MovieChat Forums > Upstream Color (2013) Discussion > Primer was brilliant but this...not so m...

Primer was brilliant but this...not so much

posted 11 years ago by DrLovehate
43 replies | jump to latest

Shane Carruth obviously has talent. He's a one man movie making juggernaut. Primer was absorbing and confounding and I really enjoyed it, so I had high hopes for his latest effort: Upstream Color.

As I watched it I understood it's about connections and loss and, towards the end, hope. Unfortunately the whole seemed less than the parts this time around. I liked individual scenes but as the credits rolled I felt that that was all I had seen. A patchwork of feelings with a nebulous plot threaded through them about the life cycle of a worm.

I'm really hoping that A Topiary gets scrapped and that Mr Carruth does something, dare I say, a little more accessible next time around. Hey, I appreciate weird cinema as much as the next guy, and I don't mind having some unanswered questions at the end of a film either. In the end though this was not a transformative experience for me. I'm afraid that Mr Carruth thought his idea was more interesting than it turned out to be once realized on film.

I applaud him for his vision and fortitude to make whatever he feels like making without having to consider market appeal and studio executive mentality. However, I think more collaboration in his future films would temper his mindset a bit and result in a better product. My two cents...

[–] weirdtx 11 years ago

I agree. I came across this movie from Primer, probably like many others, and it was a sore disappointment for me. It seems like such a massive deviation from his previous work - where Primer was immersive, puzzling, and fast-paced, Upstream Color felt like a lengthy, drawn-out blur of emotions.

I thought that the scenes from Upstream Color were highly artistic and extremely beautiful, but honestly it felt like that's all there was. I mean, I see the symbolism and the metaphors littered throughout the movie, but it felt overly artsy and gimmicky. I guess this is expected considering that I didn't enjoy the 2011 Tree Of Life.

Part of my disappointment probably stems from me expecting a movie similar, at least in pacing, to Primer. And upon seeing that Upstream Color was labeled "Sci-Fi," it reaffirmed this belief. I haven't lost all faith in Shane Carruth yet, but will definitely approach "A Topiary" with more caution.. I really hope that this is not the direction that he will take his future movies.

[–] Morality_play 10 years ago

My understanding was that "A Topiary" had been permanently abandoned by Carruth before he even began making Upstream Color. That the footage from it that is glimpsed in this film was the only part of it he ever intended to release. Do you know something I don't? Is A Topiary still a living project? If you read something about this, I am very interested in learning more.

[–] TheHypnotron 11 years ago

Obviously people are entitled to their opinions.

And I for one don't like telling people what to do.

So it bugs me when people make statements that suggest what a filmmaker should do to win them over in their next film.

Who the hell do these people think they are? It's embarrassing.

Mr Carruth is making his films. We like them or we don't and obviously we are free to give our opinions about what we think is good/bad about a film, but I just think comments that extend into the realm of giving "advice" to the filmmaker reeks of narcissism.

Mr Carruth is making low budget films. He's making the films he wants to make. He's not our dancing monkey. And he doesn't owe audiences anything more than his integrity as a filmmaker. Upstream Color seems very much a personal film. I seriously doubt he's going to take advice from some anonymous persons on the internet who have dubious film making qualifications.

There are already too many dancing monkeys in the film industry.

We need more filmmakers with integrity.

[–] DrLovehate 11 years ago

Well sharing your work is part of the creative process and, being as such, one opens oneself to commentary and criticism. If Mr Carruth wants to continue making small esoteric films for a selectively small audience that's fine with me. This is my opinion and I think that I delivered it with respect and acknowledgement of his obvious talent.

The thing is, this board isn't for fans only to praise his films, they are for open discussion of the relative merits of said films. I did not find this film to be that meritous. If this film was highly personal to Mr Carruth, and not just a sci fi idea he had, it still makes no difference to me. It cost money to make and I expect he would desire it to make money. I paid my money and this is what I thought of it.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people think that criticism, even constructive, is akin to telling people how to appeal to some personal sensibility. I don't hate Mr Carruth's work and I don't presume to suggest specific ways to make it appeal to me. I simply feel that maybe Mr Carruth is working in a bit of a creative vacuum and I think he could expand his box of tools and tell a more complete story with some basic collaborative effort.

[–] TheHypnotron 11 years ago

I have no problem with criticism of the work. I was VERY clear that any criticism of the final film is obviously fine.

I just find it narcissistic when people go beyond merely criticizing the work and start giving suggestions for how someone else should work or go about their work.

You wouldn't tell your doctor how to become a better doctor.

[–] DrLovehate 11 years ago

I merely made an observation about him possibly collaborating more, and it's not like I would expect Shane would ever read this anyway. I don't get how that could be construed as narcissistic?!?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheHypnotron 11 years ago

weirdtx was probably more deserving. i did lump you both together.

[–] jdetwi2-890-270399 11 years ago

Good point. I wouldn't even know where to begin to make suggestions for making the film better. I just find it annoying that he spent 9 years trying to get this film made, knowing full well that people regarded him as a genius and then he gives us the finished product. It feels like he allowed the 'genius' title go to his head and that every single idea was brilliant so he should put it in the film. The best artists are always looking to refine their craft. This is just plain stupid.

[–] mercyonme 11 years ago

Uh, he did not spent 9 years trying to get Upstream Color made. Don't know where you got that from.

[–] dennisrafkin 10 years ago

Primer came out in 2004, Upstream Color came out in 2013.

[–] diorlouboutin 10 years ago

That does not mean he spent those years trying to get Upstream Color made. He actually spent them trying to get A Topiary made. Upstream was made (quite quickly) when he gave up on that film

[–] dennisrafkin 10 years ago

the person I replied to said "I don't know where you got that from". I'm assuming whoever said it took 9 years to make took a look at those two release years and just subtracted.

[–] bonsai-superstar 10 years ago

1. Your main criticism of the OP was that they are "telling people what to do" and accuse them of being "narcissistic". Then, you give us your permission to do what we were already doing: "I was VERY clear that any criticism of the final film is obviously fine" - whew, thanks for the go-ahead, boss!. Not only hypocritical, but obnoxiously so.

2 "We like them or we don't and obviously we are free to give our opinions about what we think is good/bad about a film, but I just think comments that extend into the realm of giving "advice" to the filmmaker reeks of narcissism." Sounds like you're unclear on the meaning and purpose of criticism. Public criticism of a work is "telling people what to do", either directly or obliquely. If the artist wants to appeal to the masses, they will listen. If not, they (probably) won't. If you're into censoring/limiting public discussion of movies, one wonders why you came to this board at all?

3. "He's not our dancing monkey". What is the job of the aforementioned ape? To entertain. I recently read a book by a music journo who had interviewed quite a few musicians. He had asked each of them if they would ever consider making a CD that would not be heard. Only one said they would, and he didn't really believe them. The creator of this movie is making the movie for other people to watch - for entertainment. To believe otherwise is to be deluded.

[–] Johnny_Wrong 9 years ago

The creator of this movie is making the movie for other people to watch - for entertainment. To believe otherwise is to be deluded.

And it will be watched and enjoyed...by people who share his taste in films. Like me.

[–] solarisdeschain 11 years ago

And sadly this kind of whiny, entitled criticism is all too common these days.

[–] nullcreations 8 years ago

You're a pretentious turd. People didn't like the film. It wasn't that good. He can make whatever films he wants, but we're not obligated to like them.

Get over it, and get over yourself.

[–] jason-638 11 years ago

I really enjoyed a lot of Upstream Color, the bizzarre "robbery" which bled into the weird entanglement with the pigs, to the strange disconnected romance, to the shared memories beginning to surface and problems of identity.

,,,Then?! The ending was completely disjointed, not in an interesting juxtaposition of themes, no, just a clumsy tacked on "hopeful" off we go to take care of the pigs... Lazy.

[–] nightmareswin 11 years ago

",,,Then?! The ending was completely disjointed, not in an interesting juxtaposition of themes, no, just a clumsy tacked on "hopeful" off we go to take care of the pigs... Lazy."

there was a bit more to the ending of the movie than that.

[–] tallard 11 years ago

Same here, I was truly entranced by the first half hour, nearly to the point of vomiting due to the very intense discomfort I was feeling. To contextualise, I don't watch slasher films, and I watch about half of gory films... considering this, the first half hour was a top 5 for the most disconcerting and painful and devastating beginning. Never had a film made me feel like vomiting from discomfort. So I was hooked. I stayed hooked throughout their meeting and getting to know each other and their sharing issues. But as the hump of the film was moving along, I started to feel manipulated and started to dread that such a powerful beginning would not have a suitably powerful ending. But I tried very hard to stay in the zone. The repeat dialogues really irritated me, as did the ridiculous "joyful" dialogues, few though they were. By one hour in, I knew I'd been had, there was no longer a plot, and there would be no resolution. And then the end came and I just felt like oinking. The film would have been better off ending with the dumping of the piglets, which really is the last real plot content in the film.
I loved Primer, and I hate Mallick. I gave Primer a 9/10, and Mallicks last three I rated 1/10. So I am curious as to why so many are comparing the two styles. I think stylistically speaking, Carruth is nowhere near as pompous and vacuous as Mallick, but I think he simply failed in this film to follow through with the original intent of the film. It had better artistic values than Mallick films, much more meat, I was compelled by most of it... But stylistically mixing the genres of serial assaulter/thief/esoterics is simply a failure. I get the idea that there was probably and entirely different denouement planned for this film, and it somehow got sidetracked. Very disappointing.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] heuer88 10 years ago

It's spelled Malick...

Also how can you rate his films a 1/10? You may not enjoy his style but his films are booming with ideas and ask some of the most important questions about existence. You see no redeeming qualities to his work? His style and presentation of ideas are completely different than any other filmmaker out there. Still nothing?

A filmmaker I appreciate on an intellectual level without really "loving" his work is Lars Von Trier. I think I don't really enjoy how he chooses to make his films but ultimately I would never rate anything he does below maybe 6/10 because his films ask provocative questions and he knows how to create a really effective atmosphere in his work. Ultimately, I see his style to be representative of his personality and while he may be a little too in your face and rough around the edges, you take it as is, see what he's trying to convey and whether he achieved what he set out to do.

Malick has a strong background in philosophy and prefers to tell stories like visual poetry. Maybe, it's not for you but there is still substance there.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=heuerj88

[–] tallard 10 years ago

Watching a Malick film this decade is like reading a bible, a bunch of controlling patriarchal freaks copied a whole bunch of stories that existed before (no creative process at all in recent films), usurped them (no original ideas), mutilated them, use poor imagery (slow motion grass, milk swirling in coffee) and poor storytelling skills (none), bad poetry... yet 95% of humanoids buy the crap. To me Malick is indie gone Hollywood, and stripped of anything he was worth in his initial works. The 1 is for Michael Shannon, and 1-2 other actors... Malick himself gets 0 from me.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] Makarov-324 10 years ago

The Thin Red Line is one of the best war movies ever made.

[–] heuer88 10 years ago

They broke the cycle at the end, even though we all know The Sampler wasn't the bad guy, it was The Thief who was doing things maliciously. The film concludes because the story was over.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=heuerj88

[–] pitviper_90 11 years ago

DrLovehate,

As I watched it I understood it's about connections and loss and, towards the end, hope. Unfortunately the whole seemed less than the parts this time around. I liked individual scenes but as the credits rolled I felt that that was all I had seen. A patchwork of feelings with a nebulous plot threaded through them about the life cycle of a worm.

This is a great description, I felt the same way. Of course, it may be a bit cliche to do the Tree of Life comparison to this film, but it's appropriate in terms of contrasting Malick and Carruth's approaches. Carruth's narrative development is like a surgeon and his scalpel, he follows a specific methodical guideline that he keeps locked up in his mind and transitions it from one image to the next. That's why Upstream Color feels like it has no flow to it, but rather is a powerpoint sequence of images that is supposed to be interpretive. The Tree of Life flowed because it was dictated by Malick's vision, his belief, purposes and love rather than his mind. But I guess with Upstream Color, Carruth really did treat it like a science-fiction experiment because his direction was indicative more of a scientific method rathar than a free-flowing art. I liked the film, but it wasn't satisfying.

[–] sono2351 10 years ago

If that's all you get out of it, maybe you should watch it again and see if you missed something. It's a beautiful story, and I felt wholly satisfied with the entire movie, including the ending.

Before I watched it, I made it a point to cast all expectations aside; to not expect another "primer," if you will.

It's all-encompasing. Think of the film on multiple levels: Is it the soundtrack influencing the movie, or the movie influencing the soundtrack? The music breaks all barriers in this film. Every barrier. i was lost in it, in the way that you go out for a hike or into an unfamiliar city and want to get lost.

Upstream Color is my ultimate date movie. If I took a girl out to see this movie and she enjoyed it as much as I did, that means something on so many different levels, because this movie isn't just a visual experience, isn't just the story, it's everything - the sum of ALL of its parts. If you're looking for the story in the plot alone, I don't think you will find it. Try and let other aspects of the film into the experience. Maybe you will find something that you didn't find before.

[–] fanman-6 11 years ago

Agree with the OP. Loved primer, and thought this might be good. Was quite engaging until it turned into a relationship story and started going downhill from there.

[–] I-do-declare 11 years ago

One of the best things about Primer was the way the technical possibilities and limitations of time travel had been thought through. The characterisation was not particularly memorable, and the plot played out more as a vehicle for that one idea than as a story in itself. Which is fine if the idea's good: Borges made a career out of that, after all.

Upstream Color, on the other hand, doesn't have that rigour behind it. The life cycle of the mystery organism is nonsensical: it goes from a grub to a helminth; it can be sexually transmitted; it relies on a chain of events which is highly unlikely to occur in nature (plant to grub to human to pig to water to plant), and so forth. Again, the characterisation completely fails to connect. Yes, the main characters have been messed up by this process, but other than that we leave the film with very little understanding of them or any reason to care about what happens to them. The "villain" of the piece seems to be motivated by a desire to live in self-sufficient isolation like Thoreau and to make music, but that is a paper-thin excuse to explain his actions throughout the movie.

I liked the way in which the story was told - the insistence on showing rather than telling was definitely refreshing - but the story itself was emotionally and intellectually unsatisfying and frankly silly. Very nice sound design, though.

[–] samuelpolacek 11 years ago

This film was definitely more abstract than primer, and I feel like it was certainly less accessible for this reason. Primer was material and real. This made it easy to understand for people who are most exposed to reality as a material world.

Upstream colour held my attention for the majority of the film, mainly because i didn't understand it for the majority. I understood the material ideas, and the interpersonal ones as the film developed, but i didn't understand why any of this was relevant or important - it just seemed like an elaborate fantasy.

As the end of the film approached, metaphorical themes became ever apparent.

Stereotypically esoteric claims stuck out, such as:
1. we are all connected
2. there are always forces at work which may not be reflected in our understanding of them, or which we may not understand at all
3. no matter how well we understand the world, it is always possible that our understanding is not the most accurate
4. it follows that we can improve our understanding, and following that, our behaviour for a more sustainable or harmonic existence

However, I am at a loss as to why those who were infected by the worm would ultimately choose to restrict its life cycle, after being exposed to its magic. Surely they found great solace in the highly innervated relationships built out of their suffering? My impression early in the film was that perhaps the thief would be revealed as a champion of the proliferation of connectedness and harmony by exposing everyone to everyone else, even if by accident. Or that maybe he was himself a tool in the worm's life cycle.

Evidently, this worm was not to succeed.

[–] mercyonme 11 years ago

This was way better than Primer

[–] andrewblack84 10 years ago

i thought primer was a solid film but nothing compared with upstream color, as Caruth himself has said- upstream color is a far more sophisticated film. It really was for me what cinema should aspire to be- dense, sub-textual images communicating complex ideas rather than expositional dialogue.

[–] RetroNewWave 10 years ago

This film is kind of the opposite of Primer.

I was MovieKid56, but then I was cured alright

[–] craftspells 10 years ago

Agreed. Primer had a very intelligent script, but I felt like everything was so thoroughly laid out that it almost became too dense for me to fully wrap my head around or connect to on any emotional level. Not only that, but I found the acting to be rather flat which made the entire thing feel pretty amateur in execution.

I found Upstream Color to be far superior because it offers a pretty simple sci-fi/romance plot line at face value, but is conceptually and formally abstract enough to be open to interpretation and emotional connection. I feel like Carruth really hit the mark here and made a super gorgeous and mature film with stellar performances and cinematography. Whereas Primer will forever be a sci-fi cult classic, I feel as though Upstream Color transcends that and will be remembered for its bold experiments with storytelling through film.

[–] alexsbigman 10 years ago

primer is great but upstream color is one of the best films of all time

[–] bonsai-superstar 10 years ago

Is this Kanye West?