. [laughs] The first take after lunch is the one that's in the movie. What Darren wanted was, here is a conquistador, a guy who will fight and fight no matter what the odds, and here's the one point he admits, "I don't know if I can do it." Darren needed to see in my face that utter exhaustion. Well, there was no acting required. There are moments in this movie that I'm uncomfortable watching myself.
Why?
I felt emotionally as naked as I ever have been, and it happens to be on film. But I've got to tell you, I loved it. I couldn't have done any more, I don't think. And Darren was there every step of the way—not at a monitor, right by the camera.
He doesn't watch through a monitor?
Well, he does in terms of setting up the camera. God, talk about finicky. Every shot is a piece of art. He's obsessed with symmetry. I think a couple of times Matthew Libatique, the DP, wanted to head-butt Darren. We were shooting one scene in a doctor's office, and Darren kept saying, "It's wrong, it's wrong." It turned out that one of the X-ray screens was 1.5 percent off being level. No one else could see it. But Darren would not have been able to look at that in dailies, let alone in the movie. He would have dropped the shot. So he would watch things in the monitor, but when it came to the meat of the story, he was always right there.
Was that awkward during your love scenes with his girlfriend?
When Rachel and I were making out in the bath, she was naked, and Darren was sitting on an apple box next to the camera, four feet away from us. The scene as written just said we kiss, she pulls me into the bath, and it's clear we're about to make love. So she pulls me in, and we're kissing, kissing, Darren's right there, we're kissing, kissing. Eventually Rachel took off my shirt, we're kissing some more, I'm on top of her. Finally I hear Darren going, "Take his pants off!" [laughs] So no, it was never a worry for me. Darren was at pains to make me know that the film would come first; he would never make me feel like the third wheel, and I never did.
The movie is so romantic, it's almost like he wrote it to call her to him.
To me, it's a love story. She looks so beautiful in that film. I think she's extraordinary, so fantastic and vulnerable. And how she conveys that sense of accepting her death. That's a very difficult thing to play. None of us have really had to face it. It's so affecting. It goes back to that original quote in the movie about Adam and Eve being expelled from the garden because they ate from the tree of knowledge, and God hiding the tree of life. The tree of knowledge is also known as the tree of good and evil. Basically, duality. So the moment Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge, or good and evil, humans started to experience life as we all experience it now, which is life and death, poor and wealthy, pain and pleasure, good and evil. We live in a world of duality. Husband, wife, we relate everything. And much of our lives are spent not wanting to die, be poor, experience pain. It's what the movie's about.
I think the message of that Bible quote is that there is a place . . . the garden of Eden is available to everybody now, and it's a place beyond duality. Where you can recognize that there is an essential truth to life that exists beyond good/evil. And that is knowledge and God. I think occasionally all of us experience that. It may happen on a Tuesday afternoon, when all of a sudden everything feels fine, for no particular reason. Nothing's really happened, but you feel a sense of bliss.
I studied philosophy myself. Before the myth of the Garden of Eden and eating the fruit, the moment you take a bite of that apple, and you choose to live life in duality, where God is separate from you, the journey we have in life is to get back to that unity, rather than duality. So what Rachel's character realizes in the end, [is] that in a way there is no death, in the same way there is no birth—we exist for all time. Always. So she's not afraid of it, nor is she denying it. In that way, the love story exists beyond time.
True love is not actually bound by our bodies or the length of time we're alive. Love exists always. The gift of falling in love, we recognize the truth: We're all unified. It happens to us rarely in life, but it probably most often happens when we fall in love. Or when you have a child. They can cling all over you, and you're amazingly in love.
Quote from: Astrostic on September 04, 2006, 10:17:18 AM
Jackman's sci-fi film gets a cool response
Quote from: Astrostic on September 04, 2006, 10:17:18 AM
"The desire to live forever is deep in our culture. Every day people are looking for ways to extend life or feel younger," Aronofsky said.
I'm not surprised. The more I read about this film the more I am scaling back my expectations. If this is Arnofsky's greater idea than the film could be a major dissapointment.
let me spoil the mystery. you wont like it.
'I knew we were going to get attacked ... '
When Brad Pitt pulled out, Darren Aronofsky's new film looked doomed. This week it was booed at Venice. But the director and his partner Rachel Weisz tell Geoffrey Macnab why they're still smiling
Source: The Guardian
Late afternoon in an upstairs ballroom in the Excelsior Hotel in Venice, and Darren Aronofsky is talking about his new film, The Fountain. Two days on from its world premiere, the film has already divided audiences: at the press screening, it was booed; at its public screening the following evening, the film was given a 10-minute-long standing ovation.
Aronofsky doesn't appear surprised by the mixed reception. A thin, bespectacled figure in a striped shirt, he is in a wry, philosophical mood, pointing out that his first two features, Pi and Requiem for a Dream, experienced similarly rocky births.
"Requiem got slaughtered by the press," Aronofsky cheerily recalls. "We had a 30-minute standing ovation in Cannes and the next day Variety said I should go into therapy instead of making movies. The New York Times trashed Pi. I am totally used to it."
It's not hard to see why The Fountain has proved so contentious. A hugely ambitious story about love and death, it defies easy categorisation. At its simplest, it is a melodrama about a scientist (Hugh Jackman) who can't come to terms with the fact that his wife (played by Aronofsky's partner, Rachel Weisz) is dying of cancer. So far, so straightforward, but this is also an action movie and a sci-fi film. The narrative opens with Jackman as a hirsute, bloodthirsty 16th-century Spanish conquistador in Central America, trying to find the tree of life. With a manic glee in his eye reminiscent of Klaus Kinski in Werner Herzog's Aguirre, the Wrath of God, he fights the natives and attempts to kill a Mayan witch-doctor who tells him "death is the road to awe".
On top of this, the subplot about the conquistador searching for the tree of life to save his queen is taken from a novel that Isabel (Weisz's character) is writing on her deathbed. And then there are futuristic sequences in which we see Jackman as a bald, 26th-century astronaut, looking more like Buddha than Buzz Aldrin, still trying to bring his beloved back to life.
Visually, the film is extraordinarily rich and just a touch eccentric. There are sequences showing the galaxy that rekindle memories of old Carl Sagan documentaries about the mysteries of the cosmos. Aronofsky's futuristic world, filmed without recourse to CGI, also has a freshness that carries echoes of old Georges Melies silent cartoons from the dawn of cinema.
Aronofsky doesn't apologise for the film's complexity. "I think it is a really simple story." As in the sci-fi novels that he loves, the plot simply takes some time to come into focus. "A man and a woman are in love and the woman has this tragic problem - she is going to die. The man is your typical man and he tries to fix it [her condition]. She gives him this incredible gift - she writes him a book which is a metaphor for what is going on in their life."
The Fountain has been in gestation for a small eternity. It is seven years since Requiem for a Dream, the director's last feature. Brad Pitt, Aronofsky explains, is to blame. In 2002, The Fountain was weeks away from shooting in Australia, with Pitt starring. "We started working on The Fountain in 1999. We had spent $18m - and then the lead actor quit."
Even today, the film-maker can't quite explain why Pitt withdrew. "It is like breaking up. If you break up with someone after two and a half years preparation, it is hard to say if it was one thing. It wasn't like he left the toothpaste cap off the toothpaste."
But Pitt and Aronofsky remain friends. "The only reason the film was happening was because of Brad. I think creatively we grew apart. By the time it was ready to go, he wasn't ready to go - and so it fell apart."
The Russian-American film-maker from Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, made his debut feature Pi for $60,000 and still can't quite get his head around the fact that $18m was spent on the aborted first version of The Fountain. For seven months afterwards, he tried to muster enthusiasm for other projects, but couldn't get the film out of his system.
"One night I couldn't sleep. I was sitting in my office and across from me were all the books I had read for The Fountain. I realised that the film was still in my blood."
Aronofsky began to reconceive the project as a low-budget feature - something he could do without studio interference. In time- honoured fashion, the potential financiers balked at backing such an unconventional project. "Pretty much everyone in the world said no to this film several times." In the end, with Jackman and Weisz aboard, the film did attract studio backing. It was made for $30m. Aronofsky and his crew prepared just as diligently second time around. Weisz spent several weeks at cancer hospices, observing how the terminally ill are prepared for death.
The director has little patience with the American way of dying. "We spend a fortune keeping people alive who shouldn't be alive and we don't allow death in any way into the hospital setting," he says. "At 93, my grandma had a heart attack and we brought her to a hospital. They tried to bring her back three times. They broke her ribs. There is something wrong about that."
Aronofsky reveals that he began to fret about his own mortality when he reached his early 30s. At the time, his parents had become ill. "That freaked me out - to have people that you really love start to deal with big issues. I started to think about what it would mean to lose someone."
On one level, The Fountain is Aronofsky's love letter to Weisz. The first time we see her, she is shown in a huge, lambent close-up. She is constantly portrayed wearing white, as if she is some kind of Madonna-figure. "We had an intimacy that we were able to translate into work as well," he says. Weisz, who has arrived in Venice fresh from filming with Wong Kar-Wai, tells me that "who we are when we work is very different to who we are around the house". Of the curse of couples who work together, she says: "There are success stories and people who end up splitting up - but we did OK."
Aronofsky is a cerebral film-maker who throws himself into each new project as if it were his latest college course. As he puts it, Pi gave him the chance to steep himself in "math and the kabbalah". Requiem for a Dream taught him everything he ever wanted to know about drug addiction. Now, thanks to The Fountain, he is an expert on Mayan culture.
Yes, Aronofsky acknowledges, some audiences might find The Fountain outlandish. "I know we're going to get attacked by some cynics, but it is time for some sincerity and just to talk about the things that make us human."
One of the paradoxes about The Fountain is that Tom (Jackman) is so busy trying to save his wife's life that he doesn't actually have time to pay her any attention. When she asks him to come outside to see the first snow, he is too preoccupied with his work that he refuses, little realising that they won't enjoy many such other moments together. Weisz says: "For me, that is what the movie is about - the moments in life we can do something that is very simple and what can be more simple than taking a walk in the snow with someone we love? I think on our deathbeds, we're not going to regret that we didn't work more. We're just going to regret that we didn't spend more time with the people we love."
This isn't a mistake that Aronofsky seems in danger of repeating. Not so long ago, he was offered the chance to direct an episode of Lost. He was keen to take the job but he put the work on hold. At the time, Weisz was nearing the end of her pregnancy (the couple now have a three-month-old son, Henry Chance) and she made it very clear where his priorities should lie. "I didn't know what it would be like being away from a seven-month pregnant woman, but I learned quickly."
Quote from: modage on September 06, 2006, 07:15:33 PM
let me spoil the mystery. you wont like it.
so, SO true!
Did Requiem really get even close to a 30-minute standing ovation at Cannes? That sounds like it should have come from Brett Ratner's mouth about The Family Man or something.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fffmedia.ign.com%2Ffilmforce%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F731%2F731706%2Fthe-fountain-20060908112213157.jpg&hash=603d1e263bde320c57dd31029ef793d0055969a7)
Sweet whistling Jesus, that's awesome.
i just got a ahold of a poster with that beautiful image above.
¿Dónde usted lo encontró?
friend at the double u b.
i won't mention the invite to the screening on the lot.
Fountain Wins Sloane Award
Source: SciFi Wire
Darren Aronofsky's controversial SF epic The Fountain will receive the $25,000 Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Award, to be presented at the Hamptons International Film Festival, which takes place Oct. 18-22 on Long Island, New York.
The cash prize is awarded to a feature-length film that explores science and technology themes in fresh, innovative ways and depicts scientists and engineers in a realistic and compelling fashion.
The Fountain tells the tale of a man's efforts to save the woman he loves over the course of 1,500 years. It stars Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz and Ellen Burstyn and was written and directed by Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream). The film garnered raves in its preview screening at Comic-Con International in San Diego in July, but has been blasted by critics at film festivals in Venice and Toronto.
"Although its themes and characters sprawl over 1,000 years, from the 16th to the 26th centuries, and invoke myth and fantasy as well as science, Darren Aronofsky's powerful central story is about a contemporary scientist who tries to save his beloved wife from cancer through scientific research and experimentation," the Sloan foundation said in a statement. "In accurately depicting the enormous potential—and very real limits—of modern scientific efforts to cure disease and extend human life, this beautiful symphony on what it means to lose someone you love pushes the frontiers of time and space to reveal that humanity and mortality may be inextricable, and only art, for now, can bestow immortality."
The Hamptons/Sloan feature-film prize comes from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's program in public understanding of science, which also includes the Sundance and Tribeca film festivals, to form part of a broader effort to stimulate leading artists in film, television and theater to create more credible works about science and technology.
any way to find out past films that won this? it seems like a pretty insignificant award, what was the competition for it, maybe Children of Men? what other science fiction came out this year? Does aronofsky even get the money, or would it go to the producers? not that 25K will get you anywhere in Hollywood anyway. But I guess it's good to hear something positive about the film, sense lately everything has been pretty much a downer.
Quote from: Astrostic on September 25, 2006, 06:55:03 PM
any way to find out past films that won this?
what was the competition for it, maybe Children of Men?
what other science fiction came out this year?
Does aronofsky even get the money, or would it go to the producers?
here's all you wanna know about the foundation itself (http://www.sloan.org/main.shtml)
wikipedia has an entry on the award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Prize) but only lists winners from the Sundance Film Festival.
Sci-Fi Wire is pretty slack to misspell Sloan in the headline.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Aronofsky-And-Weisz-Explain-The-Fountain-3394.html
if he had pulled off his face and christian bale was hiding underneath i wouldn't have been shocked in any way.
The Fountain will be playing the CMJ Film Festival this year along with Borat, Tenacious D in The Pick Of Destiny and other films. And unlike previous years you can actually purchase a pass to JUST the film festival portion and not the entire music/film fest. http://prod1.cmj.com/marathon/film.php
I keep wondering why they put this out in every single film festival possible. It seems like all of the people who really want to see it will seek out these advance screenings and then there won't be anybody left to see it on Nov. 22 and then it will get poor Box Office. It's good that they're trying to build word of mouth, but that isn't working as almost all of the word of mouth that I have heard is terrible.
'Fountain,' 'Empire' set for AFI
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" and David Lynch's "Inland Empire" will be featured as Centerpiece Galas at AFI Fest 2006. In addition, the fest said Tuesday, it will present "An Evening With Ed Zwick," with the director showing footage from his upcoming film, "Blood Diamond."
AFI Fest, which opens with Emilio Estevez's "Bobby," runs Nov. 1-12 at the ArcLight Cinemas in Hollywood. "Inland Empire," starring Laura Dern in a dual role, will screen Nov. 3. "Fountain," a time-travel love story, will screen Nov. 11 at Hollywood's Grauman's Chinese Theatre. As previously announced, Pedro Almodovar's "Volver" also will receive a gala screening Nov. 2. Zwick will speak about his career Nov. 8.
i was very, very disappointed.
i heard requiem got 23 rewrites before the final draft and i think this needed another 15 or so. i cannot believe Aronofsky wrote this. from the first scene where the guy goes "I will not die!" as he runs towards a bunch of mayans that will probably kill him, the dialogue is bad. there's no reason to care about anything. visually it's orgasmic, but the horrible writing messes everything up. i was actually bored for a stretch of it. all the performances weren't good in any way. no one was likable. the sound was good. there were some ideas that were interesting on their own. the score was nice. i feel bad in my stomach right now.
for some reason it got applause at the end. so MAYBE everyone else will like it.
I'm not going to say anything not yet
Quote from: picolas on October 12, 2006, 02:15:54 AM
for some reason it got applause at the end. so MAYBE everyone else will like it.
it got an applause at the end when i saw it as well, but that does not mean everyone else will like it.
i on the other hand loved it and feel pretty much the exact opposite of everyone of your negative comments. "i will not die" mixed with that awesome first piece of music was perfect. how was the writing 'horrible?' even if you weren't satisfied, how could you say it was horrible? performances were good in every way, and the 'orgasmic' visuals/sound/music/likeable characters made me care about everything.
Quote from: MacGuffin on October 03, 2006, 11:43:09 PM
'Fountain,' 'Empire' set for AFI
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" and David Lynch's "Inland Empire" will be featured as Centerpiece Galas at AFI Fest 2006. In addition, the fest said Tuesday, it will present "An Evening With Ed Zwick," with the director showing footage from his upcoming film, "Blood Diamond."
AFI Fest, which opens with Emilio Estevez's "Bobby," runs Nov. 1-12 at the ArcLight Cinemas in Hollywood. "Inland Empire," starring Laura Dern in a dual role, will screen Nov. 3. "Fountain," a time-travel love story, will screen Nov. 11 at Hollywood's Grauman's Chinese Theatre. As previously announced, Pedro Almodovar's "Volver" also will receive a gala screening Nov. 2. Zwick will speak about his career Nov. 8.
http://www.afi.com/onscreen/afifest/2006/tickets.aspx
Quote from: pozer on October 12, 2006, 12:22:22 PM
Quote from: picolas on October 12, 2006, 02:15:54 AM
for some reason it got applause at the end. so MAYBE everyone else will like it.
it got an applause at the end when i saw it as well, but that does not mean everyone else will like it.
why not?
Quote from: pozer on October 12, 2006, 12:22:22 PMi on the other hand loved it and feel pretty much the exact opposite of everyone of your negative comments.
Quote from: pozer on October 12, 2006, 12:22:22 PM"i will not die" mixed with that awesome first piece of music was perfect.
i thought it was a little star wars prequely/characters saying obvious things to incite some kind of drama that's already there/there was no reason to say it. there were also a lot of times Pubrick won't like where the character says the same thing twice but in a different way like "I'm sorry. I am."
Quote from: pozer on October 12, 2006, 12:22:22 PMhow was the writing 'horrible?'
it was robotic, intentionally vague in a way that didn't work, and not very specific or meaningful most of the time. how was it good?
Quote from: pozer on October 12, 2006, 12:22:22 PMperformances were good in every way,
the only good thing is how Hugh Jackman goes "NOOOOO!" but only because it reminded me of the "NOOOO!" in X2.
Quote from: pozer on October 12, 2006, 12:22:22 PMand the 'orgasmic' visuals/sound/music/likeable characters made me care about everything.
how were the characters likable?
Aronofsky's "Fountain" had slow flow to screen
Source: Hollywood Reporter
The long and winding road that Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" took on the way to the big screen, where it opens November 22, reveals the challenge an independent filmmaker faces when he encounters a big studio's moviemaking process.
The studio mind-set usually involves throwing big dollars at movies to wow audiences into coming to theaters. Smaller, more intimate pictures are tougher to pull off commercially. But more and more these days, having learned the hard way that throwing money at formula genre fare doesn't necessarily connect with moviegoers anymore, production executives are taking more chances on risky material, while trying to keep costs down.
This fall, several studios are releasing daring, modestly budgeted (by their standards, at least) pictures directed by one-time independent filmmakers, including Sony Pictures' $40 million "Marie Antoinette," directed by Sofia Coppola, and Aronofsky's $30 million Warner Bros. project.
While neither film carried any guarantee of commercial success when it first was proposed because the studios wanted to be in business with the filmmaker, they took a bet that they would come out ahead in the long run. In Warners' case, betting on indie filmmakers has worked in the past, from Christopher Nolan ("Insomnia" and "Batman Begins") to David O. Russell ("Three Kings") to Steven Soderbergh, who not only directs the "Ocean's" series but delivers more daring films such as the upcoming "The Good German" or last year's Oscar-winning "Syriana," which he executive produced.
In the case of "Fountain," the studio's own thinking about the project morphed over time.
The film has long been the obsession of the 37-year-old Aronofsky, who burst onto the indie scene at 1998's Sundance Film Festival with the $60,000, brainy, black-and-white "Pi" and went on to earn raves for 2000's hard-boiled $4 million drug saga "Requiem for a Dream," starring Ellen Burstyn, Jared Leto and Jennifer Connelly. The Oscar-nominated "Requiem" was so shocking and brutal (including a close-up of an infected needle hole in Leto's arm) that Artisan Entertainment released it unrated after the MPAA deemed it worthy of an NC-17 rating.
Since then, Aronofsky has lived night and day with "Fountain," once titled "The Last Man" and has refused to let it go. After seeing "Requiem" when he was production president at Warners, Lorenzo Di Bonaventura lured Aronofsky to the studio and at one point offered him the chance to take on the new installment of "Batman" that eventually went to Nolan. Aronofsky balked, wondering if he knew "how to connect with an audience in a larger way," he said at the time.
The pressures on a young filmmaker after delivering two indie winners can be immense. Especially for a writer who also is a director, it is difficult to move into a studio mind-set and still balance intensity and purity in a form that is commercial. Sometimes, though not often, studios will let indie filmmakers who fight for their integrity hang on to what made them successful in the first place. Aronofsky found that he couldn't give up his ambitious pet project about life, death, reincarnation and a fountain of youth set in three time periods: the present, the 16th century and the future.
Initially, Warners' super-deluxe, big-budget version of the movie was going to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett (who eventually reteamed on "Babel") and feature scores of extras and special effects. "We had huge, exciting battle scenes on the vertical steps of a Mayan pyramid," Aronofsky recalls. "This was after 'Gladiator' and 'Braveheart' and before 'King Arthur' and 'Lord of the Rings."'
Warners originally budgeted "Fountain" at $90 million. The movie was in preproduction in Australia when snafus on location involving the switch-over from one line producer to another resulted in a speed bump as the film attempted to move forward. The change, Aronofsky says, "created a window of doubt for Brad. We had gotten to a place where creatively we had grown apart. We had conversations about why things were not like this or that. The pressures of the budget and the actors, trying to find the balance, you can get lost in there."
When Pitt called Aronofsky in Australia to bail out, the studio pulled the plug -- even though $18 million was already invested. (Pitt went on to make the studio's "Troy" instead.) That same week, Di Bonaventura, the project's champion, left the studio, and finding another marquee draw like Pitt willing to take a chance on such a big-budget risk just didn't happen. "Slowly, it died," Aronofsky says.
The director tried to get interested in other things. But he decided he just didn't want to write something else for either a studio or movie stars when he could write something for himself. "I couldn't get it out of my blood," he says. One sleepless night he had an epiphany. If he had directed "Pi" and "Requiem" on a dime and a prayer, why not do the same with "Fountain?" "What is the no-budget version of this film?" he asked himself.
So he went through the entire script, erasing dollars as he went. He reduced the epic battle scene down to one man fighting against an onslaught of soldiers. "I attacked the most expensive scenes and tried to find their essence," he says. When he showed the revision to new Warners production president Jeff Robinov, the executive decided to give the movie a whirl -- at $35 million, less than half its original cost.
At a lower budget threshold, the movie was able to proceed with Hugh Jackman, who insisted that they meet with an actress Aronofsky had resisted considering -- the director's own fiancee, Rachel Weisz. The chemistry between the stars was palpable. So Weisz took the dual role of the young scientist's wife who is dying of cancer and who writes a parable about a young conquistador searching for the fountain of youth for the queen of Spain. "Her book is a metaphor for their relationship, about going against all odds to conquer death," the director says. "It's a simple story about a woman and man in love coming to terms with tragedy. The man is trying to fix things and make them better and continues to fight into the future."
Trying to make "Fountain" for $35 million meant approaching it like an indie production -- and shooting it in Montreal. Every detail that Aronofsky put onscreen was precious. Instead of investing in many luxurious digital effects, the director used as many live elements as possible, actually building his gigantic Tree of Life and using photography of photo chemical reactions and microorganisms for his outer space shots. "We were not wasting money in a stupid way," he says.
Early reactions to "Fountain" range from raves (Glenn Kenny of Premiere writes that the movie "may well restore your faith in the idea that a movie can take you out of the mundane and into a place of wonderment") to outright dismissal (it elicited boos at the Venice Film Festival). But whether it bombs at the box office or becomes a cult classic like "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Fountain" is the kind of modest bet that the studios can afford to keep making.
will people just quit booing at festivals already? jeezus christ.
Quote from: modage on October 20, 2006, 08:16:11 AM
will people just quit booing at festivals already? jeezus christ.
Seriously, if you've ever booed at a film at a festival, you are a fucking dick.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~superb/sneaks.htm
i'm not sure if you have to be a student to go to this, but I transferred to school in philadelphia so it's of no consequence to me either way, but someone in the bay should definitely try to go to this.
Quote from: elpablo on October 24, 2006, 01:29:00 PM
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~superb/sneaks.htm
i'm not sure if you have to be a student to go to this, but transferred to school in philadelphia so it's of no consequence to me either way, btu someone in the bay should definitely try to go to this.
