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

A Complete Solution to The Fountain (Warning: Spoilers)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

the-devil-boy,

I thought I'd come check out what's cooking in The Fountain board, and I was pleasantly surprised to see your thread.

Love your interpretation. I never thought of the ending as depicting an alternate timeline, but now that you point it out, it makes much more sense and adds a whole new layer to the film's rich narrative.

I guess Tom's exact reasons for going to Xibalba remain somewhat unclear (his puzzling monologue was, well... exactly that, puzzling) other than the symbolism, but it doesn't bother me that the director left some things open to interpretation.


Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

Hi, maz89, thanks for jumping in. I’m glad you’ve enjoyed our occasionally intriguing and frequently turbulent thread here. I must admit, I hadn’t expected to encounter a predominantly thoughtful and humane group of folks on an online forum. It seems like this film most deeply reaches a very rare kind of person, most of whom are quite fun to debate with.

Personally, I would’ve preferred Tom’s spoken reasons for his journey to make more sense. Something like: ‘We’re almost there. Through that last dark cloud, Xibalba is a dying, and when it explodes, we will die together. We will be reborn as stars. And together we will live forever.” Something vaguely rational and hopefully more eloquent than that would've been more satisfying than the string of riddles and apparent paradoxes that we got.

As I was thinking about this genre of film tonight, which I think includes 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Matrix, Donnie Darko, and possibly even Jacob’s Ladder, I realized that the alternate timeline interpretation of The Fountain is actually very similar to the ‘tangent universe’ concept behind Donnie Darko. Because in both films, the ‘hero’ of the story achieves superhuman feats as we’re taken on an intense and often frightening kaleidoscopic roller-coaster ride through a transcendental/mystical reality, which, in the end, destroys itself and leaves behind the ‘normal’ reality that we all recognize.

There’s something marvelous about these stories that conjure a novel and vertiginous ‘behind the scenes’ peek into hidden secret mechanizations grinding away just beyond our perception of an often all-too-often mundane reality. I suppose that since the stellar travel ambitions of humankind have been put on hold for the time being, our hungry imaginations need to be fed right here at home on the eternal mysteries of our own inner realities.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

It's been so long since I last saw Donnie Darko, I'm afraid I can't really comment. I do remember that I loved it though. I don't remember if it was as emotionally stirring as The Fountain was/is, but I do know it had me theorizing for days.

I suppose that since the stellar travel ambitions of humankind have been put on hold for the time being, our hungry imaginations need to be fed right here at home on the eternal mysteries of our own inner realities.
Completely agree with you here. That's what's it all about. Directors who dig deeper into the human experience of life, who make keen observations and hold up a mirror through which we can see our reflection and perhaps learn a thing or two. That is what makes The Fountain and 2001 so particularly great: their thematic content, the issues they address, the observations they make, etc.

I'm going to cut short my rant here, with a question. What did you think of Mulholland Drive?


Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

That was a long time ago, on a couch far, far away. All I remember is being simultaneously intrigued and perfectly perplexed. Possibly somewhat annoyed, iirc. I downloaded it to watch again this weekend. I’ll let you know what I think about it after the second long-overdue viewing...


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Okay, so I subjected myself to a second viewing of Mulholland Drive this weekend. I’ll have to say that I’ve never felt so completely ambivalent about a film before.

On one hand, I enjoy the layers of the story, the ‘puzzle’ aspect of it, the weirdness that Lynch always brings to his films (except for Dune, the anomaly in his career), and Naomi Watts’ unspeakably stellar performance (which I’ve come to see as her trademark). In fact I strongly suspect that this entire film would’ve failed utterly if any other actress had attempted her role in it.

On the other hand, all of the characters acting eccentric just for the sake of acting eccentric seems a bit tired, there’s a kind of cold distance between the film and the audience that prohibits (at least for me) any sense of immersion in the film, and I felt cheated of any real payoff - once you’ve got it all pretty much figured out, there’s no redeeming meaning to it, no inspired revelation “oh, most of the film was the feverish dream of a murderer racked with guilt, and the rest explains her situation and the dream she had about it…hey, pass the pretzels, will ya?”

