The Fountain Explained

I got it.

All 3 Toms are real. The past tom is a previous life. The present tom and the future tom are the same person, since he found a way to reverse aging by eating the bark of the tree (but not the sap). The tatoos on his arm represents the amount of time passed since the present.

The past Tom made a mistake of drinking the sap from the tree, thinking he would gain eternal life, and he dies a horrible death. The future Tom didn't make that same mistake, but he finds the tree dying. He tries to save the tree from death, in the same way that he tried to save Izzy with the same obsession.

He finally discovers immortality at the end, and this immortality is reflected in his past life (the floating buddha pose)-- the priest recognizes Past Tom and Future Tom and identifies him to be the "First Father" -- an immortal. The instant that Future Tom discovered immortality, Past Tom was able to get by the priest as he sacrificed himself. In other words, until Future Tom discovers immortality, the Past Tom fails and gets killed by the priest.

By discovering immortality, he was able to save the tree from dying, but he wasn't able to bring his dead wife back to life, so he decided to change his past by going out with Izzy on that winter afternoon.

26 months have passed since I watched The Fountain for the first time. I watched it one more time, around a month after the first time.

During these couple of years I often thought of the movie, about it's storyline, meaning and ending. I didn't want to search for explanations.

For me, Josh is right. I agree that the story in the past is the book that Izzy wrote. The present and the future Tom are the same person, who found a way to live forever, and who was trying to find his lost love. There is one important physical evidence, and that is the self-inflicted ink mark on his finger, which stayed there, like a tatoo - forever.

I am thinkinkg a lot about this movie and will probably continue to do so in the upcoming years.

I am so lucky to have a person besides me, whom I dont even have to speak to, while we both know what the other one is thinking. We know what the true love is.

Personally...I don't want an explanation...I like the fact that the film plays around inside your head!

when I watched the movie for the first time I was shocked! Tommy's situation is like mine.my husband is dying.my love is leaving me alone and whatever I do I can't stop it.I am not a scientist to look for a cure, but I'm doing my best to make these last days the best! believe me when i say this situation is... I even can't find a word for that. i love him more than anything else.
when Izzy asked Tom to go out for a walk and he didn't, i couldn't stop my tears. I've done it so many times and I'm glad.u know why?because each time i see my love's smile and that's enough.
for me this movie was a relief. i can feel that I'm not alone. that if I cant stop death i can give him all my love. and he will take it forever. just as Izzy did.
i could exactly feel Tom's pain. when he cried.when he touched Izzy.in the hospital.i don't wan to lose my love just like Tom.
the fountain reminded me this: Hold on to your love.don't let anything get away your love,even death.
anybody who read this, watch the fountain again and observe your lives. it can happen to you just as it happend to me. don't think about the past Tom.forget about the future Tom. today's Tom is the truth, when he chooses to go out for a walk with Izzy.

when i watched the movie for the first time i was shocked. my situation now is the same as tom's. my husband is dying.my love is leaving me and i can't stop it. when watching the film i could feel tom's pain. when he cried.when he touched izzy.when he wanted to do anything to keep her alive. i did them all.
when izzy asked tom to go out for a walk and he didn't i couldn't stop crying.i do the walk everyday.i'm not a scientist to find a cure, but i can give my love,more love in his last days. believe me when i say it difficult to decide. whether to go for a walk or to meet doctors and doctors and doctors. if i can't stop death i can make these days the best. i cry everyday.sometimes i can't be brave to look at him,to smile. sometimes i totally break down. but i keep going on. i think this is the fountain's message: never let your love go.hold on to your love even if you know you are going to lose him.
watch it once more and this time observe your own lives.this can happen to you as did happen to me.don't think about the past Tom.forget about the future Tom.today's Tom is the truth.when he goes for a walk with izzy even if his heart breaks when he think of her death.he relieves the pain by seeing her smile.

I recently discovered this film, and I have now watched it 3 times. WOW. I can't stop thinking about the meaning of the movie. After watching the movie with my mom, the 2 of us came up with a possible theory regarding one potential meaning of the film:

Izzy created a story of the conquistador in 16th century Spain. There are 2 opposing sides. The Church believes that our living bodies are prisons for our souls (i.e. there is an after life in heaven), and the Spanish Queen wants to find a way to live forever. This is symbolic of Izzy and Tom's real-life relationship in the present. She is trying to put him at ease by telling him that he should not try to desperately cling on to life; that he should accept that death is a part of the natural process of life.

It seems possible that the stories that are seemingly taking place in the future are actually not taking place at all. Rather, Tom's time in the future is actually a spiritual journey. During this time of healing, he is clinging on to the memory of Izzy. He comes to realize through meditation and dealing with his grief that death is a part of life.

Ultimately, at the end of his spiritual journey, he is able to conclude the final chapter of the book. He understands that all things that live must eventually die in the physical world, only to live on eternally in the afterlife. This is symbolized by Tom placing the seed on Izzy's grave at the end of the film.

