MovieChat Forums > The Fountain (2006) Discussion > A Complete Solution to The Fountain (War...

A Complete Solution to The Fountain (Warning: Spoilers)


I can’t think of a film that’s more visually beautiful and conceptually challenging than this. It took me three weeks of analysis and multiple careful viewings to resolve all of the questions I had about it.

For starters, it’s clear that The Fountain is a cinematic puzzle. Aronofsky stated this in an interview, he said that the film is like a Rubik’s Cube – there are many permutations, but ultimately there’s only one complete and correct solution. But I think he was too close to the solution, because it’s so incredibly difficult to figure out the hidden meaning, that almost nobody seems to have accomplished this. And this is probably why he’s talking about reworking the film and re-releasing it some years down the line – I think he wanted more people to be able to see it the way he meant it.

So here’s the basic outline of what happened in the film, and what it means. It’s important to bear in mind that if any component of the film doesn’t fit with the interpretation, then the interpretation is wrong. And don’t be misled by the graphic novel – it’s a different version of the story and so it can’t help us figure out the film.

The story that Izzi wrote for Tommy, which she called ‘The Fountain,’ is a work of fiction that she came up with to send her obsessed husband a message about the ultimate futility of seeking immortality in this life. Tomas the Conquistador is how Izzi sees her valiant though single-minded husband. At the end of Chapter 11 of her book, we find Tomas the Conquistador about to be killed at the hands of the Mayan priest. If you study the frame by frame of the book you’ll see this to be true.

The present day story of Tommy and Izzi is ‘real,’ which, thankfully, few people dispute. But what really confuses a lot of people is the fact that at the very end of the film, we see a second version of events – in this version, Tommy goes after Izzi and catches up with her in the first snow. So naturally the question arises ‘which version -actually- happened?’ The answer is ‘both,’ which we’ll get back to shortly.

The future Tom is also ‘real,’ which most people seem to have big problems with, which is sad. Aronofsky mentioned in an interview that he discovered self-sustaining eco-spheres as part of some NASA program, and he based Tom’s ‘bubble ship’ on that idea. You have to ignore a lot of obvious facts to conclude that the future Tom in the space sphere isn’t real. You have to ignore the glaring fact that Tommy discovered an immortality drug while striving to save Izzi, and the fact that he told his boss and his co-workers that they were out to defeat death. And you have to ignore the rings on his arms which measure the chasm of centuries between Izzi’s death and Tom’s journey through space. And you’d also have to ignore the visual language of the film, which shows that the future scenes are ‘the present’ and the events in 2000ish are future Tom’s memories. So Tom in space is the immortal Tommy whose bittersweet conquest of death has actually prevented him from joining his beloved wife in death, a conundrum which torments him. Thus, his quest to the dying star Xibalba, so he can be reunited with his wife by dying at the nebula that she thought of as a metaphor for rebirth through death, ‘death as an act of creation.’

So all of that’s pretty clear, up until the last 15 minutes or so, when so many seemingly irreconcilable things happen in all three timelines that most people just get lost and frustrated, and settle for the first crappy explanation that comes to mind (which usually entails reducing the entire future timeline to a dream or metaphor…which doesn’t actually make any sense). But if we take the final scenes one at a time, they all actually converge on a fantastic and deeply satisfying, if fairly ‘far-out there,’ solution. That shouldn't put anyone off, though, because Aronofsky calls this film 'a psychedelic fairy tale.'

So the first real shocker, aside from Izzi’s ghost haunting Tom and generally being cryptic, happens when Tom finally accepts his own death and Izzi’s admonition to ‘finish it.’ Suddenly we’re back at the pivotal moment when Izzi asked Tommy out to the first snow – except this time, we see a moment of realization pass over his face, and he goes after her. Wtf, right? What just happened? Here’s what happened: The future Tom, whose consciousness is finally complete and enlightened, has sent a kind of message back in time, to himself, to correct the blunder of letting her go off on her own during the first snow. Enlightened Tom has created an alternate timeline, which closes the circle between the moment he screwed up and let Izzi go, and his death at Xibalba. Aronofsky is conveying a marvelous idea here that our consciousness is timeless, and he shows us the consequences of this in practice through this film. More proof of this comes in the subsequent scenes, which we’ll get to shortly.

Next we see future Tom break free of the bubble ship to be enclosed by his own mini-sphere, where he imagines the end of Izzi’s book, 'The Fountain.' The Chapter 12 he imagines reveals the divine aspect of Tomas (which is in fact his future, enlightened self) appearing to the Mayan priest, who then surrenders his life to this vision. The priest sees the divine in Tomas, even though Tomas can’t see it in himself. Regardless, Tomas the Conquistador fulfills his ultimate divine destiny to sacrifice himself to the cycle of life – it’s not the immortality he bargained for, but it’s precisely what the real enlightened Tom is up to in the future timeline, so their ends are the same even if their intents are different. Therefore, completing the circle of his destiny, Tom regains the ring he lost when he went astray by fearing the loss of Izzi, rather than embracing his love of his wife by joining her in the first snow. Reunited with his ring, death now reunites him with Izzi’s spirit. And as his ashes mix with Xibalba’s to flow over the Izzi tree, their deaths bring her tree back to life in a moment of foreshadowing, revealing that they will indeed both live together forever through the cycle of death/rebirth.