GAHHH FUCK. I'm geeking out. I'm gonna see if I can go to this. You don't have to be a student there, but you do have to pick the tickets up there. I'm going to try to see if my friend there can pick tickets up for me.
EDIT: I'm going to this you dirty motherfuckers. Thanks for the info, elpablo!
pick one up for me too!
Ahem. Well, I'm not going to go into too much detail yet, but I'll say that I, for one, was disappointed in the film.
There were very beautiful ideas behind the bad dialogue and boring characters. A lot of the execution was as good as hoped for, with very beautiful images on the screen, but a lot was also poorly executed. A lot of it is out there, and a lot of it is very tired and cliched. It's such an odd mix of things, which makes it all the more bizarre.
But I also liked how bizarre and contained it was. It's a singular film without having much actual original content.
I DO think that a second viewing would play better, but it wouldn't change my reservations. It's the singularity of it that makes me up the grade to a B. It is definitely not your average film (despite the massive amount of dialogue and situations, and even shots, that I've seen too many times before to respond to anymore), and people should see it. Special, but not really that good. And Ellen Burstyn is completely useless in this movie.
It hurts to be so harsh on this movie, since a lot of heart and energy clearly went into the film, and there were even some brilliant moments... but I just can't flat out call it good. I never felt like I didn't get it (and it doesn't go very deep or confusing, anyway), so it's not really hard to watch in that sense. If I had to pin down the major problem (beyond the bad dialogue), it's that the whole movie rides on a love story that is no more developed than the one in Pearl Harbor. Wiesz is an idealized, dying woman with no real personality or anything to do beyond being brave in the face of death, conveying the Mayan ideas that drive the film, and writing a book that's actually pretty lousy. She is, of course, sad that her handsome doctor husband does not pay enough attention to her because he's obsessed with figuring out the cure to her brain tumor. This part is generally not handled any better than a TV movie. The past is no more interesting than... I don't know, The 13th Warrior, where Hugh Jackman also has no personality. The future is interesting, but mostly only on a visual level. I like the way the music was used to link everything together, and, as with Aronosfky's other movies, there's a big focus on sound design and the repetition of words/images/moments to create a motif that runs throughout the film. (sigh) But that script...
Very many people seemed to love it, though, so there you have it. I'll give more specific examples (and therefore a more coherent review) when it opens.
But Darren Aronofsky was very nice, smart, funny. The Q&A was lousy due to a TERRIBLE moderator (his first question: "So, what is the essence of this piece?") and generally lame questions from the audience that, bless him, Darren tried to respond to in earnest. I got my Pi and Requiem for a Dream DVDs signed, as well as the Fountain poster that they gave out to everyone. He seemed to enjoy interacting with everyone and hung out for a while. It was a very cool night, despite the negative things I've said.
Quote from: matt35mm on November 01, 2006, 12:23:04 AM
And Ellen Burstyn is completely useless in this movie.
Is that even possible?
Quote from: othersparrow on November 01, 2006, 08:10:41 AM
Quote from: matt35mm on November 01, 2006, 12:23:04 AM
And Ellen Burstyn is completely useless in this movie.
Is that even possible?
There's just nothing for her to do, and she therefore does nothing.
Quote from: matt35mm on November 01, 2006, 11:32:20 AM
There's just nothing for her to do, and she therefore does nothing.
that's interesting cos in a Q&A pozer linked on the last page, she said she has told aronofsky to put her in his movies even if there's nothing for her to do.
she musta been anticipating the reviews.
yeah the movie had some of the worst expository scenes, it was like they weren't even trying (but they were--since the actors were all shedding tears!) and a lot of it were just flat-out descriptions of the plot summary, trying to pass off as acting.
however, I thought what the filmmakers hedged their bets on--the tree and the space and the fountain, worked beautifully. It was a tragedy to mix that with Hugh Jackman in a lotus position (and near the beginning there was a silhoutte of a man doing tai chi amidst the stars) in his bald head and his new age garb. However, I must admit, the tree and the stars were awe inspiring, I was really into those two things, and I think the storytelling, as bad as it was, was at least competent enough to make me appreciate the tree and the stars beyond mere pretty pictures, they were doing something.
If you don't watch this on the big screen, ie. if you don't think it's worth 10 bucks to sit through a lot of bad melodrama, then you shouldn't bother at all.
oh quit bringin' everybody's anticipation down.
Quote from: vee_starzz on October 24, 2006, 09:44:35 PM
Coming Monday there is going to be a special preview of The Foutnain at Berkeley with a Q&A session right after with Darren Aronofsky! :bravo:
Unfortunatley, I think you have to have a student id to get the free tickets. But, if my camera stops going berserk on me i'll try and record the session and let you guys know how it went down.
If you or anyone else who attended could let us xixaxers know how the Q&A was, we'd appreciate it.
yeah, this is crushing my soul to hear this news. well if anyone can still bear to look aronofsky in the face in 2 weeks...
ATTN: NYC
indieWIRE continues its monthly series with Apple Store - SoHo that presents indie film professionals discussing various aspects of the filmmaking process.
WHEN: Monday November 13th, 7:00pm - 8:30pm
WHERE: Apple Store - SoHo, 103 Prince Street, NYC
COST: Free, No RSVP required. Seats are first come, first serve.
Filmmaker Darren Aronofsky ("Requiem for a Dream") will discuss his upcoming film, "The Fountain," which is "an odyssey about one man's thousand-year struggle to save the woman he loves. As a 16th century Conquistador, a modern-day scientist, and a 26th century astronaut, he searches for the secret to eternal life." Starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz, "The Fountain" is being released by Warner Brothers November 22. The event will be moderated by indieWIRE blogger and Sarasota Film Festival Director of Programming Tom Hall.
ugh i'm in new york for that weekend but i leave either sunday night or monday morning at the latest.
Quote from: MacGuffin on November 01, 2006, 02:38:22 PM
Quote from: vee_starzz on October 24, 2006, 09:44:35 PM
Coming Monday there is going to be a special preview of The Foutnain at Berkeley with a Q&A session right after with Darren Aronofsky! :bravo:
Unfortunatley, I think you have to have a student id to get the free tickets. But, if my camera stops going berserk on me i'll try and record the session and let you guys know how it went down.
If you or anyone else who attended could let us xixaxers know how the Q&A was, we'd appreciate it.
I did say a little about that in my post...
Quote from: matt35mm on November 01, 2006, 12:23:04 AM
But Darren Aronofsky was very nice, smart, funny. The Q&A was lousy due to a TERRIBLE moderator (his first question: "So, what is the essence of this piece?") and generally lame questions from the audience that, bless him, Darren tried to respond to in earnest. I got my Pi and Requiem for a Dream DVDs signed, as well as the Fountain poster that they gave out to everyone. He seemed to enjoy interacting with everyone and hung out for a while. It was a very cool night, despite the negative things I've said.
... but I'll relay some more info.
Basically, you could tell that the moderator was shit before he even spoke. He was an old white guy who, from head to toe, looked like one of those lousy film professors that get off on trying to sound smart. I don't know who he was or what he did or why he was moderating, but he sucked.
Like I said, his first question was, "What is the essence of this piece?" To which Aronofsky basically responded, "I don't know," and then went on to say how he and his team were interested in a lot of ideas and tried to weave them all in.
Another question from the moderator was why Aronofsky doesn't write with the 3-act-structure, to which Aronofsky responded, "I do. I like the 3-act-stucture. This movie has a 3-act-structure. It works for me."
After a little more of this, the audience members started asking questions. Things like, "how do you prepare the actors?" with the answer, "hire good actors who are hungry to do good work, and get them to trust that you'll be able to bring that out of them." Another question, "What do the colors in the film mean to you?" Answer, "The movie starts in darkness, Hugh is frequently not lit as much as Rachel, who is often very brightly lit. The movie moves from darkness to whiteness as Hugh becomes enlightened, with gold inbetween as inspired by all the gold in Mayan culture."
Then, of course, some guy took a few minutes to ask what is art in the face of commercialism, then proceeded to give his thoughts on what he just asked... I don't know, I tuned that out. He didn't say anything important.
And yeah, everyone got a poster, so he had to sign about 100 posters and DVDs afterwords. He seemed pretty comfortable and cheerful amongst the fans, kind of hanging out and chatting with a few people. He did not accept Pete's invitation to sushi.
That's the night in a nutshell. Maybe some other people can remember some more of the questions and answers from the session.
Quote from: modage on November 01, 2006, 03:28:34 PM
yeah, this is crushing my soul to hear this news. well if anyone can still bear to look aronofsky in the face in 2 weeks...
And I certainly wouldn't put it like that. This movie still makes clear that Aronofsky is a major talent, and there's a lot of what he did in this movie that can be appreciated. Just nothing from when he was writing the script.
I still geek out watching the trailer and that press conference two pages back, and all that there is to geek out about from those is in the movie... it's just wrapped in a mediocre screenplay. But that's just what I thought of the movie, so I'm not saying don't watch it, and I'm CERTAINLY not saying it's just a rental! Go to the theater, pay for the ticket, watch it, and tell us what you thought of it. Perhaps your soul need not be crushed.
if all goes well, i'll be seeing it tomorrow. but its tough to watch a movie without these reviews ringing out in your head. remind me to stop reading them. (but i wont).
for what it's worth, i loved the shit out of it.
course i loved the shit out of the new world too.
yeah he didn't eat sushi with us, therefore the movie SUCKED.
I asked him about animating the tree and the stars, he said the tree required thousands of sketches 'cause it was hard to animate something organic, but no CGI was used. As for the stars, they worked with a microscopic filmmaker in England that filmmed chemicals or something in place of the stars.
I really liked it as well. I do agree that it had a lot of flaws, but, with the possible exception of the tai chi against the stars moment, I wasn't really bothered by them all that much.
i think i loved this as well. the film wasnt what i expected it to be, but even what i expected changed SO MANY TIMES over the years of waiting for it to arrive. the best possible thing that could've happened for me was the small wave of mixed reviews in the past few weeks that lowered my expectations accordingly so they could actually be met. the film exists in a kind of vacuum that doesnt resemble reality in the slightest. the entire film was very dark, their home, his work, the hospital all apparently lit by a few lowlite lamps but it gave an incredible mood and atmosphere. it could also be called Giant Fucking Face as most of film seemed to either be a closeup or an overhead shot.the film was a bit melodramatic maybe, but this is my kind of melodrama. it mixes in with some new elements to create something a little different which i'll take any day of the week over brokeback mountain's old fashioned melodrama. there werent any lines that stuck out for me as cringeworthy, no moments that didnt work and because of those reviews in recent days here i was looking for them! i kept waiting for the film to hit a wrong note but it never did.
in the beginning there were comparisons to kubrick and 2001 that this would be a 'smart sci-fi film'. but its pretty much the opposite of 2001 and kubrick in general. because through melodrama it reveals that aronofsky has a heart and that it is the heart that guides the story. he wants you to think but moreso he wants you to feel. its for this that he and the film will likely be slaughtered by critics. i think generally when someone puts their heart on their sleeve and it is not received well it is received awfully and booed and hated. because you can either find your connection to it and it affects you or you cant. and if you cant there is little there for you here. the ideas are loose at best, so its not something you're going to watch over and over to dissect the ideas and the meanings. its a love story and a film about death and hinges on the viewer caring about what happens.
the film did remind me a lot of Soderbergh's Solaris and like that film, The Fountain will flop and flop hard. huge respect to warner bros. for putting out this film and pouring millions of dollars into something that will not make them any money. if it caused a modern day Heavens Gate and all the new auteur directors were never again allowed to stretch with bigger budgets i wouldnt be any more surprised than i would if this grossed 100$ million. but its good, and i'm glad its here.
Oh sure, make me look like a heartless bastard or something.
Anyway, I just saw a TV spot for the film where they just showed the 16th century stuff, as just a story of a man who's willing to fight to the death to find the fountain of youth for his queen. So that's how they're going to advertise this. Wow.
EDIT: Saw the TV spot again, and thought I should quote this: "On November 22nd, a hero will risk everything for the adventure of a lifetime!"
Here's a site that lets you futz around with music and images from Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain:
http://www.thefountainremixed.com/en/welcome.php
From Here to Eternity
For Darren Aronofsky, the road to filming his ambitious sci-fi epic ''The Fountain'' was littered with fickle stars, wasted millions, and broken dreams by Daniel Fierman
For starters, it wasn't supposed to be this goddamned cold. And there was supposed to be lots of jungle. Hell, for all the crew of The Fountain knew, there would have been dancing kangaroos and oilcans of beer on every corner if they had only stuck to the plan and shot down in Australia. In fact, the only people who look happy today are the Mayan villagers — flown in from Guatemala for six weeks of filming — who have spent their time marveling at the white puffs that gust out of their mouths in the frigid Canadian air. They've never seen that before. The production, on the other hand, has seen just about everything.
''This movie,'' says producer Eric Watson, looking decidedly unimpressed by the billowing steam that trails his words, ''has not been easy.''
The story of The Fountain is the tale of how pulling the plug on a movie put hundreds of people out of jobs, pushed a mega-talented filmmaker to the brink of a breakdown, and left years of work in ruins — and how that filmmaker willed the whole thing back into being. It would take writer-director Darren Aronofsky six years, three financing partners, two sets of stars, $53 million ($18 million of which was totally wasted), and one infant named Henry before he would see his third movie in theaters.
But on this moon-cold Montreal day in 2005, he seems surprisingly placid about the ordeal. He chats with his visiting parents and whispers in the ear of his leading lady (and partner) Rachel Weisz. He lopes along, greeting cast and crew, picking at Hugh Jackman's beard. It's only when he arrives at his director's chair — the one he has waited over half a decade to occupy — that a sour note creeps into his voice. He stops, sighs, and laughs in disbelief.
''Do you see that?'' he asks no one in particular. ''Warner Brothers spelled my f---ing name wrong!''
In 1998, no one in Hollywood knew how to spell Darren Aronofsky's name. He hadn't made a movie. He didn't know a soul. He was just another hyper-smart Harvard grad who wanted to be in pictures. Then came Pi, his paranoia-soaked debut that won the Directing Award at Sundance. And Requiem for a Dream, which won a bevy of raves and an Oscar nod for Ellen Burstyn. The hyperbolic praise came in a torrent. He was a borderline genius. The new Kubrick. The new Scorsese. (You could practically hear his agents gloating, ''It's A-R-O-N-O...'') Everyone knew Requiem was important, and everyone wanted to be in the Darren Aronofsky business. He was one of the most in-demand young directors in Hollywood and developed a massive roster of potential projects. Only one really mattered to him: The Fountain.
''The night of Passover dinner Jared Leto and I went to The Matrix,'' says Aronofsky. ''It blew me away. I remember thinking that the Wachowski brothers took every great science-fiction idea of the 20th century, plus a few new ones. 'Here we are on the cusp of the 21st century; what is the next sci-fi?' That was the beginning.''
The idea that evolved was the product of Aronofsky's anxiety over turning 30, his parents' recent bouts with cancer, and a series of visits the director paid to his old Harvard buddy Ari Handel's laboratory at NYU, where the Ph.D. candidate was conducting research on live monkeys. The movie that emerged sounded a little bonkers — a spiritual triptych following a conquistador, a modern research scientist with a dying wife, and a cosmonaut 500 years in the future, all searching for never-ending life and all played by the same actor. There were to be Mayan temples. New Age spaceships. Massive Spanish Inquisition sets and battle scenes on the scale of Braveheart. But at its core, The Fountain was an overgrown art movie — a rumination on life and death dressed up in genre clothes.
It made no real sense as a studio picture. Everyone knew it. But almost no one knew about the secret showing of Requiem for a Dream that had been set up at CAA's Beverly Hills headquarters back in 2000. The screening was for just one person. According to multiple sources, when the movie ended, Brad Pitt stood up and spent the next two hours walking around the block. Then he came back and asked to see the movie again. When it was over, he ordered his agents to get him a meeting with Aronofsky. Their first meeting took place at Pitt's bungalow in the Hollywood Hills. ''We took the script over to his house and said, 'Call us when you're done reading it,''' remembers Eric Watson, Aronofsky's longtime friend and collaborator. ''We were driving back and Darren's phone rings. Brad's 40 pages in and he's crying. He's like, 'I'm in.' We started jumping up and down inside the car, because at that point we knew we were making a movie.''
The duo rang up Lorenzo di Bonaventura, the then president of worldwide production at Warner Bros., who had expressed an interest in the project, and gleefully announced that their art film had a big, fat star. Scouting trips to Central America followed. A shoot in Australia was arranged, and cast and crew were hired. Seemingly endless script meetings to satisfy the story needs of Pitt and the studio were held. Cate Blanchett signed on to play the female lead in a pay-or-play deal worth millions, and Burstyn took a role written just for her. As Watson devised a budget that accounted for every possible expense — some of them wholly fanciful — the potential costs shot past $70 million. ''We called it the Chinese menu theory. We had a menu of everything [that you could spend money on] and I'd eventually get to say, 'Okay, I want that, that, that, and that,''' remembers Aronofsky, whose biggest budget had been Requiem's paltry $5 million. ''It was ridiculous. Money that would never, ever get spent.''
It was an unorthodox way of doing business — and it was also a colossal mistake. When the suits in Burbank got a look at the ''Chinese menu'' budget in June 2002, Aronofsky and Watson were ordered back to L.A., the crew was fired, and the studio held a stone-faced meeting with the filmmakers where it told them that unless a cofinancier could be found, Warner was turning off The Fountain. (According to a studio source, the filmmakers were surprisingly stubborn about cutting items from their ''Chinese menu.'') Worse, Pitt — without whom there never would have been a green light in the first place — was starting to waver, worried that he'd wasted the better part of a year developing a movie that would never get made. ''We finally went to Brad and [said], 'Do you want to do this or not?''' remembers Watson. ''He said, 'I want to do this. I commit to doing this. Let's figure out how to do it.'''
So Watson set to work begging for money from independent production companies. He still had a pass for the Warner Bros. lot and a key to The Fountain's now-vacant visual-effects office. Every day, he'd slink into the office and start dialing for dollars, banking on the Warner Bros. phone prefix to lend his pleas an official air. As Watson's calls became increasingly desperate, Aronofsky spent his days working on the script and reassuring his star. Finally, in March 2004, Regency Enterprises, a company with a reputation for cofinancing projects with high price tags — they did Daredevil and Mr. & Mrs. Smith — announced that they were picking up half the budget. It wasn't long before construction began down in Australia.
Watson was in an Australian petting zoo with his girlfriend when his phone rang. It was August 2002 and The Fountain was set to start shooting in weeks. CAA was on the line: Pitt was out. At the time, no substantial reason was given. He was just...out. (In a statement released to EW, Pitt says, ''Darren and I worked together for a year plus, but as the start date loomed and with the budget at $60 million, it was my belief there still remained many questions that we had not yet answered and we simply were not ready. It was my realization I would have to step in front of the freight train and take the hit, understanding my financial responsibilities to Warner Brothers and the risk of my friendship with Darren, whom by this time I'd grown to love and respect. Thus the end of my time on The Fountain.'')
A scramble ensued. The studio prepared to pull the plug for good, telling Aronofsky that unless he and Watson found a star to replace Pitt, the movie was done. The duo came up with three names: Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe, and George Clooney. ''Only one was available,'' remembers Watson. ''Crowe.''
The script was overnighted to the Master and Commander set. Crowe read it the next day. The actor was interested, but after a long conversation with Aronofsky he passed, saying he was spent from the demanding Peter Weir shoot. And with that, the movie died. Cate Blanchett was cut a check and sent home. The Australian crew was fired for a second time. Word spread that The Fountain was a financial debacle — it had, in fact, lost upwards of $18 million — and soon the Mayan temple that had sprung up on the Gold Coast of Australia was razed. Watson and Aronofsky watched the demolition, heartbroken and stunned.
It was about then that Darren Aronofsky had something close to a nervous breakdown. He got home from Australia, packed a bag, went to China, and got lost. ''I don't remember how long he was gone,'' says Weisz, his companion since 2001. ''Weeks. He was just gone.''
When Aronofsky got back, he was depressed and withdrawn. Weisz was shooting a movie in New Orleans, and he went to live in her rented mansion, hanging out on the veranda in his underwear. Pitt called one day and asked him what he was going to do next. (The two, remarkably, have remained friends.) Out of spite, Aronofsky told him he was doing The Fountain. ''I was just, like, giving him guilt or something,'' says the director, with a trace of shame. It was the first time he'd seriously considered the idea that the movie wasn't dead.
A year passed. Aronofsky and Weisz were back in New York, reconnecting with the city. As the months ticked by, people in the industry started to wonder what Aronofsky and Watson were up to. Finally, in late summer 2004, Watson's impatience boiled over. ''We'd spent three years not making a movie. I just said, 'What are we going to do?''' says Watson. ''He said, 'I want to make The Fountain.'''
Then one night, Aronofsky awoke and wandered into his home office. On the bookshelf above his desk were all the research materials for the original script — books like Bernal Díaz del Castillo's The Conquest of New Spain and Eduardo Galeano's Genesis trilogy. He stared at them for a while and then started to write. Over two weeks later, he handed in a new draft of The Fountain, which had been reconceived as a $35 million indie. Warner Bros. execs were flabbergasted. ''I had no expectation that this would go again,'' says Warner Bros. production president Jeff Robinov. ''None at all.''
And so it was that a film about the search for life everlasting found life again. Hugh Jackman was approached after Aronofsky met him at a performance of The Boy From Oz on Broadway. ''I said, 'I heard about what happened with The Fountain. I'd love to read it,''' remembers Jackman. And the leading lady proved a snap to find: Aronofsky had his first child with her, that boy named Henry, earlier this year.
The shoot was an uneventful 61 days up in Montreal. And when it was over, for all the moxie it took to get The Fountain made, Cannes passed on the film. So did the New York Film Festival. Its premiere at Venice was reportedly met with a mix of cheers and lusty boos. It's obvious to everyone today — including Watson, Aronofsky, and Weisz — that The Fountain simply may not connect with most moviegoers. This nags at Aronofsky. You can see it as he discusses the screenings, the fans who love the film, and his struggle to reconcile the critical reception with that of his first two movies. The question seems simple: Was it worth the blood it took to make this movie? Was it worth interrupting one of the most promising careers in Hollywood?
Aronofsky pauses to think about this and his mind drifts back to the first day of shooting — a moment that should glow with triumph. ''I always do the circle, where everyone holds hands — the grips love that part,'' Aronofsky says with a laugh. He pauses and his eyes darken. ''It was emotional. It was very emotional.''
saw aronofsky at speak and answer questions for 1 1/2 hours at the Apple Store tonite. it was a lot of fun. some tidbits...
- aronofsky said though he hadnt thought of it before, recently he realized the film is basically a fairy tale. the moderator pointed out that the center of the film was a melodrama but not in a bad way and aronofsky agreed.
- aronofsky said (somewhat jokingly) the greatest invention of the 20th century is the closeup. because while you talk to people you rarely look them straight in the eyes without getting self conscious but on film to be able to look and see just what paul newman is thinking is amazing. and also that 95% of people who see the film will watch it on a TV or an ipod, so better get close.
- he also mentioned that he wanted to stay away from the visual style he had become known for in Pi and Requiem with the POV, editing style etc. and conciously moved in a different direction with this film. he said it was weird for him to even compare his 3 films in regards to which one is their favorite. but mentioned if you loved Requiem this film may not be for you.
- said he was a huge fan of sci-fi, and between himself and his close collaborators had probably seen, read every major sci-fi piece of entertainment. and that he tried to stay away from certain cliches of the genre like the spaceship looking like a big piece of metal etc. and make something that hadnt really been seen before. he also liked the idea of like a good sci-fi novel you read the first 80 pages or so without really having any idea whats going on, so the first 20 minutes of the film are really staged that way on purpose before you start to get a handle on whats happening.
- when asked about Batman, he said he never had much of an interest in superhero comics and basically took an interest in the project to try to get WB to make The Fountain.
- said there is NO CGI in the film. everything was filmed.
- WB had again sent along a few clips from The Fountain but they were short and devoid of context. i'm really glad i had already seen the film beforehand.
- he also REALLY REALLY wanted people to go see this movie. he said its a good date movie, its PG-13 so you can bring your family, and they really dont make movies like this very often and he hopes people will go see it. and i hope that by some miracle they do.
- got my Requiem For A Dream DVD signed = me :yabbse-grin:
Quote from: Darren Aronofsky on November 13, 2006, 09:10:06 PMif you loved Requiem this film may not be for you.
