Friday, July 3, 2009

NIETZSCHE’S ‘ETERNAL RECURRENCE’ EMBODIED IN THE FOUNTAIN

NIETZSCHE’S ‘ETERNAL RECURRENCE’ EMBODIED IN THE FOUNTAIN


Zachary Settle



“Nietzsche’s ‘Eternal Recurrence’ as seen in The Fountain”

Friedrich Nietzsche was one the most influential philosophers of the nineteenth and twentieth century. His ideas revolutionized the intellectual world as well as countless individuals. Among his most influential ideas, is that of the eternal recurrence. The idea of the Eternal Recurrence is still discussed and held today, as is primarily seen through Darren Aronofsky’s film The Fountain.

Not only does The Fountain focus on Nietzsche’s idea of the eternal recurrence, but it also portrays the abstract and complex idea in a very successful manner. This is primarily because of the way in which the viewer can see the film embodying Nietzsche’s ideas in and of itself. The film functions in such a way that is lends itself to the ideology of the eternal recurrence. As a result of this, it leads the viewer to a more complete understanding of the Eternal Recurrence. The Fountain does philosophy as opposed to simply representing Nietzsche’s ideas.

A complete understanding of The Fountain as an embodiment of the eternal recurrence demands an understanding of the eternal recurrence, as it stands alone. After this idea has been grasped, the question then becomes “What does it mean for a film to ‘do philosophy’?” Only after understanding both of these ideas can one come to see how The Fountain successfully embodies Nietzsche’s idea of the eternal recurrence.

The Eternal Recurrence

The idea of eternal recurrence first comes to light in the text of Thus Spake Zarathustra through a conversation between Zarathustra and a dwarf. In walking and talking, the two arrive at a gate, which Zarathustra refers to as “This Moment”.[1] Zarathustra points out to the dwarf that the gate has two distinct and opposing faces. He shows the dwarf that there is a road stemming out of each side of the gate. Zarathustra plainly states that no living creature has ever been to the end of either road, for each one is in fact “another eternity”. As the conversation progresses, Zarathustra points out that each road is in direct opposition to the alternate. He then goes on to question the dwarf in regard to his belief in this principle. He asks the dwarf if he really believes the two to be antithetical or not. The dwarf replies that “all truth is crooked; time itself is a circle.”[2]

Zarathustra then points backwards. He stresses to the dwarf that what lies behind them is literally an eternity. He goes on to question the dwarf. “Must not whatever can run its course of all things, have already run along that lane? Must not whatever can happen of all things have already happened, resulted, and gone by?”[3] Nietzsche often furthered this idea through the example of a common dice game. He said that existence could be compared to a game of dice, which is always being played. If the game goes on long enough, the outcome of the dice rolls will eventually begin to repeat themselves, for there is obviously a limited number of possible outcomes.[4]

Zarathustra is telling the dwarf that every situation and occurrence that could possibly take place has in fact already done so. He says that there is no possible occurrence or event that has not already occurred. The two then turn to face the opposite direction. Zarathustra continues to build on these thoughts as he says, “For whatever can run its course of all things, also in this long lane outward—must it once more run!—And this slow spider which creepeth in the moonlight, and this moonlight itself, and thou and I in this gateway whispering together, whispering of eternal things—must we not all have already existed?“[5] Nietzsche is saying through Zarathustra that everything that we know to be true has already existed, and it will continue to repeat itself for all of eternity.

Nietzsche addresses the idea in a much more straightforward fashion in The Will to Power. Here, Nietzsche is attempting to disprove the mechanistic theory—a theory that states that everything can be explained and understood purely through mechanic terms—by appealing to the idea of the eternal recurrence. However, in referencing the mechanistic theory, he goes on to establish that:

The world may be thought of as a certain definite quantity of force and as a certain definite number of centers of force--and every other representation remains indefinite and therefore useless--it follows that, in the great dice game of existence, it must pass through a calculable number of combinations. In infinite time, every possible combination would at some time or another be realized; more: it would be realized an infinite number of times. And since between every combination and its next recurrence all other possible combinations would have to take place, and each of these combinations conditions the entire sequence of combinations in the same series, a circular movement of absolutely identical series is thus demonstrated: the world as a circular movement that has already repeated itself infinitely often and plays its game in infitntium.[6]

