Upstream Color

source: Upstream Color

The last paragraph will contain mild spoilers; this is a film you don't want to know anything about before going in so I still recommend skipping it. But I offer it as a jumping point into understanding this film, as I'm sure many will be upset and wonder about that. I attended the world premiere of Upstream Color at Sundance 2013 along with a Q&A from writer, director, actor etc. Shane Currath. I am a big fan of Primer and I also appreciate esoteric/enigmatic and visual works. Upstream Color definitely can be described with those words. I think Primer is complex and intelligent/intellectual yet can be enjoyed by a broad audience. Upstream Color is easy to understand on a literal, plot level but the themes and allegory are a little harder to understand (I don't claim to fully understand it yet). Needless to say, it's not one that the majority of movie-goers will appreciate. Aesthetically, it is a beautiful film full of poetic-imagery. It is very visual not unlike the work of Terrence Malick. Our protagonists are exceptionally acted, especially Amy Seimetz as Kris, she is captivating as is the film itself. I'm not going to talk about the plot but keep in mind that it is an allegory. I can't say whether or not I 'enjoyed' this film, but while watching it, it had my fullest attention and it has consumed my thoughts since trying to make sense of it. I wonder if it could have been more effective if it had been clearer. To the movies credit, the last third has no dialogue but none is needed, the film has established an emotional and visual language that the audience fully understands and embraces. This film could be genius; it could just be a lot of pomp with a compelling façade. The film had some real moments of emotional resonance yet at the end I felt hollow and unsatisfied. I probably will revisit this film to understand it and my response better. The Q&A was interesting, Shane Currath didn't inspire confidence that he had a singular vision and intent for this film (from his answers it sounded like he had some loose ideas and put it on screen). The film prominently features Walden, I thought it may tie in thematically but he stated that when he read Walden it seemed like something you would make someone read as torture – and in the film, it is used loosely as such. It may be ironic or purposeful that this film may be a Walden-esque torture as well for some in its transcendental/opaque nature. He also stated that this movie is about tearing people down and their having to build their own narratives. They also may not understand that there are outside forces affecting them, yet they can feel it on some level. That's probably the most-helpful advice in understanding the film. (mild thematic and plot detail spoilers follow): Keeping those last two statements in mind, at one point 'The Thief' tries to sell drugs to individuals with a worm inside of it that hypnotizes them, let's take that both literally and figuratively as in he is a drug dealer who is trying to get people addicted to drugs which control them and make them do mindless things whilst high and financially bankrupt them. The worm can be viewed as the addiction itself. These people then hit rock-bottom and once they recover they aren't the same people anymore. There were external forces working on them that they weren't/aren't aware of but now they have to build a personal narrative of how to deal with the consequences of their addiction. The part I haven't figured out yet is The Sampler and the pigs but I'm sure the answer is there somewhere, hopefully the previous interpretation I gave is somewhat accurate and helpful.

Slow walking. Face close-ups of people with whom we have no relationship. Staring. And more of the same. Again and again. And again. Boring, annoying, pathetic. Let me think of stylistically similar movies. 2001, The Tree of Life, Primer. All in a class of their own. All wonderful. In contrast...This is like something you step in and easily wipe off the sole of your shoe. A nothing of nothings. Slow walking. Face close-ups of people with whom we have no relationship. Staring. We are supposed to guess what the dialogue would have been had it been a real movie. There is no motivation to evince the conversation of robots and house plants. Slow walking. Face close-ups of people with whom we have no relationship. Staring.

We just saw this film thanks to the Cinema Club in San Jose, where you never know what you're going to see until the film starts. We heard it was the most anticipated films of Sundance 2013. Perhaps by masochists. Here's a list of unconnected thematic elements in the film: psychoactive caterpillars, urban crime and terrorism, Thoreau, swimming, civil disobedience, blue orchids, pigs, pig farming, musique concrète, and "Walden." How these things relate is a secret still locked up inside of writer/filmmaker/director/lead-actor Shane Carruth's mind. Of particular note was the hour and a half of endlessly repeating, tension-inducing music that never resolved. Perhaps that's the filmmaker's metaphor for life itself. Don't look for this movie's soundtrack to appear on CD although you can get it on iTunes or (amazingly) vinyl LP. Carruth will be handling film distribution too (probably a wise move) but I think it's highly unlikely that you'll be reading about this film in the box office news. Several people in our audience walked out after only half an hour. We stayed until the bitter end, fervently hoping for some sort of organization or a glimpse of the filmmaker's thinking to put things into some sort of place. Alas, no. This movie stayed true to its art-film leanings to the last frame. (Reading other reviews like the one in the New York Times, that's Carruth's intent so you are now doubly warned.) We had the opportunity to participate in the Q&A after the film but passed it up. Why add insult to injury? If a movie needs to be explained to be appreciated, in my opinion, then it fails to be an entertainment. If you have to have an IQ of 150 or be a Sundance-class film buff to "get" this film, perhaps the price of admission is too high.

To me this film, written, directed, and starring Shane Corruth, played more like an experimental movie and ended up being a bunch of pretentious pap. Maybe I'm not sophisticated enough to get all the symbolism or hidden meanings amid the somber soundtrack, or maybe I'm just not willing to be bored out of my mind with very little clue as to what is happening on the screen. No thanks. I couldn't wait until it was over, and felt I was "punked" in a way by the filmmaker, a la Terrence Malick's latest movie "To The Wonder". Maybe they should issue warnings to the film-goer on these type of movies---Danger! Beware!--Incoherent Plot Ahead.

I was invited by a good friend, along to see this film, which was being shown as part of an arts festive near where I live. I knew nothing of the film (not even the name) before I saw it. All I knew was that it had been given great reviews and had even been nominated for an award at the Canne festival. I do enjoy, off the wall, indie movies so my hope were positive. I soon felt otherwise, as before the film began, we, the audience, were introduced to the film by a psychiatrist, who tried to explain the plot (and I used the word plot in the kindest possible way as there is none) and advised the audience that we would perhaps not understand all the we see in the upcoming film. Un understatement if ever I heard one. The cast play characters with little or no lines, dirfting from one meaningless scene to the next. With random music, scenes, and actions, happening without reason. I was shocked to read that Upstream Color has received wide critical acclaim. For what? It has no story, no meaningful characters, no insights into any real issue. It may perhaps be of use to psychiatrist, or whose studying the subject, for reasons unknown to me or most that have had to go through the punishment of sitting for an hour and a half of NOTHING. This is the film equivalent of the emperor's new clothes. Film critics and their pompous arrogant "lovies" couldn't dare be seen not to understand and applaud this film, when the simple fact is its a badly written, no story, poorly filmed 90+ minutes of trash, that could easy be mistaken for a joke by a stoned teenager if it was not so bad. If I could score it 0 out of 10, I would.

As you all know, with PRIMER, Shane Carruth announced himself to the world as a naturally gifted talent, one who could rival the likes of James Cameron. Of course, it never happened as he struggled to get his second film off the ground. Nine years after PRIMER Shane Carruth's long awaited second film is as dense as expected, with an impossible to understand third act that still manages to intrigue due to its sheer technical mastery. With UPSTREAM COLOR Carruth proves he is not a one-shot wonder. He also proves he is the ultimate NYC and L.A. art-film director incapable of adapting to more mainstream story telling. Much has been written about the plot so I will not get into the specifics here. What I will say is that I think Carruth purposely holds critical information from his films as a way to challenge viewers and force them to think. This is admirable. But in the end, a bit frustrating because with just a few answers both PRIMER and now UPSTREAM COLOR would be fit for the masses without compromising artistic integrity. The film made sense to me for about an hour and then it started to slip away. Like with Primer, I just lost my footing and could not gain hold. Amazingly enough, I still enjoyed the experience and was never bored, In fact, at times I was held in genuine suspense. The third act has been described as 30 minutes without dialog and that simply is not true. There are numerous sequences without dialog and about halfway through we get a major sequence of events told with visuals and music. Then we have some more conventional filmmaking (conventional is really not the right word) followed by what I think might be around 15 minutes of dialog free visuals. The ending makes no sense to me, but I will see the film again and hope to sort it out. Carruth designed the sound and composed the music and let me tell you, he hit both out of the park. The man could work scoring films and make a great living. The same goes for his sound design. I watched the film at IFC in New York City and they have a pretty good sound system. What they don't have is a great screen. It might be the proper widescreen aspect ratio, but the images appeared darker in sections and that harmed Carruth's amazing visuals, rumored to have been captured with a hacked $700 Pansonic DSLR (the GH2). The image is akin to a RED or Alexa and throughout Carruth plays with shallow depths of field. This results in some shots missing the sharply focused mark, but for the most part the visuals shine. This film proves you do not need Hollywood style lighting and equipment to make Hollywood level films. The Blu-Ray will be out in May and I have already put it on order at Amazon. There is no question in my mind that by year's end I will have sat through UPSTREAM COLOR numerous times. I look forward to Carruth's next film, but with the hope for a little more clarity in his narrative.

Not much to follow on. My favorite part is when the man chops the tree down. Other than that, you might as well check your refrigerator to see if you need to buy some groceries or look around your home to see of the house needs some home improvement. I had some delicious Thai food and a great conversation with my girlfriend about having a new place that delivers food to her house late at night. I'm simply trying to complete my ten lines if text since it is the minimum for writing a review. Sorry there's not much to say about the movie, but there really isn't. I tried to stay interested, but just couldn't. As a matter if fact, I'm writing this review as the movie is playing. Honest. Not much going on in the movie that you can actually follow along to. So I decided to do this to kill some time while the movie finishes. Thank you for reading this.

I attended this film solo (only one other person in the theater) which turned out to be a good thing as distractions were nil. Carruth has a lot of respect for the viewer. He doesn't do exposition. And if you pay close attention to this film, you wont need it. Unlike other reviews I've seen, I found Primer much harder to suss out than Upstream Color. There was a clear narrative here and the main protagonists arc is clear to see. I loved it. It was intense, beautifully shot, scored, and of course acted, especially by Amy Seimetz, the lead. She was amazing. If you like your films delivered to you on a silver platter, then this is not for you. But if you like to think a little bit, you will find the 90+ minutes of Upstream Color thoroughly enjoyable. I hope it does very well. And I hope Carruth doesn't take another 8 yrs to do his next one.