Upstream Color

[Jeremy Blackman]

MORE SPOILS

...

This article from Slate suggests that the Sampler's motive is just to draw inspiration for his music. (From their sampled lives/essences, like I was saying.) And it makes sense. (I feel like I should rewatch before I read the rest of that article.)

I guess in the same way a life cycle has various moving parts, this abduction scheme is segmented — there is no mastermind, no singular malevolent vision. The Sampler is the Sampler, the Thief is the Thief, and the orchid harvesters are the orchid harvesters. As such, there is no ambition for expanding things — the cycle is what it is.

[Lottery]

SPOILS

Yeah, at first the one thing that left me wondering is how the Thief and the Sampler were related, if they had any awareness of each other and then I realised that it's cool to think of it like in nature- animals and plants aren't entirely aware of the system they're in but they continue to perform these actions in an unending cycle. That is until something/someone e.g Kris breaks it.

[Pubrick]

uh anyone saying they got this film on the first try is posturing ridiculously.

you know a movie is going to be a mind fuck when 03 says you can't get it on first viewing.

you're right. i came away with a barebones understanding of the mechanics of the story. at first, because we have absolutely zero idea what the hell is going on, i became a bit distracted and started looking at the film as a showreel for what a hacked GH2 could do. then when carruth appeared i started paying more attention.

so i dunno, my tip to first time viewers is just let it happen. this thing is like no other.

[Sleepless]

uh anyone saying they got this film on the first try is posturing ridiculously.

I've been trying to think of the best way to respond to this attack. I'm not trying to "posture ridiculously" at all, but I hardly think this is a mind fuck. Without taking anything away from the film at all (as I said, I am an admirer of Carruth and think he's produced two exceptional films), I maintain that I am satisfied with my understanding of the film after one viewing. Maybe that's because these days I tend to react to a film more on an emotional level rather than having a need to pick apart every narrative strand or come at it from an technical appreciation standpoint. I feel like I got it. If you don't, no sweat. I know most people on this board are much more intelligent, but its clear that I come at films from a very different perspective. I'm much more interested in responding honestly to a film on my own level. At the end of the day, film is art. I don't feel the need to dissect it to the point where it becomes something else.

you may have had ideas and theories and whatever that brewed in your head after watching it, but anyone that has seen it more than once knows that repeat viewings, as with any film, yield greater understanding.

For sure. I think we'd all agree that some of our favorite films as a collective (There Will Be Blood, Children of Men, Punch Drunk Love, Tree of Life, Eternal Sunshine, Lost in Translation) all reveal new truths each time you revisit them, but are you honestly suggesting that you didn't "get" any of them on your initial viewing? I understand what you're saying, but I fail to see how Upstream Color is different than any other film in this regard.

[03]

spoilers but does that matter at this point...



dude, i wasn't attacking you. i said anyone. i basically meant that if someone was like 'whats the thing about' youd be like 'these guys in the snow find some alien creature and try to fight it'. if someone said 'whats upstream color about', if youd seen it one time then youd be like 'uh, well these two people are hypnotized by this worm but you dont really see the other persons thing as much as the one you see in the beginning and then they meet bc they both had the same thing..' you see what im saying man?  i got the film on first viewing as much as i get a painting that could be interpreted as anything bc its not a concrete image. anyway, third viewing in, its still the best film this year and im still finding little tiny stuff in it.

[Sleepless]

I'd like to think I came a way with more of an understanding of the meaning rather than a simple summary of the plot, isn't that what it's actually about?

[Pubrick]

Then tell us the meaning.

Tell us what it's actually about.

[Sleepless]

Spoils










To me, it was about fate. Or at least the battle between fate and free will. This is demonstrated in micro in the first act kidnap sequence. Kris and Jeff are destined to be together. As JB and Lottery pointed out, there are different parts of a bigger pattern at work but they don't work together or are even necessarily aware of each other - but none of the pieces would function were it not for the Sampler. He's like God. But not an omnipotent, careful God. He makes mistakes. He's constantly trying to create this sense of perfection, but it always evades his grasp. He succeeds in some ways - he brings Kris and Jeff together - but even he cannot control their desire to explain things. By trying to figure out every little detail, they destroy him - and yet they are still left with questions.

I'd be interested to hear what meaning you took from it beyond analyzing it in a mechanical sense.

[Lottery]

There are so many interviews of Carruth online stating almost exactly what it's about and exactly where everything comes from. Identity and cycles yo.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Jesse Thorn interviews Shane Carruth:

http://www.maximumfun.org/bullseye/bullseye-jesse-thorn-shane-carruth-upstream-color-and-rodney-ascher-room-237

It's really an exquisite interview.

