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

A Complete Solution to The Fountain (Warning: Spoilers)

posted 15 years ago by the-devil-boy
249 replies | jump to latest

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

[–] lokotus 15 years ago

Don't know if it has been mentioned but - what tree is with him in the ecosphere ship?
Is it the one he planted on her grave since he shows some affection to it or is it really a Tree of Life?

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

There are several major indications that Tom regards the tree in the sphere to be in some way a living personification of his dead wife. Add to that the story of Moses Morales, and the scene at the end when he plants a seed from a tree by Izzi’s tombstone, and it seems very clear that the tree he’s flying to Xibalba with is the same tree that he planted at Izzi’s grave.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zero_Wolf 14 years ago

I took it as being both.

A.) he treats it as Izzi.
-and-
B.) he eats it (to prolong his life, I assumed)

Therefore, I further assumed he planted a seed (or graft) from the tree his immortality drug was synthesized from on top of Izzi's grave.

It also would explain how the tree could survive the trip without strong sunlight, as it is itself either immortal or nearly so.

However, in the revised timeline he plants a -normal- seed of the type Izzi gave him.

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

You could be right, I don't have enough evidence to say one way or the other.

But there is some conspicuous "missing evidence" that seems to argue against the tree being derived from the Guatemalan tree. For example, the "immortality compound" Tommy used on the ape (and then later on himself), was a hybrid of a compound from the tree combined with a chemical he made in his lab. So eating the bark of the tree wouldn't have any special significance - he ate the bark because he needed calories to function, that's all. Even an immortal requires energy to move, think, etc. And there's no evidence to suggest that a second or on-going 'treatment' of the immortality elixir would be necessary.

Also, it would be -very unlikely- that a tropical tree from Guatemala could survive in the temperate climate of Tommy and Izzi's home (we see in the film that it snows there).

And finally, the tree in the sphere is in pretty bad shape by the time they arrive at Xibalba (it dies upon arrival, in fact). We don't know how long they've been traveling though, so we can't say if the tree survived the trip especially well, or if the journey just wasn't very long. But like any tree, it obviously had a rough time without sunlight.

I think the symbolism of the Tree of Life gets mixed up with the three trees throughout the story (the Tree of Life in Izzi's novel, the Guatemalan tree that produced 1/2 of Tommy's immortality compound, and the tree from Izzi's grave that's now in the sphere). Certainly the tree in the sphere is Tommy's symbolic "Tree of Life," in that it embodies the spirit of his wife, who was the love of his life. But I don't think that means it's the same species as the tree from Guatemala. It could be, but like I said, it's doubtful that any tropical tree could survive in the temperate climate of Izzi's grave site.

I think we're sorta supposed to think of the trees as one, but just because of their symbolic associations, not literally as one tree.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] Zero_Wolf 14 years ago

If it was a normal tree why not just install a sun lamp? A normal tree will die pretty fast if it has no light, and one would assume it really wouldn't be that difficult to put a light in. It would be pretty negligent to bring a tree on a space journey only to have it die on the way because you forgot the sodium lamps. And if it was dying to begin with, before the journey began, well, all the more reason not to stress it out.

The tree exhibits some special qualities, and if it is indeed the fictional tree from which he extracted the substance from, and also the Tree of Life, maybe we shouldn't assume that it has the same limited tolerances as a normal tree. In other words, perhaps the temperate climate wouldn't be a problem for it. It is a fictional plant so we really don't know.

As to his speech to the tree:

"Through that last dark cloud is a dying star. And soon enough, Xibalbia will die. And when it explodes, it will be reborn. You will bloom...and I will live"

I understood that as, -he's- not going to Xibalba, he's just bringing the tree. He thinks the star dying will reinvigorate the tree. It's not until the end he realizes it's his own death that's required.

And so finally, what I personally got from the Cosmonaut's death scene was that his death reinvorgorated -the actual- Tree of Life, not just any ordinary tree.

Apparently there's a director's commentary, but when I go to his webpage it's not there anymore. Does anyone know where this can be found?

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

If it was a normal tree why not just install a sun lamp?

Lol, this made me laugh – it makes sense though. I don’t know. Like I said, we don’t know how long the journey took, maybe Tom didn’t realize how quickly the thing would die out there.

The tree exhibits some special qualities, and if it is indeed the fictional tree from which he extracted the substance from, and also the Tree of Life, maybe we shouldn't assume that it has the same limited tolerances as a normal tree. In other words, perhaps the temperate climate wouldn't be a problem for it. It is a fictional plant so we really don't know.

We can say, with some confidence, that the tree in the sphere is not the same tree that Tommy got the compound from in Guatemala. It’s the tree he planted at Izzi’s grave. The tree is directly equated with Izzi time and time again, and that would make –zero sense- if it weren’t intrinsically and directly linked to Izzi. *Maybe* Tommy planted a seed from the Guatemalan tree at Izzi’s grave, I don’t know, but it’s not that the same tree he sampled in Guatemala.

As to his speech to the tree:
"Through that last dark cloud is a dying star. And soon enough, Xibalba will die. And when it explodes, it will be reborn. You will bloom...and I will live"
I understood that as, -he's- not going to Xibalba, he's just bringing the tree. He thinks the star dying will reinvigorate the tree. It's not until the end he realizes it's his own death that's required.

That almost makes sense. Except for the “and I will live” part – I don’t see how he’d expect to survive a nova...even if he saved his bubble ship somehow.

And so finally, what I personally got from the Cosmonaut's death scene was that his death reinvorgorated -the actual- Tree of Life, not just any ordinary tree.

I think it’s only *symbolically equivalent* to the Tree of Life. As the last existing manifestation of Izzi, it’s certainly Tom’s “Tree of Life.” And by sacrificing himself, Tom essentially restores the cycle of life as First Father. Those are the only important story components anyway – the Guatemalan tree actually going to Xibalba is unnecessary to complete the story. And it would just be too weird if Tom thought of the Guatemalan tree as Izzi. I just think that it has to be a tree he planted at her grave, it’s presented as a form of Izzi too many times and ways to be anything else.

Apparently there's a director's commentary, but when I go to his webpage it's not there anymore. Does anyone know where this can be found?

I’d suggest that you make sure your security software is running, then download the torrent from Pirate’s Bay, that’s where I got my copy: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3812080/The_Fountain_-_Director____s_C ommentary_Track

You’ll need free torrent software, like uTorrent or Azureus to download it.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] iand247 14 years ago

devil has the only interpretation i agree with. thank you so much.

Would you happen to have any... Ovaltine?

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

Thanks for posting, iand247 - I'm glad you enjoyed the hidden meaning buried within this absolutely unique and gorgeous film. I still think about it often. Recently I've been wondering if "the cosmic order of things" means that when we die, we're reborn to relive our lives, except we get to make the changes we'd like to make, the next time around...until we achieve an ideal version of our lives, and move on to something else. It's just a thought, but a fun one.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] poliet 14 years ago

Good interpretation. I came to the same conclusion and this is exactly what I have posted in this board more two years ago.

The only problem I had at that time of my interpretation and still have was to find a meaning to all the symbols in the fictional novel. When Tom becomes enlightend, and alters the past, the present Tom finishes to write the story instead of being stuck with the Mayan guard. However, in his writings, resulting from the altered timeline, he lets the conquistador die out of greed for life by sapping on the tree. This does not make totally sense as he might have had the conquistador try to die in peace instead.

[–] hhcsw 14 years ago

This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks! I only have one question: We see Xibalba explode from Izzi's grave, yet it explodes 500 years in the future in the alternate timeline. How is this 500 year (plus the amount of time required for the explosion to become visible on Earth) age difference possible?

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

Glad to help, hhcsw.

If you look closely you’ll notice that ‘Tommy2’ (the Tommy who chased after Izzi into the first snow, and who says goodbye to her at her grave site) fades out as he’s looking toward Xibalba, which we can take to mean that we’re now cutting to the future, when the light of Xibalba’s nova reaches Izzi’s grave…some 500+ years after Tommy2 presumably dies.

It’s interesting to note that this scene is quickly followed by Tommy2’s remark ‘I finished it,’ because it doesn’t appear to reference the book at all. I think Tommy2 is saying that he finished the circular timeline that he started when he screwed up in the first place and didn’t follow Izzi into the snow - and now that he corrected his mistake in the past, they could be together again in death (which we’re actually shown in the form of a memory of him kissing the nape of her neck before the final fade to white). In that light, finishing the book appears to be a metaphor that Izzi had come up with to help Tommy get to the point of acceptance that she had reached with death, and when he achieved that he was able to close the timeline that led him away from her, and rejoin her in eternity…which appears to have been her plan all along.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] chucksinger3 14 years ago

Thank you for the interpretation as well. One of my favorite movies but certain parts just never clicked with me (such as future Tom appearing to the Mayan, I just took it as the Mayan seeing into Tom's spirit). It makes things tidy up a bit more to realize that future Tom finishes the book in his mind's eye, completing the Conquistador story with a view of enlightment towards death.

It really is a beautiful story. A man seeks to conquer death to save his wife whom he loves. But when he succeeds after her death, he finds that he has to live forever without her (at least not in a form he would have liked).

[–] eat_the_children 14 years ago

This is a very detailed explanation and it was well thought out and fun to read! That being said, I am inclined to suggest that a necessary piece of the puzzle you might be missing is the appropriation of Nietzsche's Eternal Return into your analysis. You would of course have to remove any notions of transcendence that may be suggested by the imagery of the film. This might be difficult to do with some of the images of the last 15 minutes, but I think that if you keep the key elements of your analysis and incorporate them into the Eternal Return you will have a very distinct and amazing aspect of potentiality that emerges from the combining of the two.

Thanks again for your post! =)

Cool does not appeal to their demographic. They need edgy.

[–] emg015 14 years ago

Come on guys, let's not turn this movie into something it is not. What this movie is meant to be is a potent metaphor for greed, particularly greed for life (epitomized by the powerful sap-scene).

The three timelines of the movie have three simple meanings which they are meant to portray: 1, who Tom WAS (past), 2. who Tom IS (present), and 3. what Tom WILL BECOME (future). This encompasses an effective tale of existential being. This makes sense if you look at the nature of each timeline.

Beginning with the past timeline, the conquistador is meant to represent Tom who is obsessed with preserving and prolonging life. There are a number of different interpretations to be made (and such is the beauty of metaphorical film-making). For instance, Tom wanting to save his queen (Izzy) makes sense, but also, in doing so, he saves himself (the conquistador striving for immortality), and also Spain, which could essentially entail his existence.

With this in mind, we can take a look at present Tom, who is dealing with (and trying to overcome)his character flaws outlined by the past timeline. The past timeline almost serves to heighten our awareness of Tom's obsessive desire to save Izzy's life, and is therefore not only an effective metaphor, but also an effective plot device.

And lastly is the future timeline which everyone has trouble with. Let me begin by addressing the issue of whether or not it is "real": irrelevant. This is why I began this post by asking us to not turn this movie into something that it is not. The future timeline is meant to represent Tom as coming to terms with Izzy's death, reflecting on his life with her, and examining the nature of life in general. Those who ask questions such as "was the future real?" are clearly missing the point if such a question need be asked. What difference does it make? Does the questioned reality of the future scene in any way impair or impede on the overall metaphor or aim of the film? Absolutely not. In asking silly questions like these, we are left with wild speculation which is more often than not entirely unfounded.

