Christopher Nolan Vs. Darren Aronofsky

Yeah, I put it all down to, what I call, "the curse of Jobs."

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Yesterday i watched The Wrestler,and it was bad movie.Only Aronofsky film that i don't like.I like every other a lot(Pi,Fountain,Requiem for a Dream,Black Swan),but everything i liked about those movies is not in Wrestler.Very bad disappointing movie,(but still better than any movie by Nolan)...anyway i think Noah will be epic,even more than Fountain.

Really? I think The Wrestler may be his best movie. It was my favorite of the year.

They're difficult to compare, but Nolan. Aronofsky is a little inconsistent. Though I think Darren is better with characters, Nolan has bigger, more engaging ideas. His directing is also always solid.

Christopher Nolan.

I haven't like a single Aronofsky movie I've seen. Not one. And I see he's got one in pre-production of the story of Noah. Starring Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly. I'll see it for Crowe, but I'll probably dislike it, too.

Nolan, on the other hand, has made a few that I enjoyed:

Memento
The Prestige
The Dark Knight
Inception

and Batman Begins was okay, but not great.

Can't say I'm overly thrilled by the trailers I've seen for The Dark Knight Rises (am I the only one NOT looking forward to this?) and I'm not particularly crazy about the idea of a Superman movie, but I will see Man Of Steel for the cast.

__________________

Really? You know I exist, right?

I think Nolan is great. I love his work. But I also agree with the above. The Fountain is perfection.

__________________
Have you ever held a lion in your arms? I have. He smelled funky.

Well lucky for you I didn't say mortality was suggested symbolically. I said immortality is a symbolic idea.

Unfortunately I think you're making assumptions again. Mortality doesn't have to only deal with short life spans, there's just the whole humanity striving against the memento mori concept. Essentially all versions of Tommy are adamant in making sure that death isn't as much of a sure thing, but it's all done for love. Why is he so sure he can beat death? Love. Does that mean it's possible? Depends how you interpret him reaching Xibalba, and from there you can either react positively or negatively (apparently you chose the latter) as to whether or not he succeeded. I don't really understand your name drops either; Keislowski is Poland's Mr. Abstract and The Hunger is just as stylized as this. If you can read into The Hunger's metamessages about mortality I find it hard to believe The Fountain simply escapes you.


My implication with the archetypal description was to correlate the storytelling to that of a myth or fable, not Transformers. We learn Tom is a biologist and through watching him we learn he's very focused, demanding, stubborn, insanely precarious towards things he fears and thus experimental with his job, and that's all just at work. With Izzy he's very caring, supportive, the stubbornness carries over in a different way in that he is stern with her being safe as if he could help it, man this is easy what are you having trouble with? Izzy is extremely free and accepts her mortality, her only fears were with how overworked Tommy was with his research, she was very interested in history (it's not like she just randomly became interested in Mayan history because the movie started there), but she implies a sort of self-destructive element, or I should say innocent, where she doesn't think about the effects on her. Their characteristics are seemingly star-crossed because Tommy is somewhat structured and cannot deal with Izzy's blithe. Izzy learns that, or believes that life is eternal and allows her to pass on without regret. Tommy's answer is more complicated; his past shows he forgets nature rules over the flesh, his present shows passion towards someone carries through to their supposed after/next life but he doesn't learn how to accept it personally, and his future shows that he, depending on how you interpret it, learns that he cannot live through the love of Izzy but only flourish with the realization of a love that burned bright and after some time will continue forever. You're right this film's a downer.

The clarity and ironic emptiness of thought is the universe around him. Just like the film itself, the journey is the important part, not the dying star above him. Connecting to the past via the meditation forms a conduit wherein the universe's seeming idleness instructs Tommy on his purpose. He becomes connected with what seems like emptiness only to be shown the beauty of what he did not see before. No more abstract than your Keislowski namedrop.

Take your time.

Beautifully put, WT. I had felt during my initial viewing of The Fountain that the film was largely dealing with the subject of attachment or "clinging" in the Buddhist conception of it...

Aronofsky's films apparently tackle obsession in different ways and forms so it makes sense that The Fountain - since it is clearly a deeply spiritual film which employs superficial science fiction trappings - would be exploring another angle on that subject.

In The Fountain, I believe the theme is explored in a relatively more positive light with suggestions that attachment is (or more accurately, can be) ultimately a catalyst or tool for inner growth. That was my general take upon first viewing anyways and after reading your own explication, I'm going to watch it again tonight.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

You know, I never thought of Buddhism but now that you mention it "wu-wei" definitely applies to the future sequences.

I'll be re-watching it shortly. I'm intrigued to read more if you wish to elaborate on that thought. In fact, your perspective seems to pretty well articulate what I'd felt about the film but couldn't quite express.

Thanks.

Translation of wu-wei is "do nothing," a concept of Lao Tzu's where he describes it as a means of flowing with the natural order. It's kind of clever because it can mean "do nothing" in the sense that one does not need to contrive a reaction to something but it also means "not forcing" when one is in action. This can be elaborated on extensively (and is throughout the Tao Te Ching), but I think it's a nice cherry on top to my description of the future state and an answer to Tommy's failures in the past and present states.

Definitely food for thought.

I remember seeing The Fountain in theaters. I really, really hated that movie. Not to sound like a jerk, but all of that spiritual nonsense just reminded me of vegans who do yoga and talk about their chi. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I dislike any type of vacuous, new-agey 'philosophies'.

Requiem for a Dream, Pi, The Wrestler...and The Fountain? Doesn't quite fit, if you ask me.

It's not nonsense or "new-agey" philosophy. Do you also think Buddhism is a "new-agey" philosophy? Do you think examining an aspect of the human condition which compels us to try to "save" what we love is a vacuous endeavor?

Sorry, but the only thing vacuous here is your dismissal of the film. Some films require a bit more effort than staring at a screen. You were obviously not up to the task.

Oh, and if you had bothered to actually read the posts preceding your own and had done so with at least basic comprehension of the points being made, you might have better understood how The Fountain fits in amongst those other films.

But sure, go ahead and babble some more about "new-agey" philosophies. Maybe you'll even call it pretentious. Hell, it must be pretentious. You didn't get it, after all.

By the way, I hope I didn't sound like a jerk but I just loathe cluelessness.

I'm not going to address this entire post, I think WT is doing fine with it. However, there's a couple of things I take issue with.

I can't make you like the characters or their relationship, but I thought the rooftop scene early in the film had more to say about a relationship than most films can say during their entire run times.

There is a science fiction author named Dan Simmons. He wrote a highly acclaimed series of novels that start with the book "Hyperion". In Hyperion, a novel highly inspired by past literature, poetry (John Keats wrote a poem called Hyperion and he plays a large role in the series), and folklore, there is a spaceship called Yggdrasil. Yes, that is the same life tree from Norse mythology that can also be found in Thor. The spaceship Yggdrasil is literally a gigantic tree, bigger than any skyscraper, suspended inside an invisible containment field. One could say it's a tree inside a flippin' bubble. The idea of force fields is as old as science fiction. Putting a tree inside one is also not a new idea.

The novel Hyperion was published in 1989. I suggest you not read it if you find trees flying through space in bubbles ridiculous and/or boring.

I'm pretty sure Aronofsky knows the answer to the tree question, and, IMO, yes, she is the tree.

To the rest of your post, I do think The Fountain is a masterpiece, or very close to one, anyway. The beautiful cinematography alone is worth note, but the ambitious story and technique pushes the film to a level that very few films reach, or even try to reach.

@wintertriangles Yes, there's some digital work in The Fountain, but there's tons of practical effects as well. One of the most impressive, IMO, is the end scene of the plants growing from Tomas' stomach. From the wiki page:

Personally, Prestige, I am impressed when a film takes great measure to remain under budget constraints while telling a broad scope story. The Fountain, IMO, succeeds not only as a beautifully told story, but also as a moderate budget film.

__________________

I liked the Black Swan

Both directors are above average but none have made a movie that completely blew me away. Though I must say I'm impressed with Aronofsky's Black Swan and Nolan's The Dark Knight.

Give me a break. There is nothing complex about The Fountain. At its heart, it's a love story--nothing more. Regardless of how much philosophy you want to cram into it, it's still just that. I can name twenty directors off the top of my head doing more with cinema, where their films don't rely on heavy handed symbolism and cookie cutter characters. There's no denying that WT is a smart guy who 'got it', but if you'll notice, he very easily described the protagonists--they are not complicated, certainly not like a Cassavetes film or a Claire Denis. The big difference is those directors have unusual and oftentimes confusing, difficult characters to understand. There's no great meaning. They dont go into it with the intent on making something philosophical. It just works out that way. Aronofskys The Wrestler relies solely on pragmatism. That's it.

I remember reading a lot of Ray Carney in high school and he made a good point about symbolism. It's grade school stuff. Life doesn't work that way. Aronofsky essentially gives you a decoder ring and boom--you get it. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, I wasn't saying it doesn't fit together in a thematic sense, but in a stylistic one. His gritty work is far superior.