Then we get to see some more of the alternate timeline that Tom created through his enlightenment in the future. We see Izzi pick the seed and hand it to Tommy, and we see Tommy plant the seed over her grave. We see that this Tommy never lost his ring, because he never chose to work on Donovan rather than go traipsing in the first snow with Izzi. We see Tommy say goodbye to Izzi at her grave, because -this- Tommy has the benefit of the insight of his enlightened self in a future alternate reality, and we see Xibalba explode in the future, but from the vantage point of Izzi’s grave, because this Tommy never goes to Xibalba…he found his peace with Izzi’s death while on Earth.

Well, those are the broad strokes anyway. Not an easy puzzle to solve, by any means. But the idea that our future state of enlightened consciousness can retroactively alter our reality in the present…that just made all the puzzling worthwhile to me.

I hope you enjoyed my analysis, and that for some of you, it enriches your experience of the film.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Really enjoyed that interpretation, mate. Signed up specifically to say thanks.

reply

That was damn descent of you, Ronald. I'm glad I could contribute something to your enjoyment of this uniquely haunting film.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

I can't respond to the main thread for some reason. I liked your interpretation and it is pretty close to mine, however I have a problem with this part of your conclusion:

"The future Tom, whose consciousness is finally complete and enlightened, has sent a kind of message back in time, to himself, to correct the blunder of letting her go off on her own during the first snow."

If Tom was so advanced and powerful he would no longer need the tree to sustain his life. It's possible in the context of the story, but I somehow doubt Tom would have the energy to change time but not have the energy to restore the tree.

reply

I probably could’ve been more clear about that part. Tom in the space bubble doesn’t achieve enlightenment until his final conversation with Izzi / Queen Isabel when he smiles and says “I’m going to die,” at which point his fear and frustration about death has been suddenly transformed into understanding, acceptance, and even joy. It’s that understanding that changes his mind at the crucial instant in the past when he had turned left, instead of turning right and catching up with Izzi in the snow.

Aronofsky seems to be saying that some states of consciousness, like love, and the understanding of death, transcend time.

Note that this entails no ‘power’ other than the power over one’s own consciousness. That, to me, is the elegant beauty of the idea – it imbues something we all take for granted, our own inner being, with a secret capacity (similar to the many-worlds theory of physics, where alternate universes exist for every choice that we may make at any given instant).

To endow Tom with impossible God-like powers would’ve been trite and insulting. Even Buddha and Christ had to eat to sustain their physical bodies. And resurrecting the Izzi tree would’ve completely negated the meaning of the story – that death is an essential aspect of the cyclical and eternal fountain of life.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

I like your interpretation, and i pretty much agree with it all. I think Quantum theory suggest that a lot of what you purpose about consciousness transcending time is in fact possible. I've held a very strong belief for a long time that this is possible, but it also could be less about literal time travel and more about simply rewriting your own memories, after all, all that we can see touch and hear is stored in our mind.

We wouldn't literally need to travel through time to change our perception of it, only change our own memories. And of course if our minds and memories define our existence, then really there is no difference...especially if there are no other consciouss humans around to disagree with your new 'memories'

Damn I love it, the potential of the human mind is just over whelming, well nearly, i dont think our own mind power can overwhelm itself, but i hope you get my point...peace out.


---

Scientists are saying the future is going to be far more futuristic then they originally predicted

reply

Loved this analysis !

reply

This was an excellent analysis, and truly without any recognizable faults.

Previously, upon my initial viewing, I had thought that the future Tom was a figment of the 2000 Tom's imagination and the adventures of Tomas were how the 2000 decided to finish his book. So, the true and sole real ending would have been Tom walking away from Izzy's grave while the others would have been how he felt about it.

Obviously, this had lead to many discrepancies between what I thought had happened and what actually did. And I was simply unconvinced of my initial theory.

Upon my second viewing, I developed a similar thought that the future Tom was in fact also real and he was reminiscing of his past and the death of Izzy. However, I had no idea how to connect the ending of future tom with the other endings. And upon reading your spectacular analysis and the idea of a creation of a parallel universe, I believe you have completely nailed down every detail of that movie. I congratulate you for your acute analytical skills, and for having spared me of at least 5 more viewings of the movie.

"I'll be back." - Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator

reply

I Liked your interpretation..but for me, Izzy is waiting for Tom to die and to share the eternity in Xibalba(Heaven or whatever you call it)...and for me the last few moments of the "alternate story" of Tommy and Izzy is what he wished he coulda have done, to pass more time with her in the final days.

reply

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it alonos.

So here's my question for you: if the alternate timeline is simply Tom’s ‘wishful thinking’ (which I think falls into the same category as ‘dreaming’ and ‘metaphor’), then how do you explain that when Xibalba explodes from the POV of Izzi’s grave, that there’s no-one there to see it? In other words, how and why would Tom be wishfully imagining that scene without his own presence in it? Because if you look closely, Tom fades away before the star explodes, which makes that the only shot in the film where Tom/Tommy isn’t present. In my opinion, Aronofsky put that shot in the film to establish that the alternate timeline is real in the objective sense.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

I have to watch it again...so I can give you a more fresh answer...
But the last 20 minutes for me were the turning point..so many climaxes..

reply

Thank you, devil_boy. I've watched this film through about 10 times and each time I interpreted the ending differently. Yet no matter how I interpreted it, there were parts I couldn't reconcile. And I will admit that I always thought that at least one of the time periods wasn't real simply because there were things that just seemed out of place when I tried to look at all three periods as being real.