When I say this, I think specifically of all the speculation around the changed present scene, where Tom chases after Izzy. Are we really to accept an answer like "Maybe Tom's consciousness was heightened to the point where he was able to send a message to his past self and change his decision"? HOW COULD ONE POSSIBLY INFER THIS LOGICALLY IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM FROM THE EVENTS OF THIS FILM? Like I said, wild speculation. Yes, that is an inventive and interesting theory, and if the film were yours, you could make such a thing more apparent, but this is simply just not the case. Such fanciful ideas should not be accepted by an audience simply upon suggestion. Let me pose one such speculative theory: Maybe the entire set of events were the result of a Cartesian demon toying with the idea of immortality who in the end decided to have Tom pursue Izzy. And maybe it was all a dream! Perhaps I am exaggerating my point, but this simply proves that as soon as somebody introduces an outside element into the story (super-conscious Tom), everything that follows is just speculation.

So what was the deal with the altered scene of Tom chasing after Izzy? Perhaps future Tom was just reflecting on that moment wishing he had chosen differently, as he has come to realize that time spent with loved ones is everything. Or perhaps the scene was put in simply to address a wanting on the part of the audience for Tom to not have been such a buffoon, frivolously wasting the precious time he had left with Izzy. Such interpretations fall entirely within the scope of the film and are therefore valid.

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

For clarity, I'll be using the following naming convention:

Tom - this is the character within the bubble ship ~2500A.D., which is the Present in the film.
Tommy - this is the character in the modern age, ~2000A.D., who we see in Tom's memories.
Tomas - the conquistador character from Izzi's story 'The Fountain,' which is set ~1500A.D.

Frankly, it’s ‘wild speculation’ to assume that the critical changed scene is some kind of subjective ‘wishful thinking,’ when everything else that happens in the film is to be taken at face value. There are Tom’s experiences and his clear recollections of his own past, and there are the scenes from Izzi’s book. That’s it. But you’re arbitrarily asserting that the pivotal changed scene is just something that Tom dreamed up, some wistful fantasy (or worse, that the director showed us this scene because…what was it…because the audience didn’t want Tommy to have been such a buffoon? Lol).

If you want an interpretation that’s based on the evidence of the film, and one that doesn’t fail to make sense of the film as a whole, then my interpretation clearly defeats your hand-wavy and simplistic view that the only meaning in this film is ‘greed is bad.’

You ask:

HOW COULD ONE POSSIBLY INFER THIS LOGICALLY IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM FROM THE EVENTS OF THIS FILM?

Glad you asked, because careful observation of the evidence and logical analysis are precisely how I inferred that Tom had a transcendental moment that changed his own history. Here’s the evidence:

- It’s clear that the turning point of the entire story, at least as far as Tom is concerned, occured when Izzi came to ask him into the snow, and he gruffly refused. This is evidenced by the fact that this scene is the first thing that Tom recalls when he’s ready to see the error of his ways at the very beginning of the film when he says “Alright, I trust you. Take me. Show me.” It’s also supported by the fact that he remembers that moment repeatedly, and is further supported by the fact that the last time he remembers it, it happens differently, which changes the course of the story, and his own timeline.

- The Fountain is a film about transcendental subjects: love, death, enlightenment and meditation, immortality, the cycle of life, and time. There are actually several moments of transcendence in the film, and moments that verge on transcendence, which serve to foreshadow the moment that Tom changes his own timeline. Note how in nearly every case, these transcendental moments make a direct connection between events that are widely separated in time. First, there’s the transcendental moment in the lab, at 00:16:48, when Tommy looks up into the skylight and sees Xibalba (from the POV of his ship in the future approaching it) – and in that instant he’s struck with the inspiration for the immortality elixir that saves the monkey Donovan, and ultimately leads to his immortality and his journey to Xibalba. Second, at 00:20:28, there’s the moment at their home when the painting of the ancient temple seemingly comes to life for a moment with birdsong. Third, there’s the moment at 01:09:48 when Tommy begins to exhale cold air in the past as the tree dies in the bubble ship in the present, just before the snow begins to fall. Fourth, at 01:16:43, past Tommy in the lab overlaps with present Tom as the lab and the bubble ship are shaken and suddenly lit up from above, as Tom's ship clears the nebula around Xibalba. This is soon followed by the final conversation with Izzi’s ghost, who drives home the transcendental connection between Tom’s present and future actions: ‘You do, you will.’ And this time, Tom gets it. He hears Izzi’s admonition ‘Finish it’ for the last time, and this time he says ‘Okay.’ At exactly that moment is the fifth transcendental moment in the story - Tom goes back to the memory when Izzi asked him out to the first snow, and at 01:21:26 we watch as he *clearly has an epiphany* just like the one he had in the lab when he realized the formula for the immortality elixir, and he pushes past Manny to go chasing after his wife in the snow. Then, having corrected his error in the past, Tom finishes his last task – envisioning the final chapter of Izzi’s book. This begins with the sixth transcendental moment in the film, when meditating astronaut Tom magically appears to the Mayan priest in lieu of Tomas the Conquistador. A seventh transcendental moment occurs at 01:26:11 when Tomas trips out on the white sap from the Tree of Life and sees Xibalba, then drops the ring and turns into flowers. Then the most extraordinarily transcendental moment of the whole film occurs, when future Tom reaches into his own imagination to retrieve the lost ring from where Tomas dropped it.

- And then there are the final scenes of the film. Note that throughout the entire film, everything we’ve seen has been; Tom in the bubble ship on his way to Xibalba, his recollections of his life, and Izzi’s book. He is present in every scene without a single exception, it’s his story. But he gets incinerated at Xibalba, and instead of being the end of the film, we’re suddenly transported back to Izzi picking a seedpod from a tree (apparently during the first snow), and handing it to Tommy. This fades to Tommy alone at her grave.

Clearly these scenes can’t be Tom’s imagination, because he’s dead. They can’t be Izzi’s imagination either, because she’s in the ground. And if they’re simply a flashback, then we’re stuck with two major paradoxes:

One: this Tommy has his ring on at her grave. This is a major problem, because we know that future Tom didn’t get his ring back until he fetched it from his mind some 500 years in the future.

Two: this Tommy seems to be at peace with Izzi’s death – he even says ‘goodbye’ to her. This isn’t like the Tommy or future Tom that we’ve seen throughout the film, who couldn’t let Izzi go until he was about to perish at Xibalba.

There’s only one reasonable solution that simultaneously resolves these issues: this isn’t the same Tommy. This Tommy, ‘Tommy2’ we can call him, went chasing after Izzi during the first snow, let the rotten monkey die on the operating table, never lost his wedding ring, never discovered the immortality elixir, and never went to Xibalba. All of that changed because the 500+ year-old enlightened master Tom1 gave Tommy2 a second chance to set things right, and ‘finish it.’

Feel free to make a detailed, evidence-based and rigorously logical interpretation of your own, slugger. But if hot air and a patronizing attitude is all you’ve got, please drive through.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] rdeschene 13 years ago

One: this Tommy has his ring on at her grave. This is a major problem, because we know that future Tom didn’t get his ring back until he fetched it from his mind some 500 years in the future.

I agree with this interpretation, and for me the ring was what pulled it all together. When I saw him wearing the ring as he brushed away the snow from Izzi's headstone, I came to a similar conclusion.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ace2244 14 years ago

this is an awesome review. it definitely explained a lot. i always thought the future was real bc darren called the bubbble a "space ship" in the making of the movie.

one question though, that i haven't quite figured out (hopefully this hasn't been repeated). but why does tom want to take izzi's tree up to xibalba? does he think her soul is in the tree and that when they reach xibalba it will be reborn and turn into her? i know he eventually realizes that if he dies he will be with izzi, but before this he makes a concious effort to keep the tree alive before reaching xibalba. also when he dies in xibalba his ashes "feed" the tree and it comes back to life. do you think their souls are living together inside the tree? i'd like to hear your thoughts on this. thanks.

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

That’s an excellent question, ace2244. Tom tries to explain it as he speaks to the tree:

01:00:18 “Don’t worry, we’re almost there. Through that last dark cloud is a dying star, and soon enough, Xibalba will die and when it explodes, you’ll be reborn. You will bloom. And I will live.”

But that’s a very muddled and half-baked scheme, in my opinion. I suspect that this important issue of Tom’s motivation is part of the reason why so many people got frustrated and annoyed with this film.

Because Tom does seem to think that Izzi’s spirit is somehow within the tree, à la the Moses Morales story, but that brings up more contradictions than answers. For example, the tree isn’t actually dead when he speaks those lines to it, so in what sense does he expect it to ‘be reborn?’ And if it’s not the tree that he expects to be reborn, but rather Izzi herself somehow, then why does he go on to say ‘You will bloom?’ Then he goes on to say ‘And I will live,’ and since he’s still biologically alive, he must be speaking metaphorically. But as Jack Nicholson says, “people who speak in metaphors should shampoo my crotch.” Why? Because speaking in metaphors nearly guarantees a failure of meaningful communication.

I suppose we could make a stretch (since the tree *does* actually bloom when Xibalba dies, as Tom predicted) and say that Tom’s talking about their new life in the afterworld. But that wouldn’t explain why he’s so shocked and dismayed when the tree dies before they get there.

The only other option I can think of is that Tom has become rather unhinged in the 500 years that he’s been grieving over Izzi and making out with her tree. The severe mood swings and hallucinations would seem to support that theory. But then again, that doesn’t explain how Tom was right about the tree blooming when the star died.

So what this all seems to boil down to, is that Tom’s reasons for going to Xibalba with the tree don’t actually make any sense. Which sucks, because that’s an awful, gaping whole in the story. So I prefer to think that Tom’s going to Xibalba because it’s a poetic way to end his life and join Izzi in death, and he’s bringing the tree along with him because it’s all that’s left of her, and this way they can die/transcend together.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] rzarawdog 14 years ago

This is a great thread, but I do want to chime in here and say why I think the-devil-boy's theory isn't entirely accurate. I completely agree that storyline #1 is Izzi's book, #2 is real and is the past, and #3 is real and is the present. However, your thoughts that Tom created an alternate timeline in which he chases Izzi through the door and into the snow do not add up. The tree that Tom has been feeding from is clearly the tree that he plants above Izzi's dead body. This means that in the "present" timeline (the one where Tom is space heading towards Xibalba) he had to have planted the tree above her dead body. In your theory, however, he doesn't plant the seed in the first timeline, he plants it in the "alternate" timeline that he supposedly creates. Well, basically, this is a paradox because he would not be floating in space with the tree he planted if he did not plant the tree until he created the alternate timeline. Do you see what I'm saying? If not, I will take more time to explain it better because I wrote this really fast while at work.

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

I’m glad to see that you’re not sleeping at the wheel, rzarawdog, you make a keen observation here. But why would you think that Tommy would plant a tree over Izzi’s grave in just the second timeline, and not the first as well? It's my position that he planted a tree at Izzi's grave in both timelines.

