Still Waiting

November 10, 2005 10:29 PM

The teaser trailerhas just appeared online for Darren Aronofsky's first movie since 2000, and only his third overall. It's the result of an incredibly tumultous Gilliam-style gestation period that included a large budget being greenlighted with Brad Pitt in the starring role, Brad Pitt dropping out of the project to film Troy with Wolfgang Petersen, sets being destroyed, the project being cancelled, the crew members writing a public tirade deriding his desertion that concludes with the "Send the word.... Brad is a dick.", and, finally, a movie (still being edited) that was re-written to be filmed for half the budget with Hugh Jackman as the star in Mr. Pitt's place. Script reviews and early looks indicate it may be one of the most ambitious studio releases in recent memory. Even if it doesn't entirely succeed, isn't this a good thing for films in general?
posted by setanor (64 comments total)

Are you comparing this guy with Terry Gilliam?
posted by neuron at 10:34 PM on November 10, 2005

No. I'm comparing the convolutions that took place in the effort to make this movie to the convoultions that Gilliam seems to run into every time he tries to work. I'm not comparing them as directors.
posted by setanor at 10:35 PM on November 10, 2005

Wasn't the air-headed, self-absorbed male lead character in Living In Oblivion supposed to be based on Brad Pitt? In other words, didn't Don DiCillo do the Brad-Pitt-is-a-dick rant back in 1995?
posted by Clay201 at 10:44 PM on November 10, 2005

Apparently, Brad Pitt must be a dick or something.
posted by jonson at 10:51 PM on November 10, 2005

Requiem for a dream about Pepsi Blue.
posted by Rothko at 10:59 PM on November 10, 2005

So...the website (the 'movie' link) is a full-screen Flash-based fluid simulator with an annoying looped soundtrack? Curious.

Looks like a sort of interesting idea, though...3 archetypically-identical stories played out in different time periods. Although I'm sure gender studies folks could/will have a field day with the fact that all 3 stories are about a man attempting to save a woman--and in at least 2 of the stories, the man is in a potentially paternalistic position: knight, doctor.

Does anyone know the proper adverbial form of 'archetype'?
Also, props to me on the alliteration.
posted by jedicus at 11:01 PM on November 10, 2005

Question: Why doesn't MeFi just automatically tag any post that expresses enthusiasm about a product or piece of art with "Pepsi Blue"?

Answer: Nobody would be able to prove their intelligence anymore by making the connection first.
posted by setanor at 11:03 PM on November 10, 2005

proper adverbial form of 'archetype'

google fight says archetypal, 6:1
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:09 PM on November 10, 2005

Not that I care really, and I understand that it's hard policing the line between "look at this awesome thing I found" and "look at this awesome thing I'm getting paid to show you"... it's just that there's something bizarre seeing posts where someone with valid interest does in fact say "look at this awesome thing I found" and the response is "Yeah. Right. That's a product." That's some superb detective work.
posted by setanor at 11:10 PM on November 10, 2005

I respectfully suggest you're confusing "product" and "piece of art".

It is a "product" first, before it is released, when its investors want it promoted, and then it is a "piece of art" once we've all had a chance to see it in the theatres and decide for ourselves.
posted by Rothko at 11:15 PM on November 10, 2005

I think the trailer is a "piece of art." I do see your point, though.
posted by setanor at 11:18 PM on November 10, 2005

I remember hearing about this screenplay a long time ago on Aint it cool news (Harry Knowles like wrote / co-wrote it or something). I'll happily go see it when it comes out, and happily ridicule it if its bad.
posted by thanatogenous at 11:25 PM on November 10, 2005

Sold.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 11:28 PM on November 10, 2005

In a related note, the graphic novel version of this is coming out next week. However, it's a whopping 40 bucks american in hardcover.
posted by papakwanz at 11:37 PM on November 10, 2005

Was checking out Aronofsky's other current projects... The people on the Lone Wolf and Cub board have no love for the man. I do understand their gripe though; I hate the current trend to remake any and everything on earth. But, who knows, he might do a good job with LWAC.

I'm sure some people remember that Aronofsky had been tapped to resurrect the Batman film franchise a few years back. He was paired with Frank Miller to do a take on Miller's Batman Year One, but the script they came up with was apparently nothing like Miller's book.
posted by papakwanz at 12:03 AM on November 11, 2005

Everything I've heard about this project makes me think "interesting." I can't say "good" till I've seen it, of course. But the premise is interesting, and it's a good (not [yet] great) director. Color me intrigued.
posted by brundlefly at 12:07 AM on November 11, 2005

Question: Why doesn't MeFi just automatically tag any post that expresses enthusiasm about a product or piece of art with "Pepsi Blue"?

You forgot the tag UnwittingToolofPublicRelationsJerkoffs?
posted by gsb at 1:54 AM on November 11, 2005

You know, I'm really excited to see this trailer, but I just can't convince the stupid Apple site to let me view it. Anyone got a direct link to a video that I can play?
posted by Nelson at 2:34 AM on November 11, 2005

Anyone know if this is an original script or if there's source material? It's not the same, but a great SF book about immortals is Poul Anderson's The Boat of a Million Years. Think a much more intelligent and thoughtful "Highlander" (which I guess ain't hard to do...).
posted by zardoz at 2:55 AM on November 11, 2005

Zardoz: The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life, and poisons the earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the gun shoots death, and purifies the earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth and kill!

*cough*

Speaking of films about immortality.
posted by gwint at 3:42 AM on November 11, 2005

Gawd, what a bunch of egregiously snarky posts.

Thanks for this link, setanor. I'm very excited about The Fountain, which is an original script. On the basis of Requiem for a Dream alone, I think Aronofsky is one of the most brilliant directors alive. His debut, Pi, was very spunky, wringing as much uncanniness as it could from a tiny budget, but Requiem was a masterpiece, albeit a depressing one, with one of the best performances I've ever seen, by Ellen Burstyn. Aronofsky's fiance Rachel Weisz, who starred in The Constant Gardener, is an extremely talented actress, and I have high hopes for her role in The Fountain.
posted by digaman at 3:53 AM on November 11, 2005

Aronofski is a hack. There, I said it.

Requiem for a Dream was Reefer Madness with competent acting, a good soundtrack, and wacky cinematography. It was still entertaining though, and I would have given him the benefit of the doubt, until I saw Pi. That film was pretentious, uninteresting nonsense masquerading as a thriller.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:56 AM on November 11, 2005

It sounds to me like Being Human.
posted by Grangousier at 4:07 AM on November 11, 2005

isn't this a good thing for films in general?

Um... it looks like it might be cool and all, but.... do you seriously think that "film" "needs" Darron Aronofsky that badly? AFAICS, it generally seems to get along pretty well without heros coming out of the woodwork to rescue it...
posted by lodurr at 4:35 AM on November 11, 2005

I'm pulling for Aronofsky--Requiem was visually genius, but...the Reefer Madness comparison is surprisingly apt. I continue to be alarmed that so many people overlook how utterly shallow an adaptation it is.
However, I'm all for hyper-ambitious, epic, studio-financed sci-fi, especially if it demonstrates the same visual invention of his other work.
posted by ghastlyfop at 5:04 AM on November 11, 2005

Yeah! Requiem was Reefer Madness! Drugs are cool! And so am I by writing this!

On a more serious note, I think most filmmakers should have their budgets slashed in half. Lars Von Trier, despite being a huge asshole, is absolutely right about limiting yourself - it makes you more creative.
posted by fungible at 5:16 AM on November 11, 2005

Aronofski is a hack.

Some of the best, most-fun stuff is done by hacks. Dashiell Hammett...William Shakespeare....Alex Chilton.... Robert Rodriguez... I just don't think hype serves the greater cause of "FILM". (Or Aronofsky's best interests, for that matter. Few things can be more disastrous to an artist's career than for him/her to be over-rated.)

fungible: See "Rodriguez"*, previous para [g/]. He'd agree with you wholeheartedly. Getting decent results with it, lately, too.
--
[* or Shakespeare, for that matter.]
posted by lodurr at 5:18 AM on November 11, 2005

kinda like steak and ale
http://www.steakandale.com/
posted by robbyrobs at 5:29 AM on November 11, 2005

lodurr: Rodriguez is another good example of that. He was in my film class at UTexas in 1991, and he was also a huge asshole. But a very creative and resourceful one. It has served him well.
posted by fungible at 5:41 AM on November 11, 2005

Alas, I fear many of the people we like end up being assholes. Hammett was an abusive drunk (well, off and on), the fearsome Dorothy Parker wasted her life acting like a spineless victim, some crew-guys say Brad Pitt is a jerk, Andy Partridge has a Nazi shrine in his garden (ok, i made that up). I try not ot let it take away from enjoying their stuff.

I still refuse to believe that assholeness is a requirement, though, as some people insist on doing.
posted by lodurr at 6:02 AM on November 11, 2005

Well, Π was cool in a sort of "This would have blown my mind if I'd seen it when I was 15" way. Requiem was painful to watch; the only thing I got out of it was being able to enjoy the "eye dilation" spoof sequences on Sealab (oh, and Jennifer Connelly on a double-ender). This could be good, but then again, it has Hugh Jackman.
posted by Eideteker at 6:06 AM on November 11, 2005

Dude, I am totally heterosexual, and even I think Hugh Jackman is hot. Does a lousy Oklahoma accent, though.
posted by lodurr at 6:11 AM on November 11, 2005

I think I've decided I like teaser trailers more than regular trailers. This one (like many others) manages to convey a sense of the feel and story of the film without making me feel like I've now seen all the good bits.

I thought Requiem For A Dream was remarkable. For those who didn't like it: I'm honestly trying to understand your critique, but it seems to come down to "Reefer Madness was a movie about the dangers of drugs. This was also a movie about the dangers of drugs. Ergo, this movie is just like Reefer Madness." Is there more to your critique than that? (I'm not being snarky or rhetorical--I'm genuinely interested in knowing.)
posted by yankeefog at 6:22 AM on November 11, 2005

I loved Requiem for a Dream as well, although I find it too harrowing to actually watch.

This trailer has totally teased me. I hope The Fountain is good.
posted by bshort at 6:28 AM on November 11, 2005

How can anyone possibly dislike a movie I liked?
posted by smackfu at 6:28 AM on November 11, 2005

Aronofski is a hack. There, I said it.

Requiem for a Dream was Reefer Madness with competent acting, a good soundtrack, and wacky cinematography.

There, you mispelled it. Suddenly stupid similes are the new wit? It would be hard to pin the word "hack" on a director who has made only two films that were both wildly experimental, independently produced, and quite different from one another -- unless you also misspelled the word "dick," which Aronofsky isn't either. I've interviewed him, and he was one of of the most unpretentious, earnest, and committed creative folk I've ever encountered. Feel free to take comfort in drive-by potshots to justify not liking his first two films, but he's the real deal.

For what it's worth, I didn't think Pi was a great film -- the script was a little thin for my tastes, though the level of visual invention almost made up for it, but it was certainly a spirited effort by a director determined to work outside Hollywood clichees -- the very definition of what a hack isn't.

Kubrick's first film, Killer's Kiss, was a standard cops-and-robbers drama with a few moments of astounding visual impact (the shootout in the helium factory!). His second film, The Killing, was genius -- Tarantino filched half the good tropes in Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown from it -- but plot-wise, it was another standard crime flick. I'm glad Kubrick got to keep making films beyond the first two, and I'm glad Aronofsky will get to prove his mettle beyond Requiem.
posted by digaman at 6:28 AM on November 11, 2005

Good teaser trailer. Too bad I'll end up inadvertantly catching a more detailed trailer before it comes out, one that totally ruins the movie.
posted by furtive at 6:39 AM on November 11, 2005

For those of you who can watch the QT hi-def, watch the spaceship go by in slo-mo with the tree inside. Neat.
posted by fungible at 6:52 AM on November 11, 2005

You people have it wrong: Kids was the updated version of Reefer Madness.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:54 AM on November 11, 2005

You're all bloody idiots.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:15 AM on November 11, 2005

I neededa hug after Requiem For A Dream .
posted by Artw at 7:55 AM on November 11, 2005

thanks for the post, I love it.

I saw "Pi" when it came out, in a little theatre in DC, just because the movie I wanted to see (I guess it was David Lynch's "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me" -- I know, I know) was sold out and I just liked the big "pi" on Aronofski's poster.
I loved "Pi", a movie that, by the way, did much to refute a very wrong movie sterotype, ie the Woody Allenesque wimpy neurotic Jew -- "Pi" has kickass, badass, armed Jews in it, and I love it for that too)

"Requiem" (full disclosure: I am a Hubert Selby, jr nut) I thought was very good, but at times unwatchable. I'm glad I saw it, but I wouldn't do it again, even if you paid me. way too shocking and, pardon the pun, close to the bone.

thanks for the post

and re: the "hack" troll -- most of great American movies have been done by hacks. just think of film noir, of Sam Fuller, of Nick Ray, of Frank Tashlin and so many others. Preston Sturges. Hitchock was a hack, too.
posted by matteo at 8:05 AM on November 11, 2005

*hugs Artw*
posted by matteo at 8:05 AM on November 11, 2005

from one of the links:

The letter claims Aronofsky and producer Gil Adler tried to convince Pitt to stay with The Fountain, but the actor decided to ditch the project to play Achilles in director Wolfgang Petersen's Troy,

this made me remember that Harrison Ford turned down the part that went to Nick Nolte in Thin Red Line to play the lead in that Anne Heche movie, Six Days and Seven Nights or whatever it was called.
posted by matteo at 8:12 AM on November 11, 2005

I needed a hug from Jared Leto -- preferably as he appeared shirtless in the early parts of the movie -- after seeing Requiem. :)
posted by digaman at 8:39 AM on November 11, 2005

preferably when he still had both arms, too, I guess...
posted by matteo at 9:12 AM on November 11, 2005

Spoiler! Indeed.
posted by digaman at 9:24 AM on November 11, 2005

fungible:

Rodriguez took film classes???
posted by Clay201 at 9:46 AM on November 11, 2005

OK, maybe the "Reefer Madness" thing is a bit over the top. The way Aronofsky explores the themes of addiction--drugs, sugar, tv, etc etc--is just shallow. His big idea seems to be that addiction manifests itself in many, many ways. No shit! So?
The dialogue is unbelievably lame (go back and watch the scene with the old ladies sitting out on the sidewalk...it's just sooo false). Certain elements...I'm thinking in particular of the vision Jared Leto has of the girl standing on the dock, and the Wayans dude's vision of his grandmother...are just so trite and cheesy they constitute a betrayal of Aronofky's obvious skills as a director. The filmmaking is SO powerful it's easy to forgive, or even not to notice, how lame much of it is. Seriously, go watch it again.
One of the things Trainspotting and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas--both excellent, even classic (anti?) drug films--get so right is that they actually dare to show that drugs can be fun--why else would people do them? Both films are also endowed with something sorely lacking in "Requiem"--a sense of humor. "Requiem" just piles on the despair, not to mention gives us no reason to give a shit about the characters (apart from just kind of feeling sorry for them). It just hammers the same tired old anti-drug message into the viewer's skull--I've seen after school specials with more subtlety.
That said, I am really, really interested in this one--Aronofsky has the chops, for sure.
posted by ghastlyfop at 9:59 AM on November 11, 2005

Either way, the electroshock meltdown in Requiem still freaks me out. All my friends have to do is play the background music from that scene to send me into the fetal position...
posted by TunnelArmr at 10:37 AM on November 11, 2005

Even if it doesn't entirely succeed, isn't this a good thing for films in general?

If it doesn't succeed at the box office, it's a bad thing for ambitious films -- they will have a harder time getting made.
posted by kindall at 11:05 AM on November 11, 2005

Eideteker: the only thing I got out of it was being able to enjoy the "eye dilation" spoof sequences on Sealab

thanks.
posted by clunkyrobot at 11:31 AM on November 11, 2005

You're welcome?
posted by Eideteker at 12:12 PM on November 11, 2005

Without taking a stance on any of the local catfights here, this trailer looks pretty tight. Let's hope he can nail the far-future thing without seeming hokey. As for 1500... well, Malick's The New World is going to be the standard on that time period (despite the ugly flash website). Basically, though, the Fountain is going to be nuts.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:37 PM on November 11, 2005

All my friends have to do is play the background music from that scene to send me into the fetal position..

Yeah, me too. That music is total bad-flashback mode. I liked RFaD a lot, but it is one depressing movie. Starts with a guy stealing a TV from his mom. That's the most uplifting part, right there. Everything else is downhill.
posted by graventy at 1:28 PM on November 11, 2005

I want a hug from Jennifer Connelly (NSFW).
posted by homunculus at 2:09 PM on November 11, 2005

You know, I'm really excited to see this trailer, but I just can't convince the stupid Apple site to let me view it. Anyone got a direct link to a video that I can play?

SERIOUSLY. I just ran the QuickTime updater and it keeps giving me v6.5.2, which apparently is not cool enough to watch this crap. Do I fucking have to install iTunes now to get the most recent version of QuickTime? No fucking way.

I thought I could get around it with the HD popup, but ...

Couldn't open the file "the_fountain-tsr_1080p.mov" because a bad public movie atom was found in the movie.

WTF?!

Pi was absolute crap. Requiem was visually quite cool (I thought) but I agree with the simple-minded plot = "Baaad things are gonna happen to these folks."

I'd give him another shot (meaning I'll steal his movie online or rent it when it comes out), but this Apple thing has soured me. I am highly irrational, you know.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:51 PM on November 11, 2005

PI was a good independent "small" film; 8 years on I still remember it well; reminded me for some reason of Liquid Sky, another good, quirky independent film.

WTH must you people be so negative?!
posted by ParisParamus at 5:03 PM on November 11, 2005

Am I the only one who can't get it to load? I just get that gif of the quicktime logo torn in half.
posted by bingo at 5:04 PM on November 11, 2005

Just the fact that it's not a remake or a sequel is enough to go see it. It's like voting Green.
posted by hoborg at 6:47 PM on November 11, 2005

Thanks for the link, it's too bad it's for sale, otherwise more people might like it.
posted by iamck at 6:53 PM on November 11, 2005

Me too, bingo. Oh well.
posted by ubersturm at 8:09 PM on November 11, 2005

I don't know. Will it feature ass to ass?
posted by nanojath at 8:52 PM on November 11, 2005

Both Requiem for a Dream and Dark City featured Jennifer Connelly standing at the end of a pier in dream-like sequences, which I thought was an odd coincidence.
posted by Lush at 7:12 AM on November 13, 2005