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.

**** 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for