:yabbse-thumbdown:
like people who love requiem may only be able to love drug movies with the same structure and lots of pov shots and quick cuts. that's just a dumb thing to say/crap justification for making a bad movie.
edit: actually i guess it's true. in other less intentional words, if you love good movies you may not love movies that aren't good.
Quote from: picolas on November 13, 2006, 11:16:44 PM
Quote from: Darren Aronofsky on November 13, 2006, 09:10:06 PMif you loved Requiem this film may not be for you.
:yabbse-thumbdown:
i took it to mean that he knows requiem is a movie assholes love, and he doesn't think the fountain is bad so he is telling himself that the bad reviews are coming from assholes.
Quote from: Pubrick on November 14, 2006, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: picolas on November 13, 2006, 11:16:44 PM
Quote from: Darren Aronofsky on November 13, 2006, 09:10:06 PMif you loved Requiem this film may not be for you.
:yabbse-thumbdown:
i took it to mean that he knows requiem is a movie assholes love, and he doesn't think the fountain is bad so he is telling himself that the bad reviews are coming from assholes.
possibly. in that case i'd say it's wrong to dismiss the reviewer because they're an asshole/loved another movie for weird reasons rather than because of why they don't like the movie in question. "i intended it" is not a defense for a bad structure/story/characters.
Quote from: picolas on November 13, 2006, 11:16:44 PM
Quote from: Darren Aronofsky on November 13, 2006, 09:10:06 PMif you loved Requiem this film may not be for you.
:yabbse-thumbdown:
like people who love requiem may only be able to love drug movies with the same structure and lots of pov shots and quick cuts. that's just a dumb thing to say/crap justification for making a bad movie.
edit: actually i guess it's true. in other less intentional words, if you love good movies you may not love movies that aren't good.
i think he meant it to say that people who liked requiem because it was a dark drug movie with fast cutting etc. will not neccesarily be the same crowd to fall for The Fountain, which is a love story and a very different sort of film. he was talking more about fans than critics. it was my fault in the translation.
Life And Art Collided In Fountain
Source: Sci-Fi Wire
Darren Aronofsky, writer/director of the upcoming SF epic The Fountain, was reluctant to cast his real-life fiancee, Oscar winner Rachel Weisz, in the starring role, until co-star Hugh Jackman suggested it. "When we first started dating, me and Rachel, I was like, 'Look, you know, if we date, we can't ever work together,'" Aronofsky said in an interview in Beverly Hills, Calif., last week. "Because I felt crossing that line between professionalism and your personal life was not professional [laughs]. But Hugh kept pushing for a meeting, because we had a list of women, and he was really curious about working with Rachel, because they're both stage actors and he really respected her work. So, finally, I gave in, and I said, 'OK, just meet.' And when they connected, it was one of those things that, as a director, you're always looking for when you see two actors that link. And they just held on to each other."
Weisz plays Isabel, the ailing wife of Jackman's Tom, a neuroscientist in the present day. Jackman also plays different versions of himself 500 years in the past and 500 years in the future, all of whom are striving for the secret of immortal life.
Aronofsky said that he tried to draw a line between personal and professional life while working with Weisz on The Fountain (the two also recently celebrated the birth of a son). "I think it worked out fine," he said. "We worked really hard. We had a tremendous amount of communication beforehand. We didn't live together during the shoot [in Montreal]. ... So we'd see each other on the weekends, which meant that Saturday we'd have a big fight, and Sunday we would make up before we start shooting on Monday. It was tough, you know, because, ... you know the person in a personal way, and then suddenly you're directing them, and it's strange."
For her part, Weisz said that she was unconcerned about the hazards of a couple's working together on a movie. "I'm a very unrealistic person; that's why I'm an actor," Weisz said with a smile. "So I'm just like involved in make-believe all the time. ... I was like, 'Ahh, he's a realist. He sort of ... thinks ahead, and he thinks, "Well, this could happen. That could happen."' I'm not. The future tends to kind of, like, bang me in the face as I come up to it. Which I'm trying to kind of get over. So I [was] just like, 'Nah, it's going to be fine.'"
I finally saw this, after years of waiting and waiting and hoping and waiting, and rather than put the final results of all that time spent into a few paragraphs, I'm just going to wait to see the movie again next week. For the time being, I'll say that....the streak continues! I think I agree with everything modage said about the film.
I really want to get ahold of the original draft now. I just went back and read Moriarty's old review of it at AICN, and it sounds fascinatingly different...
Quote from: Ghostboy on November 16, 2006, 10:41:45 PM
I really want to get ahold of the original draft now. I just went back and read Moriarty's old review of it at AICN, and it sounds fascinatingly different...
yes i want to see it again next week too. and also was interested to see what the differences were in the original draft and the finished film. i was going to ask aronofsky at the Q&A but remembered that the original script was made into that graphic novel so i definitely want pick that up.
Exclusive: Filmmaker Darren Aronofsky
Source: ComingSoon
Avid movie buffs have long considered filmmaker Darren Aronofsky to be a visionary, since defying genre cliches with his first movie, the black and white π (PI) in 1998. It's been six years since his jaw-dropping adaptation of Hubert Selby Jr.'s Requiem for a Dream, and his third movie The Fountain is finally seeing the light of day after years of delays to "find just the right time to release it."
Nearly two years ago, ComingSoon.net visited the Montreal set of The Fountain, where we were able to admire "Tree of Life spaceship" that's the setting for one third of Aronofsky's epic time-spanning love story. Since then, we've had a few chances to chat with Darren, first when he brought a teaser-trailer to Comic-Con in San Diego last year and then after showing the finished film to select journalists this past July.
The movie is well worth the long wait, a cerebral experience that's part Mayan quest, part modern-day medical drama and part futuristic sci-fi, all blended into a trippy mix that would make Alejandro Jodorowsky proud. All three segments feature (possibly) related characters played by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz—who since making the movie has become the director's fiancée and mother of his son, and it reteams him with the same composer (Clint Mansell) and cinematographer (Matthew Libatique) as his previous two films.
Having finally seen the movie, ComingSoon.net had a chance to conduct a "proper interview" with the mastermind behind the movie that's going to (hopefully) wake up a lot of dormant minds and get people thinking about the movies they watch again.
ComingSoon.net: I feel like a hypocrite because when I talked to you in San Diego after watching the movie, I suggested that you don't do any interviews and just let people figure out your movie for themselves. I definitely got more out of it on second viewing.
Darren Aronofsky: Well, thanks! I think the first 20 minutes often sets the audience apart, because we were trying to mirror that feeling of sci-fi or graphic novels where the first 80 pages or so, you don't know what's going on, then suddenly it starts to make sense and a whole world starts to flesh out. I think that with "The Fountain," for the first 20 minutes, people are like "What's going on?" but then it suddenly starts to make sense. If people get that far, they're in.
CS: Has the movie changed a lot since the version I saw in San Diego a few months ago?
Aronofsky: There's a slight change that I tinkled with three or four months ago. There was a line that Hugh Jackman wanted in the film that I loved, but I couldn't figure out how to cut it in, which is that line in the trailer: "Death is a disease; there's a cure, there's a cure and I'll find it." That was not in the first cut. What happened is that San Diego was the final cut, and then there was this one thing that kept us battling in the edit room for a long time, and it had to do with the order those scenes were right around that part of the film. I think we all made the right decision and a few months ago, I kind of figured out in the middle of the night. I had one of those "oh!" moments and I approached Jay, my editor, and said, "Will this work?" and we threw it together on our own to look at it, and me and Jay thought it was much better. Sometimes you just need that time. It happens to me, I look back at "Requiem"—and that's the reason I don't watch "Requiem" or "π" any more, 'cause I know I would see things and I'd be cringing—but luckily, the one good thing that came out of waiting for our release date was that we had the time to make it a little better. I think that's what did it. What's funny is that it's actually exactly how the script is now. We moved away from the script and changed it a little bit, but then I figured out a way to bring it back to the script.
CS: One of the themes of this movie is obsession, whether it be to find the Tree of Life or find a cure for death, so I'm sure a lot of people must assume that this movie was your obsession, having spent so much time trying to get it made.
Aronofsky: (laughs) I got a comment on that! For me, it's not about quantity. It's about doing the film that you believe in. Filmmaking is such a hard job, there's so many disappointments, there are so many challenges, there's so many roadblocks, especially when you're trying to do something different that's not exactly in this small box. But it's all I know how to do, and so I just believed in this material and it just rang true from my gut and I just had to get it done, so here we are.
CS: Do you think once the movie hits theatres, you can finally find some closure and leave it behind you?
Aronofsky: Absolutely. A good friend of mine, another filmmaker, once told me, "You never finish a film, you abandon a film" and I think that's true. I think it all finally settles in when I get that DVD, packaging, mass-produced, and I'm like, "Okay, this is the movie and it's all done."
CS: But these days, directors like Ridley Scott are doing massive reworkings of their movies, releasing "Director's Cuts" so would that be something you might ever do?
Aronofsky: No, I've been lucky with all my movies. My final cut has been my cut. I think at some point I'd love to do a remix of a "π." When we mixed that, there was only Dolby SR, and I'd love to discrete remix of it at some point, which is kind of like tinkering after it's all done, but it's just updating it for the latest technology and doing an HD version of it.
CS: Also, having some money to throw into it might allow you to do some things you weren't able to do originally.
Aronofsky: Well, we mixed "π" in like 5 days, which is just absurd, but I'm pretty happy with the mix. I think we did a pretty good job, and I like the way it feels and looks. I'd love to do a 10th Year Anniversary, so hopefully that will happen at some point. Ten years in '08, so we got a couple years.
CS: You just have to make sure you don't go all George Lucas and start putting in new characters using CGI.
Aronofsky: No, no, I wouldn't go that far. That's obsessive.
CS: Going back a bit, you started making this movie a number of years ago on a bigger budget with a different cast. How did you end up with Hugh Jackman after Brad Pitt dropped out and you had to start all over again?
Aronofsky: To be honest, Hugh wasn't even on my initial list, and that's because I hadn't seen him do anything except for his "X-Men" work. He's great in that and that's a very difficult thing to do, but I didn't really know his work. Then I saw him in "The Boy From Oz," the thing he won the Tony for, and even though he plays a singer-songwriter who's married to Liza Minelli, which has absolutely nothing to do with the character in "The Fountain," he had such passion and charisma and commitment and fever, that I was just like, "I have to see what this guy thinks of my script." When he read it, he just really got it, so that's how it all worked out.
CS: What was his reaction after seeing the completed film? It must be a very different experience than making the movie since there's no way to know what it will be like when edited together.
Aronofsky: What was his reaction? You'll have to ask him, but he told me it's not only the favorite film he's ever been in, but it's his favorite film. But you have to ask him, because I can't quote him. He was really happy with it, but it was really strange because the day I showed him the finished film was also the night Rachel went into labor. It was a very surreal night.
CS: Do you ever stick around to see the movie with an audience to see how they react?
Aronofsky: I think the last time I'll see this film ever will be tonight at the premiere in L.A. I think once it's done—I'll probably watch it again on DVD just as a quality check, just to make sure it's correct—but I won't ever see it again after tonight.
CS: Did you watch it in Toronto or Venice or any of the other premieres?
Aronofsky: Oh, no, no. I watched it actually in Spain at this film festival outside of Barcelona called Sitges, which is a fantasy film festival, because it was a really young, youthful crowd and the projection was beautiful and two of my best friends in the world were there, so I decided to watch it with them. You see a film so many times when you're making it, that at a certain point, you just have to stop watching it or otherwise, you can get lost in the ego conversations in your head about it. You get lost in so much stuff in your head. That's why I haven't seen "Requiem" since it came out, or "π" since that came out, so it's been a long time. Even if it comes on TV, I'll watch it for ten, fifteen seconds, smile to myself and then move on.
CS: I deliberately avoided reading the graphic novel until after seeing the movie, but I was surprised how much of the story and images were similar to the movie. Did you get any inspiration from Kent Williams' art in the graphic novel while shooting the movie?
Aronofsky: I did steal a few shots from Kent. When he breathed the ring in and it turns into the Queen, that transition I got from Kent. I think Kent definitely had his own vision, but you can just see how connected the scripts were. It wasn't that big of a difference between the two movies.
CS: When you went back to redo the movie, starting from scratch on a lower budget, what did you end up changing?
Aronofsky: Well, if you look at the battle scene, right there was $15-20 million dollars. That was a big thing, getting rid of that. Then there was the big action sequence in space, which is the thing that I probably do regret not having done, but there was that big action sequence on the outer surface of the ship that I wanted to do, but that we couldn't afford either.
CS: When I visited the Montreal set, I saw the spaceship and I saw the other Tree of Life, but were the other locations also done on the soundstage like the lab and hospital?
Aronofsky: Everything was a soundstage, except the museum sequence and Lillian's farmhouse, of course, but everything else was built. The way [the production designer] interrelated everything was very inspirational to me. Everything comes out of Tom in the space ship. All the other sets and designs come out of the same type of material, same type of colors, same type of background as what was happening on that tree ship. Things like the throne room with all those candles hanging, why did we have those candles? Well, if you stick a character in front of it, those candles go out of focus, and they look exactly like the starfield of Tom in space. The Christmas lights on the rooftop behind Rachel also go out of focus and become a starfield. You'll start to notice as you watch it again, you'll see celestial objects floating throughout all the time sequences. That was certain stuff that we did and there's a lot of that type of thing.
CS: It must have taken an insane amount of planning to cut all that together and make the transitions work. Were some of the delays of the movie done to get extra time to get all the editing and post-production done?
Aronofsky: No, I don't think so. I think we had a pretty normal timeframe of editing. The film was done in February, we've just been waiting for a release date for eight or nine months. The studio wanted to release us in the fall, so that's what it's been. We've been waiting for that, and that's why it's taken this amount of time to get here. Otherwise, the cut and the post for a visual effects movie was pretty much right on time.
CS: When I saw the movie in San Diego and again last week, watching the movie was almost like a religious experience where everyone was very quiet and respectful. I'm curious if that's been the same with other audiences.
Aronofsky: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Audiences have been very kind of silent watching the movie. I did a lot of Q 'n' A's afterwards, and it's been a similar positive reaction. I keep getting exactly what you just said. People all over the world from Tokyo to Spain to Belgium to D.C., people almost always in these Q 'n' A's afterwards come up to me and they go, "Hey, man, that wasn't a movie, that was an experience." That to me, has been just great, because to take someone, not just on a normal narrative journey but to take them somewhere else, and just thinking and feeling in a way they haven't felt before, that's a great compliment, and I've enjoyed that. I've seen a similar reaction around the planet.
CS: I was really surprised when I woke up at 4 in the morning the day after seeing the movie, thinking about something in the movie that really affected me.
Aronofsky: What's interesting is most films you leave and you've got the whole journey. When I made "π", it was a very different world. People saw a movie once, and then maybe saw it again on DVD. In fact, "π" was historically the first film downloaded, and it was also one of the early DVDs and we were playing with the menus and designing all that stuff. I think in today's world where kids are downloading sh*t to their computer, to their iPod, people are watching stuff over and over again, so we wanted to make this puzzle that gets richer and richer the more people see it. There's a lot of things in the film that people aren't going to get on a first trip. That's not completely true. There are some people who've been out there in these Q 'n' A's I've met who get it instantly, and they basically tell me exactly what it's about and they've gotten what it all means, but a lot of people I think are grasping for it the first time. But I hope that it will turn into a cult film like '"π" and "Requiem" and people will want to see it again.
CS: For this movie, you've moved from Artisan to Warner Bros. They seem to really be behind making movies as an artform rather than as a commercial venture, but they obviously must care about making their money back as well. How's that been working out?
Aronofsky: I hope there's enough commercial elements in the film that people want to see it, and I think it asks the big questions about why are we here? What is life? What is death? What is love? And those are questions people have been asking, since we crawled out of the primordial soup. I think there is a commercial end to that, and at the core of the film, it really is a love story between Hugh and Rachel. Another thing I've noticed on the road is that people keep saying that when they're there with their loved ones, they've just had an incredible experience, and I think it might be a really good date movie in the sense that the women get to see this great love story, they get to see Hugh Jackman's shirt off. The guys get a little Mayan adventure and some whacked out science fiction, and afterwards you're GUARANTEED, I promise you, a good conversation. (laughs)
CS: I wondered how you felt about American movie audiences these days and whether you think they really want to learn the answers these days? The real world seems so tough and awful that many moviegoers may just want to be entertained rather than having to think about movies.
Aronofsky: I think you're right. I think definitely people want to just have the entertainment of escape at times, but I think that people also do want to be transported to a different consciousness and have a different experience. You know, people aren't going to the movies anymore, and I think for me at least, it feels like when I go to the theatre, I see something that's pretty well advertised but I feel pretty let down as the same-old-same-old. If "The Fountain" gives you anything, it's definitely a very, very different and new experience.
CS: Where do you go from here? This time since finishing the movie, have you continued to write?
Aronofsky: Exactly. We're developing a few projects and I can't talk about them yet, but we're very, very close.
CS: In the years since "Requiem," there was a lot of talk about you playing with other people's characters like "Batman" and "Watchmen." Have you gotten over the desire to do that?
Aronofsky: That was all a bunch of hype. For the last five or six years, I've been working on "The Fountain." We've had conversations on a few... I mean, "The Watchmen" I was on for a week, literally. I was definitely interested in doing it, and then they wanted to go right away, but I was working on "The Fountain" so I couldn't do it. And "Batman" was a writing gig, a chance to work with Frank Miller, but things got blown out of proportion by the internet. I've been trying to make "The Fountain" and I'm pretty much a one-trick pony. I get my dream project and I stick with it, and now we're starting to figure out what to do next.
Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain opens everywhere next Wednesday, November 22.
Quote from: modage on November 16, 2006, 10:55:39 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy on November 16, 2006, 10:41:45 PM
I really want to get ahold of the original draft now. I just went back and read Moriarty's old review of it at AICN, and it sounds fascinatingly different...
yes i want to see it again next week too. and also was interested to see what the differences were in the original draft and the finished film. i was going to ask aronofsky at the Q&A but remembered that the original script was made into that graphic novel so i definitely want pick that up.
i've been waiting to see it again since march and have been heavily yearning for the original draft as well. glad to hear you two dug it. hoping p, mac, rk and the rest here on xixax island feel this way too.
Quote from: modage on November 16, 2006, 10:55:39 PM
i was going to ask aronofsky at the Q&A but remembered that the original script was made into that graphic novel so i definitely want pick that up.
I picked it up this afternoon. It's really beautifully made, and definitely worth buying if you like the film. It's almost exactly like the movie, except for a few things that obviously would have cost another 30 million to do on screen. He talks about them in the interview above; there's the huge Mayan staircase battle that opens the movie (it looks like something out of 300, actually), and then a scene on top of the bubble ship that, to me, didn't seem all that necessary. But there's a lot of additional character and plot development in Spain that I think the movie would have beneffited from.
One other interesting thing is that all the characters in space are naked, which I think would have been fantastic for the film - much more poetic and lyrical. Although it probably would have been hard to get an R-rating with all that male nudity, and I guess the cool shot of Hugh's clothes blowing of would have had to go as well.
Collapsing worlds
Love and life are entangled for 'The Fountain's' Darren Aronofsky and Rachel Weisz.
Source: Los Angeles Times
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2006-11%2F26471485.jpg&hash=5aea44f8f337c869704243b042e723da44137e58)
THIS story, as most stories do, starts out in simpler times.
In London in mid-2001, at a performance of the Neil LaBute play "The Shape of Things," director Darren Aronofsky stopped backstage afterward to meet its star, Rachel Weisz.
"It was a professional meeting," he recalls. "It's a good thing for actors to meet directors and directors to meet actors, plus her performance blew me away. So we went out to dinner. I remember it was traditional English food — jellied eels, weird stuff. The next day, we actually went on a spontaneous date ... we went down to Brighton and walked around and had an incredible day. And then we had an e-mail correspondence for a long time. I also sent her a copy of the script — 'This is what I'm working on' — and she really liked it."
The script has become Warner Bros.' epic sci-fi adventure "The Fountain," which is finally getting its release on Friday, five years later. At the time, it was budgeted at $70 million and was to star two of Hollywood's biggest: Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Aronofsky's 1998 debut, "Pi," made on a shoestring, was a cerebral, paranoid thriller grounded in "the Kabala, the stock market and mystical math" as he itemizes its ingredients, but Cuisinarted together. Its follow-up, an adaptation of Hubert Selby Jr.'s cult novel "Requiem for a Dream," calibrated its Bowery gothic junkie milieu with a postmodern mix of fractals and beats per minute.
With "The Fountain," working on economies of scale, he would combine an interest in Maya archeology with research in primate cognition being conducted by his old Harvard roommate, Ari Handel. Handel was then getting his PhD in neuroscience at New York University and questioning the ethicality of his experiments on monkeys (which he would soon leave behind for the moral palate cleanser of the film industry).
The two took long walks around Aronofsky's native Brooklyn, where his father had been a high school science teacher, and steeled by an early viewing of "The Matrix," they resolved to reinvent science fiction as free from computer-generated imagery, which could date a film's look in a mere six months, as well as the retro-futurist high-tech fetishization that Aronofsky labels "trucks in space" — basically "Pimp My Ride" for flying saucers.
For good measure, they reconfigured the time-space continuum with a palindromic structure: Three time periods that each fold into and out of the others, like Russian dolls or Chinese boxes. In 1500, Queen Isabella sends conquistador Tomas Creo (Spanish for "I believe") off to the Maya empire in what is modern-day Guatemala to find the fabled Tree of Life from the Book of Genesis — the eponymous Fountain of Youth. In 2000, a neuroscientist, (Tommy) labors to find a cure for his wife's cancer (here named "Izzi" — a palindrome), achieving a cryogenic breakthrough using a Guatemalan compound. In the third, (Major) Tom, floating in a lotus position at the center of a glistening bubble, far above the world, transports the Tree of Life to the dying star Xibalba, the pathway to the Mayas' realm of the dead. As the characters repeat, similar imagery recurs fugue-like throughout, and everything becomes a clue.
"It was always meant to be a poem, because it's a very visual film, and it's dealing with these really huge issues," Aronofsky says. "It's asking the biggest questions that are out there — about reality and existence and consciousness, about which there are no answers. So for me, it's always been about constructing a puzzle that intellectually you're putting together in your head, but emotionally hopefully you're being affected by the character's journey."
The results, depending on your tolerance for metaphysics as a substitute for narrative logic, may either be the Mesoamerican equivalent of the last third of "2001: A Space Odyssey," with the Maya god-king Ruler II as your spirit guide, or else a mash-up of historical epic and late-sequel "Star Trek" — a kind of "Aguirre: The Wrath of Khan."
Over six years of struggle, the filmmakers were forced to wait out Blanchett's pregnancy, only to have Pitt leave the project after two years; investors pulled out (Regency eventually replaced Village Roadshow to partner with Warner Bros.); and the epic Maya battle they had envisioned to open the picture was rendered obsolete by "Lord of the Rings," "Troy" (starring Pitt) and countless others. The budget, which had ballooned from $30 million to $70 million, reverted to $30 million. Again, a palindrome.
But all of that came later.
Months after they first met, late on the evening of Sept. 10, Weisz arrived in Manhattan for the New York run of "The Shape of Things," while Aronofsky flew to Los Angeles on business, missing her by hours. The next morning, still jet-lagged, she took an early-morning jog by the World Trade Towers, making it back to her Canal Street hotel just in time to feel the impact of the first plane. It was several weeks before Aronofsky could get a flight back, and as he explains it, they've been together ever since.
"I want to go with that story, I'm feeling it, but it wasn't really like that," says Weisz, ruining a perfectly good tale. "It wasn't like he came running back into my arms. I would say that I fell in love with Darren before he fell in love with me. I assumed he would be a pretty weird, dark, intense, bizarre person, and instead he has this lightness of spirit. I would describe him as a person who was very good at life. So I would say I chased him.
"Also, the culture he comes from — this Brooklyn Russian culture — is very exotic to me. I think we're probably exotic to each other. To some English bloke, I'm pretty banal."
The offspring of a Hungarian father who invented a pneumatic respirator still in use today and an Austrian therapist mother, Weisz grew up in posh London surroundings, attending private school and modeling during her summers. She entertained early ambitions of being a private detective before earning an English degree at Cambridge, where she spent most of her time immersed in her own avant-garde theater company, a kind of two-woman Wooster Group called Talking Tongues.
Of her parents, she says, "I would say they're both dreamers. In our family, the future just comes and hits you in the forehead."
