Talk:The Fountain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Fountain article.
Article policies
Good article The Fountain has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. May 2006 to April 2007


Contents

[edit] Proposal for Plot section

I would like to eventually nominate this article for FA status in the coming month, but I'm concerned that the structure of the Plot section will not be up to par. I'd like to suggest the possibility of creating three subsections that each address the separate stories that go on in the film. This would make the events for each story arc linear and solve the structural issue. However, my concern is how to approach the conclusion of the film, as it ventures from simple cinematic transitions to true interaction -- i.e., the meditating Tom appearing in front of the priest instead of the conquistador. I think this could be an appropriate solution if we could somehow address the overlapping events at the end of the film. Perhaps the three subsections can be concluded at a certain point, and the fourth subsection would tie everything together? Further justification for taking this approach would be to avoid a blow-by-blow summary process that would be confusing for a film like this. It can be further emphasized in the first sentence of the Plot section that the three story arcs overlap with each other. Wikipedia isn't a substitute for watching the film, so while the transitions are thematically relevant, they are too numerous to be detailed in this plot summary. It's already noted in Themes the style that Aronofsky used, but it seems unnecessary and difficult to try to show this in the summary. Batman Begins is a light example -- it was not linear, as Nolan likes to jump around in the timeframe, but we made it linear to resolve the issue of having to address what was happening on the screen at the moment.

Before the nomination, I'd also like to rewrite the last paragraph of Themes for more content; this is a highly interpretative film, so I think that Themes should be a major part of this article. Also, the Reception section needs to be expanded, as there are really only two reviews on there -- one positive, one negative. If anyone can help out in expanding this section, that would be appreciated. Also, the DVD will be coming out soon with potentially advantageous content, so I'd like to have the nomination after it can be explored what we can use from the DVD's features. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also suggest providing a picture after this potential Plot section revision. The picture should include both of the main characters, especially from the contemporary period, to solidly illustrate the romance element of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose we add a spoiler warning. I would do it, but I don't know how.

[edit] 26th century?

I've just watched this film and I'm curious if there is a citation for the phrase in the head of this article that future-Tom is in the 26th century specifically? I saw no reference for exact dates for that time-period anywhere in the movie. -- Forrest 10:32 PM Pacific, June 4th 2007

You'll find the time period mentioned in several reviews, but there is no mention of it in the film proper. The information comes from the film's marketing and previews. In one preview we see the text "1500 AD" appear before the conquistador scenes, then we see 2000 AD appear before the modern scenes, and then 2500 AD before the futuristic scenes.--Daniel 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's based on the marketing, which is reiterated in the reviews. The timeline may not necessarily be true (since the film is up for some serious interpretation). Anyone think that the century mentions should be removed, maybe? I wouldn't contest it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we reword it to something like "...appears to be a futuristic setting in an unstated year, although marketing materials for the film labeled it as 2500 AD"--Daniel 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote it not to mention the centuries and was instead more vague. The film does not mention if the different narratives were part of an actual timeline, so it's best to be open-ended. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom in the starship

Does anybody know why in the starship, Tom is pictured bald? This should be explained —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien joe (talk • contribs) 18:36, July 9, 2007

We see him meditating, barefoot, with a light dress, etc. i think being bald goes with the theme. i don't think it needs explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.37.136 (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic interpretation

[edit] 3 things: Science-religion debate, Donovan's brain, Second item in monstrance/reliquary & theme

3 things that the main article does not deal with:

1) One aspect not noted in the discussions of the film is that they neglect to refer to any themes that should be obvious and cogent to today's debates about science and religion. Many biologists cling to a strictly biochemical explanation of life and darwinian mechanisms of evolution. Religion is considered just a human construct to deal with the fear of death. When Tomas is about to kill Silencio, he says the Inquisitor must be "cut out" - a phrase which refers to surgery and excising a tumor - something related to the medical treatment of tumors. Silencio himself while a negative and gloomy figure, does not seem to be motivated by the usual forms of greed for gratification of senual pleasure, but is devoted to mortification of his own flesh and is ideologically motivated to steal Spain state by state, in order to bring the country back to spirituality and adherence to the faith in an afterlife. Tomas later as scientist, is taking aim at "death as a disease" rather than accepting death as inevitable and natural. He cannot know what comes after death, while Inquisitor Silencio as a symbol and representative of religious faith, is silent. I also note that in the imdb.com information there is a reference to "Y si, Creo." - phonetically related to Izzi, as "And yes, I believe."