But now I see that's because I hadn't considered the idea of the consciousness transcending time (which you almost think would be obvious considering this is a transcendental film). Thus, I had never considered the idea of the enlightened future Tom being able to "alter" the consciousness of/affect the past versions of himself. This is also the same reason I could never fully explain how future Tom "appeared" in Tomas in the past life.

This also clears up another thought for me: Tommy is trying throughout the film to "transcend" death by reaching immortality. Well, really, once you "transcend" death, time basically becomes irrelevant, and thus you have transcended time as well. Therefore, it is almost logical to think that once Tommy reaches his enlightened, transcended state he is able to "communicate" through time to his past self, because time is no longer a barrier.

I watched this again last night keeping in mind what you've written here, and it definitely does bring things full circle. Thanks again!

The key to immortality is first living a life worth remembering.

reply

"In other words, how and why would Tom be wishfully imagining that scene without his own presence in it?"

Do you "wishfully imagine" love? Hate? Grief? Yes?

If not, then how would you chose to represent these emotions and how one goes through them in their heads on film?

The thing the "future is real" people fail to grasp is that it is not a conscious mental process on Tom's part. Those are a bunch of emotions and states of mind. You could convey them with a voice-over but that's such a cheapo cop-out that it would ruin the whole piece. I truly believe Arronofsky wanted to make a visual representation of a grieving persons mind - and he did it.

Anyway even though I would agree to disagree with you, unfortunately you are stupidly arrogant with calling other people's opinion about the film "crappy". Also you explanation might make sense unless you consider the sheer amount of symbolic stuff in this movie - there's much more of these than what you could explain by coincidence. It has to be deliberate. If it is deliberate then it must point you towards the meaning. A meaning that doesn't match your theory.

But, unlike you, I'm not upset if I'm wrong, and won't call your version names. The experience is yours, what you do with it is up to you.

reply

"Tom's voyage begins in the vast loneliness of black space. He rises up into the body of a swirling golden nebulae, where memories of his life with Izzi haunt him. Eventually, he comes to understand his purpose as he breaks out of the celestial cloud and into the blinding truth of Xibalba, a dying white star." -Darren Aronofsky.

I do agree that calling other people's theories "crappy" is a bit much.

reply

Doesn't this bring up a pretty major time-change/traveling paradox?

If i'm understanding your analysis correctly. you're saying that because he sent a message back in time, Tommy made peace with death, so therefore he never imbued himself with immortality juice to help her (which contradicts his wish to be with his dead Treewife, as you said). So then he didn't stay with the tree all those thousands of years. Which means he DIDN'T send back a message (cos he was never there to send it back), which means Tommy DIDN'T come to terms with Izzy's death, and thus creates a contradicting, ever cycling conundrum of time travel.

thoughts?

reply

If you spend a fairly absurd number of hours analyzing the film (as I have, and as some others here have as well), you’ll recognize that Aronofsky utilizes the symbol of the circle to reconcile the seemingly paradoxical problem of a change to the timeline.

Because on several occasions the director alludes to the circularity of time, which indicates that all times are cyclically-interconnected. For example, Tom *becomes* First Father at the end of the film (which in turn is the *beginning* of another universe…which is either literally or figuratively the beginning of *this* universe – it’s as if Tom hit a “reset” button to start the sequence of time all over again).

Also, Tommy’s “vision of Xibalba” in the lab when he looks up is another indicator that past, present, and future all co-exist somehow (in other words, they’re all just points on one interconnected “ring” of causality).

And much like Donnie Darko, most of The Fountain takes place in a “tangent universe” which is created when Tommy screws up and let’s Izzi go walk in the snow alone, rather than running after her. And that tangent universe can only “close” (i.e., complete its epicycle), when future Tom “fixes” the moment where he went astray from his love for Izzi and chased after immortality instead.

So actually he restored the original timeline by going back and correcting his mistake.

But really, the idea of a temporal paradox is just the product of our limited, linear understanding of time. If time can only move along a straight line, then yes, the principle of causality precludes the possibility of time travel. But if there’s more than one dimension of time, a chain of events can “circle back upon itself” and lead to events that would *appear* to be paradoxical from a one-time-dimension point of view, but would be perfectly logical from a higher two-time-dimension perspective. For example, with a 2 (or more) time dimension model of reality, you could invent a time machine and go back and kill your grandfather before he met your grandmother, and there would be no paradox because both things actually happened - but they happened in two different points on the two-dimensional surface of time. It would be no more paradoxical than visiting your grandfather, then driving around the block and killing him where you had just visited him. All of this is fairly mundane in a model with 2+ dimensions of time because according to General Relativity time is equivalent to space by a proportionality factor we call C (or “the speed of light”).

Here’s an interesting article that touches on the concept of a 2T physics theory:
A Two-Time Universe? Physicist Explores How Second Dimension of Time Could Unify Physics Laws
http://www.physorg.com/news98468776.html

The idea of an additional time dimension (which operates perpendicular to the linear time that we all know and love) is actually an ancient concept in esoteric mysticism, which uses the word “time” to mean “the linear sequence of events” and the word “eternity” to refer to the tangential dimension of time (some say that the cross is a symbol of this idea, but Christian mysticism is outside of my expertise).

In any case, I think that with additional viewings you may see that Aronofsky presents a model of reality where consciousness transcends time, and that’s the really interesting idea, imo.


