Upstream Color (Shane Carruth)

[Stay Puft]

UPSTREAM COLOR
Director: Shane Carruth

IMDb page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084989/?ref_=sr_1)

http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/4b/8c81b039a611e2af4922000a1d0930/file/UpstreamColor_Poster_2764x4096 .jpg

[Thirdmango]

Thanks for making this. I had intended to eventually get around to doing it. But yes, I saw it at Sundance, and Shane did a 30 minute Q&A afterwards. The funny thing is usually if a director comes to screenings they will only go to the Park City and Salt Lake City screenings. Very few ever come out to the Sundance proper screenings since they are so out of the way but he mentioned how much he liked the small venue and how out of the way it was. I hadn't seen Primer and went based on my friend who had seen it and wanted to see this one so all I knew was there would likely be some sort of unconventionality to the film. This was indeed the case and I quite liked it, even more so after mulling it over for a while.

I've got some of the answers to his questions written down but I'll hang onto them until more people have seen the film.

[Raiders]

I desperately need to see this. I didn't even realize it starred indie uber-darling Amy Seimetz. Her own recent directorial effort Sun Don't Shine is getting wicked-good buzz and sounds fantastic.

[Thirdmango]

he said in casting her that he was looking for a lot of different people and then he watched Sun Don't Shine and fell in love with her and knew she had to be that part. He was worried she might as a director try to direct as well but she didn't and he adored having her in the film.

[plain]

D'Angelo liked it.

[Boner M]

Yay, this is playing in Toronto in April, when I'll have moved there. Can't wait.

[transmogrifier]

Even after the raves, it didn't really sound all that appealing, until I found out that the last 30 minutes is almost dialogue-free. If that's true, I'm suddenly keen to see it, and I'm not really sure why. Perhaps I just enjoy experiments with form more than elliptical, purposefully shapeless narratives? I is confused with myself.

[Thirdmango]

It's more like the last 10 minutes, but that is still true.

[Derek]

It's more like the last 10 minutes, but that is still true.

But there are also a number of 5-10 minute sequences throughout the film with little-to-no dialogue. It's interesting to see Carruth go from a rapid-fire dialogue heavy film like Primer to a film that feels like the most abstract sequences of Tree of Life extended to feature length. This'll be one of the most divisive films of the year on MatchCut and elsewhere. Trans, EWO and the narrative-only cinema collective will despise it, but I imagine it's high ambitions will land it in a number of top 10s as well. I find myself more on the fence, appreciating its bold attempts at a new form of highly rhythmic, musical storytelling (regardless of anyone's take on the film, it's editing is quite remarkable) yet still frustrated at its deliberate obtuseness which undermines its lofty thematic preoccupations.

[Derek]

I desperately need to see this. I didn't even realize it starred indie uber-darling Amy Seimetz. Her own recent directorial effort Sun Don't Shine is getting wicked-good buzz and sounds fantastic.

FYI, the film was also co-edited by Sun Don't Shine editor, David Lowery (who also directly Ain't Them Bodies Saints which is also getting great buzz). The editing in Upstream incredibly impressive - rhythmic and intuitive, almost purely musical. In the Q&A, both Lowery and Carruth talked about how critical and difficult the editing process was to the final product and it really shows, even if the end result isn't quite as cohesive as it could have been, although time and a rewatch could certainly help this type of film. So yeah, definitely much more excited for Sun Don't Shine after this.

[Pop Trash]

But there are also a number of 5-10 minute sequences throughout the film with little-to-no dialogue. It's interesting to see Carruth go from a rapid-fire dialogue heavy film like Primer to a film that feels like the most abstract sequences of Tree of Life extended to feature length.


Interesting. I might have to check this out even though I'm not a big Primer fan in part because of the reasons you mentioned. I felt like I was inside an engineering convention.


yet still frustrated at its deliberate obtuseness which undermines its lofty thematic preoccupations.

Wasn't that some people's argument against the film in your avatar?

[Derek]

Interesting. I might have to check this out even though I'm not a big Primer fan in part because of the reasons you mentioned. I felt like I was inside an engineering convention.

I would almost go so far as saying your reaction to Primer has almost no bearing on what you'll think of this. It's a totally different beast.


Wasn't that some people's argument against the film in your avatar?

Um, I guess? This film's events are far more ambiguous and more tenuously connected than anything in The Master. I mean, I love that nature of filmmaking so I'm certainly not suggesting it never works, just that when it is pushed to a certain extreme, you risk allowing your ambition to allow things to spiral a bit out of control. All I'll say is watch this film and tell me you think The Master is nearly as difficult a film...not really worth comparing otherwise.

[number8]

Great. A screening of this with Carruth Q&A moderated by Soderbergh is sold out and I missed it. :sad:

[Acapelli]

Great. A screening of this with Carruth Q&A moderated by Soderbergh is sold out and I missed it. :sad:
yeah, wish i got tix for that. i'll be seeing a screening with carruth on sunday

[Boner M]

Indisputably a major film, though I wasn't always feeling it - it vacillates (for me, at least) between something to let wash over you and something that begs for active intellectual engagement, and ends up feeling a little lopsided. But ultimately it succeeds on the former point more than the latter, and there were a number of sections of the film where I was greatly moved without quite being able to pinpoint why.

The opening portion with Seimetz & the thief is probably the strongest and most distinctive; the fragments-of-relationship stuff felt a little too Malicky (what doesn't these days?).

[Derek]

the fragments-of-relationship stuff felt a little too Malicky (what doesn't these days?).

Even Malick is too Malicky for you these days, so not sure how to take this. ;)

But I agree with you overall. A flawed film for sure, but one that demands to be seen.

[Pop Trash]

I'm not sure what to make of this. It's either some crazy/brilliant film about the tyranny of narrative in motion pictures (among other things) or one of the most incoherent American narrative(?) films since Dennis Hopper's The Last Movie. It kept having these weird segways into things such as Cronenberg style body horror and foley artistry. I'm downright amazed that anyone is putting a story together w/o either having read interviews/interpretations or directly interviewing Shane Carruth himself and asking him "soo...what the hell did I just watch?"

Ultimately I feel like movies like The Tree of Life or Holy Motors, while not making total logical sense, make sense thematically, but with Upstream Color I keep grasping at straws.

It most certainly makes me want to re-read Walden, so there's that.

[Derek]

It most certainly makes me want to re-read Walden, so there's that.

Best part of the Q&A was when Carruth was asked about Walden. He said he originally chose it because he remembered it being dense and boring him to death in high school and that was the type of book he wanted Kris to read from. So it was almost dumb luck that it fit thematically with what he was going for.

I had the same exact reaction to the film you did.

[Pop Trash]

Best part of the Q&A was when Carruth was asked about Walden. He said he originally chose it because he remembered it being dense and boring him to death in high school and that was the type of book he wanted Kris to read from. So it was almost dumb luck that it fit thematically with what he was going for.


So Carruth is basically admitting it's a bunch of bullshit then? Mmmk.

[Milky Joe]

This was freaking astounding. I will be thinking about this film for a long time.


So Carruth is basically admitting it's a bunch of bullshit then? Mmmk.

Or he's being cagey, like any good filmmaker should be.

[Pop Trash]

Or he's being cagey, like any good filmmaker should be.

Debatable. Steven Soderbergh is one of the most uncagey directors out there and I love the dude.

[Milky Joe]

Well, I like him too but Soderbergh has never made a film like this. Also, in an interview with The Awl, Carruth gave a more thematically inspired response about choosing Walden. So I don't think we should read too much into the Q&A.

If you want to assume it's all bullshit though, go right ahead.

[Thirdmango]

He said the same exact thing at my Q&A as well and that's like 3 months apart from his.

Though the thing to remember about Carruth is you can tell during Q&As that he's incredibly nervous and he desperately wants people to like him. During my Q&A he ended by saying we were the best audience yet because in every other one he kept dreading it because he thought he would have to justify everything because nobody likes him. But then we were nice so he felt better.

But how he explained the Walden bit at mine is he wasn't looking for poetry that would help with the narrative, he was looking for something which sounded like it was a slog, droning on and on as something to just help with the twisting of the brain so he remembered back to high school and Walden was the most boring poet he could remember and so in looking through Walden's stuff he then found one which actually helped the narrative and liked it for the piece. So the first intention was that it wasn't supposed to be good but as it was going then he found it would actually be amazing.

[wigwam]

:|

[Boner M]

Wigwam here to shake shit up! :eek: :cool:

[transmogrifier]

I'm not sure what to make of this. It's either some crazy/brilliant film about the tyranny of narrative in motion pictures (among other things) or one of the most incoherent American narrative(?) films since Dennis Hopper's The Last Movie.

If it gets anywhere near The Last Movie, I'll be a happy camper.

[Ivan Drago]

I just watched Primer for the first time. As excited as I am for this, I'm not expecting to understand it the first time I see it.

[Stay Puft]

Freakin' loved this.

My favorite segment was the pig farm. That's when the editing was at its most rhythmic, and that combined with the sound design (the texture and repetition of The Sampler's recordings, Carruth's score) and plot developments (no spoilers) made for what I felt was the most aesthetically accomplished and bewitching segment of the film.

If this doesn't win Best Sound at the Matchies next year, it'll be a bloody crime.


I've got some of the answers to his questions written down but I'll hang onto them until more people have seen the film.

Drop 'em in spoiler text or something. I'd love to read them. There was a Q&A screening with Carruth here that I missed because I didn't even know about it until tickets were sold out. Majorly bummed about that.

[Pop Trash]

If this doesn't win Best Sound at the Matchies next year, it'll be a bloody crime.


Eh. I liked the sound in Spring Breakers more. Just because a film literally has a sound designer as a character doesn't necessarily mean it has the best sound around (but the sound was good don't get me wrong).

[ledfloyd]

I feel like the narrative arc of this is pretty easy to piece together, if many of the details are elusive. I don't think what exactly is going on with the pigs and the worms is so much the point as the catharsis Jeff and Kris find in one another and the emotions they feel. This is pretty major. It's flawed but flawed in the same spectacular way as the other two "great" films I've seen this year (Spring Breakers and To the Wonder). The parts that don't work just highlight those that do and serve to further ingrain the film in your mind.

[Stay Puft]

Just because a film literally has a sound designer as a character doesn't necessarily mean it has the best sound around

I saw Nobody Walks. Your point couldn't be more appreciated.

[ledfloyd]

I'm not entirely sure what the field recording sequence had to do with anything, but its effect (especially when it started cutting Kris and Jeff in) was transcendent. Perhaps my favorite part of the film.

[KK2.0]

I'm eager to watch this, some of the stuff you guys commented regarding lack of dialogue and almost musical approach to editing reminded me of Gyorgy Palfi's Hukkle, anyone watched it? It's a film i've discovered because of this message board and loved it.

[max314]

As a massive fan of Primer, Upstream Color was one of my two most anticipated films of the year, which is why it hurts so much that I didn't like it nearly as much as I wanted to.

I have no problem with obscure or abstract storytelling; Tree of Life, to which Upstream Color has been compared, is a personal favourite of mine. But there is a difference between being tonal or poetic, and obfuscating to the point of complete opacity.

The premise of a parasitic organism able to facilitate mind control is interesting enough, and the desire to explore man's connectedness with nature is a fine ambition, but there are basic narrative requirements that need to be met in order for an audience to engage sufficiently. Tree of Life, for example, lets you know that it's about a man dealing with his complex relationship with his family by way of love, loss and God. Carruth's own Primer establishes a brotherly bond that is put under strain when a power struggle enter their relationship in the form of a supernatural plot element.

But what of Upstream Color? What emotional anchors do we have to maximise the potential of its mind control plot device and its thematic intent pertaining to man and nature? The first act is engaging enough as Kris, our protagonist, falls victim to a criminal's attempts to control her mind and steal her money. And the second act goes some way to establishing a genuinely charming relationship between Kris and Jeff. But then what? What impact has the mind control had on her life? What impact does it continue to have? I enjoyed many of the dreamlike montage sections as individual pieces, isolated from the surrounding story; but as an integrated, singular piece, I just couldn't get behind Upstream Color. If anything, I felt as though Carruth didn't feel confident that he had enough genuinely interesting material to let us just experience it, and thus opted to manipulate it to a point so far offshore that there is no point of reference to judge whether it's 'good' and 'bad'. For someone who's had an immense amount of respect for Carruth's methods as exhibited in Primer, that's hard to admit.

Will my opinion change as I continue to ruminate on what I saw, as I get bombarded with reasons why I'm wrong, as I re-watch the film multiple times? I honestly hope so.

As of right now, however, I don't much care for Upstream Color. And that makes me very, very sad indeed.

[ledfloyd]

The first act is engaging enough as Kris, our protagonist, falls victim to a criminal's attempts to control her mind and steal her money. And the second act goes some way to establishing a genuinely charming relationship between Kris and Jeff. But then what? What impact has the mind control had on her life? What impact does it continue to have?
Well, among other things, the mind control (i.e. the pigs) was responsible for the relationship that developed between Kris and Jeff. The scars that were left influenced everything else that happened in the film.

[Ivan Drago]

I felt the same way about To The Wonder, Max.

This comes to my area Friday, but I'm busy all weekend so I'll be seeing it sometime next week!

[number8]

I do think that the film is ultimately working against itself. There are two great films in here, but they're only marginally related to one another, and almost only by Carruth willfully forcing them to, that they end up preventing each other from greatness. There's a very interesting representation of a triptych (conveniently mirrored by a 3-act narrative) with the worms' circle of life, but by presenting it through the filter of romance I think takes away from its universal scope, since we're too busy trying to figure out how they relate directly to Kris and Jeff, as I spent the whole movie puzzling over. On the other hand, Kris and Jeff's experiences contain a pretty fascinating exploration of individual identity and the development of symbiosis in a coupling, and how affected they are by outside forces (wisely decided by Carruth to be metaphorically elemental, rather than extraterrestrial or supernatural), but such a commentary really needs to be complimented by a deeper connection with the audience, and I wasn't able to do that because I was too busy figuring out the missing pieces of what Carruth left out in terms of how these two and their roles (as embezzler and cancer survivor) relate to the thief and the sampler. Ultimately, I think it would've been a much better film if Carruth had chosen only one of those two stories to handle with his vague, wordless staccato style (reminds me of Grant Morrison comics, strangely enough). Still like it a lot, though, albeit from a distance.

[plain]

Probably should have watched it twice before actually writing about it, but went ahead: http://serenecinema.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/upstream-color/

[dreamdead]

Really found this fascinating in its study of fleeting and amorphous character vignettes. The last act, where elements begin to be pieced together and all with just music and images, is where the film really sold me. The first hour felt like we were utterly un-anchored, in a way that felt antithetical rather than complementary, but the last 15 minutes or so are pure sensory beauty.

Trying to discern larger commentaries on the film at this point. A false god (the recorder) who redesigns flawed humans who must tear down his designs in themselves and thus rediscover their full potential? It's a little hazy and ephemeral in its larger context, which might be its biggest weakness.

[Ivan Drago]

This movie is so hypnotic. I have to watch it again.

[dreamdead]

An interesting essay (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/05/the-thoreau-poison.html)on the film.

[Yxklyx]

I can't wait to see this now. I thought Primer would be his only film so surprised to see something new from him.

[EyesWideOpen]

An interesting essay (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/05/the-thoreau-poison.html)on the film.

That was great. I didn't care much for Primer but I absolutely adored this film.

[number8]

This is now on Netflix.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This is now on Netflix.

And it is now stuck in my head.

I need to rewatch this to get a better grip on how I feel about it, because I'm not terribly sure where I'm at, but quickly, I felt its final twenty minutes worked most effectively and hauntingly, and I was surprised to see Carruth go from a film so meticulous and mechanistic in its construction (Primer) to this one, which feels soft and impressionistic and free-associative. One commonality with both films is watching people try to re-identify after a mundane scientific device upends their expectations of self. In Primer, I was watching two people try to negotiate unchecked power. Here, two people try to negotiate unchecked love, or maybe just connection, which is more fundamental and primal. Maybe this is what Heinlein was getting at when he invented the word "grok."

[Dillard]

Marvelous sound design. But. Increasingly inane plot (it's best act is the first with the Thief) made worse by the perversely elliptical, badly acted (especially Carruth), and self-serious scenes between our two hapless lovers. I don’t sense any chemistry between these two. The worst moment came when she’s repetitively picking up rocks from the bottom of the pool and placing them on the side of the pool along with a few words of prose, and they’re piecing together that she’s got Thoreau’s Walden in her head. So what? It's a scramble at the end to pull the narrative back out of its black hole of obtuseness (at least there's a pleasing, gooey wash of electronica sounds and over-exposed pretty images, right?). No thanks. Whenever Shane Carruth is in the scene, it turns into an extended clothing commercial for banana republic or whatever brand he’s wearing. His entrance shot is absolutely laughable.

[Grouchy]

I thought this was terrible. I was interested throughout the first act because I took it as a mystery which, even if it wasn't completely solved by the end, would prove compelling to watch.

After an hour I was just used to the film just throwing random and boring shit on top of everything and trying to see if it fits. I also didn't care for the style. It seemed to me that it was shot very blandly and that it made a bad use of widescreen composition on almost every other shot. Shane Carruth also should never act. I hated his performance with a fiery passion.

Hated, hated, hated this. I would only consider watching Primer now based on your affirmations that it has nothing to do with this.

[eternity]

I thought this was terrible. I was interested throughout the first act because I took it as a mystery which, even if it wasn't completely solved by the end, would prove compelling to watch.

After an hour I was just used to the film just throwing random and boring shit on top of everything and trying to see if it fits. I also didn't care for the style. It seemed to me that it was shot very blandly and that it made a bad use of widescreen composition on almost every other shot. Shane Carruth also should never act. I hated his performance with a fiery passion.

Hated, hated, hated this. I would only consider watching Primer now based on your affirmations that it has nothing to do with this.

I'm not crazy about this movie, but this is spectacularly untrue.

[Grouchy]

I'm not crazy about this movie, but this is spectacularly untrue.
Well, boring is relative, I suppose, but if there was some hidden meaning in here, it didn't make me curious to find out what it was.

[Grouchy]

I'll give you this - I know Carruth is telling a plot in a confusing, elliptical manner - the problem is that the movie blocked me out so much that I don't care what it is. I felt nothing. The imagery wasn't disturbing or mysterious - it was just there.

[MadMan]

I'm not sure what the hell I just watched, but I couldn't stop viewing this movie. I think there was some horror elements in there somewhere but it was mostly a sci-fi movie. For now I feel that the last act is the experimented upon turning on the creator-Kris kills the mad scientist, yet in the end her, Jeff, and the others who were changed forever by the flower use their fucked up experiences to give the world something beautiful, or something. I donno.

Honestly I'm not sure the Tree of Life comparison work only because I actually understood what Malick was trying to say with his film. I have very little idea as to what Carruth's latest is really about. I love both movies equally despite not completely understanding their actual meanings, which also explains why I'm a fan of David Lynch so much: I don't need to have a full explanation of a film to find it beautiful or remarkable.

Grouchy has the distinction of being the latest match-cut member to have watched a different film than I did when its the same film. Congrats, I guess?

PS: That score was amazing, btw. So perfect.

PPS: Goddamn crappy hometown prevented me from seeing this on the big screen. I bet that experience would have been transcendent.

[Fezzik]

I saw this last night on NetFlix.

It reminds me a lot of Malick's stuff, which I normally do not like, but I think this is better. I liked it well enough, though there were times I felt it was vague for vague sake and just meandered too much. Oddly, despite that, I really admire the stylistic choices Carruth made. There are some rather incredibly lit and shot sequences that belie its budget, and that, combined with some deft dialogue-free sequences had me thinking of WKW (though admittedly, this film is not nearly on his usual level).

The acting was hit or miss for me, but overall I was impressed with the filmmaking, even if I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hoped.

[[ETM]]

I was wondering why so many found it hard to follow. I think it could have been a stronger, and no less clear, film if there was no dialogue from the two leads at all. Now that would have been something.

[Qrazy]

I thought this was idiotic. There are a few nice shots and I don't mind obscuring the narrative but it's clear to me the reason Carruth obscured the narrative is because it's such a stupid story. Psychic links to pigs? A dude on a hillside who gets the worms out of people? So they just wander over to him on foot from their homes called by the siren song of his speakers? And why did they kill him (who helped them) versus the other guy (who stole everything from them)? Cap it off with painting a fence and cuddling a piglet at the end (immediately after murder)? This could have either used a better story or no story. Film should have started with the blue water sequence and by the end the world has changed and we've shifted to a different form of consciousness or something, fucking anything other than what's here.

Side note, the 'naturalistic' dialogue scenes were ineptly handled. Also the compositions while solid are NOWHERE near Malick's formal skill so leave that dead dog/pig alone please.

[slqrick]

I thought this was idiotic. There are a few nice shots and I don't mind obscuring the narrative but it's clear to me the reason Carruth obscured the narrative is because it's such a stupid story. Psychic links to pigs?

Pigs are very close physiologically to humans, which is why their organs are used for transplant procedures, so it's not that far fetched, in terms of sci-fi ideas at least.


A dude on a hillside who gets the worms out of people? So they just wander over to him on foot from their homes called by the siren song of his speakers? And why did they kill him (who helped them) versus the other guy (who stole everything from them)?

This is what made it kind of tragic. The girl's memory was only coming back to the point that she recalled the dude that helped, but probably not the guy that stole things from them. Or, they were both the same in her eyes. Either way, it was a hollow "victory" for them.


Also the compositions while solid are NOWHERE near Malick's formal skill so leave that dead dog/pig alone please.

I agree, because I think it's apples and oranges. Carruth is going for something different than Malick...I like some of what this (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2013/04/the-cautionary-rhapsody-of-upstream-color.html) article says about that.


So yeah, I loved this movie. I agree that the narrative is actually not that hard to follow once you make the connection with the pigs. That being said, Carruth's meditations on larger themes like dealing with loss, codependency, even drug addiction are much less concrete, and I think the film is better for it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

She killed the doctor because the doctor ruined her reproductive system, which was more important to her than losing her money. And this is speculation, but I presumed that the doctor was the supervisor of the whole thing.

[Qrazy]

Pigs are very close physiologically to humans, which is why their organs are used for transplant procedures, so it's not that far fetched, in terms of sci-fi ideas at least.

How far fetched an idea is isn't what bothers me. It's how silly an idea is. To me it's a very silly notion to examine a psychic connection between a pig and a human (one concocted via narrative contrivance) and then treat that silly notion with deathly seriousness.


This is what made it kind of tragic. The girl's memory was only coming back to the point that she recalled the dude that helped, but probably not the guy that stole things from them. Or, they were both the same in her eyes. Either way, it was a hollow "victory" for them.


If it's meant to be tragic that is not expressed tonally. We have them come along somehow (how?) figuring out where the guy is, murdering him in cold blood and then loving their pigs. Something tells me Carruth is a vegetarian.

[Qrazy]

She killed the doctor because the doctor ruined her reproductive system, which was more important to her than losing her money. And this is speculation, but I presumed that the doctor was the supervisor of the whole thing.

The thief didn't just steal her money. He put the worm inside of her in the first place. The doctor saved her life. She came to him after cutting herself to get the thing out. If the doctor was the supervisor of the whole thing why save her? Why not just let her die?

[Milky Joe]

This film is light-years beyond anything the vastly overrated Malick has done since the 70s.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The thief didn't just steal her money. He put the worm inside of her in the first place. The doctor saved her life. She came to him after cutting herself to get the thing out. If the doctor was the supervisor of the whole thing why save her? Why not just let her die?

Well, this is a couple of different questions.

Let's not get too chummy when we say the doctor saved her. A few things I think are reasonably clear. First, the doctor still has some interest in the worm process, given that he goes to the trouble of pulling it from one animal into another. Second, there's little sense of compassion in his "saving" of the girl's life. From his attitude, it seems a dull and necessary procedure. Third, the film is never clear on whether or not making her womb utterly dysfunctional was necessary to save her life (moreover, we see her panic, but no evidence of deadly effects). We can possibly assume that it was necessary, as much as assumptions are valuable for a film like this.

Second off, you're right that we don't know why he has to save her, but again, it does seem he has some interest in the life cycle of the worm, so her survival could do something for his curiosity. Additionally, I'm not sure the value of killing people straightaway if, as the movie suggests, nobody's yet been able to sort out what happened to them. Why bother when such an action runs the risk of attracting police attention?

[This post came from someone who's still unpacking the film after two viewings.]

[Qrazy]

Well, this is a couple of different questions.

Let's not get too chummy when we say the doctor saved her. A few things I think are reasonably clear. First, the doctor still has some interest in the worm process, given that he goes to the trouble of pulling it from one animal into another. Second, there's little sense of compassion in his "saving" of the girl's life. From his attitude, it seems a dull and necessary procedure. Third, the film is never clear on whether or not making her womb utterly dysfunctional was necessary to save her life (moreover, we see her panic, but no evidence of deadly effects). We can possibly assume that it was necessary, as much as assumptions are valuable for a film like this.

Second off, you're right that we don't know why he has to save her, but again, it does seem he has some interest in the life cycle of the worm, so her survival could do something for his curiosity. Additionally, I'm not sure the value of killing people straightaway if, as the movie suggests, nobody's yet been able to sort out what happened to them. Why bother when such an action runs the risk of attracting police attention?

[This post came from someone who's still unpacking the film after two viewings.]

A dull and necessary procedure to what end? To the end that he can raise some psychic pigs (does he know this?), bang on some random shit to make music and then dump some piglets in a river. Is the life cycle of these worms such that the worms have to come from this flower then go to a human then to a pig and then flow down a river to cycle back into the flower once again? To me the dumping of the piglets didn't seem like an act which possessed the knowledge of it's upstream/downstream colorful outcome. I realize you're not suggesting this but that's basically all the film offers in terms of why he takes out worms and then raises these pigs. The other possible alternative that he knows about the psychic link and somehow uses it to spy on the lives of these people for his voyeuristic pleasure makes no sense. How does looking at some pigs inform him of the lives of these people? It doesn't and it can't. So I have to interpret the 'dream' scenes of him in their lives as them feeling his presence around their pig-selves. Good lord only a movie this silly would have me using the term pig-self in it's examination.

He doesn't have to kill her he just has to not put speakers on the ground to lure her from god knows where through the woods and to his hilltop. If the two guys are in cahoots and the goal is the money then they can just leave the worm in her and let her cut herself to death. His motivations are completely unclear throughout the film until his death. That to me is not an ambiguity I find compelling. It's just bad writing. The character's death had no impact on me beyond the thought that okay Carruth seems to align with Thoreau and Voltaire in the belief that getting back to the land is a good thing... and I guess an even better thing if you have some sort of pig threesome to look forward to... and it's also okay to kill someone in cold blood to protect certain animals.

[MadMan]

I wrote this review in October 2013. Maybe it would have been seen here if I hadn't abandoned my Match-cut version of my Corrie film log/journal/thing. Whatever.

Upstream Color (2013, Shane Carruth)

http://www.gmanreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Upstream-Color-4.jpg

For me this is a difficult film to write about it, especially since its equal parts drama, horror, science fiction, and just plain weird. I did watch and equally love Shane Carruth's other film, Primer, which also managed to blow my mind but was in the end oddly more straightforward than Upstream Color. Its certainly for those who don't mind things such as concrete and obvious plot and Hollywood film structure, in addition to being a largely visual experience aimed at being highly stimulating. Some movies have way too much dialogue, this movie has too little, which is actually not a bad thing at all. There is also the subtitle manipulation of people at work, as a single creature has the immense power to control lives and alter the choices that these people make.

I loved the score-what was of it, as there are several scenes that feature the use of natural sounds. I found the scenes to be moving in that magical Terrence Malick way that pops up way more in movies than any directors want to admit-particularly David Gordon Green, although if you are going to borrow or steal, then take from the best. One scene where a woman confronts the terrifying fact that there is a worm in her body made me cringe and was very body horror-why must people take kitchen knives and dig around in their skin? That can't be healthy. The relationship between the two victims is a mix of passion, hate, love and tenderness, confusion and anger.

And yes I don't mind the comparisons to Tree of Life, especially since I love that film and Upstream Color. Each one subjects itself to a strange open interpretation that I strangely like, as I usually watch mainstream fare during the year and don't venture into cinema enough. I'm sure that there are people who found this and Tree of Life both frustrating and disliked them mainly because they are hard to understand and they raise more questions than answers. That could be a harsh generalization but its all I have to go on until someone explains their reasons. I already noticed when I looked this film up on Wikipedia that one critic called Upstream Color pretentious. Really guy? Really? And I thought I was a bad reviewer.

PS: That last part isn't a dig at anyone on the Corrie or Match-cut, but rather at online critics, many who are part of the reason why I've given up reading print criticism and just stuck to hearing what message board posters have to say. For better or for worse. Usually for the better unless we're talking about RT, and even on RT I'd rather read Red defend Superman whatever than read another thing from some douchebag who the Tomatometer included for littler or no reason.

[Rowland]

Mind-blowingly great... possibly my new favorite of the year, need to let it digest a little.

[DavidSeven]

I finally got to see this.

Carruth is obviously a very talented craftsman. I felt at several times that the film was bordering on masterwork through pure sensory experience alone. However, like others, I wonder how the film would play if this rather straight-forward narrative wasn't so consciously obscured and whether it could have been even more profound if the audience were allowed to be involved to a greater extent. I'm not sure Malick is the proper analogy -- with his films, it seems that establishing mood and lyricism at the expense of narrative is partially the point. Malick is trying to convey something honest, or at least poignant, by working outside the confines of traditional narrative. I think, in part, Malick hopes that we can experience his films in a manner similar to how we experience the natural world. I'm not convinced that is what Carruth is trying to achieve here -- he seems to be demanding intellectual engagement for the sake of engagement alone. I think the point being raised (by others) about whether the intentional obfuscation reveals a lack of confidence in the material is a fair one. How can we dissect the merits of the narrative if it isn't really revealed until the film is essentially over (if even then)? The film definitely creates a distance that I'm not convinced is necessary. It is, however, in whole, a beautiful piece.

Anyway, interesting, fresh, flawed. That's where I'm at.