I recently discovered this film, and I have now watched it 3 times. WOW. I can't stop thinking about the meaning of the movie. After watching the movie with my mom, the 2 of us came up with a possible theory regarding one potential meaning of the film:

Izzy created a story of the conquistador in 16th century Spain. There are 2 opposing sides. The Church believes that our living bodies are prisons for our souls (i.e. there is an after life in heaven), and the Spanish Queen wants to find a way to live forever. This is symbolic of Izzy and Tom's real-life relationship in the present. She is trying to put him at ease by telling him that he should not try to desperately cling on to life; that he should accept that death is a part of the natural process of life.

It seems possible that the stories that are seemingly taking place in the future are actually not taking place at all. Rather, Tom's time in the future is actually a spiritual journey. During this time of healing, he is clinging on to the memory of Izzy. He comes to realize through meditation and dealing with his grief that death is a part of life.

Ultimately, at the end of his spiritual journey, he is able to conclude the final chapter of the book. He understands that all things that live must eventually die in the physical world, only to live on eternally in the afterlife. This is symbolized by Tom placing the seed on Izzy's grave at the end of the film.

A very interesting film--strangely compelling with the 3 story lines and the great music score. One question--the Conquistador finally finds the tree of life and chugs the sap--why does it kill him? Did he "overdose"? I notice the astronaut only eats a tiny part of the bark to stay immortal--was this the right "dosage"?

I just watched this film and I'm glad I finally did, despite the poor reviews. I equate it to a poem; open to interpretation, but still grounded in themes and motifs. Cheers DA!

I simply love this film, but because there are multiple interpretations to the film, as well as multiple takes on ideologies and religions.

For instance, let's look at the 3 stories: Tomas (16th century), Tommy (21st century) and Tom (26th century).

Tomas (16th century) is told in the film to be the book The Fountain, written by Izzi. One interpretation is that this is a woman's interpretation of the story. Queen Isabel is the herald, the guide of female intuition to teach Tomas how to achieve immortality, saying that if a man tries to achieve immortality materially he will fail. "Our bodies are prisons for our souls". The religion of the book is quite interesting in that it contains Christian ideals of religion, both in the Orthodox view, of the Inquisitors, but also a Gnostic interepretation about the Tree of Life being seeked as a form of enlightenment. The shape of the pyramid's entrance to the tree of life represents a birth canal, which makes sense as one is often considered to have to be 'born again' in the holy spirit. The jungle itself can be reminiscent of the ideas of Eden. Due to the heavier religious connotations of the episode, it can be interpreted as what academics call the Premodern time period, a period where religion rules as a way of viewing the world. The triangles of the pyramids and constellations can be also reminiscent of the ancient world, the pyramids and constellations reminding people of Egypt and Astrology to a degree, with the triangle also representing the Holy Trinity. There is also the idea of perhaps in this story that everything that is experienced afterwards is actually being images that are within the mind of the dying Tomas, after being killed by the Mayan Priest, and that God is somehow allowing him to obtain his goal in multiple ways by giving him these alternate lives as he is actually dying. There is also the theory by Eckhart that when one is separated from spirit it appears in the form of demons trying to rip one's life away, rather than being angels freeing them from the earth. This struggle of people against death in the story could be again a take on this idea.

Tommy's story (21st century), is told as a memory, that of the future. One true interpretation is that this is a mixture of both the Female and the Male perspective, due to the more screen time spent with Izzi and Tommy. Basically it is about the dialogue of the two ideologies, the male trying to obtain his sense of connection through action (providing or protecting), and the female through communication, intuition and empathy (guiding through knowledge and emotions). There is also the two ideological views, that of the transhumanist scientist. Transhumanism believes that technology can solve any problem in the human body, "death is a disease- and I will find the cure for it". There is also the introduction of the Mayan mythology (note, it is actually in this time period that Mayan mythology is delved into with great depth), along with the animism idea of death being a process that gives life. It is also this take on the recognition of other cultural religions that is reminiscent of today's global village. The world however being heavily involved by the perspective of science being the way to view the world, is known also as Modernism. It is here the rectangles perhaps represent our modern world through the view of modern architecture, such as skyscrapers, city blocks and urbanized planning. There are also rectangles or squares used in models to map modern political ways of thinking. There is also the idea of the past being here a construction from the "present", with Tomas's story being seen as that of a work of fiction made in the "present" 21st century, which is a modern concept, of how scholars and scientists attempt to reconstruct the past based on their assumptions, and through this create grand-narratives, or stories of the past. The scientific ideas of Tommy having grief and being told to finish the book, also make us due to this time period think that the results of the future Tom could be in fact a process created through psychological trauma and grief. The idea of him suddenly losing the ring could be interpreted as a hallucination, and his need to create a tattoo of a ring being what psychologists call 'survivor's guilt'. This could therefore support the idea that the entire film is actually the book rewritten in its entirity by Tommy.