The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

thank for this wonderful thread of thought :)

I didn't see doctor Tommy's sudden realization that he should enjoy the traditional walk with Izzie as future Tom sending any kind of message back to him. rather I saw it as a moment of déjà-vu, as we all experience, where we feel we're reliving a seemingly simple moment of our life yet the next move we make feels very important. in the film we see this moment twice and both times Tommy chooses to work over walk. the circularity of space-time allows for the moment of déjà-vu, and the third time we see this moment Tommy chooses Izzie's walk. he simply remembers the future and chooses a different course of action.

what if déjà-vu really is us remembering the future through the circularity of space-time? I often wish I could see the multiple paths leading from the choices I make during these little moments!

(reminds me of The Matrix and Donnie Darko)

______
love never dies

reply

I agree with Alanos that is how I interpreted, although the OP has very analysis. I just didnt think it was a complicated as that.

reply

I like to see the movie as a story of enlightenment on three levels: body, mind and spirit.

The medieval time corresponds to the body and it's final enlightenment or fulfillment is the body becoming one with the earth or Gaia. And thus also in a way, reaching immortality.

The modern time corresponds to the mind and it's final enlightenment and fulfillment is the acceptance of death, and realizing that everything is impermanent.

The future bubble time corresponds to the spirit and it's final enlightenment and fulfillment is becoming one with the All, or the Kosmos (the interconnected realm of body, mind and spirit.) That is the scene in which he travels to the light/xibalba in a lotus position.

For the mind (2) to become enlightened, the body (1) has to be illumined, and for the spirit (3) to be enlightened, the mind (1,2)) has to let go.

All together Tommy's enlightenment happens through multiple (3) reincarnations (every reincarnation has some remains of the previous one, like the ring) and stages, all of which are guided by his savior/guru, Izzi in different forms (A queen, a wife and an ethereal guide(?)). And it's funny that at every stage the final enlightenment (which the three of life/Xibalba symbolizes) happens in a complete opposite way of which Tommy was seeking it. He was running away from death, trying to achieve immortality, but every time it was actually the letting go of that idea that finally freed him, thanks to the gentle guidance and initiation of Izzi. And which is the way that enlightenment is usually described to happen outside the movie as well.

All in all, this is barely scratching the surface as the movie is incredibly layered and complex. But it's a great fun seeing it unfolding each time I watch it. And it's also exciting to see how different people interpret it in a different way.

reply

I also am making my first post ever just to thank you for your perfect explanation to fountain.... I'm talking about the post that talks about enlightenment in three levels (body,mind and spirit)
Well Done...

reply

A most beautiful interpretation, smlak. Thank you.

Truly one of the most moving cinematic experiences I've ever had. It's meditation on film. My father recently died and this movie gave me solace, peace.

reply

Great post, smlak. One could similarly replace the body/mind/spirit of your interpretation with id/ego/superego.

HAIL TO THE CHIMP! http://i35.tinypic.com/1zoxa4m.gif

reply

I am now "truly enlightened" - thanks to your solution.

I actually went through a 20-minute sign-up verification process with IMDB just so I could put in my first post.

Wow! I saw this movie about 10- days ago for the first time and I have watched it 5-6 times since then because it affected me so much and I have been seeking answers to many of the "what the heck does that mean?" scenes in the movie. I have also scoured the Internet looking for more meaning behind the scenes.

Kudos to your analysis. After reading your explanation, I have finally found it to be the most meaningful and understandable solutions to this complex piece of art. Even with multiple viewings, this movie still amazes me. Your thorough analysis brings all of it home.

Great job. Now, I need to watch it again now that I have "been enlightened"

Thanks,
Paul

reply

That's exactly the response I was hoping for, Paul - I did the same thing that you did...scouring the internet for a better understanding of the film, trying to find clues to what it all meant. I posted here because I hoped that others like me would come here to find a way to make sense of it. I hope you enjoyed watching it again with this solution in mind - the first time I saw it all the way through with this solution in mind, it was an exhilarating experience. I hope the same is true for you.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Great interpretation. However I am afraid to burst your bubble to a different interpretation of a key scene in the movie.

At the start of the movie you see Tom in his office and Izzi asking him to come out with him to see the first snow at which point he yells and she walks away.

We can all agree that that happens in both "versions" of that event.

But you see, it is not two different versions. It is simply one event that happened however at the beginning of the film the middle part of that event is cut out and it just pans over to Tom in the surgery room....let me explain

After Tom yells at Izzi she walks off and Tom is about to go after her when he is stopped by one of the lab assistants. We see that in the 1st "version" Tom looks towards Izzi and the exit and then looks back towards the lab and then back at Izzi again.....then it shows Tom in the lab and we all assume that he chose that over Izzi.

This is wrong and it is something I easily picked up when I first saw this film in the theater.

In the second "version" of this event we see Tom do the same thing: look back toward the lab and then look at Izzi but STOP....at the point where he looks back at Izzi in the beginning it is cut off to the next scene of the movie. In the second "version" after he looks back at Izzi, he runs after her.

Simply put, Aronofsky cut short that scene in the beginning of the movie to make it look like Tom chose the lab over Izzi. When it reality, Tom did go after Izzi to consul her and talk with her and then went back to the lab.

We just dont see the part where he goes after her in the beginning of the movie.

I hope My explanation was easy to follow and please OP I would like a reply to see what you think of my interpretation

reply

The first time we see Izzi come to Tommy’s office and ask him out to walk in the first snow, occurs around 00:14:17, after future Tom asks Izzi’s spirit/ghost to show him how it ends. Tommy refuses to go with her, then starts to chase after her, but he gets stopped by his lab assistant Manny, who compels him to go operate on the monkey Donovan. Tommy watches the door close behind Izzi, and looks down and says ‘dammit,’ then turns left and heads toward the lab with Manny.

