Finish it .....

... OK ?

The Fountain

The Fountain was directed by Darren Aronofsky and released in 2006. It is a complex movie, following three different storylines that are interwoven with one another. Throughout the course of the film, we learn the story of a conquistador in the 16th century who travels to the New World to find the Tree of Life, an oncologist in the present searching for a cure for his wife’s cancer, and an astronaut in the future traveling through space to return life to a dying tree. These stories unfold and intertwine as they move towards a singular goal: overcoming death. The film did not do well during its theatrical run (only earning about half of its budget). Despite this, The Fountain is an excellent film whose soundtrack, visual elements, and storyline come together to create a work of art that surpasses many other, more popular films.

The musical score for The Fountain was composed by Clint Mansell and performed by the Kronos Quartet and the musical performance group Mogwai. Mansell also composed the music for Aronofsky’s previous two films, Pi and Requiem for a Dream, and the Kronos Quartet performed the music for Requiem for a Dream as well. String instruments and electronic elements are the main components of much of the music, and there are no vocals (though the final song, “Together We Will Live Forever,” was intended to be a vocal piece). Because of this, the music tends to stay in the background, but there is a haunting quality to it that does not allow it to get lost behind everything else.

Of the soundtrack, in an article written about the movie, Steve Dollar says, “Rather than come together as an afterthought, which is the case with most films, the score arose as part of the process.” This allowed the music to express the proper mood of certain scenes in the film, and also allows for another level of experiencing the movie. Many of the songs are constructed around a common tune that ties them all together. The basic structure of “The Last Man,” the first song on the soundtrack, is carried through to the other pieces. Much like the story, this song flows through the others and helps to connect the seemingly detached segments of the story. All of the songs collectively build to the second-to-last song, “Death is the Road to Awe.” This song violently explodes at the film’s climax, enhancing and emphasizing the power of the on-screen visuals. Everything is finally drawn together with the final song, “Together We Will Live Forever.” It is relatively simple, compared to the other songs, in that it is performed solely by piano. Nevertheless, it is a powerful song that has a calming effect after the excitement of the final scenes. Overall, the soundtrack is well suited to the film and in some ways even helps to tell the story.

Like any other motion picture, The Fountain relies heavily on what the audience sees. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be much of a motion picture. All but two of the film’s locations were built on a sound stage in Montreal. Because the film takes place in three different time periods over a span of about a thousand years, it was important that each location properly reflected the period during which a particular scene was set to take place.

The 16th century segments of the film take place in two major locations: Spain and the New World (presumably present-day Mexico, because of numerous references to the Mayans). These locations contrast with those of the present-day segments; while the 16th century has a sort of wild and gritty feel, the locations in the present day feel smooth and clean. Much of the present takes place in the oncologist’s lab. The lab is filled with numerous technological devices which, despite the use of warm lighting, give it a feeling of coldness and sterility.

Both the 16th century and the present day make use of locations that feel enclosed and crowded; these are a stunning contrast to the location of the scenes that take place in the 26th century: outer space. The astronaut’s spacecraft is a large, clear sphere; inside of it is a large tree. This ship is traveling through space to reach a distant nebula so the tree can be reborn; the astronaut himself is the last man alive. The film is probably best known for its outer space scenes; however, filming them proved to be a challenge.

Because of the limited budget, Jeremy Dawson and Dan Schrecker, who helped Aronofsky with the visual effects, were unable to use a lot of computer-generated images; as about a third of the film takes place in outer space, this would’ve been difficult to achieve without making the film look dated. Johan Weiland interviewed Jeremy Dawson for his Comic Reel interview.

Darren's fear, and one we agreed with, is that with a lot of CG stuff it places the film at a certain moment in time and makes it very current, but the tools evolve and are changing from day to day, so there's a big difference in the way CG things can look from one year to three years later and he wants this film to stand in its own alley way separate from this. (Weiland)


To combat this, they enlisted the help of Peter Parks, a macro photographer (macro photography involves taking close-up pictures). He was able to create the stunning deep space effects by mixing different combinations of chemicals and microorganisms. In using this process, Dawson said, “We saw beautifully vibrant and active reactions that look remarkably like deep space photography we've seen from NASA [...] it's mostly a random and organic process filled with lots of wonderful accident and no software tricks” (Weiland). As a result, 20,000 feet of film for the special effects was filmed for a relatively low cost of around $140,000.

The space scenes are amazing, but the rest of the film looks gorgeous as well. Gold is used throughout the film to emphasize the search that the characters go through (much as the conquistadors of the 1500s sought gold, among other things, in the New World). All of the sets and scenes form an esthetically pleasing atmosphere that holds the interest of the viewer. In an interview conducted by Steve “Capone” Prokopy, Darren Aronofsky said, “One thing is there’s this whole geometrical thing going through the film.” Each of the three time periods is differentiated by shapes: the 16th century by triangles (used in the pyramids of the New World and constellations), the present day by rectangular forms (doors, windows, and computer screens), and the 26th century by circles and spheres (the spacecraft and stars) (Prokopy).

These elements alone cannot create a good motion picture; without a good story, it would just be a glorified slideshow. The Fountain, however, tells an interesting and complex tale. As was stated earlier, the film follows three people throughout time as they all search to overcome death in order to be with the women they love.

The conquistador, Tomas, is given the mission of seeking out the Tree of Life in the New World while his queen and the territory she holds in Spain are threatened by the Spanish Inquisition. In the present day, the oncologist, Tommy Creo, is researching methods to reverse the growth of brain tumors in monkeys with the hopes of finding a cure for the cancer that threatens his wife, Izzi. The astronaut, Tom, is riding a spherical spaceship towards a distant nebula in the hopes of rejuvenating a tree; during the journey, he is often haunted by hallucinations of Izzi. Each of these storylines are told simultaneously onscreen, and they are all expertly interwoven as they evolve along with one another and come together at the climax. The ending is a surprising one that will hopefully leave viewers with a powerful message about themselves and the world around them.

Along with the theme of overcoming death, the film makes heavy use of numerous spiritual and religious themes and symbols. These include the use of the Mayans’ story of the creation of the world, the Tree of Life from the Bible, Yggdrasil (the World Tree of Norse mythology that stands at the center of the universe), and the Hindu concept of the cycle of life and death. These concepts and symbols are utilized in an interesting and unique way while still being easy to understand to viewers who are not familiar with them. With the extensive use of these themes and symbols, it is difficult to formulate an all-encompassing interpretation of the film. However, in an interview with the Washington Post, Aronofsky stated, “It's 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" (Kolakowski).

In conclusion, there are numerous elements that combine to make The Fountain an immensely enjoyable motion picture. Not many people had a chance to see it during the theatrical run, but it is available on DVD in various formats to be enjoyed in the privacy of one’s home. The movie’s soundtrack, visual elements, and storyline are all expertly crafted, and the result is a film whose theatrical success (or lack thereof) poorly reflects the effort that was put forth to produce an amazing, awe-inspiring motion picture.

Lux Aeterna

Wonderful sound.
'A great melody.'
'The work of Satan.'
So ... different opinions circulating on the violins are so loved.
Small, wooden, perfectly executed.
I dreamed to play on them. Feel the gentle strings under your fingers.
With easy to pass on their strings. I play.
Although the fact that the Lord 'None'.
Bear the imagination. Close devilish pact.
Create. Delight. Intimidate.
I was wonderful to base violin on his shoulder,
placed on the chin,
to touch the strings and ...
enjoy a welcome, so unrealistic, even abstract sound.
I take.
All eternity.

The Devils : A psychological fabric

Dostoevsky with its dense prose introduces us gradually into a story that, according to its style, which is Maraya unravel the psychology of the characters, but it talks about ideas, politics and the revolutionaries. Is sometimes too much caricature, so far as to rub comedy, almost causing a feeling of black humor and grim in the reader. Yet there is no mistake, like other works of this acclaimed and controversial writer, was a tragedy from head to toe.

As I said, true to his style, you crumbles psychology of the characters, which seems to be no average: after all are crazy, timidity, humility repellency or malevolent, the more day. Disfigurement is total, almost theatrical, in order to glorify either maligned or other attributes, or awaken in the reader hatred, pity or bewilderment, Dostoevsky makes it through the narrator's own. And not just in theatrical caricaturization of characters, but also how the plot unfolds, sometimes caught with forceps, wandering the hills of Ubeda in the density at which it referred. However, we should not dismiss it because it is of great literary value.