Tom's story (26th century) is viewed also to be the present in the story. It is here Tom is alone, and has to deal with his grief. This in my interpretation is the male's story, dealing with coming to terms with his inner emotions and inner struggles, rather than the external struggles he was focussing with just in the Tomas time period, and the internal/external struggle in the Tommy time period. He has to deal with the letting go of his external factors and has to focus on what he truly wants deep down inside, which is ultimately to be with his wife forever. His bald head, tai-chi stances and yoga/lotus positions are reminiscent of the Eastern religions of Asia, such as Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism. The idea of crossing into the nebula could be a transition of his form from the dark maya world of samsara into the heavenly light realm of Brahma or Narvana. There is also the ideology of cosmical spirituality. A star when it goes supernova undergoes fusion which creates all the chemical elements of the periodic table, including those chemicals responsible for life. The idea of death and rebirth being a cosmic process could be a new religious take on the subject. There is also the combination of spiritual ideas, with the combination of advanced science, the nanotech-like spherical sustainable interstellar spacecraft, whose combination or pluralism is believed to be the main constituent of the Postmodernist view-point. The circle in this case represents not only the heavenly orb, or the holistic approach to these different viewpoints, but also the circular journey of the soul, the movement from the source of all life when one is conceived and returning to it when one dies. It is also in this case that the ideas of past-lives, and reincarnation is also an idea common in Hinduism, Eastern Asian religions and Buddhism. The idea of all these things being past lives is more represented in this time period than any other.

So in some cases, all the different interpretations could be true, it merely depends on which particular time period viewpoint you wish to choose.

The movie is a act of pure brilliance, a true masterpiece in disguise to the sheep who walk the earth. Simply one of the greatest films ever made.

thank you Aronofsky

Robert,
I was just WAAAITTTING (!!) for someone to share my vantage point! Your explanation was almost precisely congruent with mine!

The Fountain? Spectacular! One for the books!

Simply put best by Kubrick years ago.

"I would not think of quarreling with your interpretation nor offering any other, as I have found it always the best policy to allow the film to speak for itself."

This video from Toronto has a Q & A with the Director and has good info, about his thoughts on the film.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Aronofsky-And-Weisz-Explain-The-Fountain-3394.html

He mentions a fascination with the Mayan Culture.

Other fun stuff one must consider. From IMDB trivia.

Tom's last name is Creo which is Latin for "I create." Creo also means "I believe" in Spanish

Izzi's full name (Izzy Creo) is quite a close phonetic translation for Spanish "And yes, I do believe" (Y sí, creo). At the very last scene, Tommy wipes the snow away and Izzi's name is shown on her grave.

Wikipedia Has a good page as a starting point for anyone who want to know more about the story and meaning of the flim.

Here is a big slice of it I recommend you check out the real page so you can verify the footnotes and comments that the Director has made, which will only help you understand his vision more.

Some of the page has some fun BS like this blog. However facts from the director with proven footnotes have not been mentioned, in this blog. The video and Wikipedia is a good start before deciding what the journey is for you.

The Fountain begins with a paraphrase of Genesis 3:24, the Biblical passage that reflects the fall of man. Hugh Jackman emphasizes the importance of the fall in the film: "The moment Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge, or good and evil, humans started to experience life as we all experience it now, which is life and death, poor and wealthy, pain and pleasure, good and evil. We live in a world of duality. Husband, wife, we relate everything. And much of our lives are spent not wanting to die, be poor, experience pain. It's what the movie's about."[24] Darren Aronofsky had also interpreted the story of Genesis as the definition of mortality for humanity. He inquired of the fall, "If they had drank from the tree of life [instead of the tree of knowledge] what would have separated them from their maker? So what makes us human is actually death. It's what makes us special."[36]


A gold-hued scene in which Tom (Jackman) faces a hallucination of Isabel (Weisz) beside the Tree of Life
The theme of thanatophobia is described by Aronofsky as a "movement from darkness into light, from black to white", tracing the journey of a man scared of death and moving toward it.[37] The theme is highlighted by Aronofsky's use of visual language, such as shooting Jackman's characters in shadows until the story's light-saturated conclusion, while Weisz's characters are awash with light in each period.[38] Along these lines, Aronofsky made use of the color of gold, as gold was the sought-after treasure of the conquistadors. "When you see gold, it represents materialism and wealth and all these things that distract us from the true journey that we’re on," Aronofsky said.[37] The director also used similar geometric constructs in the film to distinguish the three chronological narratives. The 16th century conquistador's tale reflected triangles through pyramids and constellations, the 21st century researcher's period reflected rectangles through doors, windows, and computer screens, and the 26th century contemplative's journey reflected circles and spheres through the spacecraft and stellar bodies.[39]