Near the end of the film around 01:21:27 the sequence repeats up to the point when Tommy’s standing there with Manny, watching the door close behind Izzi. Then Tommy has his moment of realization, and instead of looking down and saying ‘dammit,’ Tommy runs after her without saying a word, and Manny calls out ‘Dr. Creo where are you going?’

So your interpretation is incorrect, these are clearly two different sequences - alternative versions of Tommy and Izzi’s timeline.



"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

It isn't complicated.

It is actually quite simple. All the stories are true. They all happened.

reply

This is the best explanation I have seen. But, can anyone explain what happens to the Spanish Captain when he eats the sap of the tree? What meaning does this scene have to the rest of the movie?

reply

I think the idea behind that scene is symbolic, and fairly straightforward: that the ‘fountain of youth’ (symbolically portrayed as the Tree of Life in this scene) doesn’t mean ‘conquering death by stopping aging’ it means ‘eternal life through the cycle of life and death,’ just as Moses Morales’ father lived on in the tree and seeds and the birds that ate those seeds. Aronofsky’s idea of the true fountain of youth is this natural ‘recycling’ process, unlike conventional notions of immortality, where aging is simply halted (and the director shows us the horror of such a condition through future Tom’s tortured and lonely predicament).

So the message of the film is encapsulated in that highly symbolic scene – since it’s the process of life and death that constitutes its own form of immortality, drinking from the Tree of Life only accelerates the cycle. In the end, we’ll all be pushing up daisies, one way or another. This scene conveys the futility of our efforts to defy this natural cycle.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

I don't think that is quite what he meant. Aronofsky is saying that man when he finds god even then is filled with such need to control that he takes more than he can handle. If Tomas had just taken a little bit of the sap from the Tree of Life he would have been fine and gone back to Spain to be with his love. So Tomas is buried by his own greed and loses the love of his life to death because of his hubris. However even death is not a permanent thing as Tomas returns from the dead. Aronofksy is saying in this scene that there are worst things than death, that death isn't as bad as people think it is, and that even death is not the end. Rather it is humanity's obsession with greed and their denial of death that is what brings pain not the act itself. Having immortality alone doesn't mean it will bring happiness. Immortality itself is not a bad thing however as the film shows that without it Tom wouldn't have been able to save the universe, but a person's greed to have power over all things is something that is a bad thing. So in conclusion, life, death, reincarnation and immortality are all great normal things, but the way we choose to live our lives can have a profound negative or positive effect on us. I believe the greatest example of this in the film is when Aronofksy shows that humanity through its greed wiped itself as well as the planet out completely, but Tom through his love is able to redeem all of humanity by sacrificing himself to the Tree in Life, thus choosing to die for the sins of humanity in order to save the god humanity had neglected out of ego.

reply

It isn't complicated.

It is actually quite simple. All the stories are true. They all happened.



I’ve read your flawed interpretation at “Definitive Explanation - All Time Periods Are Real!” and it’s clear to me that you’ve failed to resolve many key elements of the film, choosing instead to favor a crude minimalist notion that the past time period is literal, rather than a metaphorical story. I would’ve posted a rebuttal in your thread but I noticed in the subsequent discussions over there with DrNordo, gweller-3, DevouringSickness, hiphiphophop22, and bSpiker, that you seem impervious to reason, so I didn’t bother.

In the film version of the story, the 1500 A.D. era story is Izzi’s work of fiction, which is made abundantly clear throughout the film. The 1500 A.D. story is only ‘real’ in the graphic novel version of the story.

It’s obvious in the film version that Izzi’s book is fiction, not only because the book is presented as a work of fiction in every scene it’s a part of, but because in the 1500 A.D. time period we see Tomas the conquistador get turned into flowers at the Tree of Life, which would make the 2000 A.D. Tommy and the 2500 A.D. Tom impossible. You claim that Tomas is somehow resurrected from the Garden of Eden with amnesia, but there’s nil evidence in the film to support that hypothesis, which relegates it to idiosyncratic quackery. I’m guessing you’ve mistaken the graphic novel as the same story as the film, which Aronofsky has denied outright.

If you want to continue to shill your illogical theory that all time periods are real, please do so in your own thread. Thanks.



"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Actually no indication is ever given that Izzi's book is fictional, but there is evidence that the book is real. She never calls it a novel which is the official name for a work of fiction, a book on the other hand refers to a work of nonfiction, she never types it up on a computer or a typewriter which is how works of fiction have been written for almost the last one hundred years, she writes it as a diary with a Mayan pen from the 1500s like she is writing a story from that era, she actually tells Tommy that it is based on a true mythology which is validated by the ending, Tommy has visions of Xibalba long before she ever tells him about it, and the Tree of Life from Guatemala in her story has the same exact properties as the Guatemalan compound, all of which indicates that the story is real.

You probably missed this, but at the end of the film we are shown the Conquistador Tomas some time after he was buried picking up the ring he left behind on the grass which shows that he did indeed return from being buried.

If you need more evidence the trailer makes it clear the film is taking place in three different time periods and the director has stated multiple times the film takes place in three different time periods. Furthermore every time period in the film has something fantastical, so if you consider the past fiction you might as well consider the other two time periods fictional too.

reply

A number of people with much greater patience than I, and much sharper intellect than you, have gone over all of this with you already.