From the beginning, Weisz and Aronofsky vowed they would not work together, preferring to live their lives instead. And yet with each new hurdle in the history of the production, it was invariably Weisz who retained faith in the project. She accompanied him to Australia when he had to fire the entire crew following Pitt's departure. (Aronofsky goes to some lengths to emphasize that Pitt behaved honorably throughout.)
Another chance backstage encounter — this one with Hugh Jackman after his Broadway tour de force in "The Boy From Oz" — led to him being cast as the male lead, and it was Jackman who forced the issue, constantly asking, "What about Rachel?" and demanding that she be allowed to audition.
Weisz reports the couple lived apart during the filming, seeing each other only at work and on the weekends. Accepting the Oscar last year for her performance in "The Constant Gardener," Weisz was seven months pregnant, and in April gave birth to their first child, Henry Chance Aronofsky. "It's a magical word," says Weisz of his middle name. "I guess chance is magic, isn't it?"
Not surprisingly, Aronofsky thinks Weisz is "spectacular in the film."
"The way she looks and the way she captures that timelessness, her beauty. What I like about Rachel is her complexity. Like a diamond, there are so many different facets to her."
"For me," Weisz says, "what the whole movie is about is when Izzi says to her husband, 'Come take a walk with me,' and he says, 'I'm too busy.' The film asks the question: What if we could live forever? But the answer is that life is finite and short, and therefore must be treasured. Every moment is a miracle...
"I'm impressed that someone would have the tenacity and the passion to stand by what they believe in and make a dream come true. To make this crazy, mind-bending story come out. I'm sure I helped support him sometimes, but really it was his journey. If it had been me, I'd have given up, without a doubt. And I felt very privileged to watch that happen.
"It was a bit of a fairy tale really."
Aronofsky: The Fountain Is SF
Writer/director Darren Aronofsky wants to make one thing clear: His upcoming epic film The Fountain is definitely science fiction, he told SCI FI Wire. "I'm glad we're talking about this," Aronofsky said in an interview. "It's a really upsetting thing, because I've met people on the road who go, 'This isn't sci-fi because there aren't ray guns.' They haven't said it that obviously, but that's their point. And the fact that science fiction in movies has been so hijacked by techno-lust and by hardware 'button sci-fi,' as we call it, where everything is, if it's not buttons, it's now holographs."
The Fountain, which stars Hugh Jackman and Aronofksy's real-life fiancee, Oscar winner Rachel Weisz, tells three parallel narratives separated by 500 years, dealing with a man's efforts to save his ailing wife. One narrative takes place in the distant future, in a bubble-shaped spacecraft. But that's not what makes it science fiction, Aronofsky (Pi) said. Unlike his fellow filmmakers, who try to downplay the science-fiction elements of their films, the avowed SF geek is proud of the film's SF heritage.
"Believe me, there were drafts of The Fountain where the guy in space had a little holograph," Aronofsky said. "But where we wanted to push our science fiction [was to] push outer space so far, and push technology so far, [to] remove all trucks from space. No more pimped-out cars in space. Return to an organic singularity, so that outer space suddenly becomes inner space. Because I think that's where technology takes you. ... You can't have those tricks. You have to simplify down to something that is absolute, that is mental and [is] no longer electronic. And I think that's where science fiction is going. And it completely is science fiction."
goddamn darren, shut the hell up already.
i wish i loved this movie. there's so much information about it. just like how i wish i loved those crappy $5 bargain bin movies. i could save so much.
Quote from: modage on November 16, 2006, 10:55:39 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy on November 16, 2006, 10:41:45 PM
I really want to get ahold of the original draft now. I just went back and read Moriarty's old review of it at AICN, and it sounds fascinatingly different...
yes i want to see it again next week too. and also was interested to see what the differences were in the original draft and the finished film. i was going to ask aronofsky at the Q&A but remembered that the original script was made into that graphic novel so i definitely want pick that up.
Quote from: Ghostboy on November 17, 2006, 06:02:27 PMI picked it up this afternoon. It's really beautifully made, and definitely worth buying if you like the film.
There's also this book (out next Tues.):
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0789314959.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V54154444_.jpg&hash=63d3bac408bb43aa26dd443ae7f9ddb71de21a8c)
Book Description
What if you could live forever? The Fountain is an odyssey about a man's thousand-year struggle to save the woman he loves. In three separate lives—Tomas the conquistador, Tommy the scientist, and Tom the explorer—Thomas is driven to discover the mysteries of life; all three stories converge into one truth as he comes to terms with life, death, love, and rebirth. The book is an extension of Aronofsky's cinematic vision, and will contain production stills of the film's stars Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz,
original script, original art, and observations from creators Ari Handel and Darren Aronofsky. Edited by Darren Aronofsky, The Fountain is not so much a tie-in or a behind-the-scenes look at the film, but rather a thoughtful meditation on the film's provocative themes of life and death and its singular visuals.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F2151%2Farticle.jpg&hash=65ea3875f899af05ad93010cce7d903d840cfb65)
It has been a long journey for Darren Aronofsky and his film, The Fountain. This venture has been over six years long but film fans can rejoice because The Fountain is finally being released. It is one of the most emotional and moving films (not just science fiction) I have ever seen. The Fountain is confusing at first but soon you are deeply involved in Tom [played by Hugh Jackman], the scientist/conquistador/space traveler's journey to find his what he considers his soul.
Daniel Robert Epstein: The Fountain is a movie about love and destiny which is interesting because if the original incarnation of The Fountain hadn't fallen apart you might never have met Rachel [Weisz] and had a baby.
Darren Aronofsky: It's very strange how art mirrors personal life. But to be honest my conception of the film existed before Rachel. Though it is very strange how things happen.
DRE: I know that Pi was somewhat autobiographical and now The Fountain. Do you have other things like that with Requiem?
DA: Well, after I did Requiem I got my arm cut off [laughs].
Life and art often connect in a weird way and you've just got to be open to it and just go with it. Just keep moving.
DRE: It's just interesting because life and art connect in this movie because Rachel's character is writing a book which connects to the other stories.
DA: Yeah, that as well.
DRE: The Fountain feels almost like emotional autobiography to me. How do you feel about a statement like that?
DA:It's a little too early for me. I wrote it so I imagine it's somewhat connected to me but I'd have to digest that.
DRE: It seems like hope was a big deal for this film too. What brought you to this idea of hope?
DA: I think there's always been hope in my films. Pi was a little bleak but I think Requiem, even in all of its darkness, had hope because by showing you how dark things can get it was actually signaling toward the light. I'm not sure but I think that's what I was told to write, internally.
DRE: Since the special effects that were created for the outer space scenes were somewhat new, how did you know how you were going to be able to meld them into the movie?
DA: I didn't know. There's always a risk but I was always open to going very abstract with that stuff because I just wanted to do something completely different in sci-fi. I just felt we had seen the same old, same old so many times so I really wanted to give the audience a whole different feel. I was hoping for it to be really abstract. I was pretty happy with how photo real it became but I would have been happy if it was more abstract.
DRE: When there are visions of heaven and hell in movies. People always seem to have interesting ideas for hell but then heaven is always kind of lame.
DA: Yeah.
DRE: This is your version of heaven I think.
DA: It's definitely connected to that.
DRE: How did you know that this had to be different?
DA: With all my films we've always tried to do different things because I think that's what audiences want. We see so much stuff on the internet, TV and at the movies that it's always exciting when there's something new put in front of you. It has definitely always been my goal is to keep pushing the boundaries.
DRE: Obviously people like [Fountain producer] Eric [Watson] and your crew aren't resistant of that but is it difficult to convince those who are?
DA: Yeah, I think anytime you do something out of the box with a studio that knows how to do it traditionally you have to work hard to convince them that it's going to look good. But they saw a lot of the early tests we did and they got pretty excited. So early on we were in decent shape with taking chances. But it's always difficult on every front when you try something new because you've got to find people who are adventurous enough to go for it.
DRE: This is a busy day for me. In about two hours I'm talking to Alfonso Cuaron about Children of Men.
DA: Oh dude, tell him I say hello. He's my friend.
DRE: Have you seen Children of Men yet?
DA: I did, I saw it in Venice. It's great.
DRE: It's unbelievable.
DA: A very good film.
DRE: That brings me to my point. Years ago the great cinematographer László Kovács spoke at my college. Afterwards he told me and a few of my friends how he feels bad for us as students because since Star Wars came out we're in a science fiction phase which doesn't seem to be ending any time soon.
DA: Well, I think science fiction is the great genre in literature and in film. In film it's been hijacked by techno-lust and by hardware button sci-fi but I think that what we try to do is something that will return sci-fi to an explanation of inner space as well as outer space. I think bringing in psychedelic and metaphysics have always been more interesting.
DRE: It seems to me that filmmakers like yourself, Alfonso and Guillermo Del Toro are doing things with science fiction that used to only be done in literature. Do you see science fiction as a genre that can still be taken lightly?
DA: Of course. I actually thought that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy film was pretty good and very entertaining. I think sci-fi is a huge genre because you can do things that are comedic but you can also do things that can also be incredibly political. Sci-fi is the most radical genre out there because through the illusion of the future you can really comment on the present.
DRE: Last year I read the graphic novel of The Fountain before I saw the film because I interviewed Kent Williams. They're almost like bookends about the movie. Do you feel like the taking in the two of them together gives you a better understanding of what you were trying to say?
DA: I think they're different experiences and I think they have different results. I think the movie moves more towards a poem over time and I think that was more of what I wanted to do. The script that Kent worked off of was very different for me. Even though they're very related the movie is the final product because that's the thing I've offered. I think it works on its own and needs to work on its own. But I think the graphic novel can shed light on how we developed the project.
DRE: Loneliness is a big part of this. This man is lonely in all three time periods. It seems like film can convey the idea of loneliness almost better than any other medium.
DA: Separation versus connection I think, is a big theme in the film. Life and reality and love is all about separation and all the characters want is connection.
DRE: Was that something that was in your mind when you were creating The Fountain?
DA: It's never conscious like that.
DRE: I believe it was [Fountain cinematographer] Matthew Libatique that told me that these films are truly a family affair. Obviously film is much different from drawing or painting or writing a book because it has to be a collaboration. What does making these films into such a tight collaboration do for you?
DA: It's the only way I know how to do it. The reality is that with film there's no way you can make a film on your own. Well you could, but it would take you more than six years so you just need other people who are better than you at certain things. I've always described a director's job as like a conductor of an orchestra. We're just trying to get everyone to play the same theme together.
DRE: When you're asking somebody like Matthew or Clint Mansell about something that's not their job on the film, do you feel that's more of a friend's opinion or an artist opinion?
DA: I think it's both. The fact that we're all friends and also collaborators allows us to talk to each other very directly and to cut all the shit out and get to the core.
DRE: I remember when David Cronenberg worked with a different production designer on Spider than the one he'd been working with for 20 years. I was very surprised when he said it was very difficult for him.
DA: Oh I understand.
DRE: There's going to come a time when that will happen to you.
DA: Yeah as we all get older and life gets more complicated, people take other jobs. Schedules don't work out. It's always a little rough but then you just try to make the best of it. I'm always open.
DRE: When I visited the set of The Fountain you talked about you were going to try to get David Bowie to do some music for the film.
DA: Yeah, I think Bowie's health issues just didn't help in the matter. But he's coming to see the film before it opens and I'm so excited. We're having a special screening. He's coming, Lou Reed's coming.
DRE: Wow.
You explored Judaism with Pi, are there more levels you want to go to with that?
DA: No idea right now but I imagine there'll be certain things that will reemerge.
DRE: What often seems to happen to people as they get older and have children, they turn back to their religion.
DA: I don't think that's where it's coming from. I don't know what the future will bring. Right now I'm just looking to do something that's mean and street. To go back to the Pi level of filmmaking.
DRE: Not that level of a $30,000 budget!
DA: Well, maybe not that level, but close. I want to get my street back. I miss just running and gunning. It would be fun to go back to that.
DRE: I read that you're not talking about what you're doing next at all.
DA: No, not yet.
DRE: But is it another book adaptation?
DA: I actually don't know. I'm working on a couple of things and I haven't really committed to one thing.
DRE: Do you have book galleys sent to you and all that?
DA: Oh yeah, we've got a whole team here that's reading shit non-stop and looking for the next best thing.
DRE: What are you reading personally right now?
DA: Yeah I am reading something. I'm reading Bill Kalush's new biography on Houdini [The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero].
DRE: That's supposed to be really good.
DA: Yeah, it's very good. I just started that.
DRE: What about comic wise?
DA: No I'm not reading anything. I was going to start Can't Get No [by Rick Veitch].
DRE: That's really good too.
DA: I've got it on my desk right here.
DRE: For the new softcover of The Fountain graphic novel, did you pick the artists that did their interpretations at the back of the book?
DA: Yeah, me and Kent [Williams] picked them all.
DRE: There's this one guy in there that I really want to get into, Seth Fisher. I know he's passed away but I thought what he did was brilliant.
DA: Seth Fisher being gone is one of the biggest tragedies. I can't even tell you, he was such an out there guy. He was living in Japan, out of his mind, but an incredible artist. Have you seen his website?
DRE: I have. I literally just got Green Lantern: Willworld this past week.
DA: Yeah, that's fucking great. I had wanted to collaborate with him for a long time. It's a real tragedy that he passed way ahead of his time, it's a real shame.
DRE: Yeah I mean I read a Wizard article about him and I'm like, "Who's this guy?" because I don't read many mainstream comics.
DA: He was brilliant and he just never got there. He was on the way. I picked him because I had been collecting his art for a while.
DRE: Do you want to try and keep your hand in doing graphic novels?
DA: Yeah, absolutely, I have no idea what's up next but something will come up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jackman and Weisz on The Fountain
Source: ComingSoon
In Warner Bros. Pictures' The Fountain, Tommy Creo (Hugh Jackman) is on a one thousand year journey to save his dying wife Izzy (Rachel Weisz) from a brain tumor as a 16th century conquistador, a modern-day scientist, and a 26th century astronaut. During his adventurous quest, he discovers the secret to eternal life when he finds the Tree of Life and must decide how this encounter will not only affect his life, but his death as well.
ComingSoon.net talked to Jackman and Weisz about the Darren Aronofsky film, opening in theaters on Wednesday:
CS: When did you get involved with this project?
Hugh Jackman: I met [Aronofsky] January '04 when he came backstage at "The Boy From Oz" that I was doing in New York. And I knew about "The Fountain" and in fact my partner John Palermo said, "You should ask him about it. This is where it's at. He's looking for actors." So I said to him, and he'd really enjoyed the show - first of all, I was a little surprised that he was coming to see a musical but he's a huge musical theater fan. He sees everything. You wouldn't think so but he does and he came back and I said, "I heard about 'The Fountain' and I'd really love to read it." And he went, "Mm, no." No, he said, "I don't think so." I went, Oh. I think I've overstepped a mark here. I probably shouldn't ask him. He rang me the next day and said, "Were you serious about that or were you just saying that like actors say to directors?" I said, "I was serious." He said, "Okay, well, I'll let you read it." So I read it that night and I rang him the next morning and said, "Look, I don't want to be presumptuous. You gonna cast me?" I was so moved by it. I thought it was so beautiful, I said, "I'm in...If you can wait 'til September when my contract finishes, and you want me to do it, I'm in." And that was that. Well, it wasn't that easy. He then came and talked to me, showed me everything and then did sort of a little speech to me, which any actor would end up saying yes but I'm glad that I really listened to him because he said, "I'm going to ask more of you, Hugh, than you've ever been asked to do before on film. I'm going to take you places you maybe even thought you would never go on film. Are you ready to do that?" I said yeah. Actually, for me I was thrilled, but he absolutely worked me.
CS: You did yoga and tai chi underwater?
Jackman: Oh yeah, those three days under water. At the end of it, I dunked him though. We were all wrapped, it was great, [and] he knew. I saw him going back from the edge of the pool because he could tell something was going on. And then I got out of the pool and I pretended I had a bad knee. I said, "I've done my knee doing the lotus position." I'm looking over at him and he wasn't coming forward. He said to the nurse, "Go and check out Hugh" because he knew something was going on. So I said, "Oh, God, I'm going to have to really go on with this." Literally about 10 or 15 minutes, finally I laid down and I said, "Get the stretcher, get the stretcher." So they had to get the stretcher to lift me. At that point, he came and goes s**t and as soon as he came over, I picked him up and I ran to the pool. He was really pissed off because he knew I was going to do it.
CS: This is your most emotional role, did that not scare you?
Jackman: I had never felt up until this movie that I had had a script that warranted that. It's a little frightening. It should be a little frightening for every actor, I think. Otherwise it's not challenging. But I knew it was a kind of rawness that he wanted, that would be difficult to get to but at the same time, I felt like some of the challenges I've had even at drama school, like doing plays, were bigger than the movies that I've been getting. So I was waiting to get a role of this, or Paul's probably the only one here who's seen it, but "Erskineville Kings," the first film I ever did had an emotional intensity, a rawness to it similar to this. But in between, there were like six, seven years where nothing had really demanded that. At the same time you can't just go, "I've got to do a role where I'm really emotionally pushed." That's not a reason to do it. So finally I felt like I had a script that really had a lot of potential.
CS: How do you approach each of the three versions of the character?
Jackman: Yeah, there's an essential similarity in a way, what drives them. But physically we wanted to make them very different, not only looking. Obviously they look very different but I created a different physicality for all three. For Tommy, I made him like a question mark. We had this image of him as a question mark and Darren and I spent hours in rooms, like in rehearsal rooms. I'd walk around and around in a room just trying different things until we kind of felt it was right. But Tommy's very weighed down by the world and what he's doing. Look at the film. He's always hunched over, head sort of down like a question mark. His lab is underground. Everything is under, under, under. He's always going down steps, if you look at the design. It's brilliantly done. Then back in the past, Tomas is a conquistador. He's a warrior. So whilst he's strong physically he's ready to fight, his head is sort of down and he's very sort of like a racehorse, nothing will stop him, he's got blinders on. Then Tom in the future is worked out. He hasn't fully come to terms with who he is. He's still got some problems. He knows how to be physically at his ultimate, so he does tai chi, he does yoga, he meditates and all these things are about maintaining the physical form. So he was just more at ease. I was literally doing yoga, first of all every morning for an hour and a half, two hours. But in between every shot just to really do that. I remember this from drama school, one of the teachers said "people hold their emotions in their body. And if you don't express them, they get locked in your body. Men have very tight hips." A yoga teacher told me this. They have very tight hips which is the lotus position. That's why it's so bloody hard for me to do it. They have tight hips because that is where emotion is stored. So women are a lot, generally more emotional and they're a lot looser in their hips here. So there are certain positions like the pigeon, things like that, that were excruciating but I had to do them. And particularly on those emotional days, I would sit in that position for half an hour at a time. Man, my yoga teacher was amazing. He took me to this thing called the Hall of Air club in Montreal. It was like minus 25 degrees Celsius and we'd jump into the river. For a minute, we'd sit in there, put our head under the river and then you go into the sauna, steam room and do one yoga pose. So you do 15 minutes of one yoga pose. Maybe touching toes with your head on your knees, that kind of thing. Then you jump back in the river again. You do that eight times and after three hours, it's an experience that everyone should do. I had a bald head at the time too. It was amazing. It was like I was on fire. My head was like smoke coming out, steam coming off my head. It was amazing. It was just an incredible feeling. So doing all that yoga was amazing what it did for me.
CS: For Rachel, you are in three time periods but do you think you could approach your role more straightforwardly than Hugh's?
Rachel Weisz: We both had challenging roles. I was playing someone who accepted death which is a challenging place to get to, if you thought about it for a few minutes. It's a very hard place to be, to accept and be okay about dying. And, Hugh was playing someone who just could not accept it, but they both had their challenges.
CS: This is a character who accepts her own mortality. What is your relationship to mortality?
Weisz: The downer and the upper are the same thing because the movie is about death but, for me, what it's really about is a celebration of life. The whole movie to me is about when I go to Hugh Jackman and say "Will you take a walk with me and see the first snow" and he says "I'm too busy. Leave me alone" and I think every couple on the planet has had a little tiff with their partner about something like that, "can we go do something?" and "I'm too busy." I think that the idea is that on our death bed it's that we're going to regret. It's going to be the moments that we didn't spend with our loved ones and we didn't seize the moment, smell the roses, all those expressions and didn't live as fully and as presently and as openly and as lovingly with those around us as we could have. So for me that's what the movie really means. I have to kind of remind myself. I don't know what I think about death and the afterlife. I don't know any of that but I do know that life is definitely finite and short and so we have to try and celebrate being alive as much as we can.
CS: Hugh, what's it like to lose your hair?
Jackman: Great. I'd always wanted to do it because I'd always wanted to swim with a bald head, see what it felt like. Is it weird? But I really have no attachment to my hair at all. I've never had the same hair once. For the last 15 years, I've dyed it this color, than chopped it off. I've never been completely bald. I just can't stop laughing when I see myself. I think I look like a character out of "Lord of the Rings." I think I look ridiculous. It is feeling-wise, incredible. To have a shower with a bald head is the best way to wake up. Then I found myself doing this all day long, feeling my head.
CS: Did your family recognize you at first? Wasn't it startling?
Jackman: Oh, absolutely. My son at the time just thought it was completely odd. He didn't even want to touch me and then gradually he was like that too. He just wanted to feel it. Oh, it was great. We'd be sitting there watching Elmo or something and he's doing this to my head the whole time. It was great.
CS: Rachel, were you apprehensive to cut your hair really short?
Weisz: Darren was really clear that whoever played that part that the character had been through chemo and had lost her hair and it was growing back in an uneven way. He wanted the actress to not have a wig. Most actresses today have really long hair so he made that very clear. He thought it was an important thing for the transformation of what the character had been through. I thought it was kind of cool. I liked it. It definitely had a starkness to it but I think it told a lot of story without me having to work harder telling that part of the story. We shot the present first and then we shot the past so in the past I had a fabulous Queen's wig.
CS: For research, you went to hospices for cancer patients. How did that change your perspective?
Weisz: Hospitals are places we go where the doctors are tying to save our lives and they operate and medicate and everything else. Hospices, people go there when there's nothing medicine can do for them anymore and I think the most inspiring thing was meeting the people who work there because what they did every day. They got up and they went to work to help people die. It's just the most mind-boggling job but such an important one and such a brave one and their perspective on death, because it was just a daily occurrence and what they were trying to help happen with grace and with dignity and with nobility. They would hold people as they were dying or play music whatever these people wanted. The workers were very, very inspiring.
Quote from: MacGuffin on November 21, 2006, 01:23:49 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0789314959.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V54154444_.jpg&hash=63d3bac408bb43aa26dd443ae7f9ddb71de21a8c)
that picture is really pretty.
RUSS' EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: DARREN ARONOFSKY (THE FOUNTAIN)
By Russ Fischer; CHUD
The Fountain is unlike any other studio film you'll see this year. For that matter, it's unlike any American film you'll see any time soon. For this third feature, Darren Aronofsky has created a subtle, potent poem about grace, resonance and death. Recently re-rated from R to PG-13, with a few small alterations, Aronofsky passed through Atlanta to interact with audiences and show off the new cut. I got to sit with him for the better part of an hour, during which he not only divulged a tidbit about his next project, but slowly elaborated on his own unique approach to making a film that eschews typical characters, plotting and cheese.
First off, what's different between the two versions of the film, the R-rated that we saw at festivals and the PG-13 that will be in theatres?
It's very slight. About 4 months ago I had been...there was a line I wanted in the movie that's in the trailer that Hugh and I wanted in the film and I couldn't figure out how to use. And I figured it out a few months ago and got it in. It's right at the beginning of the third act, it's a slight change adding one line and switching the order of two scenes. What happened is that I moved away from the script, and now it's actually how the script was. And I think what happened is, at the time, I couldn't figure it out and I think we did choose the right solution, but having time to figure it out it finally clicked. It doesn't change things much, but it makes me feel better.
There are such little things when you make a film, and I'm not sure if I'm being obsessive, or if it's almost like getting the note exactly right if you're a musician. Like tuning very slightly and getting the key exactly right. I don't think anyone else would really notice the difference, but it keeps me awake at night. Every one of my films has always had a little key that was slightly off. Probably if I looked back at Pi and Requiem now there would be a lot of things off but that's always going to happen as you move forward. But they're never quite perfect. But I think maybe that's OK. Out of that imperfection can be some good things, as long as you nail down the ones that keep you awake.
There's a big gulf in music between being a technical perfectionist and playing by feel. Is there a similar balance for you in filmmaking?