In expounding on the repetitive nature of time, Nietzsche also establishes much more. He is saying that because time has functioned in this manor for an eternity past and because it will continue to do the same for an eternity future, we cannot explain life through simply mechanistic terms. In establishing the idea, he is also establishing the implications it must have on us if we are to accept it fully. He says that we cannot think in these terms because the mechanistic theory demands that the world reach a final resting state, which Nietzsche believes he has already disproven.[7]

This is also the first time that we see Nietzsche alluding to the idea that time functions in a cyclical manor, which repeat over and over again.[8] Alexander Nehamas sums it up perfectly when he says:

The eternal recurrence is most commonly interpreted as a cosmological hypothesis. As such, it holds everything that has already happened in the universe, and everything that is happening right now, and everything that will happen in the future, has already happened, and will happen again, preceded and followed by exactly the same events in exactly that same order, infinitely many times. Each of these cycles is absolutely identical with every other; in fact, it would be more correct to say that there is only once cycle, repeated over and over again in infinity.[9]

The idea—for Nietzsche—originally was an attempt to embrace life as a whole without denying any single aspect of reality.[10] For Nietzsche, the idea of the eternal recurrence is a fatalistic one. He sees the idea of eternal repetition as a very over-whelming reality. However, he is not simply interested in the idea as a hypothesis for nature of time and existence. After establishing the idea, Nietzsche then focuses on the individual’s response to the idea. This is primarily seen The Gay Science, when the demon comes to the individual and proposes the eternal recurrence. In this passage, Nietzsche’s primary concern is with the response to the demon. He even asks the reader what their response might be. He says:

Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: “You are a god, and never have I heard anything more divine,’ If this thought gained power over you, as you are it would transform and possibly crush you; the question in each and every thing, ‘Do you want this again and innumerable times again?’ would lie on your action as the heaviest weight![11]

For Nietzsche, the individual’s response is just as important as the idea itself, if not more so. Nietzsche is concerned with the “attitude that one must have toward oneself in order to react with joy and not with despair to the demon’s questions, to the thought that one’s life will occur, the same in every detail, again and again.”[12] Nietzsche embraced the mandatory principle of accepting every aspect of life, but he wanted a way out of the fatalistic hopelessness that is so closely tied to the idea of the eternal recurrence. Because of this, he naturally addresses those with the same desires. Gregory Allen Morgan points out that, “Nietzsche writes for men who mean to say Yes. His philosophy is emphatically not for everybody; it is only for the healthy, the strong, who are able to make life worth living.”[13] In a sense, Nietzsche’s philosophy is a call for those who want the same escape from nihilistic meaningless that he does.

This idea of the accepting every aspect of life is wrapped up in what Nietzsche refers to as the “Dionysian attitude”. This attitude accepts all aspects of existence—both the good and the bad— in a positive light.[14] Gregory Morgan expounds on the Dionysian attitude by saying:

Dionysis is Nietzsche’s symbol for the deification of life, and its highest formula is the attainment of just that unqualified Yes to existence which is the goal of his philosophy. He describes how, by thinking out pessimism to its extreme, his eyes were opened to the opposite ideal of the most exultant, alive, world-affirming man who has not merely reconciled himself to reality but calls for the whole piece over and over again, to all eternity.[15]

For Nietzsche, the goal of the Dionysian attitude is to both accept and rejoice in the eternal recurrence in such a way that the eternal repetition of life then becomes a joy for the individual.[16]

Film - Philosophy

Film is a young medium, and it is an even younger art form. As a result of this, the idea of film “doing” philosophy is a young one. The conversations on this subject are still emerging. However, it can be argued that there is enough of a discourse to show that film can “do” philosophy. The majority of the popular conversation on the issue centers on the capabilities of film within the specific arena of philosophy. The question is whether or not film can make a contribution to the greater philosophical arena[17]. In order for film to be able to accomplish such a feat, it cannot simply represent a philosophical idea. It must transcend mere representation. The film itself must embody the philosophical content.[18] After this point has been made, the question becomes, “How does a film make a contribution to the greater philosophical arena?” or even “Can a film function in this way?”

