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

[deleted]

The film is a such a hard puzzle that even the explanation looks complex to grasp it :) I watched it and didn't understand anything. I bump into your thread with detailed clarification here to understand the message of the movie and I am now analyzing it, LOL.

Btw, what I mean is that this movie gets you in such a strong mist that you could barely see your hands. A padlock without a key, but hidden somewhere, not lost....

Your analysis and brightening of the gloomy story had the potential to tear the padlock apart and you did great as it is one of the best explanations so far.

Spectacular work, indeed!

Now back to the "damn" director (LOL), Darren Aronofsky. This man has such far visions that cannot be replaced by any other director in history. The director from Pi, shattered everyone's mind with Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler, The Fountain, and now he enters the Road to the Globes with Black Swan. WOW!



reply

His explanation concerns the past story being fiction despite the director saying it is real, involves interdimensional travel across multiple realities where the past story is real despite the director repeatedly stating there is only one reality, changing the timeline for no reason other than to invalidate the entire story despite the director saying there is no time travel as well as all the events are one story, and basically ignoring the story the director told in the film and the graphic novel.

I am sorry but his explanation is only in his head, has nothing to do with the film and is so fanatically egoistic he might as well say it is about himself.

I don't mean to give any offense to anyone. He writes a fan fiction that with a few changes can be perhaps a good story so long as he makes it his own work and doesn't attach it to Aranofksy's work.

reply

I’m glad you’re enjoying puzzling out this marvelous challenge, bekimsp. I think this is a new kind of film altogether – I can’t think of any other film that requires so much deep analysis and contemplation to fully unravel the experience. Who would’ve thought that after a century of film making, the experience could suddenly be so much more than a simple viewing?

There are lots of intense debates in this thread, and you’ll find a lot of quotes from the director peppered in here along the way, which clear up the director’s intent and his understanding of the story considerably.

I've heard a few people spout some really intense hatred about Black Swan, so I guess it must be another really beautiful Aronofsky film! I'm guessing you've seen it and loved it?

Btw, a very small number of people don’t recognize incontrovertible proof when they see it, like the village idiot Drakentard here. But we just keep them on our Ignore list most of the time, life's just better that way ;


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

I had watched this film in the theater when it first came out, and while I was amazed by the cinematic beauty and intrigued by the story, I realized that the meaning was a bit over my head.

I just finished watching it again, and was completely blown away. Just sat through the whole film shaking my head at how incredibly good it is. Since gaining some age and open-mindedness, the time-lines and the core meaning of the film came to me easily, but I still puzzled over the change; him turning right to be with Izzy instead of going to the operation. Now that I read your explanation about changing consciousness, it makes perfect sense. It also makes the film even better understanding it wholly.

Thanks for a great post!

reply

It’s terrific to hear that you enjoyed the film as much as I do, Randy. And it always makes my day when a fan of this film finds additional meaning and beauty in it through this solution to the rather confounding puzzle that this film presents to the viewer.

It’s so incredibly rare to discover a genuinely sublime transcendental message within a film, and I’m still fairly awestruck that The Fountain carries such a message, cleverly hidden within the jigsaw puzzle pieces of the narrative.

Not everyone sees it, or appreciates it even when they hear about it, but that only makes it more fun when someone new drops by to say “got it, thanks!”


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

I hate that I have to have everything spelled out for me. I liked the movie, but didn't understand much of it (especially the last 15 minutes). But devilboy's analysis makes me appreciate it so much more, I will have to rewatch now. Thank you devil.


Open the pod bay doors, Hal

reply

My pleasure, rtucker7. And don’t beat yourself about not puzzling this film together after the first viewing, I’ve never met anyone who did. This one takes *serious work* to figure out; multiple viewings, discussion, research…and actually a lot of intelligent people don’t get it even after they’re told the right answers.