I think that the truth of a scene goes above the technical considerations or limitations. Technically, as filmmakers, you're always going to make mistakes, but if there's something emotionally resonant it'll work anyway. A perfect example is the Ellen Burstyn scene in Requiem where she's talking to Jared, saying "I'm old", giving her big speech. That scene is actually soft -- slightly out of focus. You can't see it on DVD, but you can on film. She's right on the edge of the focus line. She buzzes in and out.
It was a huge thing when we did it, because I knew it was her best performance, and the fact that it wasn't sharp killed me. I think we fired the first AC over it --- you have to, because you have to protect the actors and let them know that their performances will be captured well. But while I was doing Requiem, every night as I went to sleep I'd watch Seven Samurai. And there's a scene with Mifune that's actually slightly soft, but Kurosawa kept it. And not to say -- by any means! -- that Requiem is anything near, or could kiss the feet of Seven Samurai, but that a filmmaker like him had the same problem allowed me to live with it. And now no one notices it but me.
Are little things like the changed line in the new cut even more important in a movie that's not traditionally narrative?
I think so. I think it's important to give this audience all the right clues to point them in the right direction. The Fountain is more of a poem than it is a typical narrative film. All those narrative elements are in there, but it's just because of how we do things that end up making it more abstract. I think if you gave me a very normal, straightforward film, and me and these filmmakers were to attack it, the result would be very abstract! I don't know why that is, it's just how we do things.
Most filmmakers, answering that question, would say it's just how I do things. How much of what the audience thinks of as 'you' is actually all these people working in concert?
The writer/director often gets most of the credit, or the most shame for a film. But it's always a collaboration, and it's totally a team sport. I never forget that.
There are moments of this film that resonate back to Requiem, in terms of technique, but I got the sense that you were trying to develop a new language.
Yes, for two reasons. One is that every film has it's own grammar. It's my job to figure out what the themes are and to put the camera in the right place and inspire the lighting. The reason that Pi and Requiem are so similar, and one of the main reasons I wanted to do Requiem, was that it was very connected to Pi, also a subjective movie, but with four characters to explore instead of one. And having more money, I was very excited to do these things that I wasn't allowed to do the first time. So Requiem allowed me to complete the language we started in Pi.
Afterwards, the thinking was very specific: that's done; we've explored all those techniques, and now it's time for something different. So here we've made a very conscious effort to rely on new techniques, and not simply fall back on what we've done before.
Part of your consistent film language is practical effects. Was that a problem, going into a larger studio film?
Warner Brothers was considering how hard some things are to do, when you shake up the normal ways of doing things. But they were very open to it, and I think one of the reasons they greenlit it a second time was because of the effects footage we had shot. They got it, and realized the stuff we were working with was unlike anything they'd seen before. And it's extremely economical. But taking old techniques and reusing them, which is something I've always liked doing, while cheap, also represents a large risk, and studios don't like that at all. Whose job gets lost if it doesn't work?
You've taken three big chances. You've managed to make each of them work so far -- what are your fears with this one?
I don't think it's always about taking chances, but it's that what I think is interesting and cool and am passionate about telling tend to fall into the riskier category. No one wanted to make a black and white movie like Pi, and on paper Requiem was just another drug movie. This is a love poem to death. I imagine I'll do something easier eventually. I'd love to do a sports movie or do something straightforward. And that's why I wanted to get involved with Lost, because I was excited to just show up and get to work, just to direct. And not even worry about the writing, since the story is by the dungeon masters on site. I do enjoy just directing and working with actors, but I haven't had, or I haven't made that opportunity.
It's amazing that TV is turning into a place where people like yourself can do that.
I think it's very cool. The problem is that it still ends up taking a lot of time. It's far more than a week, the Lost episode was something like 30 days in Hawaii, and with a wife seven months pregnant that just wasn't going to work.
As you continued to work on The Fountain over the past year, did your attitude to it change after the birth of your child?
I think that Henry's birth will totally impact me on my next project, or on future projects. There's one thing we're writing right now, which I haven't announced, which is totally about birth. And it just works out that way...you're writing and suddenly you realize where it came from.
And The Fountain, as I've talked about, came from turning 30. It's a very young age, but it's the first time that a real number is on you that you can't escape. Your friends start getting cancer, and one day you'll be 50, and maybe you'll get to be 80.
You make films with central characters who aren't traditionally likable. Did you consider showing Tom before Izzy got sick, when he was less obsessed and more likable?
We talked about it, but...I've got these cheese antennas. I've never been into that. There's not a name for that scene, but we all know it, where you see a couple doing something that's just a cute little thing between them. Every movie does it. Some directors pull it off better, but I can't stand it. The bile rises up into the back of my throat, because it's such an obvious technique.
My biggest influence is probably cartoons, because I grew up on those, and I think the characters I write are very symbolic, and that's why I think the film becomes more of a fairy tale. And they don't have to be likeable. But they're very symbolic, my characters. And I always saw Hugh's character as 'Man' and Rachel's as 'Woman'. And to me the details of what makes their relationship silly or whatever, I just didn't want to go there. For me, the snowball is the furthest I went. I didn't want to go any further. And that was hard for me. Because I just hate cheese! And to me it's not about that. It's really about what's happening to them in the moment. It's interesting to me, because Izzy is so close to the end when we meet her, and to get to a place where you're able to face what's in front of you with grace, you've got to be pretty far along on your spiritual journey. And that's a very hard character to play. Because Rachel had to be 95% there and 5% terrified. So it's a hard balance, and certain people miss the terror, but it's there.
You mentioned cartoons, which leads to the fact that people in their 30's now are almost consciously infantile in the way they hold onto what they liked as children. Have you consciously evolved your childhood influences?
I think Rachel beats me up on a lot of my childhood obsessions, but I'm still...well, I'm still best friends with guys I met in nursery school. Loyalty to me is one of the most important things. I was best man at a wedding for a guy I met when we were on tricycles, and he's the godfather of my child. I have a big connection to my old neighborhood. Memories of that time are very important. And I don't know...I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I do hate when we sit around and it's all about nostalgia, because I like to be in the moment with my friends.
Perhaps it's that, while you've got a very current connection to your past, many of us don't, and so we use Star Wars fandom as a surrogate for the connections we've lost.
Right, so all those things stand in. I think the nice thing about having grown up in one place is that there's an almost root-like conduit of energy I get from there. I still go back, and I feel this energy from the earth that inspires me. That's why I brought Requiem back down there.
Is there anything that you do ritualistically as you write to tap into that energy?
It's not connected to that, specifically. I think the best thing to describe my writing is that I'm a nomadic writer. I need to go to a new space every two weeks, because otherwise I'll find things to help me procrastinate. I need to be uncomfortable when I write. Otherwise I'll lay in bed forever...if I'm comfortable I'll watch TV or surf the internet. But if I'm uncomfortable it forces me to do the work.
Which is the antithesis of what most writers say -- they want their comfortable routine.
But I'm not a writer. I'm a dilettante when it comes to writing. But there are moments. There are those times when it's great as I'm writing, but most of the time it's really painful. It's hard to sit down and to do the work. I'm much more of a collaborator. My favorite part is working with actors. That's always the best part.
How much changes as you get together with actors?
With dialogue, not much, because we did spend a lot of time on the dialogue. Because we spent five years writing, we realized that every line has real significance if we tried to lose it. There's very little dialogue in the film and if you take out some lines or changed them, it caused problems. There was one actor I had, who I won't name, who wanted to change everything. And it was very, very difficult. I tried to help him, but as soon as we started to change things I realized all the impact it had further down the line that messed up other scenes. But as far as how a line is delivered, I hope that an actor will enlighten me about how to do something.
Solaris keeps coming to mind for me, as I think about The Fountain.
The Tarkovsky one, I hope!
Both! I like the Soderbergh one a lot, actually.
You know, I didn't see either one. So I don't know. Everyone keeps bringing up the Tarkovsky version, but I was never a big Tarkovsky fan. Now I feel like I should check him out.
Few movies manage to successfully discuss death and a graceful acceptance of it, and the resonance of decisions. Solaris and The Fountain are two of them.
Someone was telling me about the water imagery, and similarities there. But I will watch it -- I should see it on film at this point.
The Soderbergh version was a quiet, ambitious film that didn't do well. Are you worried that The Fountain will be similar commercially?
I think it had an impact on us, actually, because it came out very close to us getting shut down the first time. And I wonder if there was a relationship or whisperings of a connection. Nothing was ever direct, but it's hard not to wonder. Of course I want The Fountain to do well...my only concern is that, looking at Requiem, which only made three million at the box office, now you go around and it seems like everyone has seen it. So I'm hoping that the same thing doesn't happen with The Fountain. But this is a very different type of movie and the problem is that you have to perform in the first weekend. I hope that the conversations about this movie happen quickly and drive people to see it. But Warners has been very supportive. All this studio stuff is so new to me, that I have no idea what anything really means. It's a very hard time right now.
How did you feel about the reception to the film at Toronto versus Venice?
Well, I think if anything we're getting really heated responses. That's exciting to me. And that's what happened at that fucking first screening in Venice, was there was a fight between two journalists. That to me was the story. Not that some people booed and some applauded. It's that there was a fight, that they got into it like that.
Few films inspire that sort of response.
Rarely! How often do you walk out of a movie and really have an argument about whether something was great or terrible? It happens...Dancer in the Dark was like that. Lars von Trier does that a lot to people. Lilya 4-ever, those are films that really juice me up. Great filmmakers taking chances. Why bat .150 when you can swing for the fences? I think that's what's interesting...you don't want someone to say 'he didn't connect on the bunt'! You don't want to half-ass it. Those are the ones that inspire me.
What else is inspiring you right now?
(long pause.) You know, there's very little out there that is really inspirational right now, and that's very upsetting. It seems like everyone is interested in Paris Hilton. We've got an era of superficiality. That's the focus. It's a shame that I can't name one inspiration political figure out there. Nelson Mandela? That's all we've got left. There are so few whose integrity you can buy. Music-wise, I'm still listening to Johnny Cash, who I've listened to all summer, and he's always inspirational. I think the last band that really inspired me was Sleater Kinney. I really loved their energy; they just went for it. There are filmmakers who are doing stuff...Lucas Moodysson. For me, A Hole In My Heart was just way too much, but still, he went for it! The Dardenne Brothers are fantastic. Fincher is trying to do it right. Alfonso [Cuaron] and [Alejandro González] Iñárritu are great. They're really pushing it. I think it's an interesting time; there are filmmakers who are trying to be very truthful.
Responses to movies are changing, too. Is the personalization through DVD and lack of a communal experience fragmenting it?
There is a benefit, that people can watch things over and over again. That's one of the reasons we were confident that we could fill The Fountain with so much detail. It seems like in this Lost generation, people are interested in the connections and different threads. So it's not all bad.
But I have no way to gauge these things, sometime. When I go into a screening I'm just the guy who made Requiem For A Dream, and afterwards it's something very different. And the audience for The Fountain is very different from the Requiem audience. I think there are people in that base who will like it, but...there have always been Pi fans and Requiem fans, and sometimes they overlap, but typically there are very clear camps. They'll enthuse over one and not even mention the other. But this is very different, and I think there will be a new, unique audience for it. Do you think that?
I think it might be those audience grown up, who have gone through the same milestones you have, and then hopefully expand from there.
Possibly. But the amazing thing is that Requiem is still being discovered by all these 15-year olds. All over the country I hear from them, and I think, 'you're not supposed to be watching this!' NC-17, baby!
Two part question: Will you do another studio film, and is Lone Wolf and Cub really dead?
Well, the thing we're writing that's big is a studio film. Lone Wolf, Paramount never got the rights. And we developed a script, but now the rights don't exist.
That was so exciting for a moment there.
The new thing is even more exciting, and I'll give you an exclusive. I'm not going to tell you exactly what it is, but...it's a biblical epic.
In...Aramaic?
(laughs) In English!
What led you to that?
It's something I've wanted to do for a long time. Before Pi. Probably ten years ago, I had an idea. Actually, I wrote a poem about it when I was in 7th grade. I won this award for it -- my first writing award. So it's a story from the Bible that kind of stuck with me. About ten years ago I was at a museum that featured an exhibit that reminded me of it. So we've been trying to crack it for a while, and we finally figured out a direction. But...I can't tell you any more.
There's always that moment when a filmmaker gets to do the project they've wanted to do fort a decade and...it rarely works. Are you afraid of that?
That's...I call that the fingerpaint syndrome. Remember when you were in kindergarten and you were painting, if you kept going too long it started to turn brown? So I'm always asking my crew, 'are we going brown here?'. And that was the challenge with The Fountain, and with anything you work on, and it'll be a challenge here too.
Quote from: JG on November 21, 2006, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on November 21, 2006, 01:23:49 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0789314959.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V54154444_.jpg&hash=63d3bac408bb43aa26dd443ae7f9ddb71de21a8c)
that picture is really pretty.
That should have been the poster. It's much better.
It's getting ass-raped by critics. 15% cream of the crop on RT. I'm still there first thing tomorrow. Is the running time really only 95 min? Based on the premise I'd think it needs to be a touch longer.
i wish andrei tarkovsky had made this movie
I wish people wouldn't say shit like that.
this deserves another viewing. they never dimmed the lights when the show began, and i sat next to idiot douche bags who laughed the entire time. THE ENTIRE TIME.
but it was really good. i don't know how good yet.
did this start without any trailers for anyone else?
I wrote a semi-review (http://www.road-dog-productions.com/cgi-bin/2006/11/the_fountain.html) and then went to see it again tonight. Oddly, I didn't like it any more or less than I did the first time. I love thinking about the film more than I actually liked the film itself. I also bought the score, and I love listening to that while thinking about it. But the movie itself? It's an odd bird.
DEVIN'S EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: DARREN ARONOFSKY (THE FOUNTAIN)
Source: CHUD
The first two questions in this one on one interview come from... a round table. I know, I know. The two things are completely the opposite. But here's what happened: I flew to LA two weekends ago for the junket for The Fountain, and I was guaranteed a one on one with Darren Aronofsky. He's quite fond of the site, and has said some incredibly complimentary things about my reaction to his film, so I assumed this was a no-brainer. Turns out that something got crossed and I was not scheduled for a one on one after all. Bummed, I went to the round table anyway and tried to ask some of the questions I had been planning to ask in the one on one. At the end of the table interview (if you want to listen to the whole table interview, Collider.com has the audio), Aronofsky turned to me and said, 'I'll be talking to you again later, right?' and I had to tell him that we actually weren't scheduled.
Much to his enormous credit, Aronofsky made time for me during his incredibly busy junket day to do an unscheduled one on one interview. I wish I had more time – hell, I wish I could sit with him and go frame by frame through the movie. But I like what I ended up with, and combined with Russ' exclusive with him [previous page] - Russ' questions tended to the film oriented – I wanted to know more about the themes and concepts of the movie - I think CHUD has the best Aronofsky interview on the web.
Every element of every storyline, every timeline, is in every other timeline. It's a very fractal picture. Everything is related. How did you build that in? Did that come in the script stage? Did you find those connections on set? Were they created in the editing room?
It's all pre-planned. With the budget that we had, which was extremely low, and the limited amount of time, which was extremely short, to do something like this, it was all about homework. So, all those connections were made beforehand. Of course, things came up where we realized, "Hey, we could stick that here." Things happened on set, but I'd say 95% of all decisions are beforehand. Because when you get to set, no matter how much two-dimensional work you do -- meaning storyboards, shot lists, script work -- as soon as you get into a three-dimensional space with real live actors and real physical equipment, nothing ever works out, so you have to be able to adapt.
But, having done all that homework allows you to know what you absolutely need, so you can get pretty close to getting everything you want. But all the woosh shots, the horse going by, the car going by, and the ship going by, that was all pre-planned. All the star fields that are going on throughout the film -- in space, of course, and then the candles all hanging down, once you throw them out of focus, they're a star field, the Christmas lights behind Rachel on the rooftop are star fields. From working with with darkness and light in the same way, where Hugh's character is in the black and Rachel's character is in the light. Hugh's never really fully lit until the end of the film, and Rachel's lit all the time. That was always planned, 10 months before we ever got to set.
You said that your next film was going to be something Biblical, your first film was about God and math, and this film is spiritual, in an agnostic way. What's your take on God? Are you religious? Do you believe in God?
I think the themes of The Fountain, about this endless cycle of energy and matter, tracing back to the Big Bang . . . The Big Bang happened, and all this star matter turned into stars, and stars turned into planets, and planets turned into life. We're all just borrowing this matter and energy for a little bit, while we're here, until it goes back into everything else, and that connects us all. The cynics out there laugh at this crap, but it's true. The messed up thing is how distracted we are and disconnected from that connection, and the result of it is what we're doing to this planet and to ourselves. We're just completely killing each other and killing the planet, and it's a state of emergency right now, I think. All of my charity work has always been about the environment. There are 15,000 species on the endangered species list. Mercury poisoning is my new thing. We're doing it to ourselves. The fact that there's mercury poisoning in the breast milk of indigenous people in the North Arctic is all coming from us, and Alzheimer's is on the rise. What are we doing to ourselves? It's a complete disconnect. To me, that's where the spirituality is. Whatever you want to call that connection - some people would use that term God. That, to me, is what I think is holy.
What's unique about this film is that we don't make movies in the Western world about accepting death. Death is something to be fought in movies and only given in to in the most heroic circumstances. In this film it's part of the cycle of life – that's a very Eastern thing. How did you come to this?
You know what? You're the first person in the West to ask that question. I got asked that question all the time in Japan. In Japan every interview was, 'How did you get this Eastern thing?' I don't know, to tell you the truth. It's a little embarrassing to say, but back in the 70s as a kid I did a lot of karate, and I kept with it. I kept with it and I was into martial arts all the way through college. I'm still into it. I think that opened me up to writings on Zen and Buddhism. It's a combination of a lot of ideas in there, but that's what tilted me towards an Eastern POV.
Do you think that some of the negative reactions the film has gotten have come from people not being willing to look at death as a graceful, profound thing, or has it come from the film being very earnest?
I think it's a few things. I think that if you're not a fan of science fiction, then that first 20 minutes of the film might lose you. People cross their arms and they never reconnect. Because there's a lot of big themes going on... it is very earnest, and we took it very seriously. I was surprised by the cynical reactions, and it was very clear. People have said, 'Hey, it's the age of cynicism, how can you do something like this?' I say it's not the age of cynicism. That was the 90s. When things were dandy. When David Letterman was king of the world. Now, in a post-9/11 world personally I feel like it's OK to talk about things. The war is between are we going to end up in the age of superficiality with big, huge statues of Paris Hilton or are we going to say, 'Hey what's going on right now?'
I was actually stunned by that. But I continue to make films that are heartfelt because that's just what comes out.
What do you think the public reception is going to be?
I've got no idea. We'll see.
How much does it matter to you, how much the movie makes at the box office?
That's not why you make a film. It's funny – this whole 200 million dollar box office and the fascination with box office is, I think, one of the worst things for movies. Pi is, I think the 16th most profitable on the return film in the history of filmmaking. It cost a few thousand dollars and it made a few million dollars. That's good business. I really am interested in getting the money back for my investors. That's my main goal.
But making blockbusters is a dangerous thing because you boil it down to the vanilla factor. I call it the vanilla factor: if you ask a room full of 25 people to decide what their favorite ice cream flavor is, they'll probably get to vanilla. That's the problem with a lot of these films that are trying to connect with every single quadrant. Most of the time they get boiled down to something very simple. But then again there's a film like Borat, which is really radical. And it's a hit. You never know. Those are the films I'm interested in.
Where did Mogwai come in?
I always wanted a psychedelic rock element because there's a psychedelic tradition here. It needed the rock and roll element. Clint [Mansell] knew Mogwai as a band and was a fan. The Kronos Quarter was always there and we got excited about the juxtaposition of those two things.
What do you listen to these days?
It's been a little bit of a slow year. I got into Gnarls Barkley before everyone on the planet got into them. I was an early fan! I can't wait for the new Arcade Fire album. I've been listening to a lot of Johnny Cash as always. But it's been a dry year as far as inspiration from the music world. But I like the new Rick Rubin release of Johnny Cash stuff.
What can we expect on the DVD for this film? I was watching the movie last night and I couldn't decide if I wanted a commentary that would give away every bit of symbolism and meaning or not.
There is no commentary. Warner Bros was not interested in it, so I did not push it. My whole thing is that I realized... Criterion was interested in Pi and Requiem, but because I put everything out on [the original DVDs], they didn't really find a reason to do them. So when Warner Bros said they weren't interested, I said, hey I'll keep this in my pocket and eventually... I enjoy it because I got so much out of commentaries from other films I learned a lot.
So you're telling me you want to do The Fountain as a Criterion DVD?
I'd love to.
Despite some seemingly brutal critical reaction so far I still really want to see it but I have to wait till the 16th of fucking February. The gap between US and UK release dates pisses me off sometimes everyday.
http://movies.aol.com/celebrity-interview-unscripted/the-fountain-darren-aronofsky-rachel-weisz
Man, what a breath of fresh air this was, quite an emotional movie and I was blown away by the special effects. Definitely now in my top ten of 2006.
I've seen it twice now.
The first with all thoughts and criticisms hidden somewhere in the back of my mind in order to more easily make my own judgements.
The second, with those same thoughts refreshed, in order to find some validity (perhaps that's not the right word) in them.
The second viewing only cemented my first impression.
Yes, the script is, at times, clumsy and borders on corny, but it wasn't such a large detractor from the experience.
I didn't find the acting nor the characters of Tomas/Tommy and Isobel/Izzy particularly empty.
The film is beautiful. And for me, that's on every level.
The cinematography and soundtrack are breathtaking. The images are engrained in my skull and the music still plays in my mind. I thought it was moving, truth be told.
I remember questions and assumptions abounding of "will the Fountain be Aronofsky's 2001?" Well, as anyone who's seen it can tell you, it's nowhere near it and nothing like it.
I thought it was incredibly similar to 2046; they were only two numbers off. =)
They're similar in the ways they relay their heroes'/protagonists' emotions and personalities; through the litterature of its characters.
The metaphors, mirroring of storylines, etc. were all very easy for me to find on the first viewing, and that didn't ruin the second for me.
Maybe the film doesn't hold as many secrets as some would like, but it sits well with me and I think that each subsequent viewing will be as enjoyable, if not more so, as the first two.
It's not perfect - it can be awkward at times - but it was enough to satisfy this viewer.
Loved it and can't stop thinking about it. I can't imagine going into the theater without having seen a trailer. Some of the images were just so iconic and I think lessened a bit by the trailers. My roommate was cracking a joke a that IMDB reccomends Revenge of the Sith on The Fountains page. But thinking about it both movies are about cheating death to some extent. Loose thread I know. But I think starting with Jung makes for a hard hitting human drama. So I guess it's a common idea in movies (The Lion King, Final Fantasy) but I for one say Aronofsky has told sci-fi as none have before.
I think the most obvious criticism - the film being "muddled"- is pretty generic and short-sided. My fear was that we wouldn't have enough time to invest in the film's characters and Ideas at such a short running time, but to that end, I was satisfied. The cutting never felt forced or hiccupy. Honestly, I was one of the people who sat up a little when I heard aronofksy was mostly abandoning his "hip-hop montage" approach". His choice instead to go out of his way to achieve extremely smooth visual transitions was effective and displayed his capacity to match style to subject matter. If I have a complaint, it's with some of the dialog and interaction, but even that stuff was pretty minimal. Yeah, it might go over the top on occasion, but so does Magnolia and I don't love it any less as a result. It's a tough note to hit, but if you do, it's fucking powerful.
And God, it looked so amazing. I haven't drank in visuals like that in quite some time. I agree with killafilm as far as the sci-fi element goes.Those scenes are completely unique, and fresh, and wonderfully engrossing. I was indeed moved. Partly because my girlfriend was sitting next to me sobbing from the halfway point on, but I feel like the emotions displayed in the film rang true throughout.
I haven't disagreed with critics this vehemently since "Rules of Attraction".
Quote from: nix on November 26, 2006, 06:27:36 PM
I haven't disagreed with critics this vehemently since "Rules of Attraction".
Roeper called The Fountain "one of the worst movies of the year". :shock:
Well, now that it's officially bombed and been savaged by critics, the long healing road to cult classic can begin.
Yeah I don't think its possible for a movie like this not to be intially rejected by the critics. Its pretty hard to pigeon-hole, despite the many attempts (especially by Aronofsky and Jackman) to compare it to 2001. I don't care how "psychedelic" it is. It exists in its own world, away from any near-sighted comparisons. It has a very distinct rhythm and feel...which is why it deserves a second viewing before you can write if off, or praise it even. I'm waiting until the ten day mark, because by that time I will be able to use my "free movie pass" ticket.
