The Fountain (2006)

“What if you could live forever?”

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Written by: Darren Aronofsky
Produced by: Arnon Milchan, Iain Smith, Eric Watson, and Nick Wechsler
Cinematography by: Matthew Libatique
Starring: Hugh Jackman as Tomas / Tommy / Dr. Tom Creo, Rachel Weisz as Queen Isabel / Izzi Creo, and Ellen Burstyn as Dr. Lillian Guzetti
Music by: Clint Mansell

“All right, I trust you. Take me. Show me.“

Both beloved and reviled by critics, “The Fountain” was on my “must see” list of films for 2006. It was in-and-out of theaters so quickly, I had to wait for DVD. A few weeks ago, I was able to watch it. And then I waited, just to be sure I could say what needed to be said about it without being utterly overwhelmed by what I had just seen.

It’s a few weeks later, now, and I can say this with full confidence – “The Fountain” is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. That sounds like I’m reaching for a compliment, here, but I truly mean it – the film is visually, thematically, and artistically gorgeous. Darren Aranofsky, Rachel Weisz, and Hugh Jackman should all be commended, along with the cinematographer and art designers.

The plot, as it were, is rather difficult to explain, but I’ll give it a shot. In the year 2005, Dr Tom Creo is working frantically to find a way to save his wife, who’s dying of brain cancer. There’s a promising new sample, taken from a mysterious tree in South America that just might be the answer that he needs. (It is, but not in the way he expects.)

His wife is finishing a novel that she’s been working on for quite some time. She has one chapter left. It’s about a conquistador that is sent by the Queen of Spain to find the tree of life – which is, incidentally, the second story. The third story is most likely the story of Tom in the far future, traveling with the afore-mentioned tree in a biosphere heading towards a mysterious constellation.

Three stories – the text (the historical Spain story), the literal (the 2005 story), and the symbolic. Past, present, and future. Birth, life, death.

The promotional tagline for this film was “What if you could live forever?”, which you would think would be a good thing. Living forever, that is. However, that tagline is nothing more than a misdirect of astonishing proportions, because this film? Is all about death. Running from it, fighting it, accepting it, and …loving it? In fact, the best description of this film that I’ve heard is that it’s a “love letter to death.” And it’s true. Thematically, it’s not all that far away from one of my *other* favorite films from 2006, “A Prairie Home Companion,” and while both come to a similar conclusion (namely, that death really isn’t all that bad – it’s both beautiful and necessary), “The Fountain” approaches it with imagery, symbolism, and thematic synergy firmly in hand, while “A Prairie Home Companion” relies almost solely on lyricism. This is, of course, a result of each film’s respective creative team – of course Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream) is going to utilize an astonishingly beautiful palate of visuals, performance, and score – that’s one of his calling cards that establish him as one of the finest directors in the US.

The film has been criticized for its lack of “answers” – it never exactly or literally ties the three storylines together, but that doesn’t really matter. Each story is the exact same story, told in a slightly different way. Symbolism – in the text (dialogue), in the visuals, and in the art design (look for the shape themes sprinkled throughout the film – triangles for the Spain storyline, rectangles for the current day storyline, and spheres and circles for the “future” storyline). By doing this, by telling the same story in three different periods (and in three different ways) Aronofsky is saying, “Look – this isn’t just something I believe, it’s something I discovered, and now I’m showing you, too.” Death has been the same for thousands of years, and it isn’t going to change. By seeking to live forever, we’re simply prolonging the inevitable – we are going to die. And that’s a beautiful thing, especially for those that are Christians.

Oh yeah. The spiritual side of this thing. “The Fountain” is packed to the brim with religious imagery, beliefs, and symbolism. Aronofsky draws mainly from three – Mayan beliefs, Buddhism, and Christianity – but he never makes a single one “the point” of his film. Rather, he draws common truths from all of them. This isn’t as bad as it sounds – after all, much of Proverbs was taken from ancient Egyptian writings and other ancient mysticisms. And the idea of death as a final gateway that is to be approached with joy is certainly an idea that Christians should be familiar with. (How many times does Paul exhort Christian’s to “run the race with endurance?” And how does a runner approach the finish line? With an all-out sprint.)

I’m digging way too deep for a simple review. I’ll wrap it up. Kudos have to be given to Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz – Hugh Jackman shows a range that you’d never expect from him, and Weisz is the foundation that this film rests on. (Also – Aronofsky is a brave man, casting his then-pregnant fiancee as a dying cancer patient in a film about the beauty of death.)

Yeah, I’m gushing. I loved this film, and the only reason I’m not deconstructing each little piece of it for you here is that I don’t want to risk taking away any of the beauty of the film for those that have yet to see it.

“Death is the road to awe” indeed. Five Trees of Life out of five. (5/5)

The Ladykillers (1955)

Meet the "Unholy Five"...The Most Befuddled Set of Assorted Thugs That Ever Fouled Up a Million Dollar Bank Robbery!