Two of my family members and two of my best friends are published writers, and they often refer to their own works of fiction as ‘my book,’ or ‘your book,’ so that argument is totally empty. Likewise, the fact that she chose to write on paper instead of a typewriter or a computer, means absolutely nothing – it’s a totally aesthetic choice. Also, the Mayan-decorative pen that Izzi gave to Tommy is a modern pen, not a 500 year-old antique (pretty certain Mayans didn’t have inkwell pens 500 years ago). And being based on actual mythology doesn’t in any way imply that the story isn’t also mythological/symbolic.

Tommy’s vision of Xibalba in no way supports your theory, and I can’t even figure out why you think it does. And it’s future Tom who writes the part about the sap healing the conquistador at Tree of Life, which makes sense because Tommy discovered the healing properties of the Guatemalan tree that he used to make his hybrid regeneration compound.

And Tomas the Conquistador did –not- pick up the ring after he was turned into flower mulch, that was the future Tom, see for yourself at 01:27:25 (or thereabouts, depending). The whole point of him being turned into flowers was to show that death is part of the cycle of life, so coming back to life after that would’ve made no sense at all.

Furthemore, nobody’s arguing that the story takes place in three different time periods, but that doesn’t mean that the events in all of those time periods are ‘real,’ especially since Izzi’s book is never in any way presented as a diary, but rather as a literary work of fiction, heavy with symbolism, and rife with gross historical inaccuracies. Like I said, you’re confusing the film with the graphic novel, which many people have done, and wrongly.

And finally, your limited ‘all or nothing’ perspective which demands that either all or none of the time periods are real, is absurd and pointless, because neither of those options makes any sense of the film. To the contrary, both of those alternatives create a miasma of contradictions and story holes (which you’ve had to try to fill by making a bunch of stuff up), which ruin the beautiful philosophical and symbolic messages that are in the film.

But like I said before, others have tried to debate all of this with you many times before, and you were too pig-headed to hear what they were saying, so I’m done arguing with you dude. You are hereby Ignored. Have a better life.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Your friends are not directors writing a film based on specific details for the general public. They are probably also new writers just starting out that don't know much about writing. Any professional writer that writes a work of fiction calls it a novel to write on their computer or a typewriter.

The dip pen Izzi gives Tommy was made by the Spanish who took its tip from the Mayans 500 years ago. So yes the Mayans didn't use dip pens with inkwells but the Spanish did.

Tommy had the vision of Xibalba before Izzi ever told him about it and before he even knew what Xibalba was which shows that he was indeed the conquistador.

Izzi told Tommy the story of the Guatemalan Tree of Life with all its properties included and Tommy finds out what she told her was entirely true with his Guatemalan compound.

I have seen the scene several times and no it is Conquistador Tomas that picks up the ring. You can tell it is Conquistador Tomas because when he drops it you see the ring fall on the grass to shine brightly in a specific spot only later still shining brightly in the same spot for him to pick it up. Tom from the future is in the air floating when he takes the ring out of his pocket to put on his finger so it can't be him. Conquistador Tomas coming back to life makes sense as part of the cycle of life, death and rebirth.

Actually the director has said many times over that the film does take place in three time periods that happen. The graphic novel is based on the original script of the film and is the director's cut of the film.

The director has also stated that there is no time travel in the film so none of the events could have been changed.

The Fountain according to the director was not meant to be complicated, nor to have many metaphors. The Fountain's main story was never created to be open to interpretation. It is plain as day advertised as a story of an immortal across three time periods. Never has anyone involved with the film said that two time periods were real, while one was fiction because that would destroy the entire premise of the film.

The only explanation that works is that all three time periods are real which completely ties up fully the entire story in the film. If you dismiss one time period as fiction for having fantastical elements, you might as well dismiss the entire film for having fantastical elements to call it the ravings of a lunatic.

reply

Good god Drakenlord get it together and accept that you're theory is absolutely outrageous.

'Your friends are not directors writing a film based on specific details for the general public. They are probably also new writers just starting out that don't know much about writing. Any professional writer that writes a work of fiction calls it a novel to write on their computer or a typewriter.'

How could anyone take you seriously after writing that? I will not be responding to this but am urging you to stop arguing with everyone as your hypothesis is incredibly flawed.

On another note, thank you for insightful explanation devil boy. It helped clear up a few aspects I wasn't certain of.

reply

Sorry but when the director tells you the official explanation I would hardly call it flawed.

Further if you look carefully you will find more evidence in the film that my explanation is definitive.

For example, Tom from the future uses a quill pen to tattoo his arm which again illustrates that he is indeed from the 1500s where quill pens were common.

Furthermore devil-boy is a hypocrite because he says it is wrong for people to reduce the future story to be fiction for having the fantastical element of a bubble with propulsion, but yet he reduces the past story to be fiction just because a guy is buried by flowers.

This should help as well.

DA: "It is [hard] to tell a story about the quest for immortality in the present alone. That’s why our story takes place in the 16th, 21st, and 26th centuries. That doesn’t mean The Fountain is a time travel movie in any sort of a traditional way. It’s more like three interlocking time periods, just as you mentioned, where the characters embody three different parts of the same person."

Right there he states for a fact that all three time periods are real and no time travel is involved at all. What happens throughout the film is that Tom in the future recalls all the events that happened in his previous lives so he can be ready to face his death.

reply

Well if you look at the quote you could also say that he is stating that 'The Fountain is a time travel movie in an untraditional way'. This would just as much, if not less of a stretch as the assumptions you make from what you quoted.