The more I let it sit in my mind the more I like it.
I saw this the first time on Friday night after work. The whole time, from the first few frames, I was thinking, These are the first frames of Aronofsky's new movie, this is the subject he's decided to do. I was so excited. By the end of it, beit because I'm not the quickest at figuring things out, I didn't really enjoy it. In fact, I called the visuals at the end of the film "embarassing" and "awkward", saying that Aronofsky found this strange line between beauty and embarassment and crossed it over and over.
Then I saw the film today and it hit me like a ton of bricks. It's beautiful and brilliant and I cried so much during it. The scenes in space are some of the most beautiful I think I've ever seen in a film. The film itself, in its editing, effects, construction, is the most innovative film I've seen in theaters ever. MINOR SPOILERS When Tom says "I'm gonna die" with the biggest of joyous smiles on his face, I burst into tears, it was such a powerful experience for me. I'm so glad I saw it a second time, it's definitely my favorite film this year.
I was struck by the movies resemblance to certain elements of Pi, which is interesting. The similarity between Max Cohen's void and his bald head and Jackman's place in his bubble were fun to think about. Requiem now seems like his big studio film compared the Fountain, in terms of subject matter. His Departed to his Kundun, if you will.
On another note, I saw Casino Royale after this. Most movies just pail drastically in comparison after something like The Fountain, but Casino Royale was terrible in any case.
Despite my mixed love of the film, I've become rather obsessed with it. I bought the soundtrack and the graphic novel, and I've pre-ordered that hardcover album (I'll report on its contents when it arrives this week). It really does stick in your head, if you're open to it, and I think it exists there far better than it does on the screen. I'm almost afraid to watch it again (at least in whole) because I doubt it will compare to what keeps getting stronger and stronger in my memory.
-- I like to remember things my own way.
-- What do you mean by that?
-- How I remembered them. Not necessarily the way they happened.
I love that exchange. I've always quoted it to people when I talk about film theory, photography and all sorts of other things.
It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-- Carl Sagan
i still think this is a really bad movie but because of Gamblour i'll see it again.
ps. i don't think people who like this movie are deluding themselves. i just strongly disagree/wanted to balance JG's quote.
i loved it, i was wondering does anyone know how to get their hands on the original script, i'd love to read it and see how it's different.
maybe download or purchase somewhere? if you can PM me or put it on this thread i'd appreciate it.
i'd like to read the graphic novel too at some point.
thanks,
-sl-
Chalk up one more under "liked it".
I still don't know where I stand on how much I liked it, but it was a hell of an experience. I kept thinking "I can't decide if this is the longest short film ever or the shortest long-film ever."
I was jumping back and forth between loving the film and being disapointed with it... the end was strong enough for me to decide that I at least "liked it" if not loved it. I'll definitely have to see it again soon.
Quote from: socketlevel on November 27, 2006, 02:33:48 PM
i loved it, i was wondering does anyone know how to get their hands on the original script, i'd love to read it and see how it's different.
maybe download or purchase somewhere?
Quote from: MacGuffin on November 21, 2006, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: modage on November 16, 2006, 10:55:39 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy on November 16, 2006, 10:41:45 PM
I really want to get ahold of the original draft now. I just went back and read Moriarty's old review of it at AICN, and it sounds fascinatingly different...
yes i want to see it again next week too. and also was interested to see what the differences were in the original draft and the finished film. i was going to ask aronofsky at the Q&A but remembered that the original script was made into that graphic novel so i definitely want pick that up.
Quote from: Ghostboy on November 17, 2006, 06:02:27 PMI picked it up this afternoon. It's really beautifully made, and definitely worth buying if you like the film.
There's also this book (out next Tues.):
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0789314959.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V54154444_.jpg&hash=63d3bac408bb43aa26dd443ae7f9ddb71de21a8c)
Book Description
What if you could live forever? The Fountain is an odyssey about a man's thousand-year struggle to save the woman he loves. In three separate lives—Tomas the conquistador, Tommy the scientist, and Tom the explorer—Thomas is driven to discover the mysteries of life; all three stories converge into one truth as he comes to terms with life, death, love, and rebirth. The book is an extension of Aronofsky's cinematic vision, and will contain production stills of the film's stars Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz, original script, original art, and observations from creators Ari Handel and Darren Aronofsky. Edited by Darren Aronofsky, The Fountain is not so much a tie-in or a behind-the-scenes look at the film, but rather a thoughtful meditation on the film's provocative themes of life and death and its singular visuals.
He's created this film with an open ended level of reaction, and you can't seem to hold it down to call it awful or terrific because it keeps running through your head and you hate new things and you like new things, and the ultimate experience is something interactive, you against the movie, you with the movie. I appreciate all of this, and though I didn't like the film too much and thought that it was full of horrifically blatant symbolism and was too earnest for my tastes, didn't capture the breadth of human experience, the incredible lightness of being. . .while I didn't like things about it, it's generated genuine conversation and forced a lot of people into forming abstract criticisms about mortality - you talk about the movie, you talk about your own life, right, you talk about your own tree of life.
It leaves me with positive energy.
The reviewer who compared this to Zardoz can fuck himself with a curling iron. What an astonishing, beautiful, heart-wrenching film. Hugh Jackman was ridiculously good in this; I'm trying to picture Brad Pitt in that role and it's embarassing to even imagine.
Quote from: polkablues on November 27, 2006, 07:09:52 PM
I'm trying to picture Brad Pitt in that role and it's embarassing to even imagine.
Haha you're right, he wouldn't've been able to deliver the line "Xibalba!" with such affection and awe.
Exclusive Interview : Darren Aronofsky
Source: Moviehole
For Darren Aronofsky, The Fountain has been a labour of love for several years. This highly complex and original romantic drama explores the fountain of youth, the power and intensity of love, and the nature of obsession. Originally set to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, the film stars Hugh Jackman as three period incarnations of a character in love with Rachel Weisz, in the middle ages, present day and future. It's been five years since the director last spoke to the media. He spoke to PAUL FISCHER.
Can you talk about the process of finally getting this made, and how frustrating it has been for you?
Darren Aronofsky: It was a very long process, and I think all of my projects have been really challenging. No one really wanted to make a black and white movie about God and math. And then, after 'Pi,' everyone was like, "What do you want to do? What do you want to do next?," and I sent them a copy of 'Requiem for a Dream,' and they was just silence, and barely anyone called me back. For some reason, we just chose films that we think are interesting and cool, and they're just a little bit outside the box, so it's always a big challenge. Brad [Pitt] got really interested at the beginning, and that gave it a lot of fuel. I always wanted a big movie star for it because I knew, when I started this film, I was really inspired by science fiction novels and graphic novels, in the sense that you'll be reading a science fiction novel and, for the first 100 pages, you really don't know what the hell's going on, and then, suddenly, a few words show up and all these clues, and the world opens up and you're smack in the middle of Neal Stephenson's world and it suddenly all makes sense. I wanted to give that similar experience with 'The Fountain,' so the first 20 minutes of the film, you're afloat, and then, suddenly, you meet Rachel and the world starts to come together, and you realize that all those scenes actually do mean something and it does add up to something. My hope was that, by putting a movie star into it, it could hook the audience and help them get through that 20 minutes. So, when Brad expressed interest, it was great. It started it all going. And then, we got really close, and then there was the much publicized shaving of the beard, and then it basically fell apart. There was $18 million against it and a lot of spilled blood. There was really no chance that anything would ever happen. I tried really hard to clean my palette and start something new. All the stuff we actually started new is probably what we're going to do next, so that time didn't go to waste. But then, one night, I just couldn't get it out of my system and I just started to write again. Not having to write for a studio or for an actor freed me up to return to what was really important.
Did you trade that beard look that Brad had for the film for the shaved head?
DA: That look is in the film. He was growing the beard for the Conquistador sequences. It took a long time to get to set. I don't know how much longer it was than Hugh's beard in the battle scene. I think it was probably pretty similar. Hugh had a big thing. Brad had a big issue about prosthetic beards. He wanted to grow it.
Every element of every timeline is in every other timeline. It's a very fractal picture. Everything is related. How did you build that in? Did that come in the script stage? Did you edit that in as you were shooting?
DA: It's all pre-planned. With the budget that we had, which was extremely low, and the limited amount of time, which was extremely short, to do something like this, it was all about homework. So, all those connections were made beforehand. Of course, things came up where we realized, "Hey, we could stick that here." Things happened on set, but I'd say 95% of all decisions are beforehand. When you get to set, no matter how much two-dimensional work you do -- meaning storyboards, shot lists, script work -- as soon as you get into a three-dimensional space with real live actors and real physical equipment, nothing ever works out, so you have to be able to adapt. But, having done all that homework allows you to know what you absolutely need, so you can get pretty close to getting everything you want. But, all the shots were pre-planned. All the star fields that are going on throughout the film -- in space, of course, and then the candles all hanging down, once you throw them out of focus, they're a star field, the Christmas lights behind Rachel on the rooftop are star fields. We worked with darkness and light in the same way, where Hugh's character is in the black and Rachel's character is in the light. Hugh's never really fully lit until the end of the film, and Rachel's lit all the time. That was always planned, 10 months before we ever got to set.
Was it Hugh that actually suggested Rachel for this?
DA: Yeah. I wasn't into the idea because I had a personal relationship with Rachel and it's a gamble. Either the relationship was going to be over or the relationship would be fine, so why risk something like that. Hugh suggested the idea. I wasn't open to it. He said, "Well, let's at least meet." And so, we had dinner at a vegan restaurant. Actually, it wasn't vegan, it was macrobiotic, but I don't know the difference. And, they just completely connected and it was electric. It was one of those things, as a director, you hope happens in a casting room, which rarely ever happens, where you see two actors look at each other and understand each other. And, the thing about Hugh and Rachel was that they were both extremely hungry actors, at the time. Now, they're big time movie stars. Now, I don't know about working with them. They're stage actors and they're incredibly well trained, and they both hadn't had the opportunity to really show what they could do. That, to me, is the most exciting. Ellen Burstyn has done great stuff, but it had been a long time. Jennifer Connelly and Marlon Wayans had a reason to show up.
Did directing Rachel exceed your expectations?
DA: She's amazing. I describe her as a cauldron of emotions. You just turn up the heat and things start boiling over. She's one of those actors that you can get four or five different emotions from, in one choice. To me, that's amazing. When she talks about Moses Morales -- the guy who was buried, and grew up into the tree -- that's one take. Very, very few actors out there can hold an extreme close-up for 40 seconds. Originally, I cut it up like crazy. The first time we cut the film together, it was in pieces. I took the best from here and the best from there, and it worked, but then, I said, "We should go through the material once again," and then we stumbled on that piece, which just worked all the way through. You've got to let an actor shine when they do something like that.
What was changed from 'The Last Man' to 'The Fountain 1.0' to 'The Fountain 2.0'?
DA: 'The Last Man' was always 'The Fountain 1.0.' That was just a secret title. I'm a pretty paranoid guy, so we just called it 'The Last Man.' It was always called 'The Fountain.' That was just a false title. Somehow the script got out there and it got leaked, and it became 'The Last Man,' but it was never 'The Last Man.' It was, actually, a working title for us, at the very beginning. One of the big inspirations for the film was this short story about a prisoner who was in this brand new prison in a town in Latin America, and there was a volcano and everyone in the town was wiped out except for the guy who survived in the new prison cell. There was something about immortality and being alone that captured what we were going for. That's basically what morphed into what we made, which is interesting how a little seed of an idea can become something else. So, 'The Fountain 1.0' is available. You can see it in the graphic novel, out in hardcover and soft cover by DC Vertigo, available now. It's very, very similar. There's a few differences. There was a huge battle scene at the beginning of 'The Fountain 1.0,' but it was in a post-'Gladiator,' pre-Peter Jackson landscape. I was very excited by what Ridley [Scott] had done in 'Gladiator.' I was like, "Wow, this is exciting. We could make a really exciting battle scene." But then, I went through my trials and tribulations, and 'The Lord of the Rings' came out, and I was like, "Well, our Mayan Conquistador battle will never go to that level of fantasy and extremity, so why even do it." And then, of course, 'Troy' came out and 'King Arthur.' All these huge battle scenes had happened. Hollywood had done it. I realized that audiences were yawning when they saw it, so I was like, "This scene is written for Izzi by Tommy. What's the story?" The story is one man overcoming incredible odds, so it very, very much got down to, eventually, Hugh Jackman against the Mayan army, and that's all I really needed. The simplicity of that liberated me 'cause then I suddenly realized I didn't need $20 million to shoot it. I could do it for a lot less. That was a budget thing.
Had you seen Hugh Jackman in something that led you to believe he could do such an emotional role?
DA: How many male actors have you actually seen do emotional work like that? I've been in 15 cities in the last two or three weeks, and a lot of women have said to me, "I've never seen a man that vulnerable, on or off screen." I didn't really know what he could do. When I first started this, he wasn't on my list because he had just done Wolverine, which he was fantastic as and became a star off of, which is an amazing, difficult thing to do, if you're a fan. Just to step into that role, out of nowhere, and actually pull it off was a big accomplishment. But, I had seen nothing else. Then, when I saw 'The Boy From Oz,' I just saw an incredible amount of talent. It was undeniable. Outside of what he did in 'The Fountain,' the guy can sing and dance. [Laughs] It's really kind of upsetting. It's just remarkable, what he did in this movie, and it's overlooked somewhat. I met Hugh randomly at a bar, or something, with some of his friends. We just said hello. And then, we were staying at the same hotel and I was sitting there doing my 20-pound curls, and this guy is moving a machine across the room. He was pulling this thing and the machine was jumping, and I was like, "What the hell? Who is that freak?" And, it was Hugh Jackman, training for 'X-Men 2,' and I went over and said, "Hey, how are you doin'?" Then, Hugh went from that type of size to, in 12 months, being able to get into full Lotus position. I've been doing yoga for seven or eight years and I can't get into Lotus position. But, he got into full Lotus and performed all those scenes, where he's in Lotus, underwater to make himself float, attached to a barbecue rig, so that when he flips over and goes upside down, the rig basically spun him around, held him upside down for 10 seconds, and then brought him back up, where he would land, for that big revealing shot of the bubble. That was one of the shots he did underwater, and in character. Physically, you won't find a specimen on the planet like him. This is the type of guy that could have been an Olympic gold medal athlete in so many different sports. So, that was amazing. We had a stunt double -- and I know it's kind of cliché that he did all of his stunts -- but he was better than the stunt double, in everything. So, that's him climbing the tree, doing the fights, everything. Outside of that, emotionally, he just unleashed. The traditional way to shoot a scene is to start off wide because it establishes the lighting, and then you go in for close-ups. We got the camera and, suddenly, these faucets started to open and we were like, "Okay, cut! Get the camera in as quick as you can!" We flew the camera in and we just went, and he would go until he was dry. And then, we would take a 10-minute break and we would go again until he was dry. It was a bit abusive, but he loved it. [Laughs] We enjoyed it. That was why the editing took so long. He and Rachel, both, played every scene on every note imaginable. Usually, the actor will give you just one kind of take on it, but then I was like, "You know what? Play it as Tomas, play it as Tom, play it sad, play it angry, play it a little angrier, play it really happy." We just bounced around and tried different things, and it was a joy.
So far, all three of your films have been somewhat open to interpretation. At one point, you were attached to do a 'Batman' .
DA: I wasn't ever attached to do 'Batman.' 'Batman' was a writing gig. It was about coming off of 'Requiem for a Dream,' dreaming about doing 'The Fountain,' realizing that was going to cost a decent amount of dime and, seeing how the studio probably perceived me as the guy who just did a $4 million drug movie, when they offered me the chance to do something on 'Batman' and I realized that I could work with one of my heroes, Frank Miller, I was like, "If I develop this, it might actually open up their perception of me to do 'The Fountain.'" But, I was really trying to make 'The Fountain' for the last six years.
Would you do something more linear like that, or will you continue to have this sort of vision for your films?
DA: I'm just going to make them weirder and weirder and weirder. We've always been trying to push the envelope of what you can do in cinema. Matty, my DP, always says we're Wild Style filmmakers. Wild Style was that crazy, graffiti writing style, but you could recognize who wrote what all the time, by the style of the letters. And, I think we're always trying to put a visual language into a film that helps tell the story that you're doing, but is incredibly unique and, hopefully, interesting for people.
When 'The Fountain' was put on hold, you said you worked on other things that formed the germ of what will probably be your next project. Can you talk about what that is?
DA: No. [Laughs]
You said that your next film was going to be something Biblical, your first film was about God and math, and this film is spiritual, in an agnostic way. What's your take on God? Are you religious? Do you believe in God?
DA: I think the themes of 'The Fountain,' about this endless cycle of energy and matter, tracing back to the Big Bang . . . The Big Bang happened, and all this star matter turned into stars, and stars turned into planets, and planets turned into life. We're all just borrowing this matter and energy for a little bit, while we're here, until it goes back into everything else, and that connects us all. The cynics out there laugh at this crap, but it's true. [Laughs] The messed up thing is how distracted we are and disconnected from that connection, and the result of it is what we're doing to this planet and to ourselves. We're just completely killing each other and killing the planet, and it's a state of emergency right now, I think. All of my charity work has always been about the environment. There are 15,000 species on the endangered species list. Mercury poisoning is my new thing. [Laughs] We're doing it to ourselves. The fact that there's mercury poisoning in the breast milk of indigenous people in the North Arctic is all coming from us, and Alzheimer's is on the rise. What are we doing to ourselves? It's a complete disconnect. To me, that's where the spirituality is. Whatever you want to call that connection -- some people would use that term God. That, to me, is what I think is holy.
Did you change anything for the PG-13?
DA: There's an added line that was in the trailer, but wasn't in the movie, which is the "Death is a disease and there's a cure, and I will find it." That was a line that Hugh wanted in, that I couldn't figure out a place for, and I had to tinker with it.
You didn't cut any of the violence?
DA: No, no. The violence is all the same.
Then how did you change it from R to PG-13?
DA: Negotiation.
Quote from: MacGuffin on November 27, 2006, 02:49:24 PM
Quote from: socketlevel on November 27, 2006, 02:33:48 PM
i loved it, i was wondering does anyone know how to get their hands on the original script, i'd love to read it and see how it's different.
maybe download or purchase somewhere?
Quote from: MacGuffin on November 21, 2006, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: modage on November 16, 2006, 10:55:39 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy on November 16, 2006, 10:41:45 PM
I really want to get ahold of the original draft now. I just went back and read Moriarty's old review of it at AICN, and it sounds fascinatingly different...
yes i want to see it again next week too. and also was interested to see what the differences were in the original draft and the finished film. i was going to ask aronofsky at the Q&A but remembered that the original script was made into that graphic novel so i definitely want pick that up.
Quote from: Ghostboy on November 17, 2006, 06:02:27 PMI picked it up this afternoon. It's really beautifully made, and definitely worth buying if you like the film.
There's also this book (out next Tues.):
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0789314959.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V54154444_.jpg&hash=63d3bac408bb43aa26dd443ae7f9ddb71de21a8c)
Book Description
What if you could live forever? The Fountain is an odyssey about a man's thousand-year struggle to save the woman he loves. In three separate lives—Tomas the conquistador, Tommy the scientist, and Tom the explorer—Thomas is driven to discover the mysteries of life; all three stories converge into one truth as he comes to terms with life, death, love, and rebirth. The book is an extension of Aronofsky's cinematic vision, and will contain production stills of the film's stars Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz, original script, original art, and observations from creators Ari Handel and Darren Aronofsky. Edited by Darren Aronofsky, The Fountain is not so much a tie-in or a behind-the-scenes look at the film, but rather a thoughtful meditation on the film's provocative themes of life and death and its singular visuals.
so i bought this book and my cover looks different than this one, similar but different. it's too bad cuz this one is better imo.
was it the same for you guys?
i don't get mine 'til christmas.
Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on November 26, 2006, 08:07:32 PM
MINOR SPOILERS When Tom says "I'm gonna die" with the biggest of joyous smiles on his face, I burst into tears, it was such a powerful experience for me. I'm so glad I saw it a second time, it's definitely my favorite film this year.
yes this was probably the best moment in the film for me this time around. saw this again tonite and i was worried, like ghostboy, that as much as i've been thinking about the film recently that it wouldnt live up to my memory of it. though the power of the unknown was gone, i noticed a few things i hadn't the first time, and the film was still quite beautiful. it was still great.
Based on watching the trailers, I wasn't too keen on this one. In fact, I was so certain I would hate it.
After coming out of that theatre last night, I had learned my lesson. Not only do I love it, but I shall never judge a film by its trailer ever again.
what are you talking about!? it had one of the best trailers of the year!
Well from the trailer I guess I couldn't get into all the CGI that appeared all over it. Usually, CGI can easily ruin the entire film for me. I had a totally different perception of what it was going to turn out to be like. But it all came together in the film, it wasn't over done at all and the sets seemed more natural. Understanding the story a little better also helps look past that too I think.
well in case you havent read the 10,000 articles in this thread there is NO CGI in this film. aronofsky has stated many times that everything in this was actually filmed. (maybe on a greenscreen and composited, but still nothing was computer generated).
Thats not strictly true. They tried to do as much as possible in camera using some fascinating microscopic photography techniques; filming chemical reactions in a pure black, liquid environment. This was done by a company in Oxford who used some really random stuff like curry powder to get the nebula, and dieing star, star field effects. However this (and other practical effects) did have to be augmented or mirrored by computer generated simulations in a lot of shots. Fantastic, scientific approach, though...really appropriate for the character.
There's a great section in this months Cinefex on it all.
Quote from: modage on December 02, 2006, 11:34:20 AM
well in case you havent read the 10,000 articles in this thread there is NO CGI in this film. aronofsky has stated many times that everything in this was actually filmed. (maybe on a greenscreen and composited, but still nothing was computer generated).
I have read some of the articles that do mention this yes, by CGI I might as well have meant special effects (I do understand they're not the same, I apologize for the confusion). The visuals do look like they could have been CGI regardless wether they were not in reality. What's the point of using these strenuous techniques if the end result resembles those of CGI capabilities? (It still has that effect over me, watching it... it still was fake) Those were my first impressions as I said, and they did appear very awkward during the trailer.
I'm gonna have to pick up that issue of Cinefex. Or at least read it at the bookstore.
I just got the book in the mail today. It's more of an art book than anything else - it consists entirely of photographs, which echo the movie in blending the three time periods together (via Photoshop). There's no actual text anywhere in the book. The script for the film is actually its own book, inlaid within the main volume's back cover. It's not the original script - it looks like the shooting script for what made it to the screen.
Worth getting if your'e a completist or a fan of the film's imagery. And yeah, the cover's slightly different.
Quote from: modage on December 02, 2006, 11:34:20 AM
well in case you havent read the 10,000 articles in this thread there is NO CGI in this film.
I thought i saw CGI technician credits near the end.
I'm sure they get cgi artists to clean up the picture and fix up some compositing. But the primary effects were done as Redlum explained.
Someone said Andrei Tarkovsky should have directed this and I agree.
And that is sad because I really did like the premise and when I was done watching the film, I appreciated how thoughtful the movie was. This film had the chance to really stay with me the way a great Tarkovsky film would. It could have been visually inspiring and meaningful in ways that could have gotten me to question existence and the meaning of life.
Visually, this film is stunning. The visuals hit on every cylinder and is always made me want to look at the corners of the screen. Time permitting because the editing is usually quick. The problem is that the story is a mess. Not only is the film trying to jumble three storylines, but each piece of story and action is only lead up to giving you the pieces of a puzzle you finally understand by the end.
The thing is that reduces the greater ideas in the story. It makes you think about the disjointed structure of the film before you think about the ideas. When people say Tarkovsky should have directed this, I don't think they say so because he would have been visually more memorable. I think he would simplified this story to breathe life to the ideas and themes. I think that would have included dropping the story set in 1500. There were other ways to get the essentials of that subplot into the story.
What Arnofsky does is make a film that is a cute lead in for the viewer to finally start thinking about the ideas it has. Tarkovsky would have resignated the ideas and themes into the mind of the viewer from the very beginning and asked even greater questions by the end.