Darren Aronofsky emphasized that the narratives in their time periods and their respective convergences were open to interpretation. The director maintained that the film's intricacy and underlying message is "very much like a Rubik's cube, where you can solve it in several different ways, but ultimately there's only one solution at the end".[40] Critics have observed recurring, mythological references to themes of enlightenment, redemption, the Hindu concept of cycle of birth and death and moksha, the Biblical Tree of Life,[41] the Buddha,[41] and the world-tree Yggdrasil.[42] In the same vein, Jackman views the story as a modern myth that helps people to understand the meaning of life, explains the unexplainable, and fosters understanding. "These fables may not make scientific sense, but somehow they explain the world to us," said Jackman.[43] Aronofsky later explained the film has an atheist meaning. "It's about this endless cycle of energy and matter, tracing back to the Big Bang", he said. "We're all just borrowing this matter and energy for a little bit, until it goes back into everything else, and that connects us all."[44]
Journalists Victoria Alexander and Robert Butler theorise that Tommy Creo's storyline is a grief-induced hallucination[45] caused by ingesting the bark of the tree.[46] Brian Orndorf describes the visual artifacts of Creo's struggle as "the mental breakdown of a man who is looking for hope in all the wrong places."[47] Strictly fact-based analyses offer the film's central ("real") essence as "the final three days of... two people very believably and relatably in love,",[41] suggesting its abstract and futuristic elements to be non-literal representations akin to "astral projection"[48] or "the psychology of survivor's guilt."[49] A subset of reviewers (Anderson, Brussat) take the Tom-present, Tom-future and Izzy-tree comparisons more directly, asserting that Creo's wife has transformed into[50] or become part of the tree[51], to which Dana Stevens adds "Tommy Creo, the present-day husband and scientist, should never have climbed into that bubble in a centuries-long attempt to defer his wife's death."[52] More middle-of-the-road interpretations posit the notion of three distinct storylines to be "sort of true and yet not true",[41] introducing an in-between possibility wherein the narratives might exist on multiple levels.

All ideas are right. However knowing facts from the director, and producer, that do exist are curial to research before you let your mind fill in the gaps.


The director also mentions watching the Matirx and thinking about making a sci fi story.

Who know the real answers no one. Its a flim and flims can be fun crazy etc... Enjoy. However further research from actually quotes from those who worked on the movie will help you in your quest to find your own meaning.


Right on to everyone and however you let the film speak to you.

Cheers

In regards to the statement in this article about Aronofsky's religion, he is is Jewish. He is not very observant, but his Jewish background shows through in all his movies... it's much more obvious in Pi and Requiem for a Dream. People write about what they know.

With regards to this movie, there are, of course, dozens of ways of interpreting it ranging from entirely 'real', to entirely 'not real', from very religious, to atheist. The interpretations serve greatly to determine the beliefs of the person interpreting it.

Personally, I could read this entirely into traditional Jewish beliefs and all three time periods being real and reincarnations... in Judaism, there is a concept of being reincarnated a maximum of three times. The flashbacks are what happened or what he should have done... but under this interpretation, it's told in the future scene with the rest being flashbacks to what happened or what should have happened and as the mind goes, different things interrupt and the protagonist flows from one thought to the next. He only gets it right at the end... perhaps the future time is an afterlife sort of place... perhaps it is in his mind or not connected to any physical reality, i.e. just his soul working things out... a process of seeing his prior two lives and what he did, and what he should have done... feeling regret at what he did wrong, seeing how it should have gone, and seeing that even though he did something wrong, he is thankful for feeling close to the source of creation, and this keeps repeating in a never ending and accelerating cycle.

However, in another sense... none of the worlds are 'real'. They are all just places where his soul was placed to be tested. He failed the first time, he failed the second time... or did he?

Or further... who says time is real? All these things ARE happening concurrently. The 'future' scenes are what's going on in his soul (or sub-conscious if you prefer). The 'past' and 'present' are when his soul was placed into the confines of time and how it did in each place and how he acted 'concurrently', only arriving at the solution for his soul based on what he learned in each itterance.

....or perhaps it's just in the present and the past is just another way of looking at the same concepts to help us understand why people are acting the way they are... it's hard to understand his feelings in the present sometimes, but when you compare it to the guy in the past in a variation on the same feelings, it's boiled down to be more simple so we can more easily understand. However, I still hold the future is not 'in this world'.

At first glance, I can see how a person would think the movie is stupid. It's not well developed, but what is developed is developed in triple in all of 1.5 hrs... there needs to be time connecting the times and a conclusion, so you're left with what? Maybe 22 minutes for the plot to develop? Thus, it has to be fairly simple ... but when you realize it's about human emotions which transcend through time and putting that in a physical medium... not bad at all. He's dealing with very abstract concepts. If you choose to only see the physical, that says something about you and not the director.

As with Requiem for a Dream and Pi, he's very innovative, but you have to have a mind trained to understand what he's showing you. He'll never be main stream because, respectfully, the masses will never get it and those who do aren't usually the type of people to watch movies.

In regards to the statement in this article about Aronofsky's religion, he is is Jewish. He is not very observant, but his Jewish background shows through in all his movies... it's much more obvious in Pi and Requiem for a Dream. People write about what they know.

With regards to this movie, there are, of course, dozens of ways of interpreting it ranging from entirely 'real', to entirely 'not real', from very religious, to atheist. The interpretations serve greatly to determine the beliefs of the person interpreting it.

Personally, I could read this entirely into traditional Jewish beliefs and all three time periods being real and reincarnations... in Judaism, there is a concept of being reincarnated a maximum of three times. The flashbacks are what happened or what he should have done... but under this interpretation, it's told in the future scene with the rest being flashbacks to what happened or what should have happened and as the mind goes, different things interrupt and the protagonist flows from one thought to the next. He only gets it right at the end... perhaps the future time is an afterlife sort of place... perhaps it is in his mind or not connected to any physical reality, i.e. just his soul working things out... a process of seeing his prior two lives and what he did, and what he should have done... feeling regret at what he did wrong, seeing how it should have gone, and seeing that even though he did something wrong, he is thankful for feeling close to the source of creation, and this keeps repeating in a never ending and accelerating cycle.

However, in another sense... none of the worlds are 'real'. They are all just places where his soul was placed to be tested. He failed the first time, he failed the second time... or did he?

Or further... who says time is real? All these things ARE happening concurrently. The 'future' scenes are what's going on in his soul (or sub-conscious if you prefer). The 'past' and 'present' are when his soul was placed into the confines of time and how it did in each place and how he acted 'concurrently', only arriving at the solution for his soul based on what he learned in each itterance.

....or perhaps it's just in the present and the past is just another way of looking at the same concepts to help us understand why people are acting the way they are... it's hard to understand his feelings in the present sometimes, but when you compare it to the guy in the past in a variation on the same feelings, it's boiled down to be more simple so we can more easily understand. However, I still hold the future is not 'in this world'.

At first glance, I can see how a person would think the movie is stupid. It's not well developed, but what is developed is developed in triple in all of 1.5 hrs... there needs to be time connecting the times and a conclusion, so you're left with what? Maybe 22 minutes for the plot to develop? Thus, it has to be fairly simple ... but when you realize it's about human emotions which transcend through time and putting that in a physical medium... not bad at all. He's dealing with very abstract concepts. If you choose to only see the physical, that says something about you and not the director.

As with Requiem for a Dream and Pi, he's very innovative, but you have to have a mind trained to understand what he's showing you. He'll never be main stream because, respectfully, the masses will never get it and those who do aren't usually the type of people to watch movies.

Great page guys.

Watched this film with my sister and her partner and afterwards we all spent about an hour talking about our ideas of what had just happened.

Really loved this film as did my fellow viewers, I am deinitely going to see it again.

Glad to see it has sparked as much debate as i thought it would.

Any Donnie Darko fans on here by any chance?

Bill.

something to confuse or maybe explain things better :

13.0.0.0.0 the last day of the mayan calander, also known to some as the day of the end of the world...december 12th, 2012 in the gregorian calender...

perhaps the present in the movie is actually 5 years in the future here...with december 12th being the day izzy dies. this would coincide with her referring to the first snowfall of the year as she asks tom to go on a walk a few days or weeks before her own death...

I loved this movie, so trippy and beautiful!
In mayan belief, the sacred tree is a metaphor for the milky way galaxy...it fits well with tom's journey through space to xibalba

The present is real, although in the context of a series of flashbacks that come to him at the end of his life.

The past is Izzy's book. Everything past the point where the high priest stabs the conquistador is his version of Chapter 12. (He may have written it, or he may be writing it in his mind years later - as he lies dying.) Of course the story is a metaphor for the reality of the present. The final chapter is his interpretation of his fruitless quest for eternal life.

The future is Tom dying. You can look at it as his soul ascending to "heaven" or his consciousness tying some major loose ends before his light goes out. Everything we see is a metaphor. The bubble, the tree, the nebula: imagery. He is not a space traveler. (Please.) The tattooed rings on his arms show how many years he endured after her death. I haven't counted, but there are probably 40-50 rings there, putting him somewhere around 80 or 90. (He has thus not conquered death with his research.) Whether he actually inked himself every year after she died or the ink is imagery isn't really relevant. (The fact that he tattoos himself inside the bubble suggests that the rings aren't real.) The wedding band tattoo probably is real, however.

In the final moments of his life, he relives his last days with her and the heartache of losing her. At the very end of the movie, he finally lets go of his pain and regret and embraces death. That's when he leaps out of the bubble and floats up into the nebula solo, all enlightened.

Remember that moments before he leaps out into his little single-serving karma bubble, Izzy comes to him as both herself and the queen and tells him he will be with her in death. This is what allows him to finally accept and embrace death.

The tree inside the bubble represents a number of things. Izzy, her life, his own life, hope, his love, his will to live, his own strength, and probably a few other things as well.

He also allows himself to relive his last days with her as he should have - spending what little time he had with her instead of chasing after a cure that would not come in time.

It's definitely a pretty mysterious and cerebral movie. I just watched it and I liked it a lot. It's nice to finally see a movie that makes you use your brain for a change.

I've just seen the film for the first time. On cable. I loved Pi and Requiem for a Dream so much that the reviews for The Fountain gave me pause. I didn't want to risk leaving the theater disappointed with Aronofsky.

Other than a small story in Wired magazine about the guys who did the nebulae effects and a few short reviews, I purposely avoided all press, publicity, and other writing about this film. I gathered enough to know that I needed to see it fresh and without preconception.

So...

I'm not the biggest fan of jazz in the world, but I worked at a club here in NYC for a couple of years where I saw hundreds of shows - many of them the most avant-garde, experimental, improvised, or otherwise out-there (or simply "out" as they say), music that it is possible to see in public.

Watching that kind of music being performed is like watching a sculptor sculpt or a painter paint. You witness all of the underpinnings, the color choices, the chips and hacks, the flourishes and very often, the mistakes as well.

I sat staring into space after finishing The Fountain, trying to process what I had just seen. The feeling I had was akin to the feeling I had after one of the aforementioned performances - like I had just witnessed the creation of Art (capital letter intended). I had an impression in my head - a favorable one - that dealt with big topics like love, futility, and the nature of the sexes...

I would very much like to say that The Fountain was among the great works of the avant-garde and that it's a masterpiece in the medium of film.

But that would be a bit too generous.

For me, the film succeeds on many many levels. But it fails in a few key ways:
a) the fact that despite having seen the same film, we all have different interpretations of the sequence of events and the separation of the real versus the imagined in the characters' world(s).
b) despite those differing opinions and speculations, several things are understood by most of us as being intended by the writer/director - ie. that the tale of the Conquistador & the Queen is a visual retelling of Izzie's book - but there are equally plausible explanations to the contrary
c) the elements of the film of which there is no consensus are, if we are to take the film at face value, THE most important keys to deciphering the story.

If this film were to be truly among the very greatest - D.A. needed, in my opinion, to be a bit more diligent in the planting of clues to properly frame the final 10 minutes in the minds of the viewers. Not in a "wrap it up with a bow on top" kind of way - but enough, at least, for the simplest "facts" of the movie to be clear.

I say this because I have seen great films that are just as oblique - but are slightly less opaque. Such movies leave the viewer with profound feelings of discovery and empathy - that the characters portrayed are, ultimately, part of themselves. And while the viewer may leave the theater with questions, the director has truly given them the tools to form answers.

That said, this is a 4.9-star film in a sea of 2-star schlock. Despite the missing details, this film spoke to me in the same way that some of those jazz performances spoke - obliquely, impressionistically - with a voice loud enough to be heard, but in a language just south of proper English.

I agree and disagree in varying degrees with every single post on this page.

What I do know - or, at least, what I think Aronofsky gave me enough to know - is, simply, this:

For entry into the eternal, Obsessive Love/Nobility/The Tree of Knowledge - as personified by Hugh Jackman's various characters must be balanced by True Love/Bliss/The Tree of Life - as personified by Rachel Weisz' characters. All the rest is, as the Inquisitor said, just the skin and blood of our own personal prisons

yrs,
dave

C'mon people this really isn't all that hard to comprehend.

1. Enjoy life as it is. Take a walk with your girlfriend on the first snow instead of working late because someday you'll regret if you don't.
2. Eternal life is the cycle of nature. Corpses becoming flowers, bushes or trees.
3. The quest for other kind of immortality is futile. This is quite a naturalistic view, I might add.

The movie makes use of what they call "symbols", maybe this is why all you Terminator fans out there don't get it.

Cheers,
Andrei, Romania

I don't want to push my opinions on this. I simply want to suggest that maybe in order to try to understand what was meant by this film, it would also help to actually read and understand the various themes and ideas located in the mayan myths that are so important to Izzi and so central to it's message. If you do want to read about it, (I'm currently writing a research paper about the mayan and medieval christian views on death for class, so I've been really looking into this) I suggest you find a copy of the Mayan text 'Popul Vuh'...and maybe a copy that has a good introduction that explores it's themes and symbolism in more reader friendly terms. Just a suggestion-I found it really helpful. I already thought a lot about this when I first saw the movie, but watching it after learning all of this background knowledge really gave me a new perspective on it.

Up until the last comment I hadn't heard much talk of the obvious SPIRITUAL aspect of the movie, and given the directors previous movies, and a rumor he is a devoted christian...we can't think of even talking about the "futuristic" dream scenes or the "tree of eternal life" without using the word SPIRITUAL. Obvious strong buddhist symbolism and message, anyone who wants to truly understand the symbolism in the movie must research buddhism and the christian "eden" allagory. That being said let us not ignore the yin and yang message, the dualities, the conflict. there is a message of numbers as well. 1 he is ALONE, just him all by himself. 2 he is in love when there are two of them. 3 there are 3 realities , 3 dimensions, 3 versions of each of them, 3 moments in time: past , present, and future. and If we consider time travel as even being a possibility then there are two rules: everything that is going to happen in time travel HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. all timelines occur simultaneous, and a change in the beginning, is the change in the end. There is also a hint of them being like adam and eve or even being them, hence Tom is referred to as "the first father" who would be adam, but I dont see much more supporting symbolism than that, it was a mere casual refrence. the thing to keep in mind when deciphering this work is that it is NOT a clear cut and dry true-or false paradigm. This is not a "MOVIE" in the traditional sense but , yes a work of ART. I am an artist and a good analogy to consider is this, when making art the artist may get a hint of a feeling or an emotion that calls for him/her to make a slight rendering of somthing, a light brush stroke in one corner of a painting or just a hint of a certain colour...so many things in this movie being a work of art, its apperent the directors imagination was being literal and producing things strongly related to THEE story but also made hints and gestures at things that didnt necessarily have to be there for any reson at all.
It is a failure as a movie to me, in the traditional sense, but that is because people see movies for entertainment not to study or research or see a visual representation of a religous collage thrown together to trigger emotions...thats art and as ART I LOVE IT. so I would never reccomend it to someone as a MOVIE, but if they have 90 min of time to dedicate to a book or art or meditation they might as well use this movie in lieu of that. I think it is absolutley necassary to trace the work of art back to its source to get the full meaning and see the "big picture". There is a Novel and obviously that is the key, understanding the author of that novel and his influences might help as well. From earlier posts I gather the novel depicts a detailed and complex literal story involving time-travel and such, I believe that to be an easy way of seeing the story . I also believe the director felt it either hard to portray it exactly like the book or too far fetched for some audiences to grasp the far out plot of the book containing reincarnation,time travel and the future of space travel.
I believe he filmed it in a way that a "REALIST" could convince themselves of a present-day doctor in love story with two peoples imaginations wandering to deal with the tragedy in front of them, that is a completley valid interpertaion of the movie I believe, and when thinking of that view I like to imagine that there was meaning behind Toms visions/fantasies being those of the FUTURE and Izzys being those of the PAST. He as a doctor would look to the future, and her being a ignored woman about to die, would look to the things of the past, the way he used to be ther for her? and all she has before she goes...

A more FAR-OUT/sci-fi lovin person, or math lover or steven hawking reader might delight in the time travel take...that has him in an ALCUBIERRE BUBBLE (look it up) traveling thru space and time.
**and if we do give into this view then we must also accept the past as reality as well..im pretty sure, it seems there are clues that point to either BOTH being fantasy or all being real moments in time.**

the more ARTSY types will love it for obvious reasons, whether visual stunning cinematics or the poetry of it all, or the ambiguousness of it.

A SPIRITULIST will conceive ther own feelings of nirvana or purgatory or whatever religious archetype they want to derive from it, hell I thought there might be a hint at the greek myth of Narcissuss at the end, his goal was in vain ya know.

There is definatley wisdom to be taken from its message and its open endedness leaves room for more than just the commonly interperated moral of "enjoy life while its here" "you only get one shot" or "loved ones are more important" or "death is the road to awe", "you become one with the universe when you die", Let it go, these are all valid understandings of the films moral-of-the-story.

Yet I also see it from the view of an artist in hollywood trying to make a point perhaps, with the movie itself, being a mixture of religious themes, and being something that is open to interpretation, it is like LIFE in a way, and we all can derive our own understanding of the "bigger picture" we can be mad that it is not clear, we can argue, or we can talk about it and try to find the harmony of the different views, the common ground between all different views. since each one of us experiences life differently and only sees a slice of the the pi (he he).

perhaps I've turned a man who threw a bunch of random crap together on a screen into a saint lol, as we all try to find a meaning in nothing lol.
seriously though I would consider that "random crap" theory if there wasnt a novel written by a different author before hand, and that being the case THAT IS THEE REAL story, so maybe this is a calling for all of us to turn off the tv and go read a damn book.

I would like to know what the directors take is, what the actors thought, what the screenwriters thought and what the original author thought....I wonder if they all differ?

I just saw "The Fountain." Man that's a good movie... It's one of those where you kinda walk away wondering if you liked it, but the more you think about it, the more you come up with reasons you love it. I kept pausing the movie to tell my wife what I thought was going on and she did the same... after it was over I went online to look for some sort of explanation, but didn't really find anything that matched my thoughts... and everyone has a different take, so here's mine. Let me know what you think.



This film mixes the concepts of alternate realities, timelines, reincarnation and the quest of enlightenment with a basic message of, "enjoy the time you have while you have it." The past story is told as a book that the wife is writing, just for us, as the audience to have a way of seeing it. But it did happen, in another time or another reality and she has this story in her head because her and Tom are the same as the “conquistador� and the Queen. As the queen, she mentions the tree of life to be the second tree, with the first being the tree of knowledge which Adam picked the apple from. She also says that she will be his “Eve.� “The Creator� hid the second tree because man had partaken of the forbidden fruit, but with “Tom’s� obsession with finding eternal life so that he may be with his Queen for all eternity, he was able to find it and commit the same sins as Adam. The tree did give him eternal life, but as the punishment for taking the “fruit� or in this case, the sap from the tree, he became part of the soil which rests by the tree of life, so that his soul endures the hell of eternity by his true love, the Queen, who’s soul becomes linked to the tree when he drops her ring into it. The projection we see in the future, is just that, a projection of his soul as the last piece of Earth flies into the Nebula, the only two souls left in the universe. So eternal life isn’t that great after all? The eternal life granted to him by the tree of life became his prison, where his soul was doomed for all eternity to watch over and over as the soul of his Queen fades every time an incarnation of Izzy dies... or until one of his reincarnations or realities finally embraces death and seeks to value his time alive and the time he has with the woman he loves, rather than missing life and missing out on his true love because of his obsession with living forever. And every time he fails in one reality, he has to watch her die again… the pain causes him to mark his body on Earth, as is the case with the tattoo on his finger, but in his eternal suffering, he gets a ring tattooed onto his soul ever time as a symbol of his pain and suffering. In the reality where he has the choice to go with her to enjoy a walk together in the snow or go to surgery to try to continue to find the cure for death, he chooses to walk with her. When this happens, his soul is finally released into the Nebula, which is his Heaven or eternal enlightenment. At this point, his Soul and that of his Queen’s are the last in the Universe… He loses her one more time, but he will see her again when he enters the Nebula... she told him she would be there remember? After all this suffering through all eternity, the right path was shown to him... I say shown because we see that he has the choice again to go into surgery or follow his wife... but when he looks to the halls of the building, to the surgery room, it is all darkness, but he looks at his wife and he sees a bright light... that is the way to go. He goes down the right path finally, as his soul is reaching the Nebula... with this enlightenment, he becomes Buddha... and for all other realities, he will be known as the Buddha of Eternal Suffering.

My original opinion on watching the movie was that

A. I didn't care if the story made sense or what "really happened" and all I really cared about was the emotion and feelings the movie brought up and the beautiful images displayed.

B. If I was going to make an interpretation of it I though the present was the story of a scientist that found the tree of life and was trying to use it to cure his wife with brain cancer. The past was in Izzi's book which she wrote as a metaphor for her husband(she being queen isabella(izzy), him being the conquistador trying to use the tree of life to live forever with her) And that the future was just a unique and modern film and artistic device, simply serving as a metaphor for the story of what was happening in the present.

Having read some of the comments in this talkback, I've come to another possible conclusion that I like more maybe?

The character's remain the same and real throughout the time periods, and the whole thing "really happens" with the same people.

The conquistador is sent by Isabella(izzy) to find the tree of life, he does find it and brings it back and they live together for centuries, Isabella develops brain cancer and Thomas tries to use the tree of life to save her, working on a mixture which will stop brain tumors. He tries his first mixture and it heals the monkey but doesn't stop the tumor, soon later, a mixture is developed which does stop the brain tumor. But it's too late, Isabella has died. Thomas takes a seed from the tree of life and plants it over Isabella's grave. Isabella grows into the tree of life and after hundreds of years, Thom has a way to go with her towards Xibalba. The tree dies before reaching Xlbalba, and Thomas realises that Izzi was right all along, and that he must accept death. He travels back in time and IS the first father(time travel stuff is cyclical) and plants the tree of lifecreating life on earth. He also returns to just before Izzy died to live stay by her side(another dimension, not reallycyclical time travel)

so those are my two interpretations at the moment.

I havent taken the time to read all the comments, so I may be only repeating someone elses interpretation, but I think the movie is set in the future, not the past or present.

I think that both the present and the past are all snippets of his memory - that the whole movie feels like a flashback, and he keeps waking up at different moments. He keeps seeing the nebulae in the present, when he looks up at the sky, even in his office. The only place where the most sense is made seems to be in the future, albeit he is having strange visions of his past wife and his imaginary queen wife.

in the future, he has discovered the eternal life, and we dont care how that has affected the world, or how the heck he got that tree in that bubble (by now we should assume if there was a logical "tree of life" and it was discovered, then the human race would have all discovered eternal life, not just him). we just know that he has exhausted all his options on earth, and has decided to go to the Nebulae to test his rebirth theory.

I havent, like I said, spent enough time really analyzing this move, but I think it is a work of art and has some teriffic acting. Highly Reccommend!!