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

To me, the end meaning is that we are not meant to try to cheat death/escape it like his research was trying to.

To live forever is to continue participating in the cycle of life-
just like the Mayan at the temple said: "first father sacrified himself for the first life. death is the road to awe."

All three stories are interconnected- and in the end it is a story of how without sacrifice and death- there is no life- such as when he stabs the tree and the sap brings about a plant-
out of that pain and sacrifice, brought life.

The tree can't keep sacrificing and bringing about life forever- as nothing is forever, and everthing will end- just to begin again in new and different ways.

And it is best to not waste what life you have on quests to avoid death- it's best to just live life, and let your sacrifice/death lead to more life (such as the tree he planted at the end, but also by going out and living life in general, you create a whole life for yourself.)

I thought the film was lovely.
It was a little convoluted- but all in all, an interesting and enjoyable.


reply

I read a lot of Aronofsky interviews about this film while analyzing it and discussing various interpretations of it, and what always came through loud and clear was his disapproval of our society's intensely neurotic pursuit of youthfulness and longevity. And he's right about the fact that in our modern Western civilization, thanatophobia is rampant. Death is seen as a disease, rather than a natural aspect of life (or perhaps even some kind of creative/transformative event, as the film suggests).

So yeah, I agree with all of your post, even the part about this film being a little convoluted. Good times.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

OK, the-devil-boy...

This is a post to spur you on.

You said in a pervious post that "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."

You then go on in a later post (as well as previous posts) to talk about all the extensive research you've done on interviews with Aronofsky about this film. Impressive.

But dude, just to be very thorough, don't you think it's time for you to read the graphic novel? I mean, you've already gone this far. Just go all the way, and let us know what you think.

And you've posted that Chambers link a couple times now and I've listened to it a few times (I love that stuff), and while it relates to this discussion, I'm still unclear about how it backs up your main point of this board and an alternate timeline. Is there a quote in there that you can give me? It almost seems like any poster on this board could pull from that conversation evidence to back up their own corresponding idea. Maybe in the 10 minutes of that conversation I'm missing what you think is important.

Thanks.

reply

Alright alright already - so I got the graphic novel...now guess I'll have to read it. Snuck a peek at the end, naturally. Kinda wondering why Izzi is at her own grave, naked in the snow, planting a seed. Wondering a lot more how anyone could argue that the graphic novel and the film are the same story, in light of that fact.

And you've posted that Chambers link a couple times now and I've listened to it a few times (I love that stuff), and while it relates to this discussion, I'm still unclear about how it backs up your main point of this board and an alternate timeline. Is there a quote in there that you can give me? It almost seems like any poster on this board could pull from that conversation evidence to back up their own corresponding idea. Maybe in the 10 minutes of that conversation I'm missing what you think is important.


The main point I was trying to convey with the Dr. David Chalmers link is that we currently have no idea at all what the real nature of consciousness is - so Aronofsky's idea that some aspect of it may transcend linear time, can't be ruled out. Just last night I mentioned an idea I had about the timeless aspect of consciousness in my Solaris thread, if you're interested in the details: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307479/board/nest/168931087

The main point is that until we understand the nature of consciousness, we can't really place limitations on its potential. If there's any one aspect of our existence which still holds mystery, a sense of magic, and perhaps the untapped potential to alter our own personal reality in some surprising and radical way, it's directly related to the phenomenon of consciousness. That's why I love the fact that Aronofsky brought all of the science fiction in his story right back to bear directly on the mystery of the self, instead of some wild new technology - the potential hidden within ourselves may yet dwarf the marvels of any machine...


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

"Alright alright already - so I got the graphic novel...now guess I'll have to read it. Snuck a peek at the end, naturally. Kinda wondering why Izzi is at her own grave, naked in the snow, planting a seed. Wondering a lot more how anyone could argue that the graphic novel and the film are the same story, in light of that fact."

I don't think anyone can argue they are the same, but they are very similar in my opinion. I concluded in my theory that it is Tom's spirit at the grave planting the seed in the movie as opposed to Izzy, which is why he fades away (or "disappears into the ether" as the screenplay says) before the scene is complete.

reply

I just saw this movie and although it appeared mundane at first, I went through this thread and was blown away by the heavy symbolism and layering. Then I saw it once again, and saw you guys arguing about the three timelines vs two timelines. Now I haven't read the graphic novel, nor have I read the director's interviews, so there is a mighty good chance I might be off the mark, but to me the Mayan timeline seems real along with the two alternate timelines in the future. What if the story of the Spanish conquistador ultimately finding the Tree of Life was real? Tomas drank the sap, and then became part of the death and rebirth cycle, which is the real meaning of the Tree of Life's immortality. The second timeline is Tommy and Izzy's life struggling with cancer and her death, followed by Tommy's discovery of immortality and the eventual passage of centuries before he reaches the Xibalba to reunite with his wife in the process of life-death cycle. The third timeline is the enlightened Tommy sending a message to the past which guides him to follow Izzy rather than go to the lab, this ends at Izzy's grave. The second and third timelines are exactly thedevilboy's interpretation, I differ with your analysis of the Mayan story only, which I think was also real, thus the movie reinforces the death-rebirth concept. I would love to hear what you think of this.

reply

There is nothing in the movie in my opinion which physically ties Tomas the Conquistador to present day or future Tom. In the graphic novel he still has the wound in the future, which suggests that it is the same person. However, we never see future Tom in the movie with the wound, so it is a stretch to conclude that Tomas is something more than a character in Izzy's book.

reply

I am not suggesting that the conquistador lived through the centuries. I was wondering if the conquistador and queen story was also real, and they perished (the conquistador when he drinks of the sap and is imbibed into the vegetation of the earth and the queen, presumably of natural death). And the medical researcher and Izzy were a rebirth in later times. Could it be that Izzy was narrating their past lives in the form of a book? If so, that would add further substance to the movie's central theme of death being the birth of something new. I know I am deep inside speculation territory, but it somehow makes sense to me and that is why I brought it up.

reply

There are some long and very detailed arguments in favor of 'the book is just a work of fiction' interpretation, which we've been over earlier in this thread. Perhaps the simplest argument is that in The Fountain, the only really clear description of the life/death cycle is the story of Moses Morales. In that story, when someone dies, they're 'reborn' in a fairly broad sense...bits and pieces take on new life here and there, in forms completely different than the individual. The idea of reincarnation, in the Eastern sense that you're talking about, is never even mentioned.

But setting analytical arguments aside, the director himself has discussed the book in a way that seems to decisively rule out any 'reality based' interpretations:

“It’s a really simple story in fact. At its heart it’s a love story between a man and a woman, except there’s a tragedy happening, which is that the woman is dying at too young an age. And the man feels that he has to fix the problem, to find a cure while this woman is starting to realize that she’s not going to make it and is beginning to open up to the infinite possibilities of what might happen when you die. So she writes a book about a conquistador and a queen that is a metaphor for their experience and what’s going on.
Source: http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/feature.php?id=330

From what I've heard, it sounds like in the earlier version of the script, which was turned into a graphic novel, the past *did* happen in reality, and Tommy and Izzi are the basically immortal continuations of Tomas and Isabel. But I can't say for sure, because I've been procrastinating about reading the graphic novel. But I can say that I'm glad this was changed in the new script, because the whole immortality shtick would, in my opinion, diminish the beauty and frailty of Tommy/Izzi's plight. I think it's more beautiful that Izzi came up with the story on her own, as a purely creative effort to leave something of herself behind for Tommy.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

There are some long and very detailed arguments in favor of 'the book is just a work of fiction' interpretation, which we've been over earlier in this thread. Perhaps the simplest argument is that in The Fountain, the only really clear description of the life/death cycle is the story of Moses Morales. In that story, when someone dies, they're 'reborn' in a fairly broad sense...bits and pieces take on new life here and there, in forms completely different than the individual. The idea of reincarnation, in the Eastern sense that you're talking about, is never even mentioned.

You are right on that, the movie does not suggest the reincarnation part. I guess I was more inclined to think that way because of my Eastern heritage. I think your interpretation is more accurate, but I am also astounded by the beauty of this work that lets people arrive at their own conclusions rather than screaming in their face.

reply

So choosing to let your wife die is your idea of being "enlightened"? What do you call a guy who beats his wife? Transcendent?

reply

I assume that's directed at me. Izzi's going to die, regardless. Tommy did everything humanly possible to save her, and failed. So the scenario *isn't* whether or not he should save her or let her die. The scenario is whether he's going to spend what little time she has left being with her, or working in the lab.

Also, the main point of the film is that death isn't a violent plunge into non-existence, but rather a change from one form into another form in an endless cycle of some kind. So equating "beating your wife" with "accepting death" is a specious and deliberately misleading analogy.


The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Excellent interpretation.

I always thought that the "solution" was a bit more simple and more psychological. Note that the following is based on no hard evidence and is entirely the work of my mind trying to find a logical explanation to the ending of a very mind-blowing movie.

---------

Tommy is the "real" person, whereas Tomas' and Tom's stories are representations of Tommy's attempt at coming to terms with his wife's death.

Tomas tries to find the tree so that he can drink the sap and live forever. Tom tries to find a nebula so that he can revive the now dying tree. In both cases, the quests seem doomed beforehand. Tomas gets stabbed and smacked with a torch, Tom is drifting around in space with no more life elixir.

They represent Tommy's frustration over not being able to complete his own quest, which is represented with him leaving his wife in the snow, not accepting her fate.

Then Tommy (through his Tom personification) has an epiphany wherein he comes to realize that he will be with his wife again through death and new life (rebirth), not through eternal life. That the gift of life is actually death (a topic Tolkien also took up with his Gift of Men).

Now enlightened, his representations of frustration finally accomplish their quests to find eternal life, but they find it through death (rebirth):

Tomas survives the stabbing and finds the tree, involuntarily sacrificing himself to give new life to some kind of vegetation. Tom doesn't die of old age or starvation in his space bubble, he arrives at the nebula and involuntarily sacrifices himself to give life to the tree he brought.

The meaning is that while we might not want to die, we can't avoid it and our death will give life (rebirth). Tomas and Tom don't want to die, but they do as a result of their quest to find eternal life, which again gives them eternal life through death and rebirth (Tomas' vegetation and Tom's tree).

In "real life" Tommy acts out this enlightenment by simply coming to terms with his wife's death, planting the seed at Izzy's grave, symbolizing that her death will give life (rebirth).

The final shot of the nebula exploding, to me, indicates that the future Tom's story wasn't true, just an imagination of Tommy. Just like Izzy's story about the Conquistador was Tommy's inspiration for his Tomas figure, the nebula and Izzy's story about that was his inspiration for Tom.

Summary:

Basically it all boils down to Tommy being a husband trying to cope with the death of his wife. We are presented with three stories that represent this mental journey towards accepting it: Tomas who gets stabbed, Tommy leaving his wife in the snow and Tom who runs out of elixir. When Tommy finally comes to terms with his wife's death, by accepting the theory of rebirth, the three character stories are changed to represent this. Tomas who survives long enough to reach the tree, Tommy not leaving his wife and Tom reaching the nebula in time.

---------

Anyway, like I said in the beginning, your interpretation probably holds far more ground as I did literally no research before coming to my own conclusion.

It's not entirely impossible that Tom in the future isn't Tommy. We know that Tomas isn't Tommy, because Tomas turns into vegetation, but we never see what happens to Tommy, so there's no logical reason why he couldn't go on to become Tom. Especially if we assume that the Guatemalan tree is the tree in Tom's story and the source of eternal life.

My interpretation is simply based on the fact that I hate psychological movies that end with the "Oh, it's in the future!" plot twist. I don't know, my interpretation just allows me to process the movie better, to understand and relate to the message. The entire Tom story arc is just too sci-fi to be a viable ending to me.

But I suppose that's why the ending is as open as it is. There's no definite answer, it's just as much about exploring our own mind as it is exploring Aronofsky's.

reply

I suggest that you read some of Aronofsky's online interviews about the film, to get a clearer perspective "from the horse's mouth," so to speak. He makes it very clear that The Fountain is a science fiction film (though more in the tradition of 2001: A Space Odyssey than Star Wars ). And if you read this thread you'll see why "the future scenes were simply metaphorical/psychological" interpretations fail to solve the questions posed by the plot structure of the film.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Many thanks for that. One addition:

The future enlightened Tom doesn't have to be affecting his selves in the past. He could be more simply be affecting versions of itself even further in the future.

When future Tom dies and replenishes the tree of life within the explosion of the star at the heart of the nebula, it seeds the creation of life through the new solar systems that will be formed from the remnants of that explosion. The last man of one race forms the panspermia of future races. In my interpretation, Tom and Izzy get to live again in future versions of the human race, formed in these distant future solar systems. In this way, not only do their lives reverberate down the centuries directly portrayed within the movie, but then the whole cycle repeats again, many times over. They may live similar or identical lives, many times over, until enough experience has been accrued for 'future Tom', his most enlightened manifestation, to finally become enlightened, and a distant hallucinatory memory of that *past* experience is what gives a future incarnation of laboratory Tom his flashes if insight, and causes him to decide to join Izzy in the snow.

This has probably been said in your manifold comments already, but just in case.

reply

Someone previously mentioned the idea of incorporating Nietzsche’s take on ‘eternal recurrence’ into this interpretation (Nietzsche’s view on the idea being one where each universe recurred so that all events in each reborn universe would be -perfectly identical-to those of the universe before). That doesn’t quite fit, obviously, because we see the changes in Tommy2’s timeline from the ‘earlier’ timeline.

Your idea of eternal return is more in keeping with the ancient views of the concept, allowing for each new universe to vary to some undefined extent, but is still in keeping with the notion of circular time that pervades the film.

It’s a good thought, it fits the motifs of the film. But it doesn’t quite fit the narrative, because the changes that Tom makes to his timeline are presented as an –action-. Take a hard look at the part where Izzi appears to him in the bubble ship in the form of Queen Isabel where once again she tells him “You do. You will.” and he Finally gets it (the interconnectedness of time). It’s around the 01:20:00 mark in the film. He then walks to the tree and for the last time he hears her say “Finish it” and this time he says “Okay.” He looks back at her ghost, and she immediately becomes Izzi standing in his office doorway asking him to take a walk with her out into the snow. Except this time, as he’s standing in the hall with Manny, he clearly has a sudden realization, and goes running after her.

It’s pretty clear when you take that whole series of events together, that Tom has actively and intentionally changed the past. There’s no sense that this is something that happens in a new universe, or in a later ‘version’ of a solar system that has an essentially identical Tommy and Izzi couple – it’s an event. Tom did something. And he did it with his mind. That (to me anyway) is the enormously intoxicating, empowering hidden message in the film: that with no futuristic science or fancy whiz-bang contraption of any kind….just the power hidden away in our own consciousness…we can alter reality in a profound and immediate way. That’s why this film is a successful ‘re-imagining’ of the whole science fiction genre: it’s about a transcendental power unleashed from the inner world of the mind that possesses the unthinkable capacity to alter reality itself. Time machines or Dilithium chambers not required.

And who can argue against it? So few human beings have actually achieved enlightenment that most of what we know about them is more legend than historical fact. And what little that legend tells us is generally dizzying and magical (legends of these people give accounts of everything from teleportation, to the spontaneous creation of objects out of thin air, to levitation, to resurrection, to seeing through all of time itself). I guess the only way to find out what’s true and what’s fiction about the potential of the enlightened human mind, is to become enlightened and find out for yourself :)


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Nice thread, thanks for the read! I just saw this film for the first time and was quite confused, I more-or-less enjoyed it but didn't really have much grasp on what was happening. My family all went "Bah this movie sucked, it made no sense, sucky movie!" and immediately went back to playing video games, they never bother to contemplate or look things up online. If there aren't a ton of explosions then it's no good, but I digress, thanks for the read and it did help me appreciate the movie more. I still think it could have been executed a bit better so as not to leave everyone feeling baffled (myself included!) but that's life I suppose.

http://www.youtube.com/anotherschmoe

reply

Yep, I feel like this film should have a disclaimer on the cover, like “Attention: This is not an action movie” so people who only love typical Hollywood action flicks won’t have to waste their time watching it, and the rest of us won’t have to hear them bitch about it afterward.

I agree that it would’ve been nice if the solution were more apparent, but then again, it was fun and refreshing to feel genuinely challenged by this film. All the hours mulling it over and checking specific scenes for clarification – I’ve never had so much fun figuring out a film before.

I'm glad my work enhanced your experience of the film, and thanks for posting, AnotherSchmoe.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

AMAZING job my friend. This is exactly the type of analysis I was searching for and you absolutely nailed it. What an amazing movie this is, will definitely be re-watching it again shortly in HD.

reply

Awesome - thanks for the kudos, eneyman. I remember when I started looking around online to get a better understanding of this film, just as you've done, and being horrified at all of the logically-bankrupt interpretations floating around out there (including Roger Ebert's total failure of a review). I put this up here so folks like you could find an interpretation which didn't rob the beauty and power from this visionary work of art.

I hope your next viewing is the best one yet ;


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Devil boy, seems like you've done your homework :) And also i have to tell you, well done for the way you express yourself.. Almost everything you say makes sense. The ONLY thing that is a little bit harder for me to accept is the "Tom's enlightment" part ... it makes perfect sense and explains almost everything but there's not much proof about it...i mean it is a bit "out there" if you really think about it....or did i miss something?

reply

I’m glad you enjoyed my analysis Ariadne-87.

I’d say this film is intended to be “a bit ‘out there’” actually – Aronofsky calls it “a psychedelic fairytale,” which I think speaks volumes.

If you’re familiar with any Eastern theology/mysticism (Buddhism, Tantra, Yoga, etc) you’ll recognize a lot of imagery and ideas about enlightenment in the space sequences (the prelude to Tom’s ultimate enlightenment).

We see Tom doing Tai Chi against the starry background beyond the bubble ship. Tom’s head is shaved which gives him the look of a monk (as does his clothing). His existence in the bubble ship is of utmost austerity. He has a single wooden bowl, reminiscent of Gautama the Buddha. His attitude of acceptance is that of a sannyasin. And then when his moment of enlightenment comes (as he’s speaking to Queen Isabel at the end of the film) we actually see all of his internal turmoil and mortal apprehension become immediately transformed into teary joyful acceptance and laughter – this is precisely what happens in a moment of spiritual awakening. Then he becomes the epitome of placid calm and mastery, and proceeds to “finish it” (both the alteration of the timeline, and Izzi’s story).

But the most convincing evidence is presented as he nears his moment of death: he exits the bubble ship and assumes the Lotus position (a powerful symbol of Buddhist enlightenment – it’s said that Buddha became enlightened in precisely this yogic posture) and then we enter his third eye as he goes within to finish Izzi’s story (the third eye is the seat of mystical awakening in Eastern traditions). And finally, he faces his own death without the slightest fear or concern – another major earmark of an enlightened being.

So if you’re up on your Eastern mysticism, there’s a small forest of reasons to conclude that Tom becomes enlightened at the end of the film. Unfortunately, there isn’t much cultural familiarity with these ideas in the West, so I think a Lot of people (from the US especially) will have little or no idea about what’s going on at the end of this film. But films like this are a good way for this kind of cross-cultural pollination to occur. If it interests you, I’d suggest checking out the writings of Jiddu Krishnamurti – his work sheds a great deal of light on the process of mind and the nature of enlightenment.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Devil boy, maybe i didn't express myself quite right- well English is not my matternal language obviously- i totally accept what you say about that part of the enlightment you explained...it was too obvious for me from the first moment i saw it.

My "sceptisism" had to do with the whole: "when he finally found his peace in the...bubble -blaaah you know what i mean- he kind of sent a "message"(again, you know what i mean) to his own conciousness and throught that 'enlightment' he changed his behavior and followed Izzy outside to the first snow, he never lost his ring etc.

Again i repeat i really want to believe your explanation because it makes perfect sence theoretically.....but prractically the film never gave us a any clue of that happening.....

.....so my question is : couldn't those last scenes(following Izzy to the snow etc) be his last thoughts of what he SHOULD have done? Or just the way the director cleverly came up with in order to emphasize and visualize this "acceptance" ? :)

reply

.....so my question is : couldn't those last scenes(following Izzy to the snow etc) be his last thoughts of what he SHOULD have done? Or just the way the director cleverly came up with in order to emphasize and visualize this "acceptance" ? :)

I understand your point now Ariadne-87, and you’re right to mention that there isn’t a whole lot in the way of proof to establish that Tom changed history with the power of his mind. That’s why it’s such a challenging puzzle. But there is *enough* proof, I think, to find this solution to be more convincing than any of the alternative explanations.

I’ve gone over these reasons time and time again throughout this thread (and some of the key reasons are higher up on this very page), so rather than do that again since you can read this thread at your leisure, I’ll point out the one fact that I feel is direct proof of this conclusion. It’s subtle, but no other explanation of it makes any sense:

Near the end of the movie (at 01:21:27 on my 718,166KB pirated .avi copy) Tommy is listening to Manny in the hallway outside of his office, and he watches Izzi disappear out the door into the first snow. Except *this time* we hear a weird sound effect, and he gets a strange look on his face *as if he has just realized what a terrible mistake it would be to Not chase after Izzi at that instant.*

Up to that point, you *could* argue that his chasing after Izzi is merely “wishful thinking” or what have you. But “wishful thinking” doesn’t explain that weird ominous sound and the look of realization on his face at that moment. Clearly, something -happened-. In fact, it’s the same kind of “happening” that occurred when Tommy was about to operate on Donovan, and he looked up into the skylight and had his premonition of Xibalba. Aronofsky uses several techniques throughout the film to establish the intimate interconnected relationship between the past, present and future – and I think he did so in order to prepare us for the climax, when Tom changes the timeline with his mind.

For a more detailed discussion of the climax of the film and what it means, check out my Oct 14th 2010 post above. And then I suggest watching the film again with all of this fresh in your mind (paying especially close attention to the last 15 minutes), and see if it makes sense to you as you watch it. I think you’ll find that it will ;)

P.S.: Btw, your English is better than that of most people in primarily English-speaking countries.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Oooww ok devil-boy now i remember that scene you're mentioning! Well you have a point , that's what i will do, read some posts in here (although some people piss me off with how opinionated they are without even having a solid theory) and rewatch the film! Thank you!! :)

reply

You’re welcome Ariadne – I hope you enjoy delving into the film again, and arriving at an understanding of it all that feels complete to you.

(although some people piss me off with how opinionated they are without even having a solid theory)

Very well said. I’ve learned the hard way that debating with such people is a futile and exasperating exercise. As it turns out, a solid argument isn’t enough – reason and evidence only convince people who have minds keen enough to appreciate them.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Devil boy, totally agree it's pointless to try and reason such people. Irrelevant :p : where are you from?

reply

[deleted]

haha! :) I thought my 'name' gave me away, i'm from the exotic....Greece , hahaha!! I asked you because the way you express yourself impressed me, so i thought you were not American-sorry don't take this the wrong way. I guess after all it has to do with the person , not the nation :)

reply

Greece…the dawn of Western civilization…marvelous. Two years ago I made a beautiful sculpture of Ariadne for a Carnival parade about the life of Dionysus, you’d be proud ; And I’m flattered that I don’t seem like a typical American, this country has become a tragic parody of its founding spirit. Someday I hope to move to Europe and have long dinners with bright and loving people who read the classics and understand that Fox News is simply the Pravda of the United States.

reply

Devil-boy.....marry me!!! hahaha!! :)

reply

[deleted]

Send me your e-mail, so I can find out what you thought of the graphic novel. You've totally disappeared from the boards...which is understandable (I do it), but I'm still gonna check periodically to check this very well-maintained board. Regardless, nice work.

reply

So, it's me again, wondering what you thought of the graphic novel already.

reply

Okay, after months of procrastinating, I finally got around to reading the graphic novel. Since it reflects an earlier version of the script than the film, and the differences between the graphic novel and the film are obviously very significant, I’m starting a new thread about the graphic novel because I think it stands apart from the film as a completely independent creative work.

The Fountain: The Graphic Novel (Warning: Spoilers)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/board/nest/175929449


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

ITT: Sock puppets

reply

Thank you, simply, thank you. I'd come to the same conclusion (that Spain is the book, her dying the past and the tree of life/bubble the present) except that I couldn't reconcile that with the last 20 minutes, and you did just that brilliantly.

reply

Mucho gracias, gwen-newton – I love the fact that when you arrive at this solution to the film (the ending, specifically), it doesn’t just make sense…it conveys a hidden (and totally awesome) meaning. That must be what it would feel like to comb the beach with a metal detector...and find a ufo buried in the sand =D

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

This might sound odd, but when I read your explanation, I felt like I was back in high school. Our math teacher used to give us an equation that was seemingly impossible to resolve, and after we'd spent the entire hour racking our brains over it, he'd give us the solution and the whole class just went "oh...". Once you see the answer, it's not only 'possible' but obvious.
BTW, I loved math, so it's a compliment ;)

reply

Thank you Gwen, I’m glad this solution gave you that ‘Eureka!’ experience ; I actually spend a great deal of time working on mathematical expressions of theoretical physics models, so I appreciate what you’re saying. I love the fact that a work of cinematic art of this caliber can convey the same sense of revelation that a breakthrough moment in scientific learning conveys…they’re not so different after all, are they? Sometimes I think that science is just a very specialized form of conceptual art, and like all art, its greatness can be felt through its elegance and efficacy.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

[deleted]

1. No time travel exists in the film.

2. Metaphors can be real and connect the past with the present. This is from your interview and it contradicts what you mentioned.

“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.”

“I think it’s part of growing up to start thinking about death. There are certain cultures where death is sort of incorporated into life but I think that in this culture all we’re trying to do is run away from death and aging.

“Just look at the popularity of shows like Nip/Tuck or Extreme Makeover. People are praying to be young and hospitals spend huge amounts of money trying to keep patients alive, however old, rather than allowing them to die with dignity. So I think one of the central themes of the film is just that: Does death make us human, and if we could live forever, would we lose our humanity?

“I hope people who like to be challenged and want to see a film that they’ll still be thinking about the day after seeing it will give it a chance.”

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

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

http://www.moviefreak.com/artman/publish/interviews_darrenaronofsky.sh tml

4. Aronofsky: "I wasn't aware of that either. [Laughs.] I'm sorry. That's the great thing. It's weird. For instance, the conquistador sequence when he dies with flowers bursting out of him, I wrote that and it was one of those unconscious moments that you hope for as a writer when you're just typing along and suddenly you forget what time it is and then you look and you're like, wow, that's a really cool scene. That was one of the first scenes I wrote and we rewrote for four or five years but it basically stayed the same. Then when I started to research the Mayans, there was a whole thing about how—when great warriors die—flowers and butterflies come out of them. I actually had written butterflies as well but we couldn't do it because that would have meant CGI and I didn't want to do it. So I cut the butterflies out. But it's weird how you can tap into that type of stuff without being fully aware of it."

Aronofsky: "There is a lot of religious influences. The film starts out with a quote from Genesis. There's all this Mayan religion throughout the film. There's Buddhist imagery throughout the film. There's ideas about reincarnation, of energy and matter, from a Hindu tradition. I've always been into the connections between different religions because I'm not really psyched about organized religion. What interests me is that there's a spiritual truth that connects all religions, a shelf underneath them. If you think about the Genesis story and the Tree of Life mentioned in the Genesis story, and in the Mayan tradition there's a Tree of Life, and in the Buddhist tradition of transcendence happening beneath the Tree. The ancient Jews and the Mayans were probably separated by tens of thousands of years—who knows how long they were apart?—if they still have similar myths, it makes me think that there's actually something that connects us and that makes us human altogether, as opposed to saying my religion is right and my grasp of the spirituality is right. I'm into the pan-spiritual connection."

http://twitch.dev2.apperceptive.com/reviews/2006/11/the-fountainroundt able-interview-with-darren-aronofsky.php

4. The graphic novel is the director's cut of the film and to ignore that is to ignore the film.

reply