Haven't 3 years of board discussions deduced the fact that this movie is about interpretation? It's a good thing, marks a well-made film, and marks it a successful one, when a film causes people to talk about the show after seeing it.

Thanks devil-boy, I loved the detailed analysis and being able to discover so much detail that I overlooked. Clearly an amazing film :) .

reply

Your friends are not directors writing a film based on specific details for the general public. They are probably also new writers just starting out that don't know much about writing. Any professional writer that writes a work of fiction calls it a novel to write on their computer or a typewriter.

Um, no. A work of fiction can be called many things, depending on the length of the work. It can be a poem, a short story, a novella, a novel, etc. "Book" refers to the length of the work, and can be fiction or nonfiction.

As for whether people write with pen or typewriter/computer, that is a personal preference which is not restricted to any particular genre or medium. For some people, writing flows far more easily from brain to pen and paper, whereas for others, typewriter keys or a computer keyboard provide the most direct link from brain to tangible work. I know several published authors who write both fiction and nonfiction, and they do it all by writing freehand. Someone else types up their handwritten pages into a manuscript.

As for the endless debate on what specific details of this film mean, I think that while it's helpful to read other points of view which can illuminate the meaning of a work, it's tedious to read the ongoing accusations of a particular interpretation being "wrong" . . . and that's on both sides of the debate. Obviously any artist is going to have his/her own interpretation of the meaning of a work. But creative people also know that, once they release their work out into the world, that work becomes whatever viewers, listeners, etc., make it into in their own minds. That's a good thing. So claiming that other people are wrong, simply for having a different interpretation of a creative work, is trying to limit the very imaginative thought process that art is supposed to inspire.

reply

Finally. After a couple of hours of reading interviews with Aronofsky, I found this quote which should, once and for all, end this tedious debate over whether or not Izzi’s book was a work of fiction, or some kind of a diary. According to the director, it’s a work of fiction:

“But Aronofsky doesn’t think the story is too complex – although he reckons a repeat viewing may be needed to get the most from it.

He says: “It’s a really simple story in fact. At its heart it’s a love story between a man and a woman, except there’s a tragedy happening, which is that the woman is dying at too young an age. And the man feels that he has to fix the problem, to find a cure while this woman is starting to realize that she’s not going to make it and is beginning to open up to the infinite possibilities of what might happen when you die. So she writes a book about a conquistador and a queen that is a metaphor for their experience and what’s going on.

Source: http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/feature.php?id=330


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Thanks for finding that. Confirms my chosen/favorite interpretation. I enjoyed your alternate timeline ideas also.... the whole wedding ring thing made no sense to me and your version does make sense. How does the ring dropped in the grass getting picked up by future guy make any sense? No wait! Don't answer. I'm happier without trying to figure EVERYTHING out. Still a great movie! I enjoy the experience each time

reply

Thanks but that confirms what I have been saying all along. He says she writes a book as in nonfiction based on real events, not a novel and that it is about their experiences as well as what is going on. Never does he state that Izzi writes a novel about a fictional story with no real connection to the characters but just as a way for the characters to actualize their emotions, which he could have easily said instead.

Furthermore you forgot to mention this.

“I wanted the The Fountain to be more of a dialogue with the audience so I happily built it like a Chinese box with one mystery inside another. It’s not your normal movie-going experience where you just sit back and get two hours of entertainment and you don’t have to engage your brain.

“I hope people will see the film a second time and see a whole other layer of meaning. I mean, we sat around for five years trying to make the story denser and denser, more and more complex.”

Last I am tired of people ignoring the past story simply because they feel like it. The past story has a Tree of Life, so does the present story and so does the future story. If you want to dismiss the Tree of Life, then ignore the entire film.

reply

God, you are thick.

reply

Drakenlord, didn't you read what the DA said?

He says: “It’s a really simple story in fact. At its heart it’s a love story between a man and a woman, except there’s a tragedy happening, which is that the woman is dying at too young an age. And the man feels that he has to fix the problem, to find a cure while this woman is starting to realize that she’s not going to make it and is beginning to open up to the infinite possibilities of what might happen when you die. So she writes a book about a conquistador and a queen that is a metaphor for their experience and what’s going on.”

Source: http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/feature.php?id=330

He said METAPHOR, which means it's fiction, doesn't it? How would she be able to write a real story about a past that she never knew? How would she know about Tom's past lives? Think about it.


http://www.happierabroad.com - The Overseas Solution for Single Men

reply

Indeed by far the best interpretation I have read yet. A lot more sound than Drakenlord's (no offense to him). I will not take this as the definitive solution to the film but definitely a credible one. I wish DA would just write a blog or something fully detailing what exactly he meant with this film considering he has been quoted sayin it was never supposed to be this difficult to conclude and that it wasn't supposed to be so heavily left to interpretation...

reply

How hard is it to accept what Aronofksy has said is true?

He said it in the commentary, he said it in the interviews, and he said it in the director's cut graphic novel.

What more do you want?

A film about a Tree of Life is all going to be fantastical so why ignore one-third of the film?

You might as well ignore the first part of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Further I am sorry the_devil_boy but it is clear there are no alternate realities in The Fountain as not only would that invalidate the premise of the entire film that you can't change what happens, but it would also open up all three time periods to being alternate realities where nothing any character does matters and lastly the director has stated no time travel is involved with everything including the graphic novel proving no time travel happens.