Thomas Wartenburg—a noteworthy and leading thinker in the arena of film-philosophy—further illustrates the difference between a film merely representing philosophy and actually doing philosophy through the example of Gus Van Sant’s Good Will Hunting. As Wartenburg carefully points out, the film is centered on a mathematic genius. There are even a few sequences in which the film portrays Will Hunting working out complex mathematic problems. Wartenburg says, “I think it beyond dispute that [this film] actually does any mathematics at all. While the [film] may allow us to become privy to some of the joys and torments of this highly abstract field of knowledge, the [film] cannot convey the nature of actual mathematical activity.”[19] So, just as Good Will Hunting represents mathematics while still failing to do mathematics, a film can easily represent philosophy while still failing to do philosophy.

In explaining how film can do philosophy, Wartenberg structures his argument with a methodological characterization of philosophy. He makes a series of arguments based on “specific discursive techniques” that philosophers employ when they do philosophy: the thought experiment, the counterexample, the argument, and the image. Because these very tactics—which philosophers employ—are so widely accepted as doing true philosophy, he believes that showing the filmic capabilities to employ the same discursive techniques should qualify film as being able to do philosophy too.[20]

Wartenberg begins by discussing the capability of film to illustrate a philosophical idea in a way that contributes to the greater arena.[21] Although there has been much hesitance on the use of the image within the discourse of philosophy, Christopher Falzon points out that philosophy has often employed the use of imagery to further its discussion. He says, “Philosophers have always resorted to a multitude of arresting and vivid visions to illustrate or clarify their position, to formulate a problem or to provide some basis for discussion.”[22]

Wartenberg is not suggesting that anytime a philosophical idea is screened that it is doing philosophy simply because it is illustrating a point. The task becomes distinguishing which illustrations are necessary in order to further the greater philosophical conversation.[23] He qualifies a film as properly illustrating a philosophical idea—and therefore doing philosophy—when it makes abstract thoughts concrete.[24] This transformation of the abstract to the concrete naturally leads to a more clear and easily understood idea. So, it can be seen that when a film properly illustrates a certain ideology, it can be considered to do philosophy when it makes the abstract concrete and therefore leads the viewer to a greater understanding of the concept.

After showing how illustration can enable a film to do philosophy, Wartenburg goes on to explain how a film may function in the same way through a thought experiment. He says:

A thought experiment functions in a philosophical argument by presenting readers with a hypothetical case. They are then asked to endorse a general principle on the basis of their reaction to this case. The thought experiment mobilizes people’s intuitions about certain ideas or concepts, so that they can see why a general claim is true.[25]

He goes on to explain that a film can exist as a thought experiment in its entirety. A film is often a fictional story, in which the unfolding of events intentionally leads the viewer to think a certain way about a given situation in hopes that they will eventually arrive at a certain conclusion as the film forces them to question if they believe a certain principle or idea to be true.[26] The fact that a film can function in this way—just as so many philosophical texts do—only strengthens Wartenberg’s argument than film can do philosophy because it has essentially led the viewer to a place within the philosophical arena that they have never been to before.

In addition to the thought experiment, Wartenburg shows that a film can make an argument. He explains that a film can make a valid argument that makes a valid contribution to the greater philosophical arena through various methods, such as the counter example. By going beyond simply disagreeing and actually presenting the viewer with evidence against a certain idea or an alternate option, a film makes a valid argument.[27] Through Wartenberg, it can be clearly seen that film can in fact make contributions to philosophy through various means.

There are numerous advantages to film’s ability to make contributions to the world of philosophy. Wartenberg says, “Films are capable of giving philosophical ideas a liveliness and vivacity that some may find lacking in the written texts of the tradition.”[28] Film also has the ability to further the ideas because of its ability to make the abstract concrete, illustrate an idea, make an argument, and provide a counterexample.

The Fountain

As previously stated, The Fountain is a great example of a film that does philosophy. It can be easily seen that the film deals with Nietzsche’s idea of the eternal recurrence. However, it does so much more than merely represent it. The film makes a significant contribution to the general arena of philosophy as well as film-philosophy. Because the film illustrates Nietzsche’s ideas in a way that takes them from the abstract and makes them concrete, it does philosophy. But it also places itself within the ideology; it embodies Nietzsche’s s idea of the eternal recurrence. As a result of this, the film functions in a specific way. Every aspect of the film functions purely in regards to the ideas and implications that make up the eternal recurrence. However, most viewers are not aware of Nietzsche’s ideas of the eternal recurrence. This obviously makes for a challenging viewing. In fact, the film received fairly poor reviews as a result of its alleged ambiguity. It is, in fact, a common opinion that the film is completely unsuccessful because of its obscurity.[29]

As Wartenberg continues, he says that a philosophical argument can be implicit within a film and still be successful.[30] So if a viewer sits through a screening of a film and comes away having no idea what the point or argument of the film was, he or she cannot simply pass blame on to the film. He or she, in fact, may be at fault. Just because a viewer misses the main point of a film does not discredit the film itself. The fault can just as easily be passed onto the viewer. This has huge implications for The Fountain.

Because of The Fountain’s unique form of narrative, the viewer must exercise a certain sense of discipline in watching the film. He or she must try to refrain from breaking the film down in hopes of coming to grasp a definite and complete understanding, all the while missing everything that The Fountain is concerned with. The Fountain attempts “to subvert the essentially sequential nature of film”.[31] As a result of this, the viewer must exercise a specific form of viewing. Stephen Muhall sums it up perfectly when he says:

Rather than allowing their experience of particular films to teach them what film might be, they permit their preconceptions about the nature of film to dictate what their experience of particular films might be. Rather than allowing their experience of particular films to teach them what ethics, art, imagination, emotions and thinking might be, they permit their preconceptions about the nature of ethics, art, imagination, emotions and thinking to dictate what their experience of these phenomena as presented in or activated by particular films might be. And rather than allowing their experience of particular films to teach them what philosophizing might be, they permit their preconceptions about the nature of philosophy to determine what their experience of particular films might be.[32]

The viewer must allow the film to function as it was intended to function, as opposed to casting his or her own preconceived notions onto the film.

As previously stated, this is of the utmost importance when viewing The Fountain. This is primarily because The Fountain functions in light of the eternal recurrence; it cannot be properly understood unless it is read through Nietzsche’s idea of the eternal recurrence. As an embodiment of the idea itself, The Fountain’s narrative functions in an irregular fashion. The film incorporates three seemingly different stories from three different time periods into one. A.O. Scott point out that, “The three stories are not told in linear order, but in a circular, swirling pattern...’The Fountain’ dispenses with everyday assumptions about time, space and causality and tries to replace the prose narrative cinema with a poetic language of rhyming images and visual metaphors.”[33] There seems to be a deliberate frustration to the viewer’s ability to follow time within in the film. In fact, Aronofsky keeps it confused. This is the first and easiest to grasp example of how the film embodies and illustrates the eternal recurrence. Nietzsche plainly states in Thus Spake Zarathustra that, “Time itself is a circle”,[34] and the film functions in light of this idea.

The stories, however, work together to contribute to a single understanding.[35] The viewer sees each of the three primary characters’—Tomas, Tommy, and Tom—stories unfolding alongside each other, even though they are set in different times.[36] Spirituality and Practice’s review of the film points out that the three stories are “interwoven”; they are each contributing to one another.[37] There is also a recreation of the same environment in each of the time periods. Aronofsky uses familiar shots as well of images to tie a sense of definite unity amongst all three time periods. Flipside Movies’ review points out that, “Whether the sequences are dreams evoked by one specific setting or memories intermingled in a moment of revelation, the same pulse moves through them all.”[38] This implies that the viewer must read each story as a part of the greater story that is The Fountain as a whole.

The LA Times review of the film was overwhelmingly negative, but it did raise a very important point. The review points out that the film transitions from story to story or from time period to time period very suddenly. To exemplify this, the review talks about a particular sequence when the conquistador is about to be killed. “The sword comes down, and Tomás, suddenly beardless and Gandhi-bald, floats up before the warrior in a bubble, calmly seated in the lotus position, and shoots off into space.”[39] Sequences such as this one show the unity amongst the three characters and draw unity amongst their stories. This is the film showing the viewer that each character is experiencing the exact same things as the other two. This has huge implications for the idea of the eternal recurrence. As each character experiences the same things, the film is showing the repetition that is taking place in the lives of the characters. It is modeling the exact same experiences and occurrences of the same individual in three different time periods.

In addition to this, one can see through Ethan Alter—a prominent writer for FilmJournal—that the film embodies Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence, and that it can take the viewer to a new level of understanding. Ethan Alter says:

The film itself is fairly easy to follow. Aronofsky and his editor Jay Rabinowitz do a fine job cutting between the different timelines while also making it clear how the three individual plot threads weave together to tell one grand story. And what's that story about exactly? The most obvious answer is that The Fountain is about the need to accept death as a natural part of the circle of life--a continuation rather than an end to all things. This is an idea that Aronofsky repeatedly hammers home by incorporating circles into the production design and even employing 360-degree camera moves at choice moments. To be moved by this message, however, you have to believe on some level that Tom is in the wrong for going to such extreme lengths to save his wife. After all, Isabel is calm in the face of death, so why can't her husband get it together?[40]

Alter has shown that the viewer can come away with a great understanding of the eternal recurrence as a direct result of the way in which it functions in The Fountain alone. Because of the way it illustrates the eternal recurrence, the viewer not only can take an accurate read of the ideology from the film, but they can also see it illustrated in a way that Nietzsche’s text cannot provide.

Conclusion

The Fountain has made a great contribution to the arenas of both philosophy and film-philosophy. For philosophy, it gives an incredible illustration of Nietzsche’s abstract idea of the eternal recurrence. It gives specific illustrations and implications of how a viewer should come to understand time a circular entity, in light of the eternal recurrence. It shows that the idea of joy in light of a system of eternal repetition is not such a preposterous one after all. These things lead viewers to a more complete understanding of this concept of the eternal recurrence because it makes the abstract concrete.

It has made a great contribution to the arena of film-philosophy because it shows that film can in fact do philosophy. As was previously established, film can make contributions to philosophy in a number of different ways, but because it further illustrates Nietzsche’s ideas in a way that the text cannot, it leads viewers to a more complete understanding of the ideology. The Fountain embodies Nietzsche’s idea of the eternal recurrence. It is so in tune with the ideology that it lets the ideology dictate the very way in which the film unfolds and functions. As a result of this, The Fountain can be seen as doing philosophy.

Bibliography

Alter, Ethan. “The Fountain,” Film Journal. Internet. Available at http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/reviews/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003437907; accessed May 7, 2008.

Brussat, Fredrick and Mary Ann.. “The Fountain”. Spirituality & Practice. Internet. Available from http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/films/films.php?id=16313. Accessed May 2, 2009.

Chocano, Carina. “The Fountain,” LA Times. Internet. http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-fountain22nov22,0,445159.story. Accessed May 1, 2009.

Copleston, Fredrick. Friedrich Nietzsche: Philosopher of Culture. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1975.

Emerson, Jim. “The Fountain,” Internet. Available at http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061121/REVIEWS/611210301/1023; accessed May 2, 2009.

Falzon, Christpher. Philosophy Goes to the Movies: An Introduction to Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2002.

Lechte, John. Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Lowith, Karl. “Nietzsche’s Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence,” Journal of the History of Ideas 6 (June 1945): pg. 273-284, JSTOR database online, accessed May 8, 2009.

Macdonald, Scott. “The Fountain,” Eye for Film. Internet. Available from http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/reviews.php?id=5567. Accessed May 1, 2009.

Morgan, Gregory Allen. What Nietzsche Means. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943.

Muhall, Stephen. On Film. New York: Routledge, 2001. 2nd ed. 145.

Nehamas, Alexander. “The Eternal Recurrence,” The Philisophical Review 3 (July 1980) pg. 331-356, JSTOR database online, accessed May 8, 2009.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

___________. The Will to Power. New York: Vintage Books, 1968.

___________. Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. Translated by Thomas Common. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911.

O’Hara, Helen. “”The Fountain,” Empire. Internet. Available from http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/ReviewComplete.asp?FID=132958; accessed May 1, 2009.

Scott, A.O. “A Love That Conquers All, Including Past Loves,” New York Times. Internet. Available from http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/312594/The-Fountain/overview; accessed May 1, 2009.

Shaw, Daniel. Film and Philosophy. London: Wallflower, 2008.

Vaux, Rob. “The Fountain,” Flipside Movies. Internet. Available from http://www.flipsidemovies.com/fountain.html; accessed May 2, 2009.

Wartenberg, Thomas E. Thinking on Screen: Film as Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2007.



[1] Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. Translated by Thomas Common (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911) 190.

[2] Karl Lowith, “Nietzsche’s Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence,” Journal of the History of Ideas 6 (June 1945): 277, in JSTOR [database online], accessed May 8, 2009.

[3] Nietzsche 191.

[4] John Lechte, Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers (New York: Routledge, 1994) 219.

