Friday, November 24, 2006

I'm in ur space bubbles, transporting ur symbolism

So, yes. Though the opinion of the group was split, think that The Fountain was an excellent movie. Perhaps a bit heavy-handed at times, but overall the symbolism was actually pretty subtle and beautiful. The fact that the whole thing was done without CGI still impresses me, though I can see how most of it was done. It gave it a very surreal feel to many parts, which is interesting given that it was probably more grounded in real images than it would have been with CGI. I can see how some people would be disappointed with it - it was not as...epic as the trailers made it look, but it's still incredibly artistic. And I think that to not enjoy the beauty and the story to at least some extent would only be possible if one had never known what love is like.

So, today (technically yesterday) was Thxgiving, and after that movie, I'm mostly just thankful that no one I know has brain cancer (knock on wood). There are many other things I'm thankful for, and as for the people I'm thankful for, you know who you are. I'll just leave it at that, because putting it in words always seems to cheapen it somewhat.

This year also marks the second year that Dad has made good use of my vacation insomnia...you know how most people get up really early to make it to all the good deals on Black Friday? Well I just stay up all night and then go out and buy things for cheap. This year, I'm waiting until Office Depot opens up at 6am and going to purchase some cheap Mp3 players and surge protectors/battery backup supplies. Exciting, I know. But, it gives me an excuse to stay up all night, blogging and gaming, and to feel nary a guilty twinge for it.

Oh, and since I realized that I only posted the textless version of this earlier, here is the second in the series:

10 comments:

JavaBomberman said...

the fountain was excruciatingly bad. where the fuck was professor X?

NWS said...

I liked the movie.

Thought about it for a little while today, and I think that the only literal part of the movie was the modern day section but for about 30 seconds. The whole middle age adventuring was a fantasy based off Izzy's (his dying wife's) book. As I thought about it more and more, I came to realize that near the end of the movie where there is the flashback of him in his office IS THE ONLY TRUE PART OF THE WHOLE MOVIE. The whole future where his wife dies and he lives on to float in a "giant space bubble as Professor X" was all in his head. Here is where he comes to terms with his greatest frustrations, failures and fears. In the split second that he decides to go outside to follow her or to continue his frustrating, useless work to become the astronaut floating in space is all in his head just like the section in Spain. She kept telling him "to finish it" which not only refered to her story, but also to just fucking die and live on forever with her in trees, birds, or where-ever the fuck they decided to go.

Poke said...

Any movie that requires one to theorize on the most basic elements of its plot (or if it fucking had a plot) is crap. Symbolism and making you think and all that good stuff are fine, but goddammit, a movie needs to have a fucking plot. It needs substance. It...

ah fuck it, this movie just sucked.

Hillary said...

Eh, plot is unnecessary, in my opinion. A nice bonus, but unnecessary. :)

JavaBomberman said...

...

Poke said...

...plot unnecessary...

O_o

A movie is nothing but a story. Stories have beginnings, middles, and ends. These elements, when connected, serve to form a plot. It's like the little transformers that combine into one huge transformer.

A movie with out a plot is a series of images and possibly sounds. That's not what I payed $8.50 for. That's like saying any combination of noises is music, or any paint splashed on a canvas is art (fuck you too, Jackson Pollock, this is not art)

That movie was bad. Really bad. National Endowment for the Arts bad.

Hillary said...

First, I have not seen The Fountain, so I have no comment on the actual quality of the film.

I agree that movies generally need a plot, but whether something is considered art/music/film, I can still appreciate the beauty/amazingness of some aspect of it. I can look at a Jackson Pollock painting and say, "Hey, that looks neat! It makes me feel something! Hurray colors!" while knowing nothing about its meaning or artistic value. Same goes for a film, at least for me. I have seen plenty of films that have weak plot/no plot (B-horror movies, anyone?) in which I liked the characters or visuals, or thought that a feeling was captured well. Sometimes I just want to see things explode or hear cheesy dialogue or maybe David Bowie randomly shows up!

I don't know, I'm pretty easy to please. I can enjoy just about anything. I understand the need for plot, and I usually prefer those movies to those that lack plot, but I find many of the latter still enjoyable. Mostly, I was trying to be difficult and argumentative. I understand your point completely :)

JavaBomberman said...

David Bowie wins this argument.

Poke said...

Difficult and argumentative FTW.

THe fountain also lacked two other keys to good movie-dom. There were no tits, and no shell casings hitting a marble floor.

Hillary said...

Aww, no tits? I love me some tits!!!!


...


that's a bold faced lie, and everyone knows it.