I’m glad you’re inspired to go back and watch it again – I think it’s one of the few films in the world that gets better with a second or third viewing, because the better you understand it, the more substance you find within it.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

thanx devil boy for yer take on things. I pretty much was with u all the way but yer take on the enlightement thing helped close things better. I didn't come to an enlightment conclusion myself more of a 'this is how things should have been, I see now, more clearly' - like a thought process etc. I didn't think the alternate scenes at the end actually occured but rather a weird kinda self closure as future tom dies.

I love darrens work, watched all his flicks to date and look forward to the black swan. I feel sorry for u tho, that u had to watch it so many times to come to that conclusion, don't get me wrong, LOVE the film, but i always feel a films power can be lost when watched again and again especially in such close succession.
Perhaps Darren failed here to properly aid us viewers in coming to the same conclusion as you did after just one or maybe two viewings at most.

That's kinda how i'm coming to see things these days lol. I'm lazy and ignorantly think myself intelligent, so if i don't get the movie first or at most second time around then its bad direction lol.

Anyways, thanks for yer effort, its much appreciated.

reply

You’re welcome eddiesummers, and as much as I love this film, I think you’re right – it was overly difficult to puzzle together. Not that I minded, personally. The harder a problem, the happier I am to work on it. And at the time I first saw it, my grandmother was dying – and she and I were always really great friends – so this puzzling film was a substantial and much-needed diversion at a very painful time in my life.

But this film is so complicated that I think it breaks down roughly like this:
80-90% of viewers never figure it out at all
10-20% of viewers get a basic understanding of what happened in the story
.1-5% of viewers understand it about as well as it can be understood

Those are some pretty harsh numbers. Any reasonable person could look at those numbers and make a legitimate argument that the direction is at fault. I think most people would argue that if at least 50% of the viewers can’t figure a film out after the second viewing, there’s a real problem.

On the other hand, one *could* argue that a film can be made to either reach a lot of people superficially, or to reach a few people very deeply, but probably not both. Maybe Aronofsky chose the latter intentionally. I’m guessing not, at least not to this extent. Maybe someday he’ll clear that up.

But in the meantime, I have to admit that I’m somewhat irked that even after at least a dozen viewings, and dozens of hours of online research, analysis, and debates here, some questions about this story appear to be irresolvable, and no amount of analysis and evidence can make a 100% solid case for any single interpretation. And that’s kind of annoying, frankly, because once you know the solution to a puzzle, you *should* be able gather enough evidence to prove it unequivocally. I’m hoping that someday, Aronofsky will fess up and end the long-standing controversy.

But he probably won’t. Because if someone finds it more touching to think that our spirits resolve our troubles after our deaths, than it is to think that our consciousness possesses hidden divine powers, then all the power to them. If I were him, I’d probably let people think whatever meant the most to them, even if they’re misinterpreting the intentions of my creative work.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

I dont think it makes sense that Tom is 500 years into the future. Nothing supports that.

It seems to far fetched in this story for him to reach a far away star JUST as it explodes for it to be considered a realistic physical far off future. As a character he seems to torn up and focused on events that would have happens many generations ago.


I think the bubble contains Toms soul. The whole movie is Tom as an old man dying on his death bed awaiting death. The bubble is Toms soul on its journey to nirvana. So yes, he may be actually approaching a star- but not by means of human technology.

I believe this movie is just a realistic depiction of the soul and reaching Nirvana. Its like the 'Passion of the Christ" for Buddhist or other eastern philosophies on life and death.




this has absolutely nothing to do with the above post. This is why i hate IMDB signatures.

reply

he doesnt change the past with his mind.

What happens is that he 'dies' He goes with Izzy into the light. His soul expires.
Notice how she walks into the light like a soul-

then as he chases her his soul (in the soul bubble) accepts death and gets into the lotus position to die and finally be with Izzy in the afterlife.





this has absolutely nothing to do with the above post. This is why i hate IMDB signatures.

reply

A lot of people mistake the bubble ship for a metaphysical symbol. I read your theory and responded with the evidence and arguments against it in your thread here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/board/nest/177203700

It's better to watch the film a few times with an open mind, and then do a few dozens hours of research reading interviews with the director and cast, *before* coming to the board asserting that you have the "definitive explanation" of this complex and heavily layered film. Otherwise, you come off looking like just another Drakenlord.