In contrast, after toiling maniacally over the puzzle of The Fountain, you arrive at this enormous and dizzying concept about the underpinnings of reality and your intimate connection to its unseen machinery that makes you feel the enormous importance of your choices and actions, and reveals what amounts to a new superpower at the core of your own consciousness. Now that’s *beep* art.

Briefly put, I found Mulholland Drive to be all head and no heart. But the magnificence of the head aspect is so impressive that I *almost* didn’t care that it’s missing half of what makes a great film: pathos.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

[deleted]

On the other hand, all of the characters acting eccentric just for the sake of acting eccentric seems a bit tired, there’s a kind of cold distance between the film and the audience that prohibits (at least for me) any sense of immersion in the film, and I felt cheated of any real payoff - once you’ve got it all pretty much figured out, there’s no redeeming meaning to it, no inspired revelation “oh, most of the film was the feverish dream of a murderer racked with guilt, and the rest explains her situation and the dream she had about it…hey, pass the pretzels, will ya?”
Interesting reaction. I have quite a different view of the film that perhaps couldn't be more opposite than yours.

The ambiguity in Lynch's masterpiece permits the existence of numerous interpretations. Heck, I've even read some incredibly convincing analyses of the film's events involving alternate timelines and what-not that will certainly make your head spin with fascination and make you question your own relatively simple elucidation.

The film engaged me not only on a narrative level, but also on an allegorical one. The fantastic, eerie imagery in the form of the elements that were borrowed from the real life of the murderer and distorted in the dream to perfect effect still leave me in awe! Film has always been about the visuals, and I think Lynch makes terrific use of the medium to convey meaning in the form of this imagery.

You say this film doesn't have heart. I disagree. Yes, the film was a tragic tale about an actress trying to make it big in Hollywood, and it doesn't end in the uplifting emotional way in which The Fountain so perfectly does, but that in no way (at least, in my opinion) means that it wasn't emotional. Watching that woman's life crumble right before her eyes down to the point 'til she commits suicide - well, I don't think it could get any more upsetting than that. Of-course, you feel differently and that is fine.

Loved your thoughts on the film, btw, and while I don't usually like to flatter myself (not like this anyway),I'm kind of proud that you watched Mulholland Dr for the second time on my recommendation.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

I just watched this film and was left just a little confused at the end, but thanks to your precise analysis, the movie finally made some sense. By the way have you seen Inception yet?

reply

I’m glad you found this useful, cgoking. There are so many intriguing concepts and subtle nuances to this film that I sometimes wonder of I’ll ever tire of thinking about it.

It’s interesting that you mention Inception. I saw it last weekend and within the first ten minutes I was thinking ‘this thing already seems as complex as The Fountain…I guess I’ll be watching this one several times too.’ But I was surprised to find that it got easier to understand as the story played out, and by the end you knew exactly what had happened. I’m sure that’ll keep most of the haters away from the Inception discussion board.

I love the audacity that Aronofsky exhibited here, to make a film which started out as confusing, and only got exponentially more complex as the story progressed, until by the end, the only thing you could say for certain was that you saw –something-, though all bets were off about what was ‘real’ and what was something ‘else.’ I’ve never had to work so hard to make sense of a film. I’m a little disappointed that I wasn’t left with some really puzzling Big Mysteries at the end of Inception, actually, because I feel like a film is over once you’ve understood it.



"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

The Fountain's story isn't as complex as some people make it out to be.

The story is about an immortal that lives for 1000 years that has to die in order to save the universe. The complexity comes from the various deep themes the film uses.

Furthermore, I am glad you brought out that The Fountain is similar in structure to 2001: A Space Odyssey as 2001: A Space Odyssey is a film about three different time periods all of which are real events as part of one big story, which further supports that all three time periods in The Fountain are real as well as part of one big story.