[Mel]

• Didn't see Primer yet.
  
• Before picking up Upstream Color I was watching films of Antonioni (finished most of his filmography few weeks before). Note: little to no dialogue is only one of similarities.
  
• I'm big fan of Bill Hicks and was listening to interviews with David Milch just day before watching Upstream Color. How this is relevant at all? SPOILER: Both are broken souls and big believers in one cosmic consciousness (played huge part how I perceived movie).
  
• As emotional viewer I was happy after seeing ending. This is great romantic movie: they are in love from the first view and till the end they hit obstacles that could separate them, one after another (and bigger than live). Yet they succeed.
  

[Sleepless]

Five minute or so interview with Carruth on this week's Empire Podcast. They talk about how the self-distributing side of thing works when it comes to streaming movies. Purchases on iTunes yields much more profits than licensing to Netflix, at least for a movie of Upsteam Color's box office.

[Gold Trumpet]

Amazing movie. Kept waiting for the full Carruth experience and watched Primer and Upstream Color back to back for my first time viewings of both films. Primer has mysteries, but they revolve more around the plot and character relationships. The filmmaking more or less supports the plot very well. However, Upstream Color is a full expression of filmmaking and the experience is still buzzing in my head. Will definitely have to watch again.

[Alexandro]

Glad to see the responses here to such a daring film. It was, to me, a humbling experience. That said and in all honesty, I feel more admiration than love. Both for the director's achievements as for the film itself, which on it's own, without any background info on how it was made, it's beyond impressive.

I was expecting a complete mindfuck and was, I guess relieved, that it became clear a few minutes in that I was seeing a very linear story. But the editing just asks too much from the viewer and understandably, some people can't keep up with it. I mention this because the editing was my favorite part (I know Ghostboy did this too and Jesus, this guy, I mean this is no normal editing of a film, is a masterclass in itself), but also because back in The Master thread I mentioned that the editing of that film is what makes it such a difficult sit for some people, not because is slow or boring but because it's the exact opposite. The pace of these two films is incredibly fast. Just look at how much happens in Upstream Color in just 96 minutes. Every moment is stripped to it's bare bones essence. And I think with that, these two films are onto something pretty special in terms on linear narrative.

Yet the vibe of connectedness and transcendence that the film has becomes a little too much when the score (which I also admire more than I like) does all it can to maintain the film in what feels like one emotional state, one emotional note. At some point it started to feel like everything is looked from the same distance, and the pace made it harder and harder to care. The score is present during most of the film, but it's so commited to the idea of all being part of a bigger picture that it renders the intensity of what happens flat...well, not really flat, but stable. I'm sorry but as the film operates in visuals and moods and sounds it's also very difficult to put my own feelings about it into words. I hope this makes at least some sense.  So this is a strange thing to happen. Because the very ingredients that makes this unique prevented me from getting fully immersed and interested in the experience. I don't know if the film should have been any different, but well, that's how I felt on my first viewing.

[Pubrick]

Yet the vibe of connectedness and transcendence that the film has becomes a little too much when the score (which I also admire more than I like) does all it can to maintain the film in what feels like one emotional state, one emotional note. At some point it started to feel like everything is looked from the same distance, and the pace made it harder and harder to care. The score is present during most of the film, but it's so commited to the idea of all being part of a bigger picture that it renders the intensity of what happens flat...well, not really flat, but stable. I'm sorry but as the film operates in visuals and moods and sounds it's also very difficult to put my own feelings about it into words. I hope this makes at least some sense.  So this is a strange thing to happen. Because the very ingredients that makes this unique prevented me from getting fully immersed and interested in the experience. I don't know if the film should have been any different, but well, that's how I felt on my first viewing.

this is an excellent comment. a master class in criticism right here. it's hard to explain something so subjective as your response to music but you've really captured something i was unable to put into words and bugged me after my first (and only) viewing.

obviously this is a movie that isn't supposed to be "grasped" in the first go but it starts and maintains such a heightened state of expectation from the viewer that it can wear people down. i found the criticism about the music to be somewhat reflected in the acting style of the principal performers. it's too easy to say they were just hitting one note all the time, it's more that the entire thing operated on that unified level that you mention which makes every emotional cue feel like it lacks any crescendo.

i normally hate talking about movies in this fragmented way, it's really amateur hour to talk about individual elements of a film (music, editing, acting, etc) like we're talking about the build quality of an automobile but i think this is the effect of the "totality" approach present in the film.. thematically and formally.

don't know if i have the energy to revisit this. i really admire carruth for what he's doing in cinema though. i just wonder if it can be done with a crowd pleaser.