A Review of "The Fountain" as Published on Rotten Tomatoes

[Written as a reply to a post by user Cosmicdrip in the thread entitled "Critical Failure" which points out many aspects of the movie ignored by critics who wrote the movie off with ease]

Cosmicdrip, I can honestly say that at a few English majors must agree with you whole-heartedly, including myself. After spending two semesters steeping in an intellectual brew of Jungian archetypal studies, Joseph Campbell's theories on the heroic/mythological journey, and mandalic balance of the universe, my friends and I walked out of the theater breathless in awe of the artistic mastery of each of those three elements. If you - or anyone else reading this comment - are not familiar with any of them, I highly suggest some light Wikipedia research at the very least.

Not only did The Fountain make viewers question their expectations of mainstream cinema, but anyone paying attention had whirring spats with themselves regarding the ethics of animal-testing, of pharmaceutical risks, and of pursuing medical developments with uncontrollable passion, revealing that more than the simple quest for immortality was at stake in each dimension; we just best understand the story in our own context. The characters of 2000 were as human as every viewer, playing an all-too recognizable translation of the archaic (16th century) and idealistic (26th century) metaphors. Though we can understand the other two contexts, the story within our own world acted as an explosive catalyst of depth. The Conquistador's journey played to the images of our human past; with a basic knowledge of history, we understand the "Glory, God, and Gold" theory of early exploration and imperialism, but because we as a species have designed patterns for our heroes to triumph or fail (demonstrated by Jung and Campbell), the story became slightly more real. The story of the Last Father/First Father (or the "Astronaut" as he's more popularly referenced) is the survivor of whatever futuristic Ragnarok has brutalized he and his beloved, an essential element in the rebirth of the universe (how Hindu of the writer...), and an immutable partner in the birth of a new creation. Without history or a few classes in mythology (not just Bulfinch, either), these two stories mean little to nothing. Hence why the reviewers seem to be completely clueless as to what really happened in the movie. Put these stories next to the one in the year 2000 and spend a few moments making connections, and the other two start making sense. YES love was the most obvious element Jackman sought in his various roles, but so much depended on his fight for it, his success or failure, and his actions afterwards. It's a lesson in relativity and in the mutability of what we value.

Getting back to that tree, though; to borrow the words of a wise professor, "What else could she have been?" Trees have been and will always be symbols of the female (ever wonder why the Ent-Wives' disappearance was so utterly disruptive to the forests of Isengard? Okay, no more Tolkien, I promise). Consider the ancient cosmology the movie presents within that context: the tree of life sprang forth from the navel of the first father. SHE was life, HE supported it. The World Navel, the Tree of Life, and the Union both - the yin-yang, the mandalic harmony, whatever you want to call it - make the story archetypally real. The theory boils down to the following statement: without the opposite gender, neither female nor male would survive, prosper, love, or exist (I state that in terms of elemental gender relations, not blindly purporting sexual preferences). Her tree could not exist without him. He could not exist without his tree. They HAVE to die together, but the HAVE to be reborn together. They support all balance in the universe. I really wish that life were that simple.

Two short comments and then I'll rest my pen for the evening. First, I find it sad that I find the need to qualify my statements to squeak around sentiments that I don't know truly exist. I've made the effort not to offend, only to inform. Second, I truly wish lessons like this were taught in grade school. World Religion/Mythology is too important an element in our culture to ignore it as a subject. I believe that with a bit more knowledge and less presumption that the film industry will always make movies for the critics assume they have it figured out, those who lambaste this film would have a better foundation from which to point out its true flaws and weaknesses. If I hear one more person rail about it only because they didn't understand it, I'll remind them that Hollywood isn't didactic, it's reflective.