This drama, tragedy, or rather, psychological, is the underlying idea of the clash of ideologies and the revolutionary intellectuals of the different types of both moderates and radicals, with the desire of ordinary people. Draw a deep separation and lack thereof (ie, intellectual) and from among the people. Slavophiles profuse, is rooted in the tradition as a remedy against the ideas came from abroad.

This happens already to describe all the intellectuals influenced by ideas coming from outside (Europe), and not understand, or even if not never want to do, the Russian people. Although this area is almost theatrical, in superlative exaggeration of characters and positions that each character based, you can also make clear some issues to other situations more plausible, as it were.

The two principal characters on which the plot is resolved Pyotr Stepanovich (Verkhovensky onwards) and Nikolai Vsevolodovich (Stavrogin onwards). Two parallel stories are linked, but that could well have been written separately. There is the political plot, based on a true story that shocked the Dostoyevsky himself, which is responsible Verkhovensky, also based on a real character (Nechayev Sergey), on the other is more psychological fabric of the issue of which the protagonist is Stavrogin.

Verkhovensky is the son of Stepan Trofimovich, and this relationship is presented in the first allegory. Stepan Trofimovich is a cautious liberal, vain and "old" intellectual, poetic and somewhat selfish, bombastic, even whimsical. While your child (which does not fulfill all his life and leaves by some relatives of his deceased wife), is a nihilistic, cynical and manipulative (which does not hesitate to use others for their own ends, looking at the other as useless offal), without any kind of questioning we look disgusting and repellent with a detachment towards the feelings or emotions almost unimaginable to even the coldest of men. This list refers to the familiarity of ideologies, their kinship. As some are misrepresentations of others, stressing certain ideas over others, even about the psychology of the ideologue.

These ideas are taken and taken out, mixed with others, the pleasure of the creator in question, its subjective perception, and then in that medley was born a new way of thinking. For example, Verkhovensky that throughout the novel is caricatured as a mediocre displays his mediocrity in thought, taking as a starting point for some values of the thinking of its parent, for example reads: "Shigaliov is a genius! [...] He has invented the 'equality'! [...] A high level of science and education only to exceptional minds, and it is the most exceptional minds! Exceptional minds have attained power and have always been despotic. [...] In the herd there will necessarily be equal (Behold the doctrine of Shigaliov!). Verkhovensky said in the state of drunkenness.

Ie, becomes owner of the idea of equality and let fly to the point where mediocrity is to be fair: we all have to be poor to be equal. It is the misrepresentation of ideas, is being built as well as ideologies. It also suggests that family relationship to which it referred. Because the debauchery of thought in one direction, the ends are achieved by inertia. In this example, if extols equality to the extreme, just to eliminate the natural differences. Finally comes the radical, in that same conversation uncovers Verkhovensky as a despot. To achieve its purpose, to impose the system was to achieve power and destroy everything before. He says: "proclaimed the destruction. [...] The sea was choppy, and everything will collapse cotarro false. And then we think about how to lift the stone building. "Referring to him and Stavrogin, who wants to use as a" savior "of the people before the debauchery, which he denied or ignored.

That is, the ideologue is a despot in power ever since the idea is ready to do anything. But not even this idea is the idea that pure cree, but is derived from its own personality, its way of being. And everyone who has used the idea fits best according to their personality, it is therefore dissociable ideology as an imaginary character and psychology of one who supports it. Dostoevsky is shown describing the various conspirators, ranging from philanthropists such as the Shigaliov (which concludes that for a hopeless 10% of humanity can live in the remaining 90% equity has to live in a kind of slavery ), or other diverse as humanists Verginski to rascals and envious as irremediable Liputin or Liamshin like clowns, they are slowly enveloped with no possibility of escape in the end given that that is not a game.

It also makes a nod to the furor and innocence of youth, with young students who appeared at the meeting with a desire to grab attention. But especially with Erkel, who makes a late appearance, a poor devil that "the cause" is tangled and accepted without any further order Verkhovensky saw this as a kind of illuminated or elected. It is the exaltation or buenismo, when many young people with the best of ideas, is dragged to sustain without more radical positions. Even manipulated to undertake actions reprehensible. This, though average, is atoned for by the narrator and the majority of the people, by innocence, although not to twist your foot on his promise not to reveal to anyone, even if all they had sung. And all for the cause.

Ultimately, Dostoevsky, through Trofimovich Stepan, shows what is the reality, away from those abstract ideas that underpin much as some others. In his latest adventure or hiking, though undertaken by any one discovers "the true Russian life" (or said similar words), ie the peasantry. Everything takes time in a strange, almost surreal world for the old Stepan Trofimovich. Sofya Matveyevna, a poor wretched portrayed as a poor and humble soul selling gospels, acts as a redemptive or rather confessor. Suddenly, that poor idealist after headlong encounter with reality, and helped the sick delirium, looks forward to seeing what the real Russian spirit. I think this is one of the great lessons of the novel, but not devoid of controversy, however.

To begin with, how is this innocent and humble spirit with which he portrayed the peasantry Dostoevsky most? Then you may actually be the majority, but also recounts unhappy at the poor of the city. For example the case of the factory, which minimizes by saying that only about seventy workmen had gone to protest after the dismissal (of a total of about nine). Of course it would be unfair to say that also portrays the entire class in the same way, because it described as some gentuza.

But I might be mixing two things here, because it seems to separate the class into two: the peasantry and that of the city. Of the city leaving many unfortunates, who are partakers of the misdeeds committed in the festival Iulya Mihailovna. Of course many of the intellectuals to participate in meetings or in the various events are also different from those estates. However, as I said, does not portray them all equally (or the character or intentions, which I will obviously even), and join like-minded but not all stem from the same premises, for example not all come the conclusion or are partakers of socialism for the same reasons, and certainly it can be deduced by making the descriptions of the various characters are actually many philanthropists.

Thus, if one can say that many are in disagreement, and entitled to be, and others in his humility and innocence conform prefer, which of the two positions we should be? Because it seems that this latest adventure of Stepan Trofimovich, by defending his affiliations, Dostoevsky we want to prove that we have learned to respect the people's true personality: his humility, piety and simplicity. He has learned to respect over the intellectual ideas, often detached from the real society. That is, people want to live well, and need not be saved by the intellectual ideas. Yet this is contradicted by certain events, such as the factory. You can not deny that there are some social problems, and perhaps if the farmers want to change things (at least some).

Certainly things have changed a lot, and the circumstances are different, but I believe that many conclusions can be drawn however. Perhaps wanting to see different characters in different societies is wanting to see too. It is true that cultures and even biological differences may further enhance a personality type or another, but the differences between humans, in essence, is minimal. Therefore it can be assumed that all societies tend to follow suit. And Russia itself could be a good example, so that after Dostoevsky would happen, that ignoring the plight of the people, based on his humility, not a good long-term strategy to anyone. Yet another conclusion can be drawn, is that intellectuals, ideologues, and even idealistic, often exceeding their zeal, even when it comes buenistas positions are able to ignore the social reality to which they intend to save at all costs, even beyond it. This is as applicable today as it was yesterday or will be tomorrow.

Although in reality this is not the conclusion that Dostoevsky wants to go, if one can be drawn from his account. But the real conclusion and had lied to the last: the ugly at the expense of all that is satisfied, ignoring its own personality, carrying out the idea despotically if necessary. That is the character of Verkhovensky: destroy everything that you want to rebuild again as your idea, and use any method to achieve this. And even thought he is in possession of the truth, which is unique among all the riffraff that can understand, the only man who "knows what is the first step and how it" (her words). One who bolted for his supreme idea is capable of carrying it out, even ignoring the fact that even cree know everything when in fact all ignored.

In return for this despicable being, who is being awakened from his dream, has to find the truth. This character is embodied by the romantic and tormented Ivan Shatov. Which calls all ignorant at one point early in the novel, I said that Russia did not really know, either. And so far bears his thought, despite not believing in God, believe in him. Because it recognized the religiosity of the Russian people, and therefore must embrace the tradition of it. This same conclusion is reached that the final Stepan Trofimovich (I am not talking exclusively about God, which could be something else, but to accept the Russian). It is the other extreme, that despite not believe it, just convincing to believe it, because it should be.

Although Dostoevsky clearly takes sides with one of the two extremes, no doubt convinced of seeing reality as it is. But maybe you do not really so, but to take sides with the weaker (represented here by the peasantry) and humble. While it is certainly noble, we must not forget that this is not the complete reality. And therefore we must not ignore then nonconforming parts, because if you can not end up inadvertently helping to shift the Verkhovensky, reaches its silly purposes.

So far the discussion of the politics of the novel, then the psychological fabric.