Because having seen a great deal of the original timeline (which I’ll call ‘Timeline1’ for clarity), we know that Tommy1 would have plenty of reason to plant a tree at Izzi’s grave after she died. We know for a fact that Izzi told Tommy1 the story of Moses Morales, and how his father had a new life as the tree that Moses planted over his grave. And it would make sense that this kind of ‘resurrection’ would appeal to Tommy1’s compulsion to save Izzi in any way that he could. And even if he didn’t believe that the tree he planted at Izzi’s grave would keep her spirit alive on the Earth in some way, it’s easy to think that the grief-stricken Tommy1 would plant a tree over her grave as a gesture of affection and respect for her own beliefs. So it seems pretty clear that Tommy1 planted the tree over Izzi’s grave in Timeline1 – in fact we know that he did, because the tree is with him in the bubble ship.

And we’re actually –shown- Tommy2 planting a seed at Izzi’s grave in Timeline2 (except in this timeline it appears that Izzi chose the exact seedpod herself, and handed it to Tommy2 before she died). And we also know that this is Tommy2 at the grave site, and not a Tommy1 flashback, because this Tommy has his wedding band on when he visits Izzi’s grave alone to say goodbye to her and plant the seedpod. Tommy1 on the other hand appears to have gone home from the burial ceremony to read the last chapter of Izzi’s book, and ended up tattooing his finger with the fountain pen she gave him. We also know that we’re seeing Tommy2 when he plants the seedpod at her grave, because this Tommy has some grace and acceptance about her loss, whereas Tommy1 was a sobbing tortured mess about it. So we know that Tommy2 also planted a seedpod at Izzi’s grave.

So the Izzi tree exists in both timelines, except Izzi-Tree1 goes to Xibalba, and we never get to see Izzi-Tree2, but we know that it stays on Earth and yields lots of little seedpods that get carried aloft by hungry birdies and their fledglings =)

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] irenya 14 years ago

"But why would you think that Tommy would plant a tree over Izzi’s grave in just the second timeline, and not the first as well? It's my position that he planted a tree at Izzi's grave in both timelines."

Because what we clearly see in the movie is the "alternate" Tommy, with the ring in his finger plant the seed that Izzy gave him during their walk in the first snow. We're not shown the other Tommy plant any seed, we see that Tommy walk away from the grave, refusing to accept death, but death in general (not only Izzy's death, "death is a disease, and there's a cure and i will find it", he tells the Ellen Burstyn character).
Planting the seed on her grave shows us his acceptance of her death, and his willingness to believe in her view of the world: He accepts that she died, and she will now "live forever" in the tree, in the seeds carried by birds, etc., which is what she says Moses Morales believed in. If he already believed all that, there is no "enlightment" for him to experience 500 years later: His trip to Xibalba is just his way of "completing the cycle" and his way of somehow granting his wife's wishes. But he would be already "enlightened": He would have achieved his enlightenment right at the moment that he decided to plant the seed in the original timeline.

Unless we're to think that he planted the seed in the original timeline for a completely different set of reasons: To bring Izzy back to life. Then we'd have an obsessed and extremely driven "mad scientist" Tommy, willing to spend however long it might take in order to bring Izzy back to life. He plants the seed because it's the only way he knows to bring her back, and embarks to the trip to Xibalba. I don't dismiss that possibility, but i think it's a flaw that we are not shown that (or that it's not hinted at).

I like most of your analysis, thank you for it, and for mentioning the fact that Aronofski took the idea of the "bubble" from NASA: While i thought the 2500 Tom was "real", i took it more as some sort of "astral travel" and not a real, physical one (i only saw the movie once, a few days ago). But i like the idea that it's more "real".

I have a few problems with the "conquistador" story, and i'm really not all that sure that it can only be seen as fiction. At the beginning of the movie, we see "bubble" Tom scream at the time Conquistador Tom is being attacked by the Mayan. It seems to me too much of a painful scream to be just caused by a work of fiction, it looks as real memories to me.
Near the end, she presents herself to him both as Izzy and as the Queen. There's a look of recognition in his face, of understanding.
What point would the Queen's appearance have in a completely fictional context? Why would it have any meaning for him to see her like that? I find it very interesting that he makes his peace with the idea of dying only after he sees that image of her. It seems absurd that his "enlightment" would come from hallucinating a fiction character. Really.
There's other minor details too: She not only chooses to write her book by hand, using a fountain pen, but her handwriting looks deliberately old style. There's also allusions to how amazing she was for having achieved such grace for someone so young. I see these elements as hints for something else.

Also, the whole story has no real place in the movie if it's purely fiction. What's its purpose? All the information we have about the Mayan concept of life and death we get from Izzy's words to Tommy. So its function wouldn't even be exposition. What point do you see in all that story, if it's purely fiction?

Anyway, the main argument against this view is its complete lack of historical credibility: Queen Isabella I was already dead by the time the Spaniards reached Guatemala, to start with. Also, the view of her clashing with the Inquisition is absurd, since it was during her reign that the Inquisition was established in Spain, and there was never any conflict between them (she was a fervent Catholic, and she even regarded the Pope Alexander VI as lenient and too secular).
But those inaccuracies bother me either way: Even if it's "fiction within fiction" gross historical errors aren't justified. Since Aronofski evidently didn't care for historical accuracy, we could still argue in favor of that part of the story being "true" and not just Izzy's fictional work.

As i said, interesting overall analysis, but would like to hear more of your view on why you think the 16th century part is "fiction".

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

"But why would you think that Tommy would plant a tree over Izzi’s grave in just the second timeline, and not the first as well? It's my position that he planted a tree at Izzi's grave in both timelines."

Because what we clearly see in the movie is the "alternate" Tommy, with the ring in his finger plant the seed that Izzy gave him during their walk in the first snow. We're not shown the other Tommy plant any seed, we see that Tommy walk away from the grave, refusing to accept death, but death in general (not only Izzy's death, "death is a disease, and there's a cure and i will find it", he tells the Ellen Burstyn character).
Planting the seed on her grave shows us his acceptance of her death, and his willingness to believe in her view of the world: He accepts that she died, and she will now "live forever" in the tree, in the seeds carried by birds, etc., which is what she says Moses Morales believed in. If he already believed all that, there is no "enlightment" for him to experience 500 years later: His trip to Xibalba is just his way of "completing the cycle" and his way of somehow granting his wife's wishes. But he would be already "enlightened": He would have achieved his enlightenment right at the moment that he decided to plant the seed in the original timeline.

That last part is a really big leap, irenya. Tommy1 had lots of good reasons to plant a seedpod at Izzi’s grave, that –didn’t- require his acceptance of her death. Loneliness, for starters. Tommy1 was a freaking –mess- over Izzi’s death, and he would’ve done anything to keep even her memory alive. Like planting a tree at her grave in memory of the story she told him. Or how about respect? She made it clear that she loved the poetic quality of Moses Morales’ story, and even if Tommy1 didn’t accept her philosophy, he was smart enough to understand that she would’ve wanted a seed to be planted over her grave, and he respected her enough to do it for her (just as he respected her wish to be buried at Lilly’s farm). Or how about plain old sentimentality? Lots of people bring flowers to the grave of the one they love; Tommy1 had every reason to plant a seed at her grave instead.

Plus, we –see- Tommy1 in the bubble ship, before he becomes enlightened, gently caressing, speaking to, and tending to the tree that he obviously equates with Izzi (the hairs that look exactly like the hairs on Izzi’s neck, the shape of the tree turning into the shape of her thigh – the two are constantly equated).

Unless we're to think that he planted the seed in the original timeline for a completely different set of reasons: To bring Izzy back to life. Then we'd have an obsessed and extremely driven "mad scientist" Tommy, willing to spend however long it might take in order to bring Izzy back to life. He plants the seed because it's the only way he knows to bring her back, and embarks to the trip to Xibalba. I don't dismiss that possibility, but i think it's a flaw that we are not shown that (or that it's not hinted at).

Actually, this possibly is presented when Tommy1 speaks to the tree as they reach Xibalba, and he rants about how she’ll come back to life when Xibalba explodes – he seems to think his mission will bring them both back to life in some way:

01:00:18 “Don’t worry, we’re almost there. Through that last dark cloud is a dying star, and soon enough, Xibalba will die and when it explodes, you’ll be reborn. You will bloom. And I will live.”

I have a few problems with the "conquistador" story, and i'm really not all that sure that it can only be seen as fiction. At the beginning of the movie, we see "bubble" Tom scream at the time Conquistador Tom is being attacked by the Mayan. It seems to me too much of a painful scream to be just caused by a work of fiction, it looks as real memories to me.

Well, try to recall that in that transition, Tommy1 isn’t just remembering the moment in the story when his character gets horribly stabbed – he’s also reaching the point in the story where Izzi left it off for him to finish, which he’s never been able to do, because finishing the story would mean accepting her death. That moment in the story has been the bane of his existence for 500 years.

Near the end, she presents herself to him both as Izzy and as the Queen. There's a look of recognition in his face, of understanding.

What point would the Queen's appearance have in a completely fictional context? Why would it have any meaning for him to see her like that? I find it very interesting that he makes his peace with the idea of dying only after he sees that image of her. It seems absurd that his "enlightment" would come from hallucinating a fiction character. Really.

This is directly related to his appearance in the story as “First Father,” and the return of the ring moments before he dies. It’s not the fact that he’s “hallucinating” Izzi in the form of the Queen character, it’s that he’s realizing something about new degrees of freedom in death. In death, Izzi can be Izzi, and the Queen, and the tree and anything else, for eternity – and Tommy can join her in that realm, and be and do anything his imagination can conceive. Her appearance as the Queen somehow helps him realize that death is not an enemy, but rather an opportunity. And Tommy becomes enlightened when he realizes these enormous new possibilities in the transformation of death, “death as an act of creation.”

There's other minor details too: She not only chooses to write her book by hand, using a fountain pen, but her handwriting looks deliberately old style.

Ahh I don’t know how “old style” writing would look any different than elegant “modern style” writing, but it’s very clear that the language used in the book is modern English. I don’t recall seeing Izzi use a fountain pen, maybe she did. But I think the fountain pen she gives Tommy is a modern fountain pen from the gift shop at the “Divine Words” museum exhibit.

There's also allusions to how amazing she was for having achieved such grace for someone so young. I see these elements as hints for something else.

I think Lilly is only pointing out that she was a very special, soulful young woman – which is why Tommy was so crazy about her.

Also, the whole story has no real place in the movie if it's purely fiction. What's its purpose?

All the information we have about the Mayan concept of life and death we get from Izzy's words to Tommy. So its function wouldn't even be exposition. What point do you see in all that story, if it's purely fiction?

Primary, I think the book is pivotal to the plot because it shows Tommy a dramatized and metaphorical version of Tommy and Izzi’s confrontation with the cancer, and her immanent death, so he could come to terms with it all after she was gone. Aronofsky has said as much – in an interview he said:

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

Anyway, the main argument against this view is its complete lack of historical credibility: Queen Isabella I was already dead by the time the Spaniards reached Guatemala, to start with. Also, the view of her clashing with the Inquisition is absurd, since it was during her reign that the Inquisition was established in Spain, and there was never any conflict between them (she was a fervent Catholic, and she even regarded the Pope Alexander VI as lenient and too secular).
But those inaccuracies bother me either way: Even if it's "fiction within fiction" gross historical errors aren't justified. Since Aronofski evidently didn't care for historical accuracy, we could still argue in favor of that part of the story being "true" and not just Izzy's fictional work.

I’m not a fan of historical revisionism either, at best it undermines the credibility of a story, and at worst it’s downright insulting. But the historical accuracy of Izzi’s book is not the main reason it’s considered to be fictional – the visual language of the film presents her story as fiction at every turn (and the director also states that it’s a work of fiction in interviews, as noted above). Consider the 2000 AD story arc when Izzi shows Tommy her story: we –always- see that he’s reading her book to see how the story plays out, and we –never- see him have a memory of those events. It’s only long –after- he’s read and re-read her book, in the 2500 AD sequences, that we see him remembering her story. Also, if the story weren’t fiction, he’d know what happened after the priest stabbed Tomas the Conquistador – but he doesn’t know, because it never happened, so he struggles to come up with an ending on his own.

Thanks for the insightful and challenging post irenya – I don’t think anyone has come to the board with such a firm grasp on the story and its nuances after only one viewing. I hope you’ll watch it again sometime. As the director said later in that same interview:

“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.”

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] irenya 14 years ago

" Tommy1 had lots of good reasons to plant a seedpod at Izzi’s grave, that –didn’t- require his acceptance of her death. Loneliness, for starters. Tommy1 was a freaking –mess- over Izzi’s death, and he would’ve done anything to keep even her memory alive. Like planting a tree at her grave in memory of the story she told him. Or how about respect? She made it clear that she loved the poetic quality of Moses Morales’ story, and even if Tommy1 didn’t accept her philosophy, he was smart enough to understand that she would’ve wanted a seed to be planted over her grave"

I don't know why you say that i take a big leap, when you're the one who's willing to do whatever guesswork it takes to justify actions that don't even appear in the movie. Also, let's keep in mind that, while it's a solid view and it makes a lot of sense, the idea of the "two Tommy's" and the idea that Tommy2 is only a product of Tommy's "enlightenment", are just part of a theory.
You can't say "evidently he planted the tree because we see him with the tree in Xibalba", because that's part of your theory, so it's not really probative :)

As i said, the only reason i could really think of, in the light of what we see in the movie, is that he did it as part of his "plan" to take her to Xibalba so that she could be reborn. Every other reason you mention, basically can be reduced to "taking flowers to her grave". Now, the problem is that it's fairly poor writing. Basically, because it doesn't explain his going to Xibalba: He planted the seed just because, not to keep her soul "alive" in order to take it there.

"Well, try to recall that in that transition, Tommy1 isn’t just remembering the moment in the story when his character gets horribly stabbed – he’s also reaching the point in the story where Izzi left it off for him to finish, which he’s never been able to do, because finishing the story would mean accepting her death"

It's a good point, actually. He could be screaming because the end of the story (the part she had written), means the end of her life. Hadn't thought of it.

"Primary, I think the book is pivotal to the plot because it shows Tommy a dramatized and metaphorical version of Tommy and Izzi’s confrontation with the cancer, and her immanent death, so he could come to terms with it all after she was gone. "

But actually, it's quite the opposite, and that's probably what bothers me the most of its function as "fiction": In the conquistador story, the Queen is desperate for finding the key to eternal life: She's shown as willing to risk everything because she believes in the existence of the Tree of Eden there in America. Tomas only does what any man would do: Whatever it takes to please his Queen.
So, let's think of Tommy now: His young wife is dying. He's doing animal research and his last discovery seems to hold concrete promise of reversing cellular aging. At this moment he reads this story, a story his wife wrote, the story of two characters who are named like them: A Queen, who asks him to find the Tree of Life and promises that once he does they'll be king and queen together and they'll live forever. The other, Tomas, is the conquistador, who is, of course, willing to risk everything so that his Queen won't die.
If that's purely Izzy's invention, it's Izzy who's telling him "you have to risk evertything, try everything so that i don't die"?

The fact that Aronofski uses the word "metaphor" when describing her book certainly points to it being fiction, but the way her story is presented, it's she who doesn't want to die, he's just playing the role of her "knight in shining armor".

" if the story weren’t fiction, he’d know what happened after the priest stabbed Tomas the Conquistador "
Not necessarily. I had actually thought of it more as a sort of "reincarnation", more a "return" than a continuity from their previous life. They wouldn't have been alive for the past 500 years. Tomas died there by the tree, the Queen died at some point. They "came back" and found each other again 500 years later. When Tommy finds his enlightenment at the end, he understands precisely that: Even if they die, they're going to be together forever; Moses's story once again, but including the possibility of not only being alive in the trees, in the seeds, in the birds but, once the whole cycle of life is completed, to be alive again and again in two people who will find each other and love each other.

"Thanks for the insightful and challenging post irenya – I don’t think anyone has come to the board with such a firm grasp on the story and its nuances after only one viewing. I hope you’ll watch it again sometime."

Thank you for your comment!! I love movies, and i always try to pay as much attention as possible, to "get into them", so to speak. I'll certainly watch it again. Not sure when, tho. I delayed replying thinking of giving it another go in these days, but for some reason, i find it too intense to have another "dose" in such a short while. The intensity of their relationship, its sadness and love is something i found to be emotionally straining. I loved it, and i think that even if i end up finding lots of flaws or things i don't like, the emotional pitch Jackman and Weiss convey here is so real, that it's not a movie to watch any day. Something similar happens to me with Requiem for a Dream, actually. It's one of my favorite movies ever, but i can't just watch it any day.

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

" Tommy1 had lots of good reasons to plant a seedpod at Izzi’s grave, that –didn’t- require his acceptance of her death. Loneliness, for starters. Tommy1 was a freaking –mess- over Izzi’s death, and he would’ve done anything to keep even her memory alive. Like planting a tree at her grave in memory of the story she told him. Or how about respect? She made it clear that she loved the poetic quality of Moses Morales’ story, and even if Tommy1 didn’t accept her philosophy, he was smart enough to understand that she would’ve wanted a seed to be planted over her grave"

I don't know why you say that i take a big leap, when you're the one who's willing to do whatever guesswork it takes to justify actions that don't even appear in the movie.

Ouch…those reasons are all taken directly from the story, I’d hardly call them ‘whatever guesswork.’ And try to bear in mind that the fact that Izzi’s tree plays a prominent role in the film as Izzi sorta proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Tommy1 planted a seed at her grave. How and why is fairly irrelevant, in light of that fact, which I contend is quite probative.

Also, let's keep in mind that, while it's a solid view and it makes a lot of sense, the idea of the "two Tommy's" and the idea that Tommy2 is only a product of Tommy's "enlightenment", are just part of a theory.
You can't say "evidently he planted the tree because we see him with the tree in Xibalba", because that's part of your theory, so it's not really probative :)

The “Two Tommys” interpretation is indeed a theory. The fact that the tree is presented as another form of Izzi, isn’t. Ergo, the existence of the tree is proof that the Tom in the sphere planted that tree at Izzi’s grave at an earlier point.

As i said, the only reason i could really think of, in the light of what we see in the movie, is that he did it as part of his "plan" to take her to Xibalba so that she could be reborn. Every other reason you mention, basically can be reduced to "taking flowers to her grave". Now, the problem is that it's fairly poor writing. Basically, because it doesn't explain his going to Xibalba: He planted the seed just because, not to keep her soul "alive" in order to take it there.

I think it’s an ‘all of the above’ scenario – Tommy1 had a myriad of reasons for planting the seed at Izzi’s grave, so he did. I very much doubt that he planned to take the tree to Xibalba at the time he planted the seed, some 500 years before they arrive at the nebula (in which case, yes, at the time of the seed planting it probably was basically a ‘bringing flowers to her grave’ kind of gesture – poor writing? Maybe, but credible nevertheless). But at some point he –did- decide to take her tree to Xibalba, so they could both live again in some undefined sense, per his weird little speech as they arrive at Xibalba.

"Primarily, I think the book is pivotal to the plot because it shows Tommy a dramatized and metaphorical version of Tommy and Izzi’s confrontation with the cancer, and her immanent death, so he could come to terms with it all after she was gone. "

But actually, it's quite the opposite…it's she who doesn't want to die, he's just playing the role of her "knight in shining armor".

Tommy’s passion in the lab makes it pretty clear that the most important thing in his life is keeping his wife alive. But you’re right to point out that, up until her very last day or two, it appears that Izzi was also strongly opposed to dying.

We didn’t see this explicitly in the film, but apparently Izzi’s book has been an on-going work of hers for some time leading up to her death, and at the time of her death she hasn’t done any significant revisions/rewriting. So the book captures her feelings about the struggle with her cancer as she experienced them. And as you’ll recall, she dreaded and feared her death up until her seizure at the Divine Words exhibit. Then her attitude suddenly changed, she became accepting, even welcoming, of her death. This appears to be what inspired her to let Tommy finish the book (though she didn’t necessarily have much choice at that point). Just as she experienced a transformation in her feelings about death at the moment when its certainty and inevitability (and even warmth/divinity) overcame her at the museum, it appears that she wanted Tommy to undergo a similar transformation at the moment his character faced certain death at the hand of the Mayan priest.

" if the story weren’t fiction, he’d know what happened after the priest stabbed Tomas the Conquistador "

Not necessarily. I had actually thought of it more as a sort of "reincarnation", more a "return" than a continuity from their previous life. They wouldn't have been alive for the past 500 years. Tomas died there by the tree, the Queen died at some point. They "came back" and found each other again 500 years later.

Now “who's willing to do whatever guesswork it takes to justify actions that don't even appear in the movie?” :)

When Tommy finds his enlightenment at the end, he understands precisely that: Even if they die, they're going to be together forever; Moses's story once again, but including the possibility of not only being alive in the trees, in the seeds, in the birds but, once the whole cycle of life is completed, to be alive again and again in two people who will find each other and love each other.

Well, there just isn’t anything in the film about that kind of reincarnation (which I think is a good thing, because if what comes after death is just more of the same kind of life, that’s kind of a cop-out – it doesn’t answer the question, it just puts it off). And the final shot of the film appears to refute that theory: Tommy and Izzi are together again, is some diaphanously-lit transmortality dimension. They’re not incarnate back on Earth, they’re “on the other side,” whatever that means. But they’re happy, and they’re together, which is all we need to know.

"Thanks for the insightful and challenging post irenya – I don’t think anyone has come to the board with such a firm grasp on the story and its nuances after only one viewing. I hope you’ll watch it again sometime."

Thank you for your comment!! I love movies, and i always try to pay as much attention as possible, to "get into them", so to speak. I'll certainly watch it again. Not sure when, tho. I delayed replying thinking of giving it another go in these days, but for some reason, i find it too intense to have another "dose" in such a short while. The intensity of their relationship, its sadness and love is something i found to be emotionally straining. I loved it, and i think that even if i end up finding lots of flaws or things i don't like, the emotional pitch Jackman and Weiss convey here is so real, that it's not a movie to watch any day. Something similar happens to me with Requiem for a Dream, actually. It's one of my favorite movies ever, but i can't just watch it any day.

I know what you mean – I have to be in the right frame of mind to view my favorite movies, or else it feels cheapened somehow. Maybe that’s why so many people disliked the film – you have to be ready for a heavy, thought-provoking, complex, even puzzling story, in order to enjoy this film.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] purban 14 years ago

I can't decide if I want to call this discussion tedious or spirited, but I'm leaning towards tedious, just because some people need some manners to go along with their opinions.

For all those skimming this, I'd direct you towards the graphic novel, which has been mentioned a couple of times. It offers some nice insights. Not that the novel=the film. They're perhaps two different stories--rather mind-bending in the context of this discussion on "which story is real?" Remember, this film/story was Aronofsky's for many years, and the film was in limbo for many additonal years. It's completely fascinating how it may or may not have changed from its inception. Buy Aronofsky's novel to go along with the film if you are really passionate about it.

On the dvd/blu-ray extras the conversation between Jackman and Weisz is also enlightening.

Finally, In the bold Aronofsky quote, I don't believe the word "metaphor" is a synonym for the word "fiction." On the contrary, it may indicate alternate, mirrored patterns or repetition.

In the end, shouldn't a film about life and death be deeply personal? I watched it last night for probably the 20th time since it came out. And I still noticed new details! (This time it was the incomplete "wedding ring" tattoo towards the end.) It's likely my favorite film, but even though I've been posting on imdb since 2000, I don't think I've ever posted on this film until now. That's how personal it is. It helps me to cope with life and loss sometimes. Anyone claiming to have a definitive interpretation is missing the whole point of the film.

Keep the passion and analysis going in this discussion. Also keep your context, your perspective...and your manners.

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

Anyone claiming to have a definitive interpretation is missing the whole point of the film.

…you realize of course that you just claimed that there’s ‘a whole point of the film,’ which implies that your own interpretation is definitive…oh never mind…

Regardless, Aronofsky says that you’re wrong. You can retreat behind postmodernism if you’re so inclined, but in my opinion the writer/director/creator’s intent is the final word:

“Aronofsky insists that The Fountain, no matter how ambiguous, has a definitive interpretation: his. ‘It's very much like a Rubik's cube, where you can solve it in several different ways, but ultimately there's only one solution at the end,’ he says.”
(Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/23/AR2006 112300534.html)

Finally, In the bold Aronofsky quote, I don't believe the word "metaphor" is a synonym for the word "fiction." On the contrary, it may indicate alternate, mirrored patterns or repetition.

Er, excuse me? Here’s the quote in question:

“So she writes a book about a conquistador and a queen that is a metaphor for their experience and what’s going on.” - Darren Aronofsky
(Source: http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/feature.php?id=330)

Apparently you’re saying that you don’t read this as “So Izzi came up with a story featuring a conquistador and a queen to make a metaphorical point about what’s going on with them (re: her impending death and his refusal to accept it etc)”…but rather…what, exactly?

I guess I don’t know a polite way to ask this, sorry. Are you, or are you not, saying that you think the 1500A.D. storyline –actually happened in fact-, and that without that perspective, one would miss the ‘whole point of the film?’ Because that’s what it seems like you’re saying, and it seems that you’re wrong.

Sorry for not being more polite, but I give what I get, and we got off to a bad start with your contemptuous “I can't decide if I want to call this discussion tedious or spirited, but I’m leaning toward tedious” snipe.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] purban 14 years ago

Well, the-devil-boy, my hats off to you for maintaining your board. That's very impressive here on imdb. I appreciate your passion. You rightly called me out on my statement about "the point of the whole film." Your interpretation is valid and I didn't mean to say that it wasn't. I just don't completely share it...anymore. I actually did in my first few viewings of the film, but my repeated viewings and reading the graphic novel have lead me to a different “nonconclusion.”

As for the Washington Post link, I think it's important to read what follows after that. "The nature of that solution, though, is something he refuses to discuss during interviews. 'Follow the clues and how it all adds up,' he says..." and then he goes on to say he hopes people will watch it repeatedly. I think this indicates his desire for viewers to have a personal interpretation.

I stand by my insistence that "metaphor" does not equal "fiction." I'd be really interested in how you tie in the original story as shown in his graphic novel and how you feel it relates to the film. As for your question about whether 1500 AD actually did happen, you correctly assume that I choose to believe that it did. "You pulled me through time," is my favorite line in the film, and the cycle of death and rebirth is clearly portrayed, as you indicated in your OP. Of course, I have a romantic view, to be sure.

Part of my reasoning for this is that I simply cannot believe that an auteur, despite the very definition of "auteur," would claim to have an answer to his ruminations on death. Even Aronofsky changed his mind as his story developed. In the eyeforfilm link that you posted, he states he wants to have a "dialog" with his audience. He's not telling us an answer. He also compares his film to a Chinese box. I think this is an important analogy. While there may be one central story to the film, there are outer layers. Those layers are still real. There's no one interpretation. Much like one of the early and repeated shots in the movie, I believe this film is a meditation.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

That’s interesting, purban, I’ve never encountered anyone who changed their mind about this interpretation once they’d seen the way the clues just seem to snap into place around it.

I do agree with you about the layers of symbolism, and the fact that many of the subtler questions in the film are left open for the viewer to resolve through their own individual creative/emotional ‘lens,’ if you will. I think that a film that crystallizes into a completely explicit understanding, all the way through, could never reverberate as a true work of art does. If there’s no room at all for the viewer to fit in, then the work becomes mere decoration…there has to be a place for the subjective and the subconscious, or a work is mute and dead.

But that doesn’t mean that I accept your hypothesis that the central narrative component of this film is without a definitive storyline. Because for one thing, there’s no disputing Aronofsky's ‘Rubik’s Cube’ analogy and the remarks that followed: there’s only one final solution to the objective events portrayed in this film, and Aronofsky knows exactly what it is. He said this - it’s not open to argument. What is open to argument is whether or not this interpretation is what Aronofsky has in mind. But I always enjoy throwing this solution into the ring, because so far it’s beaten the competition into pudding every time.

And honestly I find your interpretation of Aronofsky’s follow-up remarks entirely unconvincing, because asking the audience to solve the puzzle for themselves, doesn’t in any way mean that there isn’t one solution to the puzzle. He’s just saying that it’s more satisfying to work out the solution for yourself, than it is to have it spelled out for you. And he’s right, which is why I often worry that posting this thread may rob people of the joy of figuring out the solution on their own.

And this is the other thing: I love this interpretation because, for me anyway (and I think for many others as well), this interpretation deepens and broadens the underlying marvel about this complex and substantial film. Sure, the alternate timeline interpretation resolves the sequence and meaning of the events in the film, but it also invites our imaginations to reinterpret everything that we *think we know* about the underlying operating principles at work in our daily reality. And I think that’s just awesome, man.

Now, I’ve discussed the graphic novel with people who argue the ‘all timelines are real’ interpretation, and I’ve read Aronofsky’s remarks about it, and how it does (and doesn’t) pertain to the film. He says the stories are ‘cousins,’ related but not very closely. So I get the impression that it misleads people into seeing the film as a story that it’s not. But I haven’t read the graphic novel myself. When I learned that in the graphic novel, the two main characters are presented as some kind of immortals who lived during the Inquisition, I lost all interest in reading that story. That story sounds like an earlier and less matured version of the story that I loved in the film. And it was. It came first, and by the time Aronofsky made this film version of the story, he had realized how goofy it would be to trivialize those wonderfully human and vulnerable lovers, by putting them in the same category as Connor MacLeod (because, as we all know, there can be only one).

So your last paragraph is especially compelling, because I agree that Aronofsky wouldn’t tie his ruminations on death into a nice bow knot and be done with it. But even if you accept this solution to the film, -it doesn’t at all resolve the director's ideas about the mystery beyond life-. In no way does the alternate timeline theory demystify the puzzle of death. If anything, it only multiplies the complexity of the question, because we’re left to not only ponder what became of Tommy and Izzy beyond their lives, but what their alternate deaths would mean to their alternate lives. Which Tommy died, and when, or is it both, and what does that say about the nature of identity?

Clearly, the alternate timeline theory raises lots of interesting questions about the nature of existence, while simplifying none of them.

And he doesn’t answer any of those Big Questions in the end, we’re left to contemplate them for ourselves, which I’m still doing, frankly. And according to the Buddhists, contemplation is a form of meditation. So if Aronofsky meant this film to be a meditation, as we both agree that he did, then I’d have to say ‘congratulations, Sir…meditation accomplished.’

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] purban 14 years ago

I agree with you. The graphic novel could very well mislead people into believing the film is a story that it's not. I myself am uncomfortable using the graphic novel to interpret the film, as they are seperate works. I'm just interested in hearing how viewers think they are related.

Personally, after reading the original story, I am very glad his first film did not get made. I think he produced a far better film with budget constraints and more time to let his story stew. I mean...the micro-cellular photography was amazing to me. That wouldn't have happened with the original big stars and larger budget. I believe the film is much more stunning of a story, is visually richer, and more meaningful, for the delay. The actors in the film far surpassed any that would have been in the earlier version.

As a graduate student, I studied under someone who believed in the evolution of a story. We tracked down original manuscripts with authors' notes in the margins; things they had crossed out, changed, and rewritten. From studying under this guy, I began to really understand how stories live and grow. This film after repeated viewings and reading the graphic novel made me feel the same way. It lives and grows in the mind of the director as well as the viewer or reader.

In one of the articles you quoted, Aronofsky even compares his film to "Lost." As a fan of that series, I have to say that analogy seems to support your somewhat definitive interpretation, as do some of the quotes you cite. There's a great deal of weight to what you say. However, maybe this film is a moment in time for Aronofsky. When he "finished it," maybe your interpretation of this film is where he stood and what he intended at that moment. But because it grew and changed from its inception, and because I view it as so important of a work in terms of theme and execution, I also have to believe, as you said, he left a lot open to interpretation (perhaps more than you are allowing.) He produced a final picture, but given the history, would he really "finish it?" Or would he let it live and grow? Maybe the alternate timeline is his way of letting it live and grow, but to me, that seems somewhat exclusive. Viewers don't have the luxury of living an alternate timeline.

My personal interpretation, rather than an alternate timeline, is that Tommy finally realized his mistake. Death is the road to awe, and the inevitable road to rebirth. It's the way to be with Izzy again. His chasing after Izzy at the end in the snow was symbolic of this realization. This vision was inside him, rather than actual, or alternate. In the main story, this realization allows him to finally live. In another story, this realization of his allows him to finally die and be reborn again, reborn into another story with Izzy. Hense the sperm, egg, and mother's milk symbolism in the final part of the film. This rebirth is a story that is left for us to imagine, or, in our own lives and in our own way, to live...live as we can with the people around us and without that fear that would keep us from enjoying every moment that really matters.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

Aside from the argument that Aronofsky didn’t employ the here’s-a-sneaky-and-seemingly-real-depiction-of-what’s-going-on-inside-the-character’s-mind technique anywhere else in the film (which is especially interesting given how much he enjoyed using it in Requiem for A Dream), I also find it incredible (in the literal ‘I can’t believe that to be true’ meaning of the word) that Tom would only be realizing what a huge mistake it was to not follow Izzi through that door into the first snow, 500 years after the fact.

Because it hadn’t been an easy decision for him in the first place. When she had asked him at his office to go with her, he snapped at her –because- it was a difficult choice. He wanted to say ‘yes.’ But he also knew that any moment he spent –not- striving to save her life, could spell her doom. But even that wasn’t enough to stop him from chasing after her, though…he would’ve changed his mind and got out into the snow with her, if Manny hadn’t physically stopped him and hastened him to the lab.

Actually this whole issue of Tommy’s intent is much subtler and more ambivalent than most people seem to think. Not only was his obsessive race to save Izzi’s life a source of enormous internal conflict for him (which we saw in his office with Izzi, then in his tortured conversations with his assistants, and later his boss), but there’s also the fact that he almost pulled off not only saving her life, but giving them both an immortality that they could’ve shared for as long as they had wanted. Which would’ve made the hours he had sacrificed to his efforts to save her instead of being with her, seem like a fairly paltry price to pay, in the final analysis. And that’s not just something that ‘kinda mighta’ happened - a good argument can be made that it’s what would have happened if that slacker Antonio had gotten the news to Tommy about his miracle drug working.

This is one of my favorite aspects of the story, actually, because this is the kind of uncertainty at work in real life all the time. Things could’ve turned out another way, and the conclusions/lessons drawn from the sequence of events would’ve been completely different. In The Fountain, it all ended up all hinging on Antonio. In any of our lives, it could hinge on a phone call, or the timing of a bus, or the answer to a single question that’s beyond our control. And the success or failure of your entire life could hinge entirely on that single chaotic factor. That’s the nature of risk, and sooner or later we all face a huge risk like Tommy’s.

But it seems like everyone who comments on The Fountain says something like ‘the meaning of the film is that we should spend the time we have with the one(s) we love while we have them, and not make the mistake that Tommy made with his greedy quest for more time.’

But that’s a totally lame and unfair assessment, in my opinion. Because if Antonio hadn’t totally dropped the ball at the crucial moment and let Izzi die, then she and Tommy could’ve lived for hundreds of years together, and journeyed to the stars, etc. In that case, the point of the story would’ve been ‘busting your butt to achieve your most miraculous dreams, and making some hard personal sacrifices along the way in order to do it, is the heroic way to live and can save your loved ones from certain death.’

But it went the other way on pretty much a toss of the coin, and instead of reaping the rewards of his sacrifices, Tommy was damned to centuries of solitary torment.

So I don’t see the lesson/moral of the story as ‘enjoy the fleeting time with those you love instead of striving to save their lives when things get dodgy,’ I think a far more fair and reasonable lesson here is ‘hire your assistants wisely because a lazy assistant can cost you everything.’

Tommy acted heroically, imo, and I think he deserves better than the typical ‘but he was oh so misled’ characterization. It's not that simple: it only looks that simple in retrospect. Tommy had no idea which way it was going to turn out, and I wouldn’t have empathized with him if he hadn’t struggled manically to save his wife. In fact, I think the reason he deserved a second chance (to spend Izzi’s last days with her in the new timeline) is because he had tried so passionately to cure her.

But I have no idea how the director intended us to view this aspect of the story…actually I suspect that he’d disagree with me. But I think it’s a point worthy of consideration.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] purban 14 years ago

You've highlighted some important points. I'll touch upon those that stuck out and I'm willing to dialog upon others. I'd like you to know that I'm actually learning a great deal from your perspective.

Personally, I think it's cheating the story to put too much on Manny or Antonio. Tommy's choices are his own. The other characters serve to highten and exemplify Tommy's choice. They are Tommy's own personal voice, just on the opposite side of his shoulder, so to speak. They both provide the "what if?" As such, your phrase "toss of the coin" seems a simplification to me, and I assume that's what you are trying to point out to me and other readers of this board. Tommy's choices could have gone either way. But he made certain choices, and despite those choices, still could not control his situation as much as he would have liked.

I agree that 500 years may seem a long time for Tommy to finally realize his mistake in not leaving with Izzy to walk in the snow. However, that's not what happened. In fact, Tommy's visions indicate he did realize his mistake. Indeed, he's tortured through every lifetime. He's tortured by those decisions that you pointed out, both with those he did and did not have control over. It just takes him, in all his longing and in all of those last moments, to accept it as final. I think that's telling and powerfully moving. It's not the "realization," as you point out, but the acceptance. To me, this long duration to acceptance seems very sad but appropriate.

Also...P.S. By checking your profile, I see you've only commented on The Fountain. I really hope you stick around to provide this much energy and thoughtfullness on other films' boards as well. With your degree of analysis, I think it's unfortunate that since 2007 you haven't posted untill now. However, when the time is right, it's right. I'd really like to see your postings on other films. I know I'll be checking up on your ID here, and I would encourage others to do so also. This sort of passion and care for a board is rare. Please keep it up.

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

Thanks for indulging my foray into the murkier regions of the story. So far I seem to be the only person who cares that Tommy’s effort to save Izzi was outright heroic, and also nearly worked – in fact would have worked if Antonio hadn’t flubbed the pooch, in a manner of speaking.

Regarding the issue of Tommy taking 500 yerars to realize his mistake, first you said:

My personal interpretation, rather than an alternate timeline, is that Tommy finally realized his mistake…His chasing after Izzy at the end in the snow was symbolic of this realization.

But now you’re saying:

I agree that 500 years may seem a long time for Tommy to finally realize his mistake in not leaving with Izzy to walk in the snow. However, that's not what happened. In fact, Tommy's visions indicate he did realize his mistake. Indeed, he's tortured through every lifetime.

So we’re in agreement there, now. I’m of the opinion that Tommy, being no fool, realized that he’d made a terrible mistake, the moment she died. And if not then, soon, like the night he went home and picked up personal tattooing as a hobby.

I also agree that Tom comes to accept Izzi’s death (and his own as well) during his conversation with Queen Isabel, right before we see the new version of events in the past, when he chases after Izzi into the snow instead of going to the lab with Manny.

But I don’t agree that chasing after Izzi into the snow is “symbolic of this (acceptance).” There are several reasons that I think this is a ‘forced fit’ interpretation, but I think the clearest reason is this: if this scene is simply symbolic of Tom’s acceptance of Izzi’s death (or rather, death in general, it seems), then why does Tommy’s ‘moment of realization/acceptance’ not pass over his face at the beginning of that altered sequence, instead of when he’s standing next to Manny watching the door close behind Izzi?

Think about it: if we’re being shown this scene to symbolically convey the fact that Tom in the future has come to terms with death (and specifically Izzi's death), then why not change the fact that he raised his voice to her in the first place? If I wanted to show you that he was at peace now, I would’ve shown Izzi asking Tommy out into the snow, and Tommy would’ve said ‘you know, that sounds like a great idea, baby – let’s go!’ And off they would’ve gone.

But that’s not what we’re shown. The scene plays out like it did the first time, rife with tension and conflict, and it’s only when she’s gone, that he realizes ‘oh *beep* what if I never get another chance to see her again, and I’ve gone off messing around with that rotten monkey, instead of spending the last few hours of her life with her?’ Which, I contend, is exactly what he seems to be thinking as he has his ‘leap of insight from his future self.’

And another point that argues against your theory, is that we see Tommy at Izzi’s grave wearing his wedding ring, after Tom finishes Izzi’s story. How do you explain this scene – do we really need a second scene (which is also strictly symbolic) showing us Tom’s acceptance of death? I don’t buy it, it’s not rational. I think it’s a shaky argument to say that the changed scene with Izzi is suddenly a new filmic device inserted at the climax to convey a symbolic meaning (using a pivotal moment in a real chain of events, oddly), but asking me to believe that there’s a second scene a little while later which is also symbolic, and which is shown to convey exactly the same symbolic meaning (that Tom has accepted death, again), requires an abandonment of reason that I’m not willing to accept. Everything else about the film suggests to me that it’s too well thought out to expect so little of it in the final scenes. The alternate timeline theory, however, explains each scene perfectly and asks us only to accept what we’re being shown at face value. With the bonus that it gives the film the added dimension of saying to the viewer ‘you are more than you know, your consciousness is a transcendental force of potentially unlimited power.’ I wish I could take credit for inserting that into the film, but I can’t – Aronofsky put it in there. Which really shouldn’t be so shocking, because the whole film surges with passion, and life-affirming energy, and titanic concepts.

In closing I’d just like to thank you for your thoughtful dialogue on all of these fascinating facets of this film, and for your kind words. I may comment on the Solaris board, since the ending to that rather ponderous film raises some intriguing questions.

But I dunno, no other film has ever really engaged my mind like this one. All these marvelous open questions that reach into so many favorite ideas…most films do too good of a job wrapping up the really compelling questions, leaving little left to discuss. Maybe we’ll get lucky and some big Hollywood studio will finance another magnificent film that goes over everyone’s heads and loses a tanker full of money. Here’s hoping ;)

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] purban 14 years ago

I think we are not in agreement on some main points. I believe once again I wasn't clear. I've seen the film so many times that what's in my head is not always apparent in what I type, it seems. That's my fault.

What I meant in my previous post, and the one thing that seems to have come across clearly, was that Tommy is tortured by his mistake(s), for 500 years...or more. Perhaps across lifetimes. But that's his journey. In some respects, he's much like the Inquisitor. That's one of the reasons why Aronofsky presents us with that story line in the film. Tommy in the present and especially the future story lines has some inclinations about his mistake, hense his reading of Izzy's book in the present (a catalyst for his future realizations) and having the visions of Izzy in the future. His character develops through lifetimes, from blind faith, to science and questioning, to acceptance. Before his acceptance, he is like the Inquisitor whipping himself. It just takes Tommy that long to finally embrace all of this. It takes him that long to go past that self-torture, just for the sake of holding on to a belief, first in religion, then in science. The brilliance of the film and story is that unlike the Inquisitor, Tommy's stories are always grounded in his love for Izzy. The Inquisitor never had any moment of disbelief. He is the foil for Tommy, even though he probably was lead by a different book. Again, another parallel.

I do agree that Tommy's quest is heroic. I don't agree with how you interpreted my quotes. There is no "But now you're saying..." in my intent of my quotes that you presented. They go together. I hope I've more clearly explained that here.

And here's the rub...
I'm not always sure the future timeline in the film is actual. I feel it may be internal for Tommy. Hense all of the meditation sequences, communion sequences, spaceship sequences, cellular photography... It's a blend of creation, religion, science, fear, death, and rebirth.

I'm actually providing you not with an alternate timeline, but presenting the option that future Tommy's storyline is how present Tommy eventually comes to terms with Izzy's death.

Which he does, as shown by his planting the seed. Finally. Izzy started her book. Tommy looked ahead and finished it.

And this book, unlike the other in which the Inquisitor believed, was real.

As you can see, I'm torn between believing all time points are real (which is incredibly romantic and my preferred choice), and believing in a book, where only one timeline was real.

I hope in my previous posts I never pointed out a reality; I hope I've only pointed out challenges to an interpretation.

So, Tommy's final choice in the end to run with Izzy in the snow IS symbolic of his realization; there is no need for the director to make a close-up of a facial expression to make it more obvious to his audience. There is nothing obvious to be gleaned from the film.

And, my final point, which you may again consider post-modern, is that there is no final interpretation. Perhaps one may figure out what Aronofsky meant at the time of finally producing this film. In his evolution of his story I find an evolution of answers. Perhaps...and I repeat perhaps, you have figured out what he meant as message at the point of completion of this film, but I challenge you and other readers of this board to believe that while Aronofsky provides us with direction, he doesn't provide us with solution.

Life and death is different to all. But, perhaps, love, should it be granted to us, is not salvation, but universal. If not this lifetime, then the next. We write our own books. And then we finish it...

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

In that post, you discussed three different interpretations of the film: in the beginning you discuss the future scenes as real (“Tommy is tortured by his mistake(s), for 500 years...or more”), then later you mention the possibility of all three time periods being real, and you also discuss the future and the Inquisition scenes as being only symbolic.

So my points of rebuttal may also seem fragmented. Let’s start with the simplest.

And, my final point, which you may again consider post-modern, is that there is no final interpretation. Perhaps one may figure out what Aronofsky meant at the time of finally producing this film.

While I can accept the notion that the abstract questions of the film may be left to the viewer’s discretion (for example, questions like ‘what happens after the moment of death?’), there’s no debating that as far as the narrative of the story goes, Aronofsky had a specific solution to the puzzle in mind when he made the film:

“Those space sequences have drawn comparisons to the masterwork of another auteur filmmaker, Stanley Kubrick in his "2001: A Space Odyssey." But unlike that film, with its famously enigmatic ending, Aronofsky insists that "The Fountain," no matter how ambiguous, has a definitive interpretation: his. "It's very much like a Rubik's cube, where you can solve it in several different ways, but ultimately there's only one solution at the end," he says.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/23/AR2006 112300534.html

That statement is clearly definitive: there is a correct solution to The Fountain. The challenge posed to the viewer is to solve the puzzle, and arrive at the understanding that the director intended when he released the film.

So, Tommy's final choice in the end to run with Izzy in the snow IS symbolic of his realization; there is no need for the director to make a close-up of a facial expression to make it more obvious to his audience.

This is confusing. Because there *is* a close-up of Tommy’s face as he has his realization, and then he goes after Izzi in a new and revised version of the events. This ties in with what I was saying before about why this sequence isn’t just symbolic, which you didn’t address:

“if this scene is simply symbolic of Tom’s acceptance…then why does Tommy’s ‘moment of realization/acceptance’ not pass over his face at the beginning of that altered sequence, instead of when he’s standing next to Manny watching the door close behind Izzi?

Think about it: if we’re being shown this scene to symbolically convey the fact that Tom in the future has come to terms with death (and specifically Izzi's death), then why not change the fact that he raised his voice to her in the first place? If I wanted to show you that he was at peace now, I would’ve shown Izzi asking Tommy out into the snow, and Tommy would’ve said ‘you know, that sounds like a great idea, baby – let’s go!’ And off they would’ve gone.”

In other words, it makes no sense to conclude that this scene is symbolic and not actual, because we actually see the moment of his realization happen during a real event. If the sequence were symbolic, if would all be symbolic, not just the last part. But that doesn’t mean that it can’t be both real, and have additional layers of meaning.

As you can see, I'm torn between believing all time points are real (which is incredibly romantic and my preferred choice), and believing in a book, where only one timeline was real.

Neither of those interpretations resolve all the key facts of the film. That’s why I suggested an alternative option, that we’re shown a second timeline. The simplest evidence for this is the ring that Tommy’s wearing at the grave site when he plants the seed. We saw Tommy lose his ring at the lab. It was physically missing. So where did the ring on his hand at her grave site come from? [The trap here, is that if the future scenes were simply symbolic, then Tommy only –symbolically- got his ring back…which doesn’t explain how the physical ring got back on his hand.]

Now, I also see a lot of symbolism in this film. I just don’t think that any of the narrative of the story is *only* symbolic. The future scenes are real, in the context of the film, but there’s also a lot of symbolism going on, on top of their reality. For example, Tom really does eat some of the bark from the Izzi tree. But that’s also symbolic of his dependence on Izzi. So the symbolism augments the narrative aspect of these scenes, it doesn’t replace the narrative aspect.

I found this excellent source of comments by Aronofsky et al that offers some insights into what they had I mind when they made the film:

http://www.visualhollywood.com/movies/fountain/notes.pdf

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] purban 14 years ago

"It's very much like a Rubik's cube, where you can solve it in several different ways, but ultimately there's only one solution at the end," he says.

I much appreciate your passion. I'll address some of your other points and further clarify my post a bit later. However, I do want to know from you...what is Aronofsky's purpose? How does your interpretation of a second timeline add to what we can glean from the film? When a filmmaker makes a film like this, a film about life and death, and something that was a passion for him...what does he want us to leave with? What are we to take from this film?

We can debate the finer points of the films, and I'm happy to do that, but what of the bigger picture? What do you think Aronofsky is saying? I'd like you to go from the details to the bigger picture. Tell me more. Tell me more about why this film is meaningful to you.

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

I mentioned in my opening post that the revelation of a second timeline appearing at the end of the story unveils what amounts to a transcendental power hidden within the human experience of consciousness. At the moment Tommy achieves enlightenment/satori/bodhimind/awakening/whateveryouwanttocallit, his mind at some level transcends time, and this alters his own history in a very positive way. The mistake that has haunted him terribly for centuries is completely rectified. In the new timeline he caught up with Izzi in the first snow, she got to spend her last days with him, and she faced her death with Tommy at her side, which is all she really wanted in the first place.

I think that’s a very beautiful story of redemption. And it’s a very tangible form of redemption – Tommy’s mistake was completely washed away from the face of time. Who among us –hasn’t- wished that they could utterly wash away some mistake or event in their history? This interpretation suggests a very original new kind of hope that, with nothing more than the power of the mind, such a thing is possible.

And I find that this marvelous and fantastical idea holds up to scrutiny, because the more you study consciousness, the more you realize what a complete mystery it remains even today. We really have very little if any idea at all what consciousness is, or why we experience it, or how it functions, or what its limits are. To get a sense of the depth and difficulty of this question of consciousness, you might enjoy this 10 minute overview by one of the world’s most respected thinkers on the subject, Dr. David Chalmers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmZaA_xoJiM

And to season the stew, so to speak, we have all of these fascinating people throughout human history who seem to be trying to tell us something both beautiful and incomprehensible about our consciousness and our relationship to the universe: Buddha, Christ, Kabir, Lao Tzu, Saraha, Meera, Krishnamurti, and many others. All these people seem to have had some transcendental experience of consciousness, some kind of awakening that somehow liberated their minds and revealed aspects of reality that are opaque to the rest of us. I think that Aronofsky showed us that Tommy experienced this kind of awakening, and that it literally changed his life…and I think this story invites the viewer to have the same kind of experience so that we too can in some way transcend our past mistakes, and face our own deaths with courage and wonder just as Tom did.

It’s a beautiful, deeply hopeful, and empowering message. It inspired me profoundly when I discovered it buried within this marvelous cinematic puzzle, and I think it’ll inspire others as well. That’s why I don’t want it to get trampled in the fray of all the competing (and I believe flawed/inferior/incomplete) interpretations of this film.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] purban 14 years ago

I better understand your interpretation now. Thanks for providing more about what this film means to you.

I previously thought transcendental interpretations were more in the mind, and you are telling us in this film that transcendence becomes physical. Hense the alternate timeline. I think that is awesome.

I don't think we are granted alternate timelines in this lifetime, and that was my interpretation of the film. Transcendence, or consciousness, is something within our realizations, something inside of us. Perhaps, even, something learned across lifetimes, or even something to be evolved in our future.

You can believe my interpretation to be flawed/inferior/incomplete...but I don't view your interpretation as such.

I may not agree with you, but I respect your interpretation. I do stand by my interpretation.

And I invite other readers of this board to think about your words. But I can't believe that anyone that listened to that last link or believed in transcendence or consciousness would call throughout this board all opinions in disagreement with your own as flawed, inferior, or incomplete. I think your time and effort here actually show something opposite from that.

The themes discussed on this board are of one accord, even if the details are not. Your last post showed that, I think. It was a beautiful post.

Thank you for that post and all of the time and effort you've put into this. I've really enjoyed it. I know when I next view the film, it will be perhaps even more meanginful, or meaningful in different ways, because of the perspectives provided here.

[–] gweller-3 14 years ago

"He says the stories are ‘cousins,’ related but not very closely."

No he says they are "siblings from the same parents". There is nothing about them not being closely related. You say the graphic novel can mislead people, I say it clarifies the film, especially the 2nd to last scene of the movie at the graveyard.

Also I can't seem to find the thread that said this, but the graphic novel does not suggest both Izzy and Tom are immortals. It only hints at Tom being immortal. The graphic novel clearly states that Tom did not meet Izzy until the present day.

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

No he says they are "siblings from the same parents".

Actually he just says "they're kind of siblings," they "have the same mother" but he also says that they’re “not twins” and “I think if we had made that film [using the original script] it would have been great, but it would have been a very, very different movie than what this is.” Below I’ve compiled an addendum of Aronofsky’s remarks about the relationship of the graphic novel (which was made from the original script) to the film version (which was made from the second script that was written later….three years later, iirc) so we can all customize our level of confusion to our own individual tastes.

This whole issue of using the graphic novel as some kind of argument to support people’s theories about what happened in the film is, in my opinion, pointless and tiresome, for three reasons. Because A.) there’s no way that you or I can know which specific details changed from the first script to the second script and why, so it’s a fool’s errand to argue about it, and B.) the film is the film is the film, and since that’s what we’re talking about here, anything not in the film is irrelevant anyway – if the director had intended it to be in there, it would’ve been. And finally C.) I’ve been told a lot of stuff about the graphic novel, and I don’t know what’s true and what isn’t, because I don’t care to read it (and I don’t want to get the first script confused with the second script, which is what invariably seems to happen). So whenever someone alludes to some ‘proof’ in the graphic novel, I feel like Jack McCoy: ‘Objection! Facts not in evidence, your Honor.” So here’s a simple Rule I think we should adopt to keep the discussion here honest and clear:

Rule #1: If you have an alternate theory of the story that you’d like to discuss, then present it based on the facts of the film. Because if your argument doesn’t float based on the facts in the film, then it’s inapplicable to this discussion board, which is dedicated to the film and not the graphic novel.

Addendum #1 (comments regarding the graphic novel version and the film version of The Fountain):

Clarifying which screenplay serves as the basis for the graphic novel, Aronofsky said it’s rooted in the first screenplay, not the version that was shot. “It’s actually a slightly different story, as well. But they’re kind of siblings. They have the same mother, which is the screenplay, but they’re completely independent of each other. They’re not twins, they’re a brother and sister.”
http://movies.about.com/od/thefountain/a/fountain072205_3.htm

But the old script hasn't been thrown out at all. In fact, it's serving as the basis for the upcoming graphic novel illustrated by Kent Williams. "I think if we had made that film [using the original script] it would have been great, but it would have been a very, very different movie than what this is. In many ways I've already made that film. I got so close to shooting it and I was completely cast, sets were built and psychologically 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 actually the shooting is a small part of it. I kind of emotionally have made that film and this film I think is different. To me it feels like a fourth film. I'm hoping that I'm getting better as I get older."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=4859

Where Aronofsky is the director of the film, it might be best to think of Kent Williams as the director and production designer of the graphic novel. Williams has been given free reign to interpret the script his way and he's working off the original script, the Brad Pitt script, not the script used for the upcoming feature film. "Kent's interpretation is his interpretation," said Aronofsky. "I'm going to place the dialogue, but he's completely interpreting it himself. It's very close to what we were planning."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=4853

Q: In terms of preparing for the role, in addition to the script Darren had also made this graphic novel version of the story. Did you look at it at all or did you look at it after you played the part?
Hugh Jackman: It wasn’t finished. I’d seen the artwork but the actual book was finished after we finished the film. He told you why he did that book right? If the movie fell over at least I’ll have the novel. And when he was approached – the graphic novel is beautiful, if you look at the graphic novel you can see how the script evolved over the time when Brad Pitt fell out of it, you know, three years it evolved a lot.
http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_10478.html

While making this film, you lost two stars [Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett] and had to slash your budget. How did that change your concept?
The old conception of the film is captured forever as the graphic novel that we released through Vertigo Comics. That shows you where the story is different, and you can see, it really hasn't changed that much. The part that changed wasn't the movie itself but how to execute the movie — how to bring it to life. It was the first time my collaborators and I were really playing the studio game. The film was conceived as a studio picture. But we didn't know what we were doing; we had to learn that whole process. When we had to change things around, we were able to figure out how to make it more streamlined and pure. Having an extra couple of years in pre-production allowed us to figure out what the core story was — just what it was exactly we wanted to tell. And, of course, how to tell it in a way that was financially smarter as well.
http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2006/11/david-aronofskys-fountain .html

Q: 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 its own way.
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/5196/1/EXCLUSIVE-INTERVIEW-DARRE N-ARONOFSKY/Page1.html

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] gweller-3 14 years ago

"Rule #1: If you have an alternate theory of the story that you’d like to discuss, then present it based on the facts of the film. Because if your argument doesn’t float based on the facts in the film, then it’s inapplicable to this discussion board, which is dedicated to the film and not the graphic novel."

Movies these days by young directors are different because we live in a media rich society. The W brothers did this with Matrix and DA did it with the graphic novel. Some of the things in the graphic novel could not be covered in the movie such as the year the future occurred in and when Tom met Izzi either due to time constraints or keeping the scenes completely relevant to the story that have to present in under 2 hours.

It's up to the viewer to decide what parts of the stories are different and what stories are the same. There are no rules as to what can be discussed on this forum and you aren't the overlord of it as you nor anyone else here has control over what is posted (unless it is reported), so making rules is pointless don't you think? If people want to use the graphic novel to back their theory, that is their prerogative. If people want to make theories which are based on things not shown in the movie they can. Many people here have come up with theories that future is either a metaphor or was thought up by present day Tom even though there isn't a single scene where you can conclude this with any certainty.

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

Many people here have come up with theories that future is either a metaphor or was thought up by present day Tom even though there isn't a single scene where you can conclude this with any certainty.

Actually there’s a small mountain of evidence to the contrary, throughout the film. Not the least of which is the self-consistent language of the film, which establishes the space scenes as ‘the here and now.’

And there’s nothing wrong with rules if people can A.) see the sense in them and B.) agree to them, for the sake of conducting a meaningful dialogue. Given the inescapable confusion regarding the relationship of the story in the graphic novel to the story in the film (evident by even the director’s own remarks, cited above), I’m forced to conclude that you’d prefer confusion to a reasonable debate based on the facts of the film.

Furthermore, I contend that your argument that important information was left out of the film due to time constraints is flawed because at 96 minutes, there was plenty of time to add whatever scenes were necessary to express the director's ideas and still come in under 120 minutes. The logical conclusion therefore is that the director felt that anything not already in the film's 96 minutes is inessential to conveying the story that he wished to convey. And I would argue that if this isn't true, and the viewer must also purchase the graphic novel to arrive at a full understanding of the film, then the film has failed in its primary purpose - to effectively convey the story to the viewer.

But I don't think the film is a failure, because it conveys, to me anyway, a perfectly complete and multi-layered story, which obviates the need to read the former script in the form of the graphic novel.

So talking to me about the graphic novel will continue to be pointless, tiresome, and circular.

Perhaps you should start a thread about the graphic novel version of the story. There must be plenty of people, who aren't me, who would care to discuss it with you.

Because this thread is about understanding the film, not the graphic novel. If you have anything to say about the film, which you can support with the facts of the film, then I'm listening.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] askerix 14 years ago

First off, I really enjoyed your interpretation, which covers a lot of stuff that I had never really noticed. But I must say that I find this transcendental nature of Tom's (our) consciousness a bit (for lack of better words) far fetched. I would take a road less imaginative as explained below.

Future Tom abandons his previous belief that "Death is a disease" for "Death is the road to awe", i.e. he realizes that our mortality lets us appreciate life fully. I would argue that Tom, upon this realization, comes to terms with Izzy's death, and that this lets us see how present Tom (2000 AD) would have acted if he had had this realization at that time. This shows us how Tom would have acted in 2000 AD and it shows how he would have concluded Izzy's book.

First, that Tom would realized that it was better to enjoy the limited time he had with Izzy than to seek immortality (Immortality would ultimately depreciate life of life, I suppose). He would then never have lost his ring and could thereby still wear it at Izzy's grave when he plants the seed.

Second, Tom now knows how to continue from Izzy's last line: "All he would see was death". In the concluding chapter the priest sees his First Father in Tomas (and here I'll add a "for some reason") and therefore does not kill him but instead says that "We shall be immortal. Our blood shall feed the earth", i.e. that eternal life is about being a part of the Circle of Life, after which he leaves his life in Tomas' hands. Tomas kills him and goes on to drink the sap of the Tree of Life. He does so to gain immortality not realizing that it will outright killing him thereby letting him be part of the Circle of Life immeditely - basically as stated by the priest.

Before dying, he is about to put on the ring and says "My queen. Now and forever, we shall be together" - only for him to die and never to put on the ring. The ring symbolizes his connection with the Queen. Both Tomas and the Queen seek eternal life. Having misunderstood the concept they cannot be together and he therefore loses the ring.
We see the same symbolism with the present Tom who doesn't join Izzy in the snow and thereby loses the ring and thus his connection with Izzy. In the alternate timeline where he does choose to join Izzy, we see him wearing the ring at her grave, showing us that he is in some way still with her since he has accepted her death.
Finally we see future Tom picking up the ring in the sphere indicating that the connection has been reestablished by his acceptance of death as a part of life. That the ring somehow pops up in the sphere does not make sense, so it must again be a hallucination just as Izzy being there is also a hallucination.

As for Tom fading out at Izzy's grave that can be explained by time passing. We know that Xibalba will explode X years into the future since we see this happen with future Tom. Had Tom never discovered the drug for eternal life, he would die long before Xibalba explodes and thus not be there to see it which is why he fades away.

[–] the-devil-boy 14 years ago

Hi askerix, thank you for your very lucid thoughts on the film, I think you have a terrific grasp on the meaning of all the important themes and ideas here. In fact I can’t really find anything in your post to disagree with.

And despite your initial objection to the alternate timeline theory, you nevertheless seem to have accepted it at some level when you say:

In the alternate timeline where he does choose to join Izzy, we see him wearing the ring at her grave, showing us that he is in some way still with her since he has accepted her death.

I couldn’t have said it better myself, frankly.

So all I can offer are some fairly secondary considerations to what you’ve said here.

In the concluding chapter the priest sees his First Father in Tomas (and here I'll add a "for some reason") and therefore does not kill him

It’s not clear enough to be definitive, I don’t think, but I suspect that what we’re seeing here goes something like this: Tom en route to his demise at Xibalba has become a transcendent being, an avatar, aka an enlightened master in the true mystical sense. And as a transcendent being, his consciousness can reach through time (which we see when Tommy realizes that letting Izzi go into the first snow alone would be a Big mistake, which prompts him to go after her), and even more incredibly, he can –insert his own consciousness into Izzi’s story-. So when he appears to the Mayan priest, he’s –actually there, right in front of him-. Which sounds crazy, but no crazier than enlightened Tom pulling the wedding ring out of his own imagination, which appears to happen mere moments later.

Aronofsky wasn’t bashful about discussing his aspiration to make The Fountain in the same transcendental/psychedelic/earth-shattering tradition of film making as 2001: A Space Odyssey. And so I don’t think we should be bashful about seeing it that way either. This is Big Imagination story telling here, and the director has invited us to let our imaginations soar with him. Why stay grounded when the view he offers us is so inspiring?

That the ring somehow pops up in the sphere does not make sense, so it must again be a hallucination just as Izzy being there is also a hallucination.

As basically an empirical rationalist, I appreciate your skeptical interpretation of these events in the film. But I also have to respect the film maker, and try to understand –how he thinks about his own creation-.

So we have to consider what the film maker is showing us. At this point in the film, Tom is at peace, in perfectly spherical harmony with the cosmos. This isn't a man having hallucinations - those dissipated when he came to terms with death, and laughed with joy as he realized 'I'm going to die.' I think that we’re shown Tom in the lotus position, fearlessly plummeting into a nova, to establish that Tom is a 'Master' at this point - he isn’t bound by the rules anymore (which is akin to Neo‘s transformation in The Matrix, which Aronofsky mentioned as an inspiration while he was developing The Fountain). The ripples of Tom’s transformation into an awakened master reach through time and change his own history, and he’s perfectly capable of manifesting his thoughts physically as well – all he needed to do to manifest his ring was to reach into his mind and hold it between his fingers. And this isn’t a new idea, btw – there’s a long-held belief in many Eastern mystical traditions that enlightened masters can see an object in your mind, and offer it to you to hold (though they're said to ‘evaporate’ not long afterward). Sai Baba is said to possess this strange power of materialization by his followers, for example.

Granted, these wildly imaginative aspects of the film aren’t essential to its core meaning. But I think it’s marvelous that it’s a complex enough work of art that we can have discussions like this about it.

But getting back to the main point here: I don’t think “that’s too far ‘out there’” is a sufficient rebuttal to ‘the alternate timeline interpretation.’ Because 1.) this film is chock full of transcendental subject matter, so ‘out-there-ness’ isn’t a disqualifying factor, 2.) the moment when Tommy2 chases after Izzi doesn’t just look like he’s a different guy and just acted differently, it’s presented on screen like a transcendental moment of life-changing realization, just like the moment he realized the immortality formula in the lab, and 3.) we didn’t need to see Tommy chase after Izzi to know that that is what he would’ve done if he hadn’t been suffering from thanatophobia…the rest of the movie makes that point crystal clear without that scene…so it makes more sense to conclude that we’re shown those events –because they actually happened-. I think the ‘we’re seeing what would have happened’ argument would have some merit if we were shown anything else in the film that was merely ‘wishful thinking’/’flight of fancy’/‘what could’ve been,’ but I don’t accept that he’d suddenly change the rules and introduce that technique for just the final and pivotal scenes.

The alternate timeline theory is pretty far ‘out there,’ sure. But it’s also a very simple theory that seems to fit perfectly with all the facts of the film. And, personally, I find this theory makes the film more satisfying, thought-provoking, and inspiring. So I’m going to need a convincing rational argument to change my mind, and ‘but that’s too weird!’ is really more of an emotional reaction than a logical argument.

But like I said, I agree with everything else you wrote in your overview of the film, nice work ;

p.s. just a minor correction: the last line of Chapter 11 in Izzi’s book is “All he could see was death.”

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]