If you want to debate the merits and demerits of your theory, please keep it to your own thread rather than hijacking this one. Thanks.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

I watched the movie for the first time last night and read this entire thread this morning. I have to agree that Drakenlord is an idiot and that devil-boy has this whole thing really well thought out and deserves the respect, if not the agreement, of everyone else on the board.

I personally like your explanation, the-devil-boy. I'm another one of those who just signed up in order to post.

I do have one question I don't think you've covered yet (on this thread anyway):
If Tom is indeed Tommy 500 years later(which I'm not disputing) why does Izzi tell Tommy that her book ends in Xibalba? (I don't remember the precise conversation, but it's when they're in the science exhibit and he says "I thought it was set in Spain" and she says something like "yes, but it ends up there." I suppose, with your theory, that the end of the story is "written" in/near Xibalba, but the entire book, even with the added ending, is set in Spain, isn't it?

reply

I do have one question I don't think you've covered yet (on this thread anyway):
If Tom is indeed Tommy 500 years later(which I'm not disputing) why does Izzi tell Tommy that her book ends in Xibalba? (I don't remember the precise conversation, but it's when they're in the science exhibit and he says "I thought it was set in Spain" and she says something like "yes, but it ends up there." I suppose, with your theory, that the end of the story is "written" in/near Xibalba, but the entire book, even with the added ending, is set in Spain, isn't it?

Wow, I can’t believe you made it through all seven pages of this thread – clearly this film reached you deeply. Awesome. I’m glad you signed up to join the discussion, luckystar4288.

So for clarity on your question, let me first point out that there are two scenes involved here:

1.) The scene on the roof with the telescope, when Izzi tells Tommy that her story starts in Spain, but ends at Xibalba, the Mayan underworld, “a place where dead souls go to be reborn.” There’s a hidden subtext in this scene and the bathtub scene that follows. Tommy asks her if she’s done with her novel, and she says “almost” and he asks when he can read it, and she just dismisses the question with a strange expression. Then in the bathtub scene she confesses that her symptoms have been back for awhile. From these clues we can surmise that Izzi has already finished the first eleven chapters of her book, and is now waiting for the right moment to give it to Tommy with the imperative to write the last chapter. And since chapter eleven ends at the Mayan temple in Guatemala, we can deduce that she’s already determined that the blank Chapter Twelve is left for Tommy for the sole purpose of making him look death in the face and come to terms with it. Tomas the conquistador is going to die in the last chapter, and she knows this, so she tells Tommy that the story ends at Xibalba. I think that’s why she tells him “you do, you will” when he tells her that he doesn’t know how the story ends – she’s already told him that it ends with death (which by her thinking, is more of a beginning than an end).

2.) At the Divine Words exhibit, Izzi tells Tommy about “First Father” and the Tree of Life that sprang from his corpse, and she pointedly steers the conversation to the notion of “death as an act of creation.” This is what her book is all about, and what she’s trying to show to Tommy so he won’t be consumed by his mourning for her loss. He shrugs it off though, so later there’s the conversation in the hospital about the father of Moses Morales, which much more explicitly spells out a possible mechanism of the “death is an act of creation” philosophy, which she’s directing Tommy to employ with his work imagining the end of her book.

That’s how I see it anyway. It is a bit murky, even on close examination, but I think that was the essential point of her statement about the book ending at Xibalba: I think she used "Xibalba" as a metaphor for "death" because she knew Tommy would flip out if she said that her book ended in death.



"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

I should also probably mention that Izzi may have been a bit psychic, for the same reason that Tom was able to change the past: since some part of our consciousness transcends time, Izzi may have sensed the importance of Xibalba in Tom's future when his mind joins her in eternity.

At one point I had a detailed and intricate argument for this idea, but I ran into so much resistance advocating the alternate timeline theory that I never got around to starting a new battle over the basis of psychic phenomena in this film.

Another incident of this, imo, is the flash of inspiration that Tommy gets in the lab when he sees a vision of Xibalba and comes up with the formula for his immortality elixir: it appears that his mind in the present connected with his mind in the future as he enters Xibalba, and he "brings back" his knowledge of the drug.

That's probably as far as I want to go with that here, it's just something to chew on if you're so inclined.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Izzi being a psychic that can see far into the future and Tom being a time traveler that can make his body travel across time as well as space with just a thought are way more ridiculous than Izzi because her spirit got reincarnated in a new body recalling her past life and Dr. Thomas remembering his past life after he became an immortal with amnesia because he drank sap too much from the Tree of Life.

reply

The main plot hole of the movie from my viewpoint is why didn't the guy get over his loss and move on to another woman or seek more knowledge after finally finding the fountain of youth, rather than the whole boring time-space-existence bending over-emotional acid trip that was this film?
In my opinion that is.

I mean the concept of one individual existing through multiple lifetimes and not meeting at least one other potential love interest is ridiculous.

reply

Well, that's a certainly a pragmatic perspective. But I think the story embraces the rather popular notion of a "soul mate" aka "one true love," which I'd say is one of those things that you don't generally believe in unless you experience it for yourself, like ufo's.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Hi,

I felt surprised that many people found the movie hard to understand. Despite the fact that the two first scenes ("Past" and "Bubble") caused confusion (in my opinion, the movie would be clearer if it started with the Monkey operation scene), I think the movie was quite understandable, and never thought anyone would see it as a Rubik's Puzzle.


Just to add to your narration of the movie: you say "Finish it" was she saying him to accept his death. Al tough it is right, it was also his memory of her saying him to finish the book (or, in other words, to fully understand her feeling of accepting death as rebirth).


I honestly understood everything you said on my first view of the movie. And I thought it was too much slow paced for a short movie, and the story she wrote was an excuse from the Director to add some action to the movie, which I thought as not quite fulfilling. This movie was a poem with visual attractiveness (like 2001 Space Odyssey), but not very interesting.

6/10

reply

Why didn't buddha future Tom send a message to give Izzy the drug instead of just going for a walk, it would have cured her like it cured the monkey, then they could have rode a space bubble together.

But good work, i think you might have nailed it. I think though, that he was hoping they would both be reborn in the nebula, not that he would die and join her in death? But maybe thats the same thing...

reply

Why didn't buddha future Tom send a message to give Izzy the drug instead of just going for a walk, it would have cured her like it cured the monkey, then they could have rode a space bubble together.

By the time Tom has become an enlightened Bodhisattva as the ship arrives at Xibalba, he’s actually looking forward to being reunited with Izzi through death. This is why he weeps tears of joy as he tells Queen Isabel “I’m going to die, I’m going to die.” From his new perspective, it’s no longer about “saving” Izzi and having more time with her, it’s about being true to her in the time they had together because he’s transcended the life/death duality. So he fixed the part of their timeline where he went astray.

I think though, that he was hoping they would both be reborn in the nebula, not that he would die and join her in death? But maybe thats the same thing...

I think both are true: previous to his moment of enlightenment, he seemed to be pursuing some half-baked scheme to save the tree by taking it to Xibalba to be revitalized somehow – I suppose he wanted to keep on hugging the tree for a few more centuries, idk. But when he becomes enlightened, his intent shifts suddenly, and he embraces his death as a way of joining Izzi in some other form, ostensibly forever. The way his ashes rain on the tree, and the tree springs back to life before being consumed by the nova, suggests that their essences intermingle in death, tying them together irrevocably through a new cycle of life.


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

Devil-boy, this is the best explanation I have ever heard. I think the key that ties it all together is that he has his ring on at the end when he wipes the snow off the grave. If the future was not real, there is no way he would have that ring back.

reply

Devil-boy, this is the best explanation I have ever heard. I think the key that ties it all together is that he has his ring on at the end when he wipes the snow off the grave. If the future was not real, there is no way he would have that ring back.

Your handle reminds me of a funny anecdote I heard about the Polynesian cannibals who call humans “long pig,” apparently because of our salty and scrumptious pork flavor.

I agree that the ring is the key to this puzzle. It proves beyond a doubt that the scene at the grave site did *not* happen in the first timeline (because the ring was lost in that timeline until moments before Tom died at Xibalba). And the ring on his finger at the grave also proves that in this timeline Tommy never chose his research over his walk in the first snow with Izzi (his is also supported by the scene where we actually *see* Tommy have a change of heart and go running after Izzi into the first snow).

The only way to reconcile the ring on Tommy’s finger at her grave site, is if there are two different timelines at play within the film.

But few are those who have the noggin to work it all out…we few, we happy few ;)


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

I just watched this film earlier tonight and I was speechless. I knew what I was watching was special, but also that it was way over my head. I enjoyed your analysis, and reading through this thread. Thank you so so much! Hopefully when I review this movie, I can follow along more easily :)

reply

Thanks for posting, and you’re welcome, DexterIsALostGleek. I had pretty much the exact same reaction when I first saw this complex and beautiful film. It’s exciting to confront a mysterious and esoteric work of art like this, and unexpectedly too. I hope you’ll enjoy your next viewing a great deal more, now that you’ve read all the various ideas surrounding the plot and structure of The Fountain. A solid interpretation of this film is like having a key to unlock the mysteries of this fascinating story – I think now you’ll find it to be very satisfying to understand the way the film unfolds with each scene, ultimately revealing its unique and empowering message…


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

I watch this movie again (from time to time) and your view definitely fits. I would say I originally had the similar theories about the movie but never had anyone to talk it over with.

It's very possible that the director did not have the best editing team to explain visually what you did in words. But the fact is they did explain it visually even though it wasn't done so in a "normal" way (and that's probably a good thing...the time shift edits we see now a days are kind of stupid anyway).

Finally, there are movies out there that some people won't get. Or they will but they'll fight the beauty of "getting it" because of some pre-conceived notion about how the movie was supposed to unfold "to them". I admit, when I first watched the show I couldn't grasp everything at once. But after my 2nd viewing and then after reading this forum, I came to a better realization and appreciation of the film.

Thanks for your contribution.

reply

I think you’re right about people feeling offended by being handed a genuinely challenging cinematic puzzle, instead of the typical vapid Hollywood pablum. Too many people have been conditioned to think that all movies should coddle the viewer and present all of a story’s meaning in a simple and obvious manner that resolves completely by the time the credits roll. They see this film, don’t understand it immediately, and promptly declare this film a failure because its meaning isn’t instantly and painfully obvious to them. And worse yet, most of this petulant category of viewers have the audacity to declare that since it wasn’t obvious to them, that *there isn’t any deep meaning to be found* within the film.

But there’s a somewhat smaller and even more pitiful group of people who see this film, walk away from it with some banal half-baked misinterpretation of the whole thing, and get stuck with it because they made up their mind about it before they could get their head around it all.

Rare, too rare, are the minds who walk away from this film realizing that they didn’t fully understand what happened in the story, but humble enough to accept that there *just might be* a deeper meaning to the film that’s going to take some work to puzzle out. A small fraction of those people find their way to this forum, and post something sensible.

Welcome to the tragically narrow minority, zenbuddha ;


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

I know I'm late, but thanks to the original creator of this thread for clearing that up.

Proud Catholic

reply

Glad to help, jjoz12 - thanks for posting!


"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply