Aronofsky, Pitt, "The Fountain"
As Wired's Steve Silberman begins in a Darren Aronofsky profile, "Perhaps the most surprising thing about The Fountain (Warner Bros., 11.22) is that the director was able to finish it at all." Due in no small part, as he gradually explains, to the abrupt withdrawl of Brad Pitt from the Hugh Jackman role in a much more costly and elaborate version of The Fountain than the one coming out three weeks from now.
Aronofsky, Pitt
And yet the scaled-down, present-tense version has a kind of purity, a spirit...a feeling that transcends scale, stars, special effects and all the other trimmings.
"Just before the scheduled start of shooting in 2002, Pitt abruptly bailed," Silber- man begins. "Costar Cate Blanchett left shortly thereafter. At various points in the production, Aronofsky's backers pulled out, studio executives questioned his sanity, and the script went through a radical reincarnation. The Fountain -- an allegory about the promise of eternal life -- died several ugly deaths on its way to the screen.
Like all grandiose dream projects, The Fountain had an exciting beginning. "[Aronofsky] sent an early copy of the script to Pitt, who was already an Aronofsky fan. Fifty pages into the script, the actor phoned Aronofsky in tears; the director told him to finish and call back. In June 2001, the press announced that Warner Bros. had 'fast-tracked' Aronofsky's new film, with Pitt and Blanchett as the A-list leads.
"The budget for Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream had been a paltry $5 million. Backed by Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow Pictures -- the company that financed The Matrix -- The Fountain was budgeted at $70 million. Elaborate sets, including a pyramid 10 stories high, were mounted on the Gold Coast of Australia. A huge crew was assembled there, and the former indie filmmaker suddenly found himself choreographing epic battle scenes and massive f/x sequences. As the director schemed to fly in hundreds of Guatemalan warriors to fight Pitt, the film's bottom line was stretched to the breaking point."
But eventually Pitt "began demanding extensive script revisions during conferences at his house in the Hollywood hills. The studio was asking for its own rewrites as well. In mid-2002, after endless script wrangling, Village Roadshow announced that it was withdrawing its support. Everyone on the project was immediately laid off. Weeks passed. Eventually another production house, New Regency, stepped in, and set construction recommenced down under.
"Then, just seven weeks before the first day of shooting, Pitt called Aronofsky and told him he was pulling out. 'After working together for two and a half years, Brad lost trust in me and faith in the project,' Aronofsky admits. 'He told me he felt like he was breaking up with a girl.'"
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 1, 2006 at 2:01 PM
comment #1
jbf81
says ...
Well, the script DID needed script revisions!
Posted by jbf81
at November 1, 2006 2:50 PM
comment #2
slothroplt
says ...
Apparently, Aranovsky respects what the Wachovsky Brothers did with the Matrix mythos. But, then again, who is he compared to a bunch of losers posting on a film gossip forum, eh? Idiots.
Posted by slothroplt
at November 1, 2006 2:51 PM
comment #3
JWEgo
says ...
Aronofsky is a nice guy without much talent.
This film will do NEGATIVE business.
I am Jeff Wells' Ego.
Posted by JWEgo
at November 1, 2006 3:07 PM
comment #4
MASON
says ...
I'm sure you have all the talent in the world.
Posted by MASON
at November 1, 2006 3:26 PM
comment #5
jeffreywells
says ...
Wells to JWEgo: If you're going to say Aronofsky hasn't much talent, please call yourself something else. There's very little merit to that assertion, and I really don't want my name (or a semblance of my name) anywhere near it...no offense.
Posted by jeffreywells
at November 1, 2006 3:39 PM
comment #6
jeffmcm
says ...
I'm sure the film is better off without Pitt's star baggage and the studio interference that would have come with a heavier budget.
Posted by jeffmcm
at November 1, 2006 3:57 PM
comment #7
Movie fan09
says ...
Aronofsky is a incredibly talented filmmaker and this scale down might be just the thing.
I am Jeff Wells salivating mouth.
Posted by Movie fan09
at November 1, 2006 4:40 PM
comment #8
Devin Faraci
says ...
It's the best movie of the year, and one I can't wait to see again next week.
Posted by Devin Faraci
at November 1, 2006 7:46 PM
comment #9
Mike K
says ...
Jeff, if some idiot decides to say something as idiotic as DA having no talent, and presents such assertion as eminating from your ego, I think you have every right to be as offensive as you like in your response.
Posted by Mike K
at November 1, 2006 11:57 PM
comment #10
Mike K
says ...
For example, you can be extremely offensive in pointing out I used derivations of the word "idiot" twice in the same sentence.
Posted by Mike K
at November 1, 2006 11:58 PM
comment #11
mizerock
says ...
Did the part that made Brad Pitt cry survive the revisions?
Posted by mizerock
at November 2, 2006 7:55 AM
comment #12
a1
says ...
"Well, the script DID needed script revisions!"
I know that was just a quick posting, but I get the amused sense that half the studio execs Aronofsky dealt with used those exact words.
Aronofsky should be writing and recording all the shit he went through on this and the "Batman" movie, and post it as a public service for every would-be filmmaker who wants to even try keeping any sense of art or vision in Hollywood.
Hearing about all those problems, it's astounding the film is so well put together and coherent with its themes. It deserves to be known as much more than the Jennifer Aniston of movie projects.
-L-
Posted by a1
at November 2, 2006 8:33 AM
comment #13
TheLongshot
says ...
One might wonder if the scaled down "The Fountain" may have been for the best. From what I've been hearing about it, it is still a very strong film at a fraction of the price.
For a lot of big money projects, there seems to be a certain amount of fat added to production that is there because the filmmaker CAN do it. Being limited, it forces the filmmaker to be more creative and not throw money at the problem.
Posted by TheLongshot
at November 2, 2006 10:37 AM
comment #14
Breedlove
says ...
i don't buy this stuff about the scaled-down version being for the best. i will still see this film, and i have high hopes, but let's face it: a big-budget version with brad pitt and cate blanchett would have been much cooler. period.
Posted by Breedlove
at November 2, 2006 11:13 AM
comment #15
storymark
says ...
Posted by: Breedlove
"i don't buy this stuff about the scaled-down version being for the best. i will still see this film, and i have high hopes, but let's face it: a big-budget version with brad pitt and cate blanchett would have been much cooler. period."
'Cause, as we all know, big budget = good movie.
Posted by storymark
at November 2, 2006 12:16 PM
comment #16
Ju-osh
says ...
I'd point Breedlove to AICN for like-minded, foolish comments like the one he posted above, but even they're excited for the Brad-free, scaled-down version.
Posted by Ju-osh
at November 2, 2006 12:42 PM
comment #17
F.U.
says ...
Let's hope it takes Aronofsky 80 years to remake the Lone Wolf and cub movie. Sacrilege, I say.
Posted by F.U.
at November 2, 2006 12:43 PM
comment #18
Joshua Mooney
says ...
I'm with "storymark." I don't see Pitt making or breaking an Aronofsky film. Likewise a $70 million budget and a pyramid "10 stories high."
Fucking chicks. They weep after the first 50 pages, and then dump you after two and a half years.
What the fucked history of this project tells me is that Aronofsky has the balls to persevere. Which is pretty much my definition of a committed artist.
Posted by Joshua Mooney
at November 2, 2006 12:44 PM
comment #19
Breedlove
says ...
i figured i'd get killed for the above comment, but i stand by it. of course big budget does not always equal good movie. i'm not an idiot, i'll take 'you can count on me' over 'bad boys II' any day of the week. but in this particular instance i'm guessing the movie probably suffered from the budget cuts. i love 'requiem for a dream' and think aronofsky is a brilliant guy. i almost wet my pants when i first heard the concept for this film, it's unbelievably cool. i trust aronofsky to make a good film either way, but i also trust that he would have spent the money well and there would be more up there on the screen with a budget two or three times bigger - bigger battle scenes, more exotic locations, better special effects, a more epic feel in general. plus i much prefer the more expensive pitt and blanchett to jackman and weisz. i know everyone wants to shout me down with cries of, "bigger budget does not make a better movie !" but a smaller budget doesn't neccesarily make a better movie either. last time i checked they didn't take that extra dough and flush it down the toilet. sometimes they do some really fucking cool shit with it. am i crazy? with pitt onboard aronofsky was making his ballsy, go-for-broke,epic, original vision, and of course i'd rather see that version.
Posted by Breedlove
at November 2, 2006 3:01 PM
comment #20
mizerock
says ...
Brad Pitt might have been great, but I fail to see how the huge pyramid or hoards of Guatemalans were essential to the telling of this story. If your story NEEDS the pyramid, and it comes down to having a great looking one or a fakey styrofoam Star Trek TV set, then by all means get the extra cash. I'm much more interested in the story and director's vision than the budget or even the specific actors, most of the time.
Actually, scratch that - I couldn't care less about Pitt, but ANY movie with Cate Blanchett is automatically on my radar screen.
Posted by mizerock
at November 3, 2006 9:12 AM