2) The name of the first monkey subject, Donovan, may relate somehow to the film, "Donovan's Brain" where a scientist with the help of his wife (played by an actress who would later be Nancy Regan, wife of the conservative president) and a friend, try to keep the brain of a dead miser alive after having experimented on Monkey brains.

3) We see 3 scenes where Tomas is praying before a reliquary (actually the item may be a monstrance that is used to display a Eucharist as used in communions, to the faithful). The scene in the hospital elevator actually mirrors the second reliquary - a kind of cross with rays. Also, Tom eats of the tree in the space ship, as if it were a kind of communion. While we can clearly identify hair (presumably of Isabela) displayed the first and third time, what is the item in the case at the second time (in Spain)?

CB - July 28, 2007 8:10 AM CST

  1. If you can find any reliable sources that investigates the film's themes in relation to science and religion, they are welcome. The film is still fairly new, and it usually takes years for a film to be fully criticized, from what I've seen.
  2. I have not come across any mention of the monkey's name and the film "Donovan's Brain". If there is a reliable source making the connection, it would be welcome.
  3. I don't know how to answer this one; it's a question that borders on general discussion. I haven't come across any reliable sources that study the film's themes and symbolism. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Science and Religion in the Film, THE FOUNTAIN

I appreciate comments in response to my original discussion. As to my #1, where I discuss the Science vs. Religion debate as elements in the film, all I can say is that I am amazed with the current arguments that arise over creationism periodically appearing in the press, that this theme is avoided in discussions, in favor of interpretations of whether Thomas is on drugs or not.

While I am not a professional film critic, it is fairly easy to point to obvious and explicit elements of this theme, in actions and dialog, which can be clearly ascertained by those who see the film. While there is nothing on this debate quoted anywhere I have seen, by Darren Arnofsky, I think there is plenty of circumstancial evidence: name, "Silencio," the self flagelation of the Inquisitor ("mortification of the flesh" where the soul is imprisoned), and statements made by the Inquisitor about the belief of the queen in immortality being "heresy" and other internal actions and statements by Thomas ('He must be cut out'& "Death is a disease, like any other"), including his willingness to kill Silencio. All these can be fairly interpreted as conflict, certainly without an explicit citation from some film critic or academic, let alone waiting 20 years for someone else to agree.

CB - 7/29/2007 13.10 CST

Your observations sound interesting, but unfortunately they do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Including your own analysis is considered original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. I have been trying my best to track down academic studies of the film (one is listed a couple of sections above). Do you happen to know the whereabout of any academic studies of the film? It can be referenced for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thematic quotes

Glenn Whipp. "In search of forever", Los Angeles Daily News, 2006-11-24. 

  • Darren Aronofsky:
“ 'Come take a walk with me' ... for me, that's the crux of the movie. We've all had those moments when you can actually take time and experience life or you can be projecting into the future and not be in the present. Tommy makes his decision, and he regrets it for 500 years. ”
  • Hugh Jackman:
“ It's about duality. I think Darren provides a big clue at the beginning with that quote from the Bible, how man is cast out of the Garden of Eden because he ate from the Tree of Knowledge. And God placed the sword with fire -- fire being truth -- to guard the Tree of Life. And the truth is, there is no duality. We are all essentially different forms of the same thing. But from the moment of eating that apple from the Tree of Knowledge, we saw ourselves as separate. We see the future and past, pain and pleasure, man and woman, death and life, love and hate. But there is no difference. There's just one essential truth. Without eating from that Tree of Knowledge, you'd see God everywhere. Now it's been eaten of, and we live in this life, this world of duality. That's the Garden of Eden, however you want to disseminate that myth. And what Rachel's character is saying is, 'I'm dying, but it's OK. I'm always there.' That's the truth. Everything else is, as they say in Indian philosophy, just this wonderful show. ”

Quotes on the film's themes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebert links