Lastly, I find it ironic that you mention time travel is involved yet then dismiss the past story.

reply

I came to the same conclusion after my first viewing 4 years ago.I hardly debate for too long on IMDB about how the plot was construct etc...I tried to make them realize what was going on.Gladly it took some years and many viewings for others to solve the puzzle.

One ***MASTERPIECE*** that is criminally underated.

reply

What I like most about this movie and reading the boards here is seeing all the different interpretations and learning new things from each of those interpretations.

Devil Boy, thanks for your analysis! I really like the idea of the non-linear conciousness.

reply

I very much enjoyed your interpretation the-devil-boy; however, I also found the one at the link below quite credible. I really shan't argue the ultimate truth of any one interpretation. I love that this is such a visual, spiritual film open to discussion. It's a movie to feel. How wonderfully refreshing.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/COMMENTARY/70914001

reply

Thank you celestialnavigator. I have to disagree with you about the credibility of that guy’s theory though, since you brought it up. I read his interpretation at the link you provided, and as one of the ‘future Tom is a metaphor’ interpretations, I find that it fails to explain anything and instead creates a mountain of confusion. But this particular man, Dr. Withers, goes even further - claiming that all of the future sequences are simply the final chapter that Tommy has written into Izzi’s book. This creates so many extravagantly irrational inconsistencies that I can only marvel that anyone would have the unapologetic conceit to sign their real name to such an utterly falsifiable implosion of reasoning.

Here are just a few among the avalanche of compelling reasons that this interpretation fails:

- If future Tom is simply a character in Izzi’s book, then the story of the first eleven chapters would be taking place entirely during the Spanish Inquisition, closing with Tomas receiving the business end of the Mayan priest’s dagger at the end of Chapter 11...and Chapter 12 would then begin with future Tom floating in space toward Xibalba, reflecting on a lifetime of memories that he spent with the author of the book (Izzi) during the 20th century. That would be like using The Matrix as the final chapter of Pride and Prejudice …ridiculous.

- If future Tom is a character in the final chapter of the Izzi’s book, then how could he exist, since we saw Tomas get turned into flowers? You’d have to make up a bunch of scenes that were never shown of him being resurrected somehow and getting on with his life, which would both ruin the message of the film and also be perversely intellectually dishonest. It would be like inventing a new puzzle of your own just to make sense of the one that you’ve failed to solve.

- We see future Tom recalling the events of his life as Tommy 500 years earlier, even Tommy sitting down to read Izzi’s book. The idea of a character within the book (future Tom) recalling an author of the book (Tommy who wrote the last chapter) as he sits down to read the very same book (a book within a book), is obviously a level of labyrinthine storytelling schizophrenia that only Philip K. Dick would attempt in earnest.

- As I mentioned in the initial post here, all theories that fictionalize future Tom are confronted by the outrageous dilemma of the entire “finding the fountain of youth elixir” story arc being reduced to a non sequitur. People who advocate such interpretations would have us seriously believe that Tommy finding the cure for aging (i.e. the fountain of youth) *means absolutely nothing whatsoever to the story* since future Tom doesn’t actually exist, and therefore requires no immortality elixir to justify his existence in a spacecraft 500 years in the future. Further, such folks would have us believe that *Tommy did nothing relevant whatsoever* with the amazing concoction that he came up with in the lab. All of that screen time with the monkey, and the moment of inspiration, and the breakthrough discovery, and the connection with the lost wedding ring…this class of interpretation renders all of those scenes as *utterly pointless distractions.*

- If present day Tommy is the author of the scenes showing Tomas kill the Mayan priest and then going to the Tree of Life etc, then why does Aronofsky explicitly take us into future Tom’s third eye at the end of the film right before Izzi’s story continues at the exact the point where she left it off? Obviously he’s showing us ‘look - future Tom is now finishing Izzi’s book in his mind’s eye.’ Dr. Winters claims that the reason we don’t see a scene with Tommy sitting down and writing the last chapter of Izzi’s book (which would provide us with the only actual evidence for his theory), is that Aronofsky wanted to ‘keep us guessing.’ I have a better explanation: we don’t see this pivotal ‘missing scene’ with present day Tommy writing in Izzi’s book because it never happened.

- And finally, Aronofsky himself states in various interviews about the film, and I think in his commentary track as well, that the bubble ship was designed to be a real spaceship based on a NASA ecosphere idea, because he didn’t want it to be a typical clunky sci-fi ‘garbage scowl in space.’ He even discusses how they stripped the bubble ship of various technical control interfaces and so forth, to make it look more elegant, and how they had figured out an elaborate propulsion theory to make the craft feel technically feasible.

The sad fact is that many people simply can’t accept the future scenes as real, because the space ship in those scenes doesn’t look like what most people think a space ship should look like…and Tom isn’t wearing a sleek flight suit with some nifty insignia, chatting away briskly with ‘Mission Control’ or the ‘Enterprise’ or whatever. And failing to have an open mind about what form an interstellar space craft might take in five hundred years, they massacre the entire story and ignore most of the film, replacing reasonable logic with a bunch of imaginary assumptions about the story and ‘missing scenes’ that they need to make sense of their silly theory.

Simply put, if you see an elephant with a pink hat, you don’t say ‘that’s not an elephant because elephants don’t wear pink hats.’ You ask ‘why is that elephant wearing that pink hat?’


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply