Skip to main content

I just want to say that I hope today is better, and I love you.

Upstream Color
(2013)

(SPOILERS – NOT THAT THEY WILL HELP) Shane Carruth’s sophomore feature film finds him on his on-going mission, begun with Primer, to elicit widespread audience bafflement. I found his first picture’s narrative complexity enticing, frustrating, head scratching and ultimately distancing. And so Upstream Color, with its fractured meditation on identity and connection, is fascinating, elusive and ultimately distancing. It is perhaps ironic that a film exploring such themes refuses to bridge the gap and meets its audience halfway. Carruth, even when making a film about who it is we are (or think we are), constructs it as an appeal to the mind rather than the heart and the emotions.


This appears to be an essential ingredient of the puzzles he creates, however. Carruth’s pictures immediately inhabit an exclusive niche that encourages in depth analysis and theorising (and which can bring out the worst in people; those who adore his films may succumb to a tendency to dismiss those who don’t as unwashed ignoramuses, while those left cold may ascribe it the knee jerk label of pretentious bollocks). Such devotion is well and good, provided the undertaking reaps benefits in one’s appreciation of the film. With Primer (despite being immensely impressed one level) I found the vague, indistinct protagonists an added challenge on top of a densely clinical script; the lo-fi environment and performances ensured an impenetrable remove from the material. It seemed that Carruth was doing his darnedst to make life difficult, no doubt reasoning that once his audience arrived at answers their satisfaction would be all-the-greater. Performance isn’t such issue with Upstream Color, although Carruth isn’t the most engaging of actors (he needs a weak spot though, as his multi-hyphenate writer-director-composer-actor status is slightly sickening). The “plot” maybe isn’t that impenetrable, but Carruth’s storytelling manner (be it through framing, pacing or intercutting) is so intentionally diffuse that it may seem more disconnected than it is.


Carruth’s on record saying he doesn’t care for plot synopses, which may explain why Upstream Color’s premise is woefully inadequate even when you’ve seen the film; “A man and woman are drawn together, entangled in the life cycle of an ageless organism. Identity becomes an illusion as they struggle to assemble the loose fragments of wrecked lives”. Carruth treats the life cycle of his organism with the same earnestness and diligence as his take on time travel in Primer. But just as I’m a little less impressed with some of that film’s ideas in retrospect, knowing that he also advised on the flawed logic that drove Looper, so the process he creates here never seems remotely plausible. Indeed, it may be even less so for the matter-of-fact manner with which it is rendered. Since the governing principles of the organism lack believability, one assumes we are being asked to look through to the possible metaphors that lie behind. Carruth has offered clues, some of which are self-evident, some of which are less so. The challenge lies in threading together a consistent thematic content, as I’m unsure how rigorously Carruth himself has developed it (and to get him to admit it would be nigh on impossible). We are left defining them in only their broadest sense.


I’ll provide at least a partial synopsis, for all the good it will do. Kris (Amy Seimetz, who is very good) is drugged and robbed by a character credited only as the Thief (Thiago Martins). Left in a posthypnotic state, and infected with a worm, she finds herself at the farm of another oblique character, the Sampler (Andrew Sensenig). He transfuses the worm into a pig, and Kris is left with no memory of these events. A year later Jeff (Carruth) engages with her on a train journey; she is resistant, but it is clear that there is some sort of heightened connection between the two. Jeff has encountered not dissimilar hardships (he also bears physical signs of the treatment Kris received from the Sampler) and their mutually inclusive relationship develops to the point where they are sharing each other’s memories, unclear whose is whose. All the while, a psychic link to their respective pigs on the farm is maintained. It appears that their emotional states affect their human counterparts. And it is evident that the Sampler is using this connection to vicariously eavesdrop on the experiences of the “sampled”.


As suggested, the cycle relies on some very unlikely principles to succeed, such that it would be pointless to try and figure out how those involved realised the cause-and-effect in the first place. When the infected pigs give birth, the Sampler drowns the piglets in a sack.  A substance escapes from the decomposing piglets that causes blue flowers to grow, which the Thief purchases. The larvae found on these flowers can be used to drug a victim or larvae extract can be used to provide a telepathic “high”.  Once infected by the Thief, humans visit the farm and the cycle repeats itself (they are attracted by the infrasonic messages the Sampler sends the worms).


Carruth has “helpfully” commented that his inspiration came from ideas of identity; what it constitutes, how much our actions come from our core being and how much from rote behaviour. So he places his protagonists in a situation where they have no memory of their former selves and sees how they fare. It may be that he intends the encounters with the Thief and the Sampler to represent traumatic life experiences that affect our sense of self. The Thief might be any addiction (he achieves his aims through encouraging repetitive behaviour in his victims, leaves them virtually destitute and unable to function in the world). The Sampler may represent an apparent “healing” that merely plasters over the wound, without understanding the broader picture (at least, this is how I interpret the visit to the doctor, where Kris – who believes she is expecting, mirroring her pig’s actual pregnancy – is told that she had cancer and that she cannot conceive). Or perhaps these individuals can be interpreted as the greater, cumulative, forces within society, operating with no conscious awareness of each other but succeeding in perpetuating a malaise of somnambulance that afflicts each one of us. The drain on Kris and Jeff needn’t be an addiction; it could be as mundane as a binding mortgage, or as pervasive as an unquestioning belief system.


The director has stressed that the “antagonists” are not aware of each other, and it cannot be coincidence that the theme of interconnectedness finds “resolution” when the now self-aware protagonists end the cycle of parasitical interdependence. They appear to progress from replacing one dependency with another (their relationship) to a deeper understanding of their place in the macrocosm. Or do they? Carruth refers to Kris's action as a “sort of horrifying ending” since she “shoots” the wrong guy (whatever else we are to conclude regarding the Sampler’s specific culpability). Perhaps there is a symbolic positivity in that Kris and her fellow sampled “take responsibility” for their past actions/behaviours (as personified in the pigs). Perhaps they have found only a partial answer, as they are now unable to recognise the part “the Thief” played in their reaching this place (so their final status may be akin to assuming another false doctrine or learnt behaviour one that prevents true perception and catharsis).


A swathe of reviewers instantly compared Upstream Color to Terrence Malick’s work. I can’t say I really see the connection, except in the most superficial terms. Sure, there’s a gauzy dreamlike feel to scenes and interactions and maybe To the Wonder is closer in its abstraction to Color than most Malick. But we always remain on the exterior of Carruth’s world looking in, no matter how intimate his envisioning becomes. We cannot do otherwise, because his narrative play is all about concealment and the assemblage of missing pieces. As such there’s an absence of Malick’s attempts to explore the universal. Carruth looks at what we mistake for meaning; Malick uses his characters to contemplate meaning.


But as to the superficial qualities, there is definitely a visual lustre that compares. Among the scenes of decomposing porkers and unpleasant self-harming, Carruth (as DP) has manifested something striking and haunting. His images and edgy-yet-ambient score cohere to create an immediately encompassing world. It doesn’t seem like a lived-in world (something it shares with the austere Primer) but this suits the heightened states of Kris and Jeff.


And, if I’m not wholly sold on his vision, I can’t deny the uniqueness of what Carruth has created. From the beginning, he ushers us towards the stylised and inexplicable. The Thief explains to Kris that he was born with a disfigurement, such that his head is made of the same material as the Sun. As a result, it is impossible to look directly at him. Imposing ideas and images accumulate throughout, and their singular qualities balance the impatience that greets Carruth’s refusal to be drawn on their meaning. The Sampler, with his strange musical clarion call to his future sampled, appears unseen to his victims, observing their experiences. There’s an almost Lynchian quality to this, but without the imminent horror mustered by Jimmy Stewart from Mars. Then there’s the merging of memories, as Kris and Jeff claim each other’s past, and Kris’s stone-gathering in a swimming pool, leading to their recall of the book passages used by the Thief indoctrinated his victims.



My nagging doubt is that Carruth’s elliptical conjuring is an elaborate sleight of hand, and that it doesn’t warrant untold hours exposing its secrets. Of course, that is for the beholder to decide. Perhaps my resistance to pouring over Primer, and now this, is a sign of laziness. Perhaps it’s a symptom of my identity controlling me. Or maybe it’s me controlling my identity. While I may revisit the picture, I feel no urgency to dot every “I” and cross every “T” of its potential meaning, any more than Carruth feels compelled to explain himself. We tend to know pretty much straight away when we love a movie. And among those are the ones that fuel endless fascination and rediscovery. On much rarer occasions appreciation for a picture we initially dismissed can develop, as we become aware of its hidden depths or merits. For now, I’m content to draw a line under Upstream Color.

**** 

Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.