Ebert stuff. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headlines

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of CGI

The articles mentions several times that the filmmakers desired to avoid using CGI as much as possible, but it doesn't mention why. I would see the aim in making a movie totally without CGI, but what exactly does only using some CGI accomplish, besides a lower budget? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I gather, a lower budget was critical for the production of this film. Perhaps this point can be elaborated in the article. According to Wired, "The studio bean counters, however, remained skeptical that the director could deliver a supernova without supersizing the bottom line. It wasn't the first time that Aronofsky had been challenged to turn practical limitations into subversive opportunities. 'The whole approach of my team is to take old-school techniques and street technology and figure out how to do something fresh and original with them,' he says. To reinvent space organically, Dawson and Schrecker hunted down old cloud-tank technicians and even hired artists to paint the nebula scenes by hand. But nothing looked good enough." Obviously they found a solution, but I think a minimal budget was key to its production. Judging how much it grossed (or didn't gross), the caution seemed warranted in hindsight. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orion Nebula section

Perhaps it would be nice to somewhere include mention that the location of Xibalba essentially coincides with the Orion Nebula, as an astronomer I've always found this an interesting point in the film that, from what I gather, hasn't been addressed in detail in the article. I'm not much for editing wikipedia articles, so I hope someone with more experience could address this matter. Cheers, 24.255.14.88 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Twitch has Darren Aronofsky saying, "All the cosmology, all the stuff about Xibalba, all the stuff about the star in the sky—which is the Orion nebula, where they thought Xibalba was—and their sense of the holy dread and the sacrifice of life creating creation, seems to be stuff that you can interpret out of their writings and their artwork." I'll see how I can include this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I must say, I appreciate the prompt response. I've always found it a very interesting point of the film, and I am just happy its sourced and verifiable. Thanks. General Epitaph 06:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem; I take pride in my contributions to this article. I don't know where you'd find so much information about the film in one spot. Of course, there's always room for improvement. I'm hoping to improve this article after I address Fight Club (film). Let me know if you have any suggestions for structure and content for The Fountain. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thematic tie-in between the tree and the star

I find that there is an important thematic connection without mention in the article. When showing Tommy Xibalba, Izzi mentions that when the star dies and explodes its substance will help to create new stars. Later, when she explains her reasoning behind planting a tree above a grave, the primary point was that the body's substance goes into the tree, and then goes on and supports other life.

The elements which make life possible originated in the violent deaths of stars. When Thomas and the tree are vaporized in the supernova, their substance joined the star's in seeding the Galaxy and fostering more life. Is this not the method by which they gained their immortality after death? Without this bit of information, I find that the "future" story line is without purpose.

Silpion (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We would need to use reliable sources to mention that tie-in. We can't make the connection ourselves since that'd be original research. Perhaps Aronofsky's downloadable commentary has mention of it? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In the film itself Izzi states "Someday soon it will explode, die, and give birth to new stars". I guess what I'm suggesting is a little something in the plot section to remind the reader of this important point she made rather than interpret it for them later in the article. It would be nice to have such an interpretation included though. If I have the time I may try to find such a source. Thanks for mentioning the commentary, I will enjoy listening to that. Silpion (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Something very similar to what you want can be found here -- http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30768 -- I think it comes closest (that I have seen so far) to Aronofsky answering "what is the Fountain, does the film have a central message, if so what is that message." I believe this source material (if carefully/neutrally approached) could support your point. Sskoog (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for posting that. What he has to say about the theme does seem to support the idea, but he doesn't really say anything about the star. I'm beginning to wonder if he was aware of how perfectly the stellar life cycle matches with his other thematic ideas. Silpion (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't it be an Arts good article?

I mean the good article template at the top of this discussion page.124.182.65.10 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical and Scientific Background

Personally I would like to see more information about the factual background to the Conquistador part. Aronovsky himself talks about his interest in this period in the special features of the DVD. The religion and esoterism are framed with very precise symbolism throughout the film. There is a parable here and a belief system that should be addressed. Silencio is roughly synonomous with Torquemada, as is The Queen with Isabella I of Castile. It was she who granted Christopher Columbus sponsorship to sail to the Indies.

There has also been a lot of speculation about miracle plant cures in the Amazon jungle, a branch of research that has been systematically supressed by the pharmaceutical giants, who patent the findings and sell placebos to a gullable public.

The best fiction may be cleverly disguised fact, and a way of drawing attention to hidden truths. This film has been too well thought out to be just a fairytale romance, to be sure... Vachementchien (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)