[5] Nietzsche 191.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power. (New York: Vintage Books, 1968) fragment 1066.

[8] Fredrick Copleston, Friedrich Nietzsche: Philosopher of Culture (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1975) 16.

[9] Alexander Nehamas, “The Eternal Recurrence,” The Philisophical Review 3 (July 1980) 332, in JSTOR [database online], accessed May 8, 2009.

[10] Lechte 219.

[11] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) 194.

[12] Nehamas 340.

[13] Gregory Allen Morgan, What Nietzsche Means. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943) 300.

[14] Copleston, 61.

[15] Morgan 302.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Daniel Shaw. Film and Philosophy. (London: Wallflower, 2008). 3.

[18] Shaw 2.

[19] Thomas E. Wartenberg. Thinking on Screen: Film as Philosophy. (New York: Routledge, 2007). 22.

[20] Wartenburg 31.

[21] Wartenberg 34.

[22] Christopher Falzon, Philosophy Goes to the Movies: An Introduction to Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2002). 4.

[23] Wartenberg 35.

[24] Wartenberg 53.

[25] Wartenburg 36.

[26] Wartenburg 66.

[27] Wartenberg 92-93.

[28] Wartenberg 4.

[29] Helen O’Hara. “”The Fountain,” Empire. [Internet]; available from http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/ReviewComplete.asp?FID=132958; accessed May 1, 2009. 1

[30] Wartenberg 19.

[31] A.O. Scott. “A Love That Conquers All, Including Past Loves,” New York Times. [Internet] available from http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/312594/The-Fountain/overview; accessed May 1, 2009. 1.

[32] Stephen Muhall, On Film. (New York: Routledge, 2001), 2nd ed. 145.

[33] Scott 1.

[34] Nietzsche Thus Spake Zarathustra 174.

[35] Jim Emerson, “The Fountain,” [Internet]; available at http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061121/REVIEWS/611210301/1023; accessed May 2, 2009.

[36] Scott Macdonald. “The Fountain,” Eye for Film. [Internet]; available from http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/reviews.php?id=5567; accessed May 1, 2009.

[37] Fredrick and Mary Ann Brussat. “The Fountain”. Spirituality & Practice. [Internet]; available from http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/films/films.php?id=16313; accessed May 2, 2009.

[38] Rob Vaux, “The Fountain,” Flipside Movies. [Internet]; available from http://www.flipsidemovies.com/fountain.html; accessed May 2, 2009.

[39] Carina Chocano, “The Fountain,” LA Times. [Internet]; http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-fountain22nov22,0,445159.story; accessed May 1, 2009. 2.

[40] Ethan Alter, “The Fountain,” Film Journal. [Internet]; available at http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/reviews/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003437907; accessed May 7, 2008. 2.




2 comments:

  1. i was just googling myself (also zachary settle) and found this... and i gotta say, i LOVE this movie, and this was a fun read! thank you, weirdo internet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This was a very interesting connection illustrated between the film and nietzche's eternal reoccurance. I do not claim to have authority over this subject matter by any means, so please take me light hearted. I can see, as you illustrated it, how the idea of eternal reoccurance is represented within the film at some points. But the film "sees" through the paradox more than it illustrates it. After the tree of life dies, and he knows that he is going to die, there is a release from the haugnting of the dying wives story, from that eternal reoccurance. The death of the tree of life allows the character to shift his values from the future and back into the present, and this is illustrated most profoundly in the ground of the movie, the chemist and his wife (forgive me it has been to long and I have forgotten thier names)

    Instead of blowing off the walk with his wife in the name of finding a cure to his wifes desease, which had been repeated numerous times in the movie, he goes on the walk with his wife. Instead of working for a garuntee in the furture, he accecpts what he has in the present. How this idea of re-placing value from the future and back into the present, into the eternal moment, which ironicly is eternal reoccuring.

    The whole point of this post was just to offer to you a paper of mine recently written. In such paper, I juxtapose Lucrecious' voice of nature, Socrates in the Sympossium, and the move The Fountain. I am always looking for feedback on the idea I am attempting to argue in my paper, for I am painfully aware of my own ignorance.

    If someone does read this, and takes enough interest as to be willing to give me some feedback, the time spent would be greatly appreciated.

    Contact me on my Blog, http://4everythingandnothing.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete