The Fountain (2006)

Hoo boy, Darren Aronofsky. When he's not directing straightforward downers like Requiem for a Dream, he's spinning dark mind screws like Pi and Black Swan. My favorite work of his is The Wrestler, more for Mickey Rourke's performance than anything else. Throw in TF's box office failure and a considerable discrepancy between its ratings on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, and I had a real gamble on my hands. But Aronofsky didn't regret taking chances, so it didn't seem wrong for me to do the same. Besides, I tend to like love stories better with sci-fi/fantasy elements.

Netflix describes the story as taking place over a millennium, but there are only three times with which we need concern ourselves, all distinct enough not to disorient us much with the many jump cuts. Probably the most screen time is spent in the present, when surgeon Tom (Hugh Jackman) strives to find a cure for cancer before his wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz) dies of it. Izzi has been writing a story set primarily in the 16th century, in which Queen Isabella (Weisz again) assigns conquistador Tomás (Jackman again) to find the Tree of Life guarded by Mayans. The other segments show an enhanced Tom, now "Tommy," in the future, staying by the Tree of Life while flying to a nebula that Izzi had identified as Xibalba.

You may ask where the title comes in. It doesn't really; they replaced the Fountain of Youth with a more global sort of myth. I guess it's commercially an improvement on the working title of The Last Man, accurate as that may be for the future scenes, but why not choose The Tree of Life? The 2011 Best Picture nominee was still five years away.

Things get off to a confusing start. By the middle, I felt like I mostly understood, but the end left me scratching my head more than the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which partly inspired this film. Apparently, there are at least two camps of viewers, one of which sees all three parts as "true." That meshes with what Aronofsky himself has said. But I took more comfort in seeing only the present that way, because even if you accept completely magical premises, it's hard to figure out how the gestalt story could work. Even supplementary reading hasn't answered all my questions.

Aronofsky also cites The Matrix as an influence. I had another Wachowski pic in mind: Cloud Atlas. Not only does it connect events in very different eras, but it has some over-the-top characters (not least the inquisitor who plans to assassinate Isabella for her wish to harness what God hid from Adam and Eve) and a strong focus on visuals and symbolism. Don't get me wrong; there's much less of a budget in play. Aronofsky even avoided CGI for the sake of "timelessness." Only the Age of Exploration scenes have any violence. Tinting remains highly selective.

I can't say much for the soundtrack. For the most part, it struck me as the same minor-key drone almost from start to finish. There are better ways to tie the pieces together.

OK, so what if I put aside the bizarre artistry and focus on the serious present story? Well, we know only so much about Tom and Izzi's history, but at least it's interesting to see the contrast between them. Izzi is so playful and childlike that I could almost mistake her for Tom's daughter. Tom rarely makes time for anything that doesn't promise to help her recover, an oversight that his supervisor (Ellen Burstyn) points out. In his obsession, he becomes a jerk to everyone other than Izzi, dismissing any medical miracle that doesn't cure cancer, but his associates generally tolerate him out of sympathy. Izzi wishes he'd find peace with the idea of death as she does, leading to preachiness.

I now understand why some viewers love TF and some find it a mess. Both sides have a point. It can get you thinking and feeling strongly, but only if you happen to connect. Me, I'd rather rewatch Pi, but I haven't written off the possibility of seeing more Aronofsky in the future, by which I don't mean 500 years from now.