The critical reception to this film is depressing, but is to be expected in the current American cultural climate. Americans simple cannot come to grips with anything that is deeply layered, ambiguous, and philisophical. Because a large majority of our population suffer from what Don Delillo, in his seminal "White Noise", termed "Brain Fade", a movie like The Fountain is sure to be baffling, and then ultimately a target of anger, because we hate what we cannot understand. I saw this movie last night, or, I should say, it saw me, and it is one of the most deeply felt, searching, trancendental films ever attempted by an American filmmaker. There are more ideas woven into its running time than every other movie that was playing in the multiplex that I saw it in – and I think there were 20 or so other films playing that night. Anyone who tries to tell you that this film is a "headscratcher", or "open-ended", simply didn't have the intellectual and emotional capacity to grapple with its themes. (Also, I think there is a certain breed of fanboy that is entering the theater anticipating a muscular science fiction movie, which this surely is not – it is a love story, through and through.) Aronofsky manages to weave Mayan history and religion, the Spanish inquisition, modern medicine, Emersonion transcendentalism, Eastern mysticism, science fiction, cosmology, and more into a seamless, effortlessly-woven tapestry. Like others on this board have mentioned, Tarkovsky is the touchstone here, not Kubrick (though there is a sequence toward the end that undoubtedly calls to mind 2001), but I wouldn't say "Tarkovsky should have directed this". There is a fleet-footedness and thoroughly modern pulse to The Fountain that makes it the product of an original voice, and a product of our place and time. After Requiem for a Dream (which, in retrospect is brilliantly made but a bit immature) I knew Aronofsky had it in his blood to make a great film. Secondly only to Malick's The New World, I can't remember a film that left me this shaken. I cannot get it out of my head. Don't let the critics dissuade you – get out and see this. If you are a literate, sensitive moviegoer who desires a challenge and is in need of a deeply cathartic theater experience, now's your chance.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 09, 2006, 10:16:14 PMThe problem is that the story is a mess. Not only is the film trying to jumble three storylines, but each piece of story and action is only lead up to giving you the pieces of a puzzle you finally understand by the end.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 09, 2006, 10:16:14 PMThe thing is that reduces the greater ideas in the story. It makes you think about the disjointed structure of the film before you think about the ideas.
why is this a bad thing?
Well, I had to do a little driving to find a theater still playing it, but it was worth it. I bought into it, and was amazed. The moment that sealed it for me was the bathtub scene. It was the moment I fell in love with Izzi too and saw/felt everything Tom felt about her. Because, while all the visulas were completely striking, for me, in the end, it was a love story, and I couldn't help thinking about Arthur Hiller's Love Story while watching this (there are some similarities). But also, I felt the film, despite all the ideas about life, was about acceptance and letting go. I loved being an interacting part of the film, knowing what the repetitive "Finish it" dialogue from the opening meant before Izzi tells Tom, for example. And yet, I never felt like I was ahead of the film. I was an experience I was pleased to have. Will be in my Top Ten of the Year list.
Quote from: MacGuffin on December 11, 2006, 11:27:30 AM
Well, I had to do a little driving to find a theater still playing it, but it was worth it. I bought into it, and was amazed. The moment that sealed it for me was the bathtub scene. It was the moment I fell in love with Izzi too and saw/felt everything Tom felt about her. Because, while all the visulas were completely striking, for me, in the end, it was a love story, and I couldn't help thinking about Arthur Hiller's Love Story while watching this (there are some similarities). But also, I felt the film, despite all the ideas about life, was about acceptance and letting go. I loved being an interacting part of the film, knowing what the repetitive "Finish it" dialogue from the opening meant before Izzi tells Tom, for example. And yet, I never felt like I was ahead of the film. I was an experience I was pleased to have. Will be in my Top Ten of the Year list.
:salute:
Quote from: adolfwolfli on December 11, 2006, 08:40:40 AM
The critical reception to this film is depressing, but is to be expected in the current American cultural climate. Americans simple cannot come to grips with anything that is deeply layered, ambiguous, and philisophical. Because a large majority of our population suffer from what Don Delillo, in his seminal "White Noise", termed "Brain Fade", a movie like The Fountain is sure to be baffling, and then ultimately a target of anger, because we hate what we cannot understand. I saw this movie last night, or, I should say, it saw me, and it is one of the most deeply felt, searching, trancendental films ever attempted by an American filmmaker. There are more ideas woven into its running time than every other movie that was playing in the multiplex that I saw it in ? and I think there were 20 or so other films playing that night. Anyone who tries to tell you that this film is a "headscratcher", or "open-ended", simply didn't have the intellectual and emotional capacity to grapple with its themes. (Also, I think there is a certain breed of fanboy that is entering the theater anticipating a muscular science fiction movie, which this surely is not ? it is a love story, through and through.) Aronofsky manages to weave Mayan history and religion, the Spanish inquisition, modern medicine, Emersonion transcendentalism, Eastern mysticism, science fiction, cosmology, and more into a seamless, effortlessly-woven tapestry. Like others on this board have mentioned, Tarkovsky is the touchstone here, not Kubrick (though there is a sequence toward the end that undoubtedly calls to mind 2001), but I wouldn't say "Tarkovsky should have directed this". There is a fleet-footedness and thoroughly modern pulse to The Fountain that makes it the product of an original voice, and a product of our place and time. After Requiem for a Dream (which, in retrospect is brilliantly made but a bit immature) I knew Aronofsky had it in his blood to make a great film. Secondly only to Malick's The New World, I can't remember a film that left me this shaken. I cannot get it out of my head. Don't let the critics dissuade you ? get out and see this. If you are a literate, sensitive moviegoer who desires a challenge and is in need of a deeply cathartic theater experience, now's your chance.
I don't mean to antagonize, but I think you could have given your thoughts on the film without effectively calling anyone who didn't care for it that much a retard (or am I to interpret a person who doesn't have "the intellectual and emotional capacity to grapple with its themes" as something other than intellectually and emotionally retarded?)
I don't have a problem with your review otherwise (oh it's brilliantly written but a bit immature). It just would have been nice for you to be able to convey your point that people ought to go out and see the film regardless of what critics have been saying without playing the superiority card.
yeah. i hate it when people defend a movie by saying other people don't get it because they're dumb. really cliched and embarassing excuse for a premise for a review that says nothing about the movie. just the reviewer.
Quote from: MacGuffin on December 11, 2006, 11:27:30 AM
I couldn't help thinking about Arthur Hiller's Love Story while watching this (there are some similarities).
"What can you say about a 2,500 year old girl who died?"
I agree with you completely.
The Fountain would make a great triple-feature with
Love Story and Keith Gordon's
Waking the Dead.
I watched the film this evening and the images, like a tumor, are embedded in my brain. Aronofsky's shots were ungodly good, and the sound, editing and special effects left me speechless. I only wish the love story was more developed. There were a few shots of Izza being chased in a red dress, with long hair, laughing...but these were only quick flashbacks and then flashbacks of flashbacks. I think Aronofsky should have extended those sequences so the audience could get more emotionally involved. The film's emotion builds toward an unbelievable crescendo, but I think the first notes are missing.
I was also left confused by the conquistador storyline. When the conquistador drank the sap and became one with the earth, was that how Tom finished writing Izzy's story which ran parallel to the futuristic Tom dying with the tree in space?
The last sequence felt a bit too long and seemed to sway back and forth from awkward to really good. However, I think the length of the final sequence (if you can consider it one sequence) was very powerful, so much that I couldn't move when it ended. It reminded me of the end of Requiem, but I thought Requiem was a little tighter.
I loved the movie, but I still feel like there was something missing. I wish I could explain it better. I will have to watch it again.
///spoilers///
hey gang....i had to see this twice before i had to write my "review" of this...i am a huge fan of aronofsky's shit...so, i couldnt wait to see this and i enjoyed it the first time but still needed to see it again...and i think its the best film of the year so far and aronofsky's best effort yet....i am glad that pitt decided not to do this b/c the scene when jackman is tatooing the ring around his finger and cryign and shit would not resonate on such levels if pitt was in it...and the "im going to die" scene was the highlight for me...and likewise that line and significance behind it could not be reached if pitt was in it...people want to mention that aronofsky abandoned his hip-hop montage shit...instead the whole film seemed like a montage...its has a great rhythm and feel...shots, themes, images, music, etc. were repeated like a montage-just not the hip-hop fast paced variety..so, i am glad that aronofsky/libatique are still the visual genuis'....i urge people who didnt like it at first to watch it again....and so someone like me who has o.c.d. and thinks that everytime i see a spot or get sick i obseesed like i'm dying and i get scared and take even more prozac......the "i'm going to die" scene is somewhat theropeautic...i own three soundtracks...requiem, mulholland dr., and now this...damn, the soundtrack is great...i like this film...
Quote from: CatMan5129 on December 12, 2006, 12:33:55 AM
the images, like a tumor, are embedded in my brain.
deep.
Quote from: adolfwolfli on December 11, 2006, 08:40:40 AM
The critical reception to this film is depressing, but is to be expected in the current American cultural climate. Americans simple cannot come to grips with anything that is deeply layered, ambiguous, and philisophical. Because a large majority of our population suffer from what Don Delillo, in his seminal "White Noise", termed "Brain Fade", a movie like The Fountain is sure to be baffling, and then ultimately a target of anger, because we hate what we cannot understand. I saw this movie last night, or, I should say, it saw me, and it is one of the most deeply felt, searching, trancendental films ever attempted by an American filmmaker. There are more ideas woven into its running time than every other movie that was playing in the multiplex that I saw it in – and I think there were 20 or so other films playing that night. Anyone who tries to tell you that this film is a "headscratcher", or "open-ended", simply didn't have the intellectual and emotional capacity to grapple with its themes. (Also, I think there is a certain breed of fanboy that is entering the theater anticipating a muscular science fiction movie, which this surely is not – it is a love story, through and through.) Aronofsky manages to weave Mayan history and religion, the Spanish inquisition, modern medicine, Emersonion transcendentalism, Eastern mysticism, science fiction, cosmology, and more into a seamless, effortlessly-woven tapestry. Like others on this board have mentioned, Tarkovsky is the touchstone here, not Kubrick (though there is a sequence toward the end that undoubtedly calls to mind 2001), but I wouldn't say "Tarkovsky should have directed this". There is a fleet-footedness and thoroughly modern pulse to The Fountain that makes it the product of an original voice, and a product of our place and time. After Requiem for a Dream (which, in retrospect is brilliantly made but a bit immature) I knew Aronofsky had it in his blood to make a great film. Secondly only to Malick's The New World, I can't remember a film that left me this shaken. I cannot get it out of my head. Don't let the critics dissuade you – get out and see this. If you are a literate, sensitive moviegoer who desires a challenge and is in need of a deeply cathartic theater experience, now's your chance.
probably a little late in jumping on the bashing your review bandwagon, but man, anyone who declares himself a, and longs for the brotherhood of, "literate, sensitive" moviegoer(s) deserves to be shot in the face with a monkey's goof juice. if you like masturbating on the internet, then don't try to fuck tarkovsky's skeletons in the same paragraph as well.
Quote from: pyramid machine on December 12, 2006, 07:16:22 PM
///spoilers///
hey gang....i had to see this twice before i had to write my "review" of this...i am a huge fan of aronofsky's shit...so, i couldnt wait to see this and i enjoyed it the first time but still needed to see it again...and i think its the best film of the year so far and aronofsky's best effort yet....i am glad that pitt decided not to do this b/c the scene when jackman is tatooing the ring around his finger and cryign and shit would not resonate on such levels if pitt was in it...and the "im going to die" scene was the highlight for me...and likewise that line and significance behind it could not be reached if pitt was in it...people want to mention that aronofsky abandoned his hip-hop montage shit...instead the whole film seemed like a montage...its has a great rhythm and feel...shots, themes, images, music, etc. were repeated like a montage-just not the hip-hop fast paced variety..so, i am glad that aronofsky/libatique are still the visual genuis'....i urge people who didnt like it at first to watch it again....and so someone like me who has o.c.d. and thinks that everytime i see a spot or get sick i obseesed like i'm dying and i get scared and take even more prozac......the "i'm going to die" scene is somewhat theropeautic...i own three soundtracks...requiem, mulholland dr., and now this...damn, the soundtrack is great...i like this film...
cool review, but why do you write like that?
at least make the font size 10, it looks good at 10. see?welcome back i guess.
spoilers maybe
I liked this movie. I don't think it was Great or anything; a lot of it was kind of clunky and I really hated the Mayan scenes, but I have a hard time disliking something if I can tell whoever made it really gave a shit about what they were doing. The scene where Tommy comes home and gets in bed with Iz about got some tears out of me. I went back and forth thinking, "I really like how this movie looks" and "god what the fuck." A good deal of the shots were beautiful (him doing that stuff against the stars, the tree at the end, the funeral scene) but I also thought a lot of it looked kind of a fake-dirty and over saturated in a desaturated way (there weren't a lot of colors in most of the scenes, but the colors that were there were like, almost obscene).
I wish I hadn't seen so many of the important shots (tree at the end, Tom "melting" at the end, etc) before seeing the movie; kind of lessened their impact.
But still, I liked it.
Quote from: I Love a Magician on December 14, 2006, 01:15:50 AMI have a hard time disliking something if I can tell whoever made it really gave a shit about what they were doing.
I really enjoyed this comment. It's not necessarily universal for me because there are certainly less-than quality films produced by filmmakers that were passionate about their subject matter and themes. Perhaps that is more of a reflection of their talent than their passion. And even though Aronofsky's passion slightly overreaches his talent in The Fountain, it is still a wonderful experience.
Quote from: MacGuffin on December 11, 2006, 11:27:30 AM
Well, I had to do a little driving to find a theater still playing it, but it was worth it. I bought into it, and was amazed. The moment that sealed it for me was the bathtub scene. It was the moment I fell in love with Izzi too and saw/felt everything Tom felt about her. Because, while all the visulas were completely striking, for me, in the end, it was a love story, and I couldn't help thinking about Arthur Hiller's Love Story while watching this (there are some similarities). But also, I felt the film, despite all the ideas about life, was about acceptance and letting go. I loved being an interacting part of the film, knowing what the repetitive "Finish it" dialogue from the opening meant before Izzi tells Tom, for example. And yet, I never felt like I was ahead of the film. I was an experience I was pleased to have. Will be in my Top Ten of the Year list.
SPOILERS
agreed mac. The most important message in the movie to me was the sense of not letting go. more importantly, how not letting go will kill the very thing you're trying to save. there were many examples of this. the one that hit me the strongest was how he would eat a little bit of the tree. and in turn, tapping into that fountain of youth, to prolong his life, was killing the tree in the long run. if he wasn't feeding off of it, you get the impression the tree would have made it to the dying star. he says to himself, almost made it. however, the very reason he comes so close to almost achieving what he is set after, yet never quite gets there, is a reflection of his own obsession.
the 2500 and the 2000 character is the same man (we know this because of the ring tattoo), for 500 years he has been eating the tree and using it's life for his own experiments. he shot himself in the foot, because the tree dies moments before being reborn. that was the most powerful moment for me. even more than the love story, which i agree with mac was very moving. it was a great tragedy in the style of hamlet. he was his own worst enemy and realized the consequences of his actions one moment too late.
i think in the future this will be remembered as one of the great films of our time. it is in many ways our 2001, the audience is just too far behind it to understand it's importance.
-sl-
Quote from: ©brad on December 11, 2006, 09:34:16 AM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 09, 2006, 10:16:14 PMThe problem is that the story is a mess. Not only is the film trying to jumble three storylines, but each piece of story and action is only lead up to giving you the pieces of a puzzle you finally understand by the end.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 09, 2006, 10:16:14 PMThe thing is that reduces the greater ideas in the story. It makes you think about the disjointed structure of the film before you think about the ideas.
why is this a bad thing?
It's a good question. There have been many great films that approached complex storylines the same way. They reduced the storyline to fragments and then lined those fragments in a complex puzzle in order to reveal the greater ideas in the story. The only reason I see for doing this if the focus of the story was strictly emotional. Exotica really dug at its inherent emotional strands with such a structure. But, the focus of the Fountain is both emotional and on greater ideas.
When someone in this thread said that American audiences could not understand a film of this depth and ambiguilty, they were missing the point. The Fountain is ambiguous but it is also very structural which is an American trait. Many American films have climbed to reach the heights of art cinema only to reduce their ambitions by including an equally great plan in structure. It assumes their is a lack of patience in American audiences to be able to accept a simple art film that is philosophical in ideas and making. It is a chief difference that have kept any American filmmaker from achieving the sense of an Eric Roth or a Yasurijo Ozu while maintaining a belief they are still influenced by both filmmakers. I believe Andrei Tarkovsky is involved in that company. The only film he made that was structurally complex was Mirror and it was based on the greatness of memory with imagery and thus the structure worked. I believe he would have simplified the story here and focused on the themes and asking the greater questions. The Fountain isn't asking new questions with its final revelations. That is why it could have approached the way it did things.
Darren Arnofsky is American and is trying to make a film that combines both the emotional with ideas and places it in a greater structure. For the reasons above, I think he is trying too hard, but he has a majesty to his imagery that will survive and I think he is successful for making a unqiue film that looks even better within a dull year for movies. But the fact is that serious art films ask to be compared to the greatest art films that they are comparable with. I don't know if The Fountain would have been equal to the very best philosophical films if it changed the problems I identified, but I think it would have been greater than it is.
Matthew Libatique, 'The Fountain'
Source: Variety
Awards: Independent Spirit Award for "Requiem for a Dream"; Chlotrudis Award for "Pi."
Tools: "We used Panavision cameras outfitted with standard primes, which are older sets of lenses. We were going for something a little more, for lack of a better word, vintage, because we wanted less resolution. We took great pains to achieve grain, so we shot on Kodak stocks, 5229 specifically," Libatique says.
Visual references: "We wanted it to be like Werner Herzog's 'Wrath of God,' but compositionally, the artist Moebius was also a huge inspiration for the look of it, from an image standpoint."
Aesthetic: "Conceptually, we had so much time to create a template and run extensive tests, so we decided to introduce the character in the dark and move him into the brightest white light you could imagine. It represents his quest for immortality, with the white light meaning truth. But it's about more than just balancing the extreme contrast between light and dark, it's about light trying to enter this man's life," says Libatique, who has collaborated with director Darren Aronofsky on all of his films. "Darren brings the idea and the composition of language. I bring light and movement and the visual score. I also worked very closely with the film's production designer, James Chinlund, who I had very fluid conversations with about things like symmetry, graphics and light."
Challenges: "The biggest challenge, from a technical standpoint, was the tree ship. I like to light with the philosophy of realism and naturalism. I wanted to convey what space would be like and what it is like to move in a nebula towards a dying star. At first, the light is realistic and practically motivated, but how do you do that with an image we've never seen before? It took a lot from a creative standpoint," Libatique says.
What's next: "The Number 23," a supernatural thriller starring Jim Carrey, due in February; pre-production on "Iron Man."
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F2179%2Farticle.jpg&hash=a2ad38ba03d8118790c57be07db4f6a295d98338)
So what if critics have somehow failed to recognize quite possibly the greatest piece of cinema ever made. At least they were decent enough to honor Clint Mansell with not only a nomination from the Broadcast Film Critics Association for Best Film Composer, but also a Golden Globe nomination for Best Original Film Score in Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain. When I started this interview, I had no idea what I was getting myself into. I started researching and realized, Jesus, this composer is actually a rock star! Clint "Poppie" Mansell "hung up his microphone" when he left the groundbreaking British band, Pop Will Eat Itself, and discovered a passion and talent for composing film scores.
Page Suicide: What was it like working on 18 projects between Requiem for a Dream in 2000, and working with Darren [Aronofsky] again on The Fountain 6 years later?
Clint Mansell: During that time, while Darren was working on The Fountain, I went out and got experience. I had six years to learn my trade and I've grown artistically, which is why I'm actually glad it took so long for The Fountain to get made. I like to think the result is a reflection of that.
PS:How did working with all those other directors compare to working with Darren?
CM:Bartender, can I get another drink? I met Darren when I came to New York, after leaving my band in England, to conquer the world. We met, and just like any other type of relationship, there is a chemistry, in our case an artistic chemistry, that just sparked something. He asked me to score Pi and since then, I've been in this profession. Darren's films are the best films I have done. I do what I do pretty much to be able to work with Darren.
PS:In an interview, I heard you say that you prefer the comfort of your own home to create music. Do you look at Suicide Girls when you make your tracks?
CM:Oh, hell yes. All the time.
PS:In The Fountain, do you work with the Foley artists and the post production sound team to combine the sound track and sound effects to reach a harmonized outcome?
CM:We work very closely for extended periods of time. Brian Emrich is the Sound Designer on The Fountain. He, Darren and I literally worked one room away from each other for months. We had to get everything to sync, so every Friday we watched the film together. That really helped us get the flow of the film down and constantly monitor urselves to make sure what we were doing wasn't rubbish. Sometimes we would watch it and say to ourselves, this is torture, why was the film better two weeks ago, you know, but in the end it just helped us to make it better, I think.
PS:When you first started working on The Fountain, you said you were still unsure of how you would tie the three distant time frames together. How is did you end up resolving that?
CM:At first, I had planned on having three distinct styles of music for each time period. But obviously, Darren would be weaving it all together, and, musically, it would have made no sense. I had to focus on the story. Essentially, it's one man's journey of life and death. That is what I had to serve. The time frames are really irrelevant to the central story of the people.
PS:You said that Darren's "initial excitement of the story" kept you guys going throughout the long process of The Fountain. Did it come out the way you thought it would in the finished product?
CM:Definitely not. It far surpassed anything I could have imagined. When you start, you can see infinite potential, but with every decision you make you close off certain possibilities, but then that many more possibilities open up. Whenever I arrive at the end and see how it all flows together, I never could have imagined that from the beginning.
PS:What influences did you end up drawing from for the Fountain?
CM:I listened to a lot of Mogwai, Godspeed you Black Emperor, Sigur Ros, and M83, and I started to get the idea of what I was going for in The Fountain. I met with Mogwai for the film; they're a Scottish band, a sort of unclassifiable post rock phenomenon. Darren and I saw them at the Knitting Factory a while back and both loved them, so it was great to work with them for the film. But I would say I also drew heavily from Godspeed You Black Emperor. Their use long, symphonic chords was perfect inspiration for The Fountain.
PS:Did you enjoy working with the Kronos Quartet for The Fountain as well as Requiem for a Dream?
CM:Yeah, of course. They are simply amazing. I may write the music, but they really make me look good by the skill and practice they put into every note. No machine could ever bring the emotion and performance that the Kronos Quartet does.
PS:Do you ever find yourself sneaking subliminal tones from your past as a punk rocker into your film scores?
CM:I don't really have to sneak anything in. Working with Darren, everything we do comes from Punk. It's an attitude. I'm not worried about what they want. Part of my job is connecting with the director's work, but its all about doing what you like and knowing that, when it's finished, you've done what you want. My whole style is based on punk.
PS:What's it like making the transition from a rocker to film composer?
CM:It was quite a natural progression for me, I think. You have to learn to let go somewhat, and listen to what the director or producer, is asking you to do. Then its a case of getting in touch with the film and how you feel about it. I'm not classically trained. The way I see music is through its most basic elements. Maybe I'm being too basic here, but punk is a progression of a melody and a beat and an interaction of the basic elements. The same with what I do now. Film music works extremely well if you keep it simple, melody, rhythm and progression. I've grown more toward instrumental music because there is more room for my own interpretations in instrumental music, which I like.
PS:Do you have your eye on any musicians or singers that you would like to work with in the future?
CM:They say you shouldn't meet your heroes, right? Seriously though, James Levell from Uncle is doing a remix of The Fountain soundtrack. I think that would be great.
PS:One of Darren's pursuits is "pushing the boundaries." What do you do in your work that pushes musical boundaries?
CM:It's hard to say, specifically, but I think it's got to do with taking what you've got and making something greater out of it. I just gotta say well, I've got these two sticks and I've just got to rub them together and burn the fucking place down!
PS:What are you burning down right now?
CM:Right now, I'm taking a bit of a break. But I am working on a couple of short films. One is a 30 minute horror film called In the Wall, by Mike Williamson. The other film I'm working on actually a 10 minute student film, directed by Robert Glassford and Timo Langer and is called The Big Forever.
PS:Those film school kids are lucky! How did they get you to do that?
CM:It was through myspace, actually. They were persistent and not annoying so I said what the hell?
PS:So why are you taking a break?
CM:Well, I am still going to work, but I do get a little belligerent and frustrated when music is involved. I have to take a break and step back because I can't put up with their bullshit and they can't take mine.
PS:That kind of comes with the territory being an artist, I think.
CM:Definitely.
PS:What is Vive la Revolucion? It says "coming soon" on your myspace page.
CM:For me, it always used to be a thrill to search through back street record shops to find the good punk records like New York Dolls or something rare. Especially with the rise of the internet, I think the only way something can be valuable is if it's hard to find. Vive la Revolucion is a record label I'm going to start. I'll just make the music I want to make, and only get 100 to 500 copies made and just give away the copies. I don't even care if people want it. In fact, maybe I'll only give it to people who don't want it. Sort of like an art terrorism type of thing like Banksy and Danger Mouse revamping the Paris Hilton album, so to speak. I thought that was awesome.
PS:Did you have anything to do with the re-arrangement of Lux Aeterna for the Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers trailer?
CM:Just cashing the check. Yeah, that's pretty much it except for seeing it and going, wow, I guess my stuff can be used in all kinds of ways.
PS:How did you make the music have such a grand sound, yet feel so intimate that it made the hair on the backs of our necks stand up?
CM:[laughs] Well, I like the idea of making the SG's hair stand on end, but actually, we originally thought it was going to have much more of a huge sound. Ultimately though, The Fountain is a love story. Contrast that with an exploding nebula where a man is coming to terms with his own death and there are no shortcuts. Godspeed You Black Emperor gave a lot of inspiration from their ability to sound so huge when they only have ten players, giving an intimate feeling while still sounding big. It's a sound not generally associated with the movies. Everything was scaled back to produce intimacy above power. The music crescendos to the end where it is a much more powerful climax contrasted with the intimacy that came before.
PS:What's it like when you realize that you have made the perfect piece of music to go with a film?
CM:I think it does have a good bit to do with ego. First of all, you need a bit of an ego to believe that anyone is going to want to listen to anything you create. There's an arrogance to the need to express yourself, too. Then the flipside of the coin is that people go, 'yeah, that's cool, but how about if you made it just a bit cooler?' That can kind of piss you off at first, but you have to learn to understand that it isn't a personal thing, that you probably can do better.
PS:Anyway, how does it feel to get nominated for two big awards in one week?
CM:Obviously its awesome! But it's weird, you know, I've always wanted to throw up when these people get awards and go 'oh my god, I had no idea!' But its pretty crazy and I love it. I wish ever week was like the one I just had!
PS:Why do you think the rest of the movie isn't getting any credit?
CM:I don't know. I think it's a beautiful movie but I can also understand that it might not be for everyone. It reminds me of books of poetry or books by people like Ram Dass, people like that. The Fountain displays experiences that you have to be at a certain place in you life to appreciate, or to even want to try to appreciate. Now, someone could easily argue that my point here is just a crock, and that I'm just making excuses. To that I would just say that we should wait and see what the fullness of time tells us about The Fountain. All I know for sure is that we are incredibly proud of what we did.
PS:You should be. You guys are the rock stars of the film industry.
from aronofsky's myspace...
dvd
bad news and good news
good news is yes there is a dvd of the film.
the bad news is it won't be out till may 15th.
i don't quite understand it all, but that's the reality. may 15th.
it has a bunch of great stuff on it including a doc of the making of it all by my friend niko.
so stand by. more shit to come.
dsa
this really sucks. how fucking clueless everyone is. the movie got zero theatre time, no awards consideration exposure, and no fucking dvd release until 5 months since it was removed from theatres... makes NO sense.
in conclusion:
(https://xixax.com/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=1364;type=avatar)
in conclusion:
(https://xixax.com/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=651;type=avatar)
check and mate
Warner has finally announced Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain for release on 5/15. There will be dual full frame and anamorphic widescreen DVD versions (SRP $27.95 each), as well as Blu-ray Disc ($34.99) and HD-DVD/DVD Combo versions ($39.99). Extras are expected to include the 6-part Inside The Fountain: Death and Rebirth documentary and more.
I'm amazed they're even offering a full frame version. The sort of people (us) who will buy this DVD are not the sort of people who buy pan-and-scan.
if it has the right cover (with a giant fucking Jackman and Weisz face), a lot of people will rent it with no idea what it is and they will want full screen.
Quote from: picolas on March 10, 2007, 03:00:28 AM
if it has the right cover (with a giant fucking Jackman and Weisz face), a lot of people will rent it with no idea what it is and they will want full screen.
IT IS WORSE THAN WE ALL COULD HAVE IMAGINED...(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Fdvd%2Ffountainshit.jpg&hash=7cc09244e1dd9812ea4f94daa07a7f6d9df40971)
that is the worst thing of all time
EDIT: (so far).
surprise, surprise. but who was honestly expecting anything better than terrible? however, it's not the worst thing I could have imagined.
I think "Peter Pan" and "Jersey Girl" still hold the records for worst DVD cover.
NO! Holy christ. That is the worst DVD cover I have ever seen.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00005JKW0.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg&hash=f91e4eccd9ac9a5796ffcb8e01faebbd4d2e2f75)
+
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00000IQVL.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg&hash=60ae4921f21a2a0274070ba5fa7f96f70fd3e1b7)
+
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fec2.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F6304490097.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg&hash=07b54419d118379faa6d65c2e2f9da37a7520c16)
=
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Fdvd%2Ffountainshit.jpg&hash=7cc09244e1dd9812ea4f94daa07a7f6d9df40971)
if only the peeps at criterion could save this from being a complete mess.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.onomatopoeia.biz%2Ffountaincriterion.jpg&hash=a3ee0c98796c35f90502465105ad72ce2256b871)
Fixed.
i feel much better now.
so i was very dissapointed cause i couldnt see this in theatres and the dvd comes in two more months.... however lucky me im in mexico and i was able to catch the movie tonight... now im more dissapointed :doh:
FUCK YES.(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Fdvd%2Ffountaindvd2.jpg&hash=5ba195b0e808f6e6f347f8fefd72b9f4dec026db)
Quote from: Darren Aronofsky on his MySpace blogdvd... i saw that terrible art and i worked hard to get it changed. the studio wouldn't hire dan and jeremy, my vfx team, to do it but i got them to use the art from the international campaign which is pretty nice.
it's a very stripped down dvd and i do hope at some point to make a definitive collector's edition but that will be in a few years.
:kiss: love you, darren.
far far better.
they showed this in brisbane cinemas for less than a month. not a single ad for it. it was gone before i even knew it was here. being in australia, the majority of movies i get excited about sometimes take months to arrive in our cinemas by which time i'm focused on the next batch of new and wonderful things coming out from around the world, and mainly the u.s.
Aronofsky is really everything a good director should be. Great fight for a great DVD Cover.
ha. finally saw this last night. in love with the visuals of course, but have decided to reserve overall judgement for a second viewing.
Good thing they fixed up the shitty artwork. I liked the movie, I didn't LOVE it, but the improved artwork gives more motivation to buy the DVD.
http://img120.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-19729/loc599/44128_fb_122_599lo.jpg
Image not working. Was the back cover of the DVD.
image not working here mac (at least for me)
Just say Noah
Darren Aronofsky finally got eternal-life epic The Fountain made through sheer belief. Now he's turning to the Bible to resurrect another great survivor, he tells Ryan Gilbey
Source: The Guardian
In the Romanian mountain resort of Sinaia, two hours north-west of Bucharest, the film-maker Darren Aronofsky is contemplating the extinction of mankind. An extreme response, you might think, to a few uncomprehending reviews of his last movie, the ecological science-fiction fantasy The Fountain. After all, it has as many passionate fans as it does sniggering detractors; it's that sort of film. But the 38-year-old Aronofsky isn't in Romania to escape anything. He is accompanying his fiancee, the actress Rachel Weisz, who is here shooting a movie. And his thoughts have turned to the demise of civilisation because he is several drafts into a screenplay about Noah. I hear the narrative has an impressive arc.
Aronofsky and Noah go way back. When the writer-director was 13, he won a United Nations competition at his school in Manhattan Beach, Brooklyn; it was for his first poem, a little effort about the end of the world as seen through Noah's eyes. "That story has interested me ever since," he says, squinting through his yellow-tinted shades and pulling a striped woolly hat on to his head. We are on the decking in front of his hotel, with the snow-dusted mountains spread out before us. Henry, Aronofsky and Weisz's 10-month-old son has just been whisked off on a sightseeing trip with his nanny, and all is tranquil.
The script, Aronofsky tells me, is no conventional biblical epic. "Noah was the first person to plant vineyards and drink wine and get drunk," he says admiringly. "It's there in the Bible - it was one of the first things he did when he reached land. There was some real survivor's guilt going on there. He's a dark, complicated character."
Frankly, it would be a surprise if he wasn't. Aronofsky doesn't do lightweight. His heroes tend not to be happy-go-lucky souls with a spring in their step, unless it's a chemically boosted spring, like the frazzled junkies in his adaptation of Hubert Selby Jr's novel Requiem for a Dream (2000). Take his punishing 1998 debut Pi, about a paranoid maths genius discerning numerical patterns in the stock market in between suffering sanity-eroding migraines. Or The Fountain, in which a conquistador, a scientist and an astronaut, all played by Hugh Jackman and none of them with much use for laughter, search for the secret of eternal life in a story that reaches from 15th-century Spain to deep space over 1,000 years later.
Even Aronofsky's only brush to date with mainstream material didn't dent his sombre vision. Long before Batman Begins was made, he was asked by Warner Bros to jazz up that ailing superhero franchise. "It was a hard, R-rated Batman," he reflects. "What I pitched them was Travis Bickle meets The French Connection - a real guy running around fighting crime. No super-powers, no villains, just corruption. For the Batmobile, I had him taking a bus engine and sticking it in a black Lincoln. Real low-tech geek stuff."
Aronofsky's work has been characterised by an unfashionable seriousness, but in person he is a breezy fellow. And he probably deserves his lightness of mood, after the years he spent trying, failing and trying again to get The Fountain flowing. Aronofsky first had the idea for a triptych cutting between distant past, present day and distant future before the millennium. At the same time, he conceived an audacious image - flowers bursting out of a man's face and body - that no one who has seen the film will forget. Through all the countless script revisions and production difficulties, that image survived.
"It's the essence of the film for me," he says. "New life emerging from old." As with the rest of the picture, which relies on "in-camera" effects rather than CGI, Aronofsky was determined to render that shot as organically as possible. "I wanted the skin to actually rip. We had this type of latex that shreds if you stretch it and throw water on it. We had bladders coming out, and this whole puppet bursting open." You would swear he's almost smacking his lips.
The first few times the project fell apart were down to humdrum financial reasons. Fortunately, the casting of Brad Pitt in the lead role ensured that most obstacles could be overcome. Except, that is, for Pitt's decision to bail on the film in 2002, weeks before shooting began. "I didn't see it coming," Aronofsky says, simply and quietly. Press reports cited creative differences, but he blames the way the production was structured. "I had been prepping in Australia for six months, on and off. They send films over there to save money, but you end up being thousands of miles apart from your team. Whispers started that might've created fear and doubt. Creatively, the film was always what it was. You either take that risk and do something that's 'out there', or you don't." Perhaps you read that as a polite way of calling Brad Pitt a coward, perhaps not.
Aronofsky doesn't seem overcome with rancour. "I'd had a big letdown in my 20s at film school, a huge row with the administration over procedures. I was living alone in LA, unemployed, broke, depressed. They were dark times. I was thinking: 'How do I create a place for me on this planet?' Having gone through that, I realised somehow I'd get through this, too."
When it became clear that initial attempts to recast Pitt's role were doomed, Aronofsky grabbed his backpack and travelled around China and India for a few months. On his return, he dabbled in several other projects, including early versions of the Noah script. But he couldn't get The Fountain out of his head. One night, unable to sleep, he sat in his office surveying all the books he had amassed as research for the picture. "I asked myself, 'What's the no-budget version of this film?'" Three weeks later, he had a radically pared-down draft of the screenplay, which retained the story's core themes. Rather fittingly, this film about eternal life was refusing to die. I tell him how romantic it all sounds, though he's possibly unconvinced by this. "There was a lot of pain," he smiles. "But I guess there's pain in romance too."
There was still a fair bit of begging, pleading and crying tears of blood before the studio agreed to resurrect the film on a drastically reduced budget with Hugh Jackman in the three-part lead role. After the collapse of the original production, Aronofsky had also lost his lead actress, Cate Blanchett, but was in no hurry to replace her with his own partner. No reflection, of course, on Weisz's acting abilities. "I was just dead against mixing business with personal stuff." It was Jackman's idea to cast Weisz, and when the two actors clicked instantly, Aronofsky knew it was the right choice. "Rachel and I agreed to be professional, and to not talk about the film at home. There were a few potholes, but I think it worked, pretty much."
At that point, Weisz strolls past us on her way to the film set. "I'm talking to the Guardian," Aronofsky calls out to her. "All the way out here? That's so glamorous!" she hoots. When she's gone, I ask him what he thinks her best performance has been. "The Fountain, of course," he shoots back, mock-offended. Informed that he's not allowed to choose his own film, he modifies his answer to The Constant Gardener, for which Weisz won an Oscar. "In the glimpses I've seen of things she's got coming out, like Wong Kar-Wai's My Blueberry Nights, she is really pushing herself to some interesting places."
Aronofsky's relief at finally seeing The Fountain come to fruition insulated him against any negative reactions the movie prompted - such as the reports of booing at the Venice film festival last year. "When I first heard about that," Hugh Jackman told me, "I was worried for Darren. I know it's an amazing piece of work, and that Darren is a complete visionary. But the film is his baby." What actually happened was that a scuffle broke out between some audience members who loathed The Fountain, and others who considered it a masterpiece. "Darren must've been thrilled about that," Jackman said, laughing.
Indeed, Aronofsky exudes a state of serenity about The Fountain that no bad review can jeopardise. "After all I've gone through," he says, "any other negativity hardly registers. It's an extremely earnest movie, and that makes it a target. But to be cynical in these times seems to me inappropriate. The tragedies we perform on each other are so well reported. Quite clearly, the planet is dying, and we are dying on it. To find that funny, or to find Paris Hilton's partying interesting, is beyond nauseating. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with comedy. My goal, though, is to give people something they can appreciate for a long time." He smiles before making his first insincere remark in our conversation: "I haven't yet been able to pump out a teen drama. But I really do hope to one day."
Björk says: With Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain, maybe it was a relief to see him portray a spiritual world that was so idiosyncratic at a time when I feel so overwhelmed by religion. It's so strange that the inner- most secret place in a person is their spiritual belief, and something as mass-produced as organised religion can just storm in there. The Fountain is not Christian or Jewish or Muslim - it's areligious; not against or with it. It's just alternative.
Quote from: MacGuffin on April 27, 2007, 09:19:44 AM
civilisation... characterised... realised... jeopardise... organised...
does this guy's z key not work or something?
Quote from: pozer on April 27, 2007, 12:20:13 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on April 27, 2007, 09:19:44 AM
civilisation... characterised... realised... jeopardise... organised...
does this guy's z key not work or something?
No, he's just English.
Englizh.
Quote from: MacGuffin on April 27, 2007, 09:19:44 AM
Björk says: With Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain, maybe it was a relief to see him portray a spiritual world that was so idiosyncratic at a time when I feel so overwhelmed by religion. It's so strange that the inner- most secret place in a person is their spiritual belief, and something as mass-produced as organised religion can just storm in there. The Fountain is not Christian or Jewish or Muslim - it's areligious; not against or with it. It's just alternative.
uh.. where'd she come from all of a sudden?
Quote from: Pubrick on April 27, 2007, 07:54:07 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on April 27, 2007, 09:19:44 AM
Björk says: With Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain, maybe it was a relief to see him portray a spiritual world that was so idiosyncratic at a time when I feel so overwhelmed by religion. It's so strange that the inner- most secret place in a person is their spiritual belief, and something as mass-produced as organised religion can just storm in there. The Fountain is not Christian or Jewish or Muslim - it's areligious; not against or with it. It's just alternative.
uh.. where'd she come from all of a sudden?
journalist is English. that's how they do.
DVD review:
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/786/786367p1.html
Quote
the poor transfer quality makes it hard to recommend purchasing this for your library
What?!!
...
dvdbeaver's review of "the fountain":
"the image is briskly clean and free of annoying artifacts"
full review:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews30/the_fountain.htm
This is quite simply one of the most thought provoking movies to be released in recent memory. I won't bore anyone with a lengthy review, but to sum it up - Aronofsky is able to balance the three stories beautifully. The visuals and performances by Jackman and Weisz help give the film a sense of over-whelming emotion.
I'm very sad the film flopped financially and received so many negative reviews.
This might change after a second viewing but, after reading this thread in-depth now that I've seen it, the criticisms are just as valid as the praises. I'm kind of in Ghostboy's boat, where thinking about the film is almost a more satisfying experience than watching it. And whoever said it was closer to 2046 than 2001 nailed it. I wasn't expecting the science-fiction aspect of the film to be largely peripheral, and I anticipate that a second viewing will sit better with me now that my expectations are out of the way. As it stands now, I liked it a great deal more than the critics but somewhat less than most of xixax. Though, I can see myself growing to love it despite its flaws.
As has been said before, the dialogue was occasionally weak and - I know I might be the only person to feel this way - Rachel Weisz just didn't do it for me here. I think I'm hard on her because I believe she could be as good as someone like Kate Winslet if she tried but she just isn't. In fact, that's sort of the problem I have with the film. I felt like, as good as it is, it could have been GREAT. It was a 2-hour-plus epic squeezed into 1:40. Whether Aronofsky intended a shorter film from way back in the Pitt days, or if it was due to the smaller budget for this version, I don't know, but the length hurts the story in my opinion. I really wanted a more than was there.
But what was there was good. Visually it's spectacular, the stories do come together nicely, I will be buying the soundtrack immediately, and Hugh Jackman... holy shit! It's great to see Aronofsky showing his softer side without compromising his storytelling style (and that he was able to keep from compromising his storytelling style without using his "hip-hop montages" and the bag of tricks that worked in Pi and Requiem). If nothing else, I admire him and The Fountain a great deal. It's going in my 2006 top 10 but I still stand firm behind my vote for Children of Men for the Xixax Awards.
...
:bravo: yay for Darren, he's the man. :notworthy:
i sent my e-mail. The Fountain on Criterion? fuck yes.
Hi Cory,
We don't have plans to release "The Fountain" at this time, but thanks for
your email! Title suggestions are always welcome.
Sincerely,
Tamara
I got the exact same e-mail
your name is Cory too?!
That's what we expected, right? We already knew they don't currently have plans to release the Fountain, which is why we're all sending them emails.
i asked for Gerry and didn't get a reply.
i asked for Armageddon as a joke once.
its all my fault
...
Forgive my lateness to this subject. I bought the DVD when it came out and only now got around to watching it.
The movie itself transcends the genre. I watched it late last night just before I went to bed and it was almost a luxury being able to mull it over in my semi-conscious brain in that limbo before sleep. I woke up eager to see what everyone had to say about it and discuss some of the final scenes. The movie itself isn't very confusing but it gives some ideas that are hard to wrap your brain around. More importantly, it recreated the cyclical story in a refreshing way. But let me get to the real point of the post before you give up on me.
I thought throughout the movie that Tommy (the Captain) was the same person the whole time. Of course we have the scene where the Captain drinks of the sap and erupts into foliage and drops the ring. I was unsure if that was meant to be symbolic or literal. Is it a case of reincarnation? Of the two star-crossed lovers finding themselves in another time? Is the Queen killed by the Inquisition and the Captain dead by the fountain only to be reborn again? If that's the case the story becomes something completely different to me and its meaning changes drastically. It becomes a movie completely about loss and the fight is not about the losing of the goal, but of obtaining the second chance. If the Captain and Tommy are not the same person, but instead the same spirit, then his goal becomes seeking out death, not preventing it. In that way the spirits are reborn to have another chance.
On the other hand if Tommy is all three characters -- if the reborn scene after first drinking out of the fountain is symbolic -- then the theme becomes the fulfillment of love. Everything Tommy does after losing Izzy is to complete her memory. He does it to honor her more than save her. It fits much more with the narrative theme of the movie, but also feels more hollow.
Help me out.
Director's Commentary (http://www.darrenaronofsky.com/Media/Fountain_commentary.mp3) is now available.
Roger Ebert reviews The Fountain (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070913/REVIEWS/709130305) a year after its release.
Quote from: Roger Ebert
When a $75 million production goes into turnaround and is made for $35 million, elements get eliminated. When a film telling three stories and spanning thousands of years has a running time of 96 minutes, scenes must have been cut out. There will someday be a Director's Cut of this movie, and that's the cut I want to see.
btw: I'm about thirty minutes into the commentary and its pretty interesting.
This one had an awfull distribution here in Portugal, playing in only two theaters. I first saw it back in February, at Fantasporto and was quite amazed by it, but most of the people didn't - and we're talking about the last day of the biggest film festival in this country, so most of those guys were at least interested in film.
I really need to watch this again, because it's one of those who needs a second viewing, since there were probably a lot of details I didn't get or something, but those images, those colors, those close-ups... that was great, great filmmaking. And Darren had some huge cojones to make it like that: tight, quick and uncompromising (box-office wise). So, I'm not even sure there is a bigger cut of this, since I don't see the point why The Fountain should be any longer. For my money, it was a great achievement, and one of the best movies I've seen this year.
Quote from: squints on September 17, 2007, 08:31:44 PM
Roger Ebert reviews The Fountain (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070913/REVIEWS/709130305) a year after its release.
Quote from: Roger Ebert
When a $75 million production goes into turnaround and is made for $35 million, elements get eliminated. When a film telling three stories and spanning thousands of years has a running time of 96 minutes, scenes must have been cut out. There will someday be a Director's Cut of this movie, and that's the cut I want to see.
btw: I'm about thirty minutes into the commentary and its pretty interesting.
Ebert knows nothing anymore.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldsoundtrackawards.com%2Fnews%2Fnews_64.jpg&hash=69e93fcbc98416636d41520a009fb04e4fbb7548)
World Soundtrack Award winners announced!
source: Filmfestival
Tonight the World Soundtrack Awards winners were announced in Music Centre Bijloke Ghent. The first prize went to Alexandre Desplat (The Queen, The Painted Veil), this year's Film Composer of the Year. Clint Mansell's film music for The Fountain not only received the Best Original Soundtrack of the Year but also the Public Choice Award.
The 7th edition of the World Soundtrack Awards was again a big success. The Flemish Radio Orchestra, conducted by Dirk Brossé, performed top quality film music for a sold out concert hall. Both the ceremony and the concert were hosted by world famous composers such as David Arnold, Alberto Iglesias, Clint Mansell, Maurice Jarre and Daniel Tarrab.
After the World Soundtrack Awards ceremony the Flemish Radio Orchestra, conducted by Dirk Brossé, performed film music by Mychael Danna (Little Miss Sunshine, Capote, Monsoon Wedding, Ice Storm), Harry Gregson-Williams (Man of Fire, Shrek, Chronicles of Narnia), Evanthia Reboutsika (My Father & My Son), Mikis Theodorakis (Zorba) and Jef Neve (Dagen Zonder Lief).
The winners:
Film Composer of the Year
Alexandre Desplat (The Queen, The Painted Veil)
Best Original Soundtrack of the Year
The Fountain (Clint Mansell)
Best Original Song Written Directly for Film
You Know My Name (Casino Royale) written by Chris Cornell and David Arnold – Performed by Chris Cornell
Discovery of the Year
Daniel Tarrab and Andres Goldstein (XXY, Inheritance)
Public Choice Award
The Fountain (Clint Mansell)
The Lifetime Achievement Award went to Mikis Theodorakis who unfortunately couldn't be present due to health problems.
The Best Young Belgian Composer prize was awarded to Werner Viaene. He wrote the best score for Belgium, The Movie by Wim Robberechts and won € 2.500.
Darren Aronofsky Wants to Redo 'The Fountain'
Source: Cinematical
It's becoming clear that Darren Aronofsky is still haunted by the failure of The Fountain -- and I don't mean that as negatively as it might sound. He has a right to be bothered by it. It was a struggle to make, and a deeply personal story that was given rather shoddy treatment all around.
So it's not surprising that he wants to return to it -- but what is surprising is that he told MTV that his goal isn't an ultimate director's cut, but something akin to a remake. "It wouldn't be a 'director's cut' - more like an alternate story told with the addition of unused footage from the first go-round. This would be a complicated project on a couple of levels, though, and it's at least a few years away."
That has to be the most intriguing tease ever. Some of the missing scenes could be found in the graphic novel -- in its afterword, Aronofsky described rewriting the script to be the lean indie film we saw onscreen, which always implied that he had never shot the "extras" that were in the book. There's nothing that changes the story drastically -- the book was esentially the same, except for an extended sequence in Spain that explored the love affair between the Queen and Tomas, the political problems it was causing her, and the hold the Inqusition had on the country. It's a beautiful, incredibly romantic chapter of the book. And if he ever filmed it ... wow. I want to see it. Maybe we can at least have a Criterion edition that has the footage as an extra?