I enjoyed “The Fountain” because I went to see it in the theater with my Aunt Boots. She’s a member of the Bahá’í faith and quite a character. She’s one of the few counter-culture type people I know in Iowa. Most everyone else here was manufactured by a factory in 1948. One of the things I shared with her is my fondness for a crazy musician named Stuart Davis. He’s a self described twisted mystic and punk monk, buddhist and part of the Integral Institute; Ken Wilber’s cult-like school of introspective psychology. Boots and I went to see Stuart in concert and had a nice time. He’ll sing a song about finding higher consciousness then another one about having three-way sex. Anyway, the point is a couple months ago Stuart posted a really interesting review of “The Fountain”, link here: http://www.kenwilber.com/scene/show/204 Also he did a ten minute interview with Darren Aronofsky, unfortunately I can’t find that online, but I could send it to you if you’d like to hear it.

So to try and make a point. I thought it was an interesting movie. You make many valid points about it. I think Darren is at least sincere in trying to make a movie that presents difficult concepts in an interesting way. The stuff about death and rebirth. My conclusion is that it’s a good movie to see then discuss afterward with interesting people like Boots, Stuart, and with you Mike. I rented it a few weeks ago and watched it with my parents, and they both enjoyed it with some reservations. If it was longer I think it might be too draining an experience. (I felt bored after “2001″). I hate people who say things like ‘if you didn’t like this movie you didn’t get it, it was over your head’ but I do kind of think “The Fountain” was so rich in symbols and interpretations that some people, the everyday automatons, wouldn’t have much to say afterward. I think strange movies are a good thing, even if they fail to deliver fully. I’ll go check out the Tool video. Thanks for posting your review, I enjoyed reading it.

Don’t worry, I understand.

I’m wanting to listen to the score now, after talking about it so much!

On the other hand, 2001 kicks ass. Even when I’m sober. Evil computer! Psychedelic hyperbaby! Cosmic rectangle of doom!

Pardon my grumpitude. I did enjoy the movie. More than Maggie anyway. Mostly my expectations were probably too high.

Although I would never sit through “The Fountain” for a subsequent viewing under any circumstances. I am so glad that I wasn’t captive in a theater, but saw it on DVD, just over a week ago.

My mental powers are apparently so dull, that I didn’t get anything while watching it. The only reason that I put together as much as I did was because of what I’d already read about the movie before seeing it. What symbolism that I did pick up annoyed me.

The contemporary storyline was the only one that I really could follow, although I didn’t buy it. Mad scientist searching for a last minute cure for cancer, cutting up monkeys–it sounds so much more interesting that it was.

The past sequences were the most interesting to me but also the most frustrating. I really wanted to see more of that part of the story. But in the end, the native priest offers his throat up to a Spaniard in sacrifice–ugh, that didn’t set well with me. The white conqueror turns out to be “The One”?

As for the bald-headed guy and tree parts, I just watched the photography and thought about the time I went to “2001″ after smoking some dope. It didn’t help and I suspect it wouldn’t have helped with “The Fountain”. It’s the kind of movie that potheads used to watch with the sound off and music turned up loud, back in my day.

Maybe the real reason I detested this movie is that it made me feel dumb and dumber, because I was supposed to “get it”, and I never did. But the worst thing about this movie is that it bored me silly. And that is the worst thing any movie (or book) can do, imo.

You missed future!Tom in the past? When the conquistador was facing the guardian of the temple to the Tree of Life, the guardian struck out, and then backed away, because suddenly the conquistador appeared as future!Tom, floating in place, in a meditative position. The guardian says that future!Tom is who this garden belongs to anyway (or something along those lines) and doesn’t kill him. Then future!Tom is back as the conquistador, and the conquistador slays the guardian before entering the garden and the tree of life.

I haven’t seen this since it was released. I plan on picking up the next version of the dvd when it’s released.

Yes, I gathered that the psychedelic space journey is just a manifestation of his internal conflict, not an actual psychedelic space journey. Just like the alt-historical bit with the queen and the conquistador is just a manifestation of Izzi’s interpretation of the struggles both she and Tom are going through. But the question of what exactly comprises Tom’s ending to Izzi’s story, I think, is subject to interpretation. Unless we are to take it that Tom is just not as good a writer as Izzi, and thus his ending is slapdash, disconnected and obvious, and brings in inexplicable elements of Eastern philosophy and baldness.

But wait. When was future!Tom in the past? Or do you just mean that, yes, the spaceship he is riding is obviously composed of that same tree that killed past!Tom, and that thus his journey to Xibalba (complete with Izzi flashbacks) must necessarily be a continuation of both past!Tom and present!Tom’s storylines?

But are you ready for me to blow part of your interpretation out the window?

The space!Tom isn’t actually real-time future. It is present!Tom’s continuation of Izzie’s story. He’s trying to finish her book and deal with his own grief at the same time. The past and the future storylines are all fiction that are written by those in the present.

I hope that makes sense. My make isn’t quite firing this morning. But that’s my and several others’ interpretation. Because you can’t explain the future!Tom’s presence in the past storyline otherwise.