Directed by: Alexander MacKendrick
Written by: William Rose
Produced by: Seth Holt, Michael Balcon
Starring: Alec Guinness as Professor Marcus, Katie Johnson as Mrs. Wilberforce/Lopside, Cecil Parker as Major Courtney/Claude, Herbert Lom as Mr. Harvey/Louis, Peter Sellers as Mr. Robinson/Harry, and Danny Green as Mr. Lawson/One-Round
Music by: Tristram Cary

This is another Guinness film which fits in the realm of "darkly comedic and slightly disturbing." Guinness once again plays a criminal, however this time a bit more psychotic than in "Lavender Hill." Professor Marcus is a startlingly odd looking man who has a knack for well-planned robberies. This one requires him to lodge with an old, rather befuddled, woman named Mrs. Wilberforce. When his cronies show up, they tell Mrs. Wilberforce (whom they call Lopside behind her back) they are musicians who need somewhere quiet to practice. Everything goes along smoothly until old Lopside figures out what the men are really up to and threatens to go to the police. The men scramble to find one of them willing to kill her and dispose of the body in the convenient cargo trains that pass behind her house every few minutes. With Lopside having no idea what's going on, but struggling with her own fears of being considered a criminal and her attempts to guard the stolen "jolly."

This movie will have you laughing and silently wondering if you SHOULD be laughing. There is a lot of violence done in a humorous manner, although true to Brit form, none of the deaths occur onscreen. Professor Marcus' minions got the most laughs out of me with their distinct methods of screwing things up in one way or another. I appreciate that the film makers let us see the entirety of the Professor's plan before they were snagged by Lopside and things began to go awry. There wasn't just one type of comedy - there were puns, physical comedy, sound effects added to bring laughs, one-liners, you name it.

The two characters I did not like were Professor Marcus and Mrs. Wilberforce - which was kind of frustrating considering they were the two main characters. Mrs. Wilberforce was frustratingly stereotypical but not because she wasn't creatively written. Instead, her character swung back and forth between the easily cowed and confused elderly woman and the brusque no-nonsense old biddy. And usually there was no distinction as to what made her act the way she did. And Guinness as Marcus just creeped me the heck out. No more no less. Creepy man.

I enjoyed some of the other dark comedies in this series much more, especially considering the twist at the end of this one (all the ones in this series have a twist) was enormously frustrating. This original version of the Ladykillers gets three passing coal trains out of a possible five (3/5).

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948)

Directed by: H.C. Potter
Written by: Eric Hodgins (novel), Melvin Frank (screenplay), Norman Panama (screenplay)
Produced by: Melvin Frank and Norman Panama
Starring: Cary Grant as Jim Blandings, Myrna Loy as Muriel Blandings, Melvyn Douglas as Bill Cole, and Reginald Denny as Mr. Simms
Music by: Leigh Harline

This is a film based on a 40's pop hit novel - kind of like all of our "Nanny Diaries" and "Bridget Jones" today. It's been remade three times under different names - first in 1986 starring Tom Hanks in "The Money Pit," in 1993 as "The Dream House," and most recently (and most dismally) as "Are We Done Yet?" in 2007 starring Ice Cube.

It's a story most of us are familiar with. The typical American family decides they need a bigger, more prestigious house and the blundering father gets in way over his head as the expenses pile up. Nothing seems to go right and the husband regrets ever wanting to move - until the house is actually finished and miraculously paid for and then everything is lovely again. This film was a hit back in '48 when it was released and it has all the makings of a great movie. The cast is superb and the story is humorous. But for some reason, it just irked me. I tend not to care for movies in which fate seems to go completely against the protagonist no matter how much they do the right thing. One reason I can't stand "Meet the Parents." This movie wasn't quite as bad as all that, considering Blandings does make some rather stupid decisions from the get-go. He fails to consult his best friend lawyer (who seems to be his financial counsel as well) out of gusto and then jealousy - he believes his wife to be involved in an affair with the man. Which is never really confirmed or denied.

I think part of my disappointment stems from the disjointed storyline. It sails along beautifully at first, then stumbles and takes us into another crisis with the necessity of Blandings writing a jingle for WHAM ham. Then - when things begin to go wrong with the house, the jingle falls out of the picture again until the very end when it's brought up as the major problem of the movie. And then the entire thing suddenly resolves and the movie ends within a minute. With a breaking of the fourth wall which seemed so cliche and cheap that I wasn't surprised to see that the movie studio had promoted the movie by building houses just like the Blandings' all over America and either selling them or raffling them off.

Personally, I think the movie doesn't stand up as a great classic comedy as much as many of Grant and Loy's other films. The story fails to stand the test of time and is only buoyed by good acting and physical comedy. I give this film two WHAM hams out of a possible five (2/5).