Lastly, Director Darren Aronofksy said the graphic novel is the true director's cut of The Fountain and that had he had a bigger budget as well as more time he would have included more scenes in the film to make it better as well as easier to understand.

reply

Drakenlord:

"The story is about an immortal that lives for 1000 years that has to die in order to save the universe."

I get the first part of that quote, but I'm not sure about the "save the universe" part. Save it from...death? Maybe you mentioned this in a previous post.

andreas-263:

"Having a fairly plain message about not losing sight of what's really important in life, and coming to terms with the natural order of things (as clearly stated by the director on numerous occasions), doesn't the fact that Tommy is just a few hours away from actually saving Izzy's life kind of water down the whole premise of the movie?"

"Not losing sight of what's really important in life" would be pedestrian, if it were the main point of the movie. Well-done pedestrian, however, as you seemed to agree with. While that's a message within this movie, I don't believe it to be a main message.

I don't think the film is transcendental, until the end, which would explain some of the issues you raised with the inconsistencies in the film. I think the ending makes the film. For a character to come into his own vision, his own mind, after an eventual realization, after having lost his loved one, is important. It's not necessarily about the realization that you need to care about certain (and fleeting?) moments when you are living, it's the realization that you are going to die. In a final sequence, Tommy says "I'M going to die." Tommy is going to die...and then what? Tommy was fighting death, for Izzy, but he was also fighting it for himself. And he's scared...but maybe in the end, hopeful. Maybe that's what you mean by the "natural order of things," but if so, I'd like you to more clearly explain that point and how it did not live up to your expectations.

I realize this ain't my board, but I just had to ask you two these questions.

I also have to ask, for those of you that have read the graphic novel: Why didn't Aronofsky make it? I get he was working within a budget, but, I think he could have made that film by his story boards. But he didn't. There are inconsistencies in the scene changes. What of that? Was it just budget? Or was it something else?

reply

[deleted]

You hit it on the head, and to be really frank I recently purchased Inception on blu-ray due to the high praise and clamorous support of the film by my peers and everyone in general, and I must say after watching the film I was left extremely disappointed. In no way was Inception the gem of complex story-telling that The Fountain was which was really how everyone made it seem every time the topic arose. Inception became more and more predictable as the story progressed but the whole time I felt that I was underestimating the complexity of the film or misreading the plot as I perceived it. I was expecting to be proven wrong and preparing myself to be left stupefied. Neither of which, to my disappointment, came to fruition as I was completely right in my predictions of the plot.

Aright aright the law is the law, pak it up behind the grocery stow will ya Chaahlie.

reply

Your review helps a lot of people, if this movie would have been foreign, people would have praised it like an art, wow this, wow that..I just saw Sauna which is almost on same artistic lines, but people have posted A.J.Anilla as an artist, same for works of Bela Tarr,I think Aronofsky deserves the same type of praise for this movie..

Why so Serious ?

reply

Aronofsky really did get robbed of the acclaim he deserved for this fascinating cinematic gem. It's not flawless, but no gem ever is. I think that American culture is way too thanatophobic to give a film about death a fair review. And the fact is that most people –hate- a film that demands a lot of careful thought afterward to be understood, they feel insulted if they can’t leave the theater with a nice and tidy comprehension of the experience. Only a few minds enjoy a genuine challenge like this, and appreciate the fact that once something is completely understood, it essentially dies to you.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Having read this whole thread, there are literally dozens of things I'd like to comment on. But now that it comes to actually writing it all down, I don't really see it being worth the effort. We are in a fair amount of agreement, but for someone claiming to be an empirical rationalist, I must say I'm a bit disappointed in your clear preference for transcendental solutions. I have of course stumbled upon the same questions as everyone else, such as:
- Having opted for open brain surgery on a monkey, Tommy clearly didn't receive the seed from Izzy. What tree did he then bring in his space bubble?
- Who found the ring in the operating room and hid it in the spaceship 500 years later?
- Having a fairly plain message about not losing sight of what's really important in life, and coming to terms with the natural order of things (as clearly stated by the director on numerous occasions), doesn't the fact that Tommy is just a few hours away from actually saving Izzy's life kind of water down the whole premise of the movie?

