The Fountain (2006) writer/director Darren Aronofsky
As theosophists we are enjoined to study and meditate, in order to widen our knowledge of science and religious / philosophical beliefs and to deepen our understanding of theosophical truths. Whilst doing this, to a greater or lesser extent, I have to admit to also having one eye on the distant horizon, searching for signs that theosophy is being made more accessible. Of course, it doesn’t have to be called theosophy, and the best way is probably to tap into our 21st century desire to be entertained. Thus, when Odo (TV Series Deep Space Nine) emerged from ‘The Collective’ to experience the loneliness of individuality, needing to re-connect periodically with The Collective, millions of Star Trek fans were exposed to one of the fundamental truths of theosophy. We have all emerged from a collective.
The Fountain is enigmatic, and whether it contains theosophical truths is a moot point. There are three timelines: Tomas (Hugh Jackman) a 16th century Spanish conquistador is charged by his Queen (Rachel Weisz) to find the Tree of Life in South America and bring back the secret to immortality. She gives him a ring to remind him of his pledge. In the 21st century, Tommy (Hugh Jackman) is a medical researcher, experimenting with the miraculous properties of bark from a tree in South America, frantically trying to find a miracle cure for his dying wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz). The third strand is not really a timeline, it takes place out of time at the foot of the Tree of Life out in the stars, where the soul of Jackman’s characters appears to re-live experiences from both his incarnations. We are never sure whether this non-location is real or illusory. To complicate matters further, Izzi is writing a book which appears to tell the story of the conquistador and his queen.
The film doesn’t explain anything, and you the viewer are left to make what you will of the juxtaposition of these ideas. Perhaps the 16th century story is nothing more than the ramblings of a dying woman. But one possibility is that of incarnating souls, with an interlude between incarnations, and that is not a bad message to be contained in a mainstream movie. Does the film work as entertainment? Well, it’s low budget, so don’t expect all the bells and whistles of a Hollywood blockbuster, and it’s not helped by the poorly-lit sets which only add to the confusion of the interwoven timelines, but Tommy’s passion for life contrasts nicely with Izzi’s serene acceptance of death. For me, ultimately the film fails. The desire to cheat death in both centuries, the basis for all the dramatic tension between the characters, seems an irrelevance. From the glimpses of the scenes at the Tree of Life we see that immortality is on offer not from a magical elixir, but through the incarnating journey of the pilgrim soul. Or perhaps I am looking for depths that aren’t there; the producer described the movie simply as “A Love Poem to Death”.
If you are a theosophist you might not learn anything from the film, but I hope a few non-theosophists watch it.
Lanoo Harvey