There's no need for you to comment on this, as you have explained your views clearly elsewhere in this thread. I'm just not sure I agree with them. I should probably re-watch the film before dismissing your alternate timeline theory completely, but I must say I cannot immediately recall enough evidence for something so far fetched. If the filmmakers wanted me to come to such a metaphysical conclusion, they should have supplied more clues that more than a literal interpretation was needed. Mr. Aronofsky actually seemed to do quite the opposite. The space bubble is clearly supposed to represent an actual spaceship, the story Izzy wrote is just a story (albeit one with a message), and eating from the Tree of Life actually makes you live forever. For me, this very literal way of telling such a beautiful story is one of the strong points of the movie, and any hocus-pocus would only reduce its impact. Dreams, hallucinations, fantasies, delusions or wishful thinking are all part of life, and they may be portrayed to great effects on film, but transcendental timetravel needs proper motivation and a properly setup movie universe to satisfy me. I would argue that Donnie Darko does this quite well. The Fountain either does it badly, or not at all.

Another example would be the aforementioned 2001: A Space Odyssey. You refer to this as being a part of a "transcendental/psychedelic/earth-shattering tradition of film making", when there is actually nothing transcendental or psychedelic about it. It is meant to be interpreted literally, and requires nothing supernatural to be clearly explained. The presentation might be somewhat artistic, but the actual story is fairly straight forward (once properly understood). Although I will concede that not enough clues are given in the movie itself to easily accommodate the correct answer.

Either way, I find The Fountain to be a beautiful film, with a somewhat pedestrian message obscured by convoluted storytelling. Some aspects of the story have not yet been explained to my satisfaction, but I suspect that is because they are inexplicable rather than extremely cleaver. That wouldn't be so bad though if the film didn't seem to take itself so damned seriously, which makes it come across as more than a bit pretentious. I've found your previous posts civilized enough to hope that you won't give me too hard a time over that opinion. De gustibus non disputandum est, and all that.

reply

I'm the first to admit that this is a flawed film. It takes itself sooo incredibly seriously. Most of the time that makes sense, given the content. But shots like the Tai Chi exercises against the stars and Tom's perfectly stoic Zen lotus position, while visually pretty, come off with a heavy-handed sense of New Age PC didacticism that put off and alienated even some of the most tolerant viewers.

But I understand what the director was doing, and why he felt those choices were essential to telling the story through the visual language of the film. Understanding those choices and agreeing with them are two different things though.

Btw I have no problem with differing opinions, I prefer them actually. But I am rather irked about your classification of me as ‘someone claiming to be an empirical rationalist,’ since I’ve provided extensive facts, sources, and logical analysis to support all of my opinions about this film. I think you mistakenly assume that an empirical rationalist wouldn’t support a transcendental interpretation of an intrinsically transcendental film. But the fact is, the evidence supports my conclusions.

I encourage you, and even challenge you, to present an interpretation that explains the facts of the film better than this one, without invoking any transcendental ideas. I believe that you’ll fail, because I arrived at this interpretation only after eliminating all of the mundane interpretations. But I’ll be the first to raise my hat to you if you succeed where I failed, so good luck!

But if I may, I see some mistakes in your assumptions here that I feel obligated to point out, lest another reader assume that they are unchallenged:

- Having opted for open brain surgery on a monkey, Tommy clearly didn't receive the seed from Izzy. What tree did he then bring in his space bubble?

While it’s true that we never see Izzi1 hand Tommy1 a seedpod to plant (and in fact I don’t think it ever happened that way), we are shown Izzi1 telling Tommy1 the story of Moses Morales (the story about how he planted a seed at his father’s grave, and how his father lived on in the tree, and the seeds, and the birds that ate them etc). So it’s not only reasonable, but expected, that at some point after her death, Tommy1 planted a seed at Izzi’s grave as a gesture of love and respect for her beliefs, and as a way to keep a part of her memory alive within a living thing. And this is the tree that he took with him to Xibalba.
- Who found the ring in the operating room and hid it in the spaceship 500 years later?

Ahem, I think you’re reaching here. There’s no evidence that anyone ever found Tommy’s ring in the operating room, or that it was ever hidden in the bubble ship – to the contrary, Tom in space clearly never recovered it….until he reaches into his mind and pulls it from his imaginary conclusion of Izzi’s book. I think you’re making the mistake of assuming that Aronofsky shares your strictly non-transcendental view of reality. It’s not reasonable, nor do I believe that it will be fruitful, to bring your personal philosophical biases to bear on interpreting this film. The rational thing to do is to interpret the film on its own terms, not on your own.
- Having a fairly plain message about not losing sight of what's really important in life, and coming to terms with the natural order of things (as clearly stated by the director on numerous occasions), doesn't the fact that Tommy is just a few hours away from actually saving Izzy's life kind of water down the whole premise of the movie?

I guess that depends on how you want to look at it: as a simple one-dimensional morality story, or a as a more layered story that increases in dimension upon deeper scrutiny. But whatever the case may be, there is absolutely no arguing that this is precisely what is shown in the film. Lillian gets to the hospital with the news that Donovan’s tumor has shrunk mere moments after Izzi goes into her final and fatal seizure. And previously we’d learned that the new drug Tommy invented had restored Donovan to a youthful and mentally acute state. So if you have a problem with Tommy damn near saving Izzi’s life and sharing a veritable immortality with her, then on this point you have a problem with the film and not my interpretation of it.

Frankly, I think you should watch the film again, with these questions and issues in mind. Perhaps you won’t enjoy the transcendental aspects of the story, but I think with closer scrutiny you’ll no longer be able to deny that they’re there.

One last thing:
Another example would be the aforementioned 2001: A Space Odyssey. You refer to this as being a part of a "transcendental/psychedelic/earth-shattering tradition of film making", when there is actually nothing transcendental or psychedelic about it. It is meant to be interpreted literally, and requires nothing supernatural to be clearly explained.

From your clear view of the basic structure of The Fountain you seem like an intelligent person, but this is a ridiculous thing to say.

An essentially omnipotent form of alien intelligence comes to Earth, somehow influences the evolution of apes to yield us space-faring humans, and lures us to Jupiter where an astronaut finds an extradimensional gateway to an alternate reality where he’s miraculously transformed into a cosmic being of some kind. How you can claim that there’s ‘nothing supernatural’ about that story with a straight face is simply incomprehensible. Substitute the word ‘God’ for ‘essentially omnipotent form of alien intelligence’ and you have the foundation for most religions.

Here’s an awesome and oddly hilarious brief Flash animation synopsis of 2001, you may note the use of the word ‘supernatural’ therein: http://www.kubrick2001.com/

Also:
Stanley Kubrick stated, "On the deepest psychological level the film's plot symbolizes the search for God, and it finally postulates what is little less than a scientific definition of God [...] The film revolves around this metaphysical conception[,] and the realistic hardware and the documentary feelings about everything were necessary in order to undermine your built-in resistance to the poetical concept."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey



"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Maybe I should have inserted a smiley or two, as it seems I came across as more negative than I intended to. I wasn't all that serious, and didn't really mean to criticize you. I agree fully that your arguments are rational and well thought out, but from what I remember of the movie, I'm not sure I find enough evidence to support your conclusion. But I do not feel like accepting your challenge of a presenting a more positivistic explanation. I even doubt that it's possible, but not necessarily because your interpretation is correct, but rather because the story defies a satisfactory explanation. In fact, even if you've nailed Mr. Aronofskys intentions with your alternate timeline theory, I still don't find it satisfactory simply because it seems too contrived. But this is a matter of taste and deserves no comment, especially not until I've seen the movie again.

I'm afraid your answer takes my few "questions" way to seriously. My very literal formulation was a poor attempt at humor. I did not actually propose that some nefarious character stole Tommy's ring and waited 500 years simply to mess with him.

As for 2001, the aliens are not omnipotent, education is a fairly commonplace thing (they were evaluating and helping us, not messing with our DNA), creating and traveling through a wormhole is theoretically possible, there is no alternate reality (they just created a few rooms for him to live in), and his rebirth as one of them is far fetched but must be accepted as possible once you've accepted their existence in the first place.

As a theoretical physicist I'll be the first to admit that Clarke and Kubrick stretch the boundaries of science fiction to the brink of the metaphysical, but they never actually cross the line. Kubrik's limited scientific knowledge makes him choose a more philosophical language when talking about his movie (and wisely so), but Arthur C. Clark knew what he was doing when he wrote the story. It is not very plausible, but neither is it physically impossible - a realm I find fascinating to explore. In fact, I like movies that are way out there as well, as long as they handle it gracefully and give us the necessary cues to understanding the universe in question. As I said, Donnie Darko is fine, and so was Star Wars until Qui-Gon started explaining about midichlorians. I don't mind the ghosts in Sixth Sense or Morgan Freeman as God in Bruce Almighty (although the film is crap). What I do mind is having to rely on metaphysical explanations simply because they're the only way to make sense of the story, rather than them actually being supported by the facts. Which category The Fountain falls into is still unclear to me.

Let me know if I need a smiley somewhere. I'm told there's something about my writing that tends to seem arrogant, but I assure you I'm a very nice guy .

reply

Smileys are quite useful, actually, as are “lol’s” and “ha’s,” since the typed word is about as ‘cold’ a medium as one can imagine, by Marshall McLuhan’s standards anyway. Emotional inflection, most notably humor, has to be hammered into print media or misunderstanding abounds. I run into similar problems as well, often making tongue-in-cheek remarks online for humorous impact, but usually being misunderstood because most of the dim remarks made online are not made in jest.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to argue down the supernatural aspects of 2001, but here we go again:

As for 2001, the aliens are not omnipotent

I said ‘essentially omnipotent,’ and they most certainly are, because they can make stable wormholes with small black monoliths (which we learn later can also generate enough mass out of the vacuum of space to convert Jupiter into a star), subtly influence evolution on multi-million-year timescales, alter the rate of time, and transform a human being into a new and cosmic form of life (an energy being of some kind apparently) beyond our current comprehension. And as Kubrick himself stated, the aliens were his scientific metaphor for ‘God,’ so your ‘nothing supernatural’ remark is clearly a miss.
education is a fairly commonplace thing (they were evaluating and helping us, not messing with our DNA)

I didn’t say they altered our DNA, I said “somehow influence() the evolution of apes,” the manner of this was left open to interpretation. The implication in the film is that the aliens knew how to subtly influence our evolution so that in a few million years we’d be a space faring race. Again, one man’s ‘essentially omnipotent alien race’ is another man’s ‘god-like being.’
creating and traveling through a wormhole is theoretically possible

It’s tough to think of anything that isn’t ‘theoretically possible’ nowadays. For example: time travel via closed timelike curves…faster than light travel via an Alcubierre drive propulsion system…immortality via nanobots...the list goes on and on and on. But just because we have an idea about how such things might be possible, doesn’t make them mundane. They are, for now anyway, beyond our physics…meta…physical.
there is no alternate reality (they just created a few rooms for him to live in)

Right – because I often see myself across the room, a couple of decades older, doing something else, and then instantaneously become that future manifestation of myself. Nothing special going on here, just a typical room floating in some kind of time-warped hyperspace – I thought everyone had a room like that in their garage…??
and his rebirth as one of them is far fetched but must be accepted as possible once you've accepted their existence in the first place.

…because they’re essentially omnipotent aliens with powers beyond our human comprehension…in other words, they’re essentially ‘gods’ redefined under the auspices of our technological civilization. ‘Gods’/‘essentially omnipotent aliens,’ ‘tom-A-to’/’to-Ma-to…’
As a theoretical physicist I'll be the first to admit that Clarke and Kubrick stretch the boundaries of science fiction to the brink of the metaphysical, but they never actually cross the line.

Says you. Because you can argue that most of that stuff is *maybe* theoretically/hypothetically possible, but the transformation of Dr. David Bowman into a Moon-sized star child is clearly a metaphysical/supernatural event. And as I’ve already quoted, Kubrick intended it to be the (albeit modernized) story of mankind making contact with ‘God’ (in the form of an essentially omnipotent alien race).

I have no idea why you’re so deeply opposed to the idea of anything being viewed as ‘metaphysical’ here, but films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Fountain are definitively in the category of “transcendental film making” because they’re about who we are as beings of consciousness, not simply bags of primate meat. Even Roger Ebert got it right when he said:

“Only a few films are transcendent, and work upon our minds and imaginations like music or prayer or a vast belittling landscape. Most movies are about characters with a goal in mind, who obtain it after difficulties either comic or dramatic. ``2001: A Space Odyssey'' is not about a goal but about a quest, a need. It does not hook its effects on specific plot points, nor does it ask us to identify with Dave Bowman or any other character. It says to us: We became men when we learned to think. Our minds have given us the tools to understand where we live and who we are. Now it is time to move on to the next step, to know that we live not on a planet but among the stars, and that we are not flesh but intelligence.”
http://www.ebertfest.com/three/32001.htm
What I do mind is having to rely on metaphysical explanations simply because they're the only way to make sense of the story, rather than them actually being supported by the facts.

As you know, I think its fairly clear that the facts of the film support the tangent universe theory, which is akin to Donnie Darko. It’s less obvious in The Fountain, and I think Aronofsky underestimated the difficulty level of this film as a puzzle, which is one of its flaws.

But I would’ve imagined that as a theoretical physicist, you’d thrive on the challenge of a complex problem that tests your analytical acuity and conceptual dexterity. I’ve always loved theoretical physics, btw – what area are you working in?


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

A similar interpretation to mine, with only one difference.
Future Tom didn't have to send any "message" back to Nowadays Tom, because they share the same consciousness, therefore his mind is a whole that transcends thorough time and space. That's what I think Aronofsky wanted to share with all of us on this movie, "no matter what you do, the transcendence will pass that on to all your memories/thoughts".

Don't forget: "Future is now"

Katu

reply

I agree completely, hypnotikul. I only explain it as ‘sending a kind of message back in time’ because I think most people understand linear causality better than getting into ‘the ultimate premise of the film is that enlightened consciousness transcends time and death, therefore the realization that Tom experienced permeated his entire existence.’

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

It's funny how you throw around phrases like that, more precisely don't throw around because noone else will understand the grand meaning of them -- yet how you failes to understand the simple idea of visually representing someone's state of mind, the struggle in their... soul, I guess. Hehh.

reply

Not all the apes touched the monolith...

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Your interpretation makes sense, but I think Darren Aronofsky's view of "Enlightenment" is - if it is as you explain it here - lacking.

And so I'm wondering what his influences are as far as enlightenment goes. I believe in most Eastern traditions enlightenment is linked to mindfulness as well as relinquishing worldly attachments in some form or another. But beyond that the traditions diverge greatly. Nyaya Hindu philosophy it certainly is true that the soul - Atman - and consciousness are timeless. In Buddhism however consciousness, particularly self-consciousness, itself is an attachment of sorts. It is our inability to recognize our own selves as non-permanent things, as interdependent temporary processes rather than self-existent, permanent things, that keeps us inside the never-ending cycle of death and birth. To become enlightened is to relinquish self-attachment, self-existence. In other words, enlightenment is to understand one's own fundamental transience.
Becoming enlightened, I don't think, necessarily allows you to suddenly reach back into time and effect change. Becoming enlightened is to apprehend your basic powerlessness and your intrinsic mortality. To me, this is a more appealing sense of enlightenment and it is compatible with our science, in which decaying, physical matter of the brain is the only seat of consciousness.

This movie, I guess, is more in line with the Hindu version of things, in the sense that the movie undoubtedly assumes the permanent, timeless existence of the soul. I think Aronosfky would have done well to clarify the narrative a little bit, which he might do in the future, so as to also give an account of the mysterious enlightenment which enables future Tom to adjust the personality of present Tom.
heh

reply

To become enlightened is to relinquish self-attachment, self-existence. In other words, enlightenment is to understand one's own fundamental transience.
Becoming enlightened, I don't think, necessarily allows you to suddenly reach back into time and effect change. Becoming enlightened is to apprehend your basic powerlessness and your intrinsic mortality.

Personally, I'm going to wait until/if I become enlightened before I speak authoritatively about what it does or doesn’t mean. But until then I suspect that there’s a Lot more to it than apprehending my “ basic powerlessness” and my “intrinsic mortality/transience,” both of which I think I already have a fairly firm grasp on, and I certainly don’t consider myself to be enlightened.

I don’t think Aronofsky has an obligation to hold true to any establish metaphysical doctrine, honestly. It’s his work of art; he can say whatever he wants to say about consciousness/transcendence/enlightenment. I like the fact that he said something original about it, actually.

And since we really have no idea what consciousness is, even today, I don’t think any one of us can definitively refute Aronofsky’s idea here. Sure, I think it’s unlikely that an enlightened mind could influence its own past, but only an enlightened mind could say for sure, so meanwhile I think it’s fun to think about.

In general I try to bear in mind this informative quote by Sir Arthur Eddington:

"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
it is compatible with our science, in which decaying, physical matter of the brain is the only seat of consciousness.

Actually the material reductionist view of consciousness is taking heavy fire, and the assumption that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon fails to resolve fundamental questions about the nature and origin of subjective experience.

The problem of defining and understanding the nature of consciousness is currently an issue of heated debate and profound uncertainty - have a look at this thought-provoking 10min interview with Dr. David Chalmers : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmZaA_xoJiM


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Props for solving it for us. But imo we shouldn't have to analyze a film for 3 weeks to fully understand it. I mostly blame the fact that this whole new timeline thing isn't explained by the movie... If I watched it again without that in mind I would just think that the entire movie was like a "What if I ignore this?" type film. and the alternate timeline was the actual reality.

Aaronofsky tried to do way too much with this film. Over complicated the hell out of it. But I still loved it for it's visuals and for the themes it tried to convey. And god, i love those slow trolly forward shots.

The end of the world doesn't seem so bad now that you're here.

reply

Well, I didn't mean to say that I spent *every waking hour* for three weeks straight poring over every detail of the film (though it was pretty obsessively in the back of my mind most of that time), but you're right - it was more difficult to solve than it should've been. Just one or two additional clues would've kept it challenging, without being so utterly trying. I guess when you spend six years trying to get something done, it gets more and more densely packed with your ideas and philosophies, until you're the only person who can readily understand it.

Still, I prefer films that are excessively challenging, to films that are excessively obvious (which seems to be about 99% of them). I feel kinda gypped if I leave a movie theater without any burning questions.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

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.




Wow...what a waste of precious time!!!


LOL, jk
_______
Yes, that's me...Little miss Lee...

reply

Very funny MissLee - now go to your room, young lady!

=P

Actually I loved puzzling out this film...way more fun than a crossword puzzle.



"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply