Plot
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.
Release Year: 2013
Rating: 6.9/10 (255 voted)
Director:Shane Carruth
Storyline
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.
The last paragraph will contain mild spoilers; this is a film you don't
want to know anything about before going in so I still recommend
skipping it. But I offer it as a jumping point into understanding this
film, as I'm sure many will be upset and wonder about that.
I attended the world premiere of Upstream Color at Sundance 2013 along
with a Q&A from writer, director, actor etc. Shane Currath. I am a big
fan of Primer and I also appreciate esoteric/enigmatic and visual
works. Upstream Color definitely can be described with those words. I
think Primer is complex and intelligent/intellectual yet can be enjoyed
by a broad audience. Upstream Color is easy to understand on a literal,
plot level but the themes and allegory are a little harder to
understand (I don't claim to fully understand it yet). Needless to say,
it's not one that the majority of movie-goers will appreciate.
Aesthetically, it is a beautiful film full of poetic-imagery. It is
very visual not unlike the work of Terrence Malick. Our protagonists
are exceptionally acted, especially Amy Seimetz as Kris, she is
captivating as is the film itself. I'm not going to talk about the plot
but keep in mind that it is an allegory. I can't say whether or not I
'enjoyed' this film, but while watching it, it had my fullest attention
and it has consumed my thoughts since trying to make sense of it. I
wonder if it could have been more effective if it had been clearer. To
the movies credit, the last third has no dialogue but none is needed,
the film has established an emotional and visual language that the
audience fully understands and embraces. This film could be genius; it
could just be a lot of pomp with a compelling façade. The film had some
real moments of emotional resonance yet at the end I felt hollow and
unsatisfied. I probably will revisit this film to understand it and my
response better.
The Q&A was interesting, Shane Currath didn't inspire confidence that
he had a singular vision and intent for this film (from his answers it
sounded like he had some loose ideas and put it on screen). The film
prominently features Walden, I thought it may tie in thematically but
he stated that when he read Walden it seemed like something you would
make someone read as torture – and in the film, it is used loosely as
such. It may be ironic or purposeful that this film may be a
Walden-esque torture as well for some in its transcendental/opaque
nature. He also stated that this movie is about tearing people down and
their having to build their own narratives. They also may not
understand that there are outside forces affecting them, yet they can
feel it on some level. That's probably the most-helpful advice in
understanding the film.
(mild thematic and plot detail spoilers follow): Keeping those last two
statements in mind, at one point 'The Thief' tries to sell drugs to
individuals with a worm inside of it that hypnotizes them, let's take
that both literally and figuratively as in he is a drug dealer who is
trying to get people addicted to drugs which control them and make them
do mindless things whilst high and financially bankrupt them. The worm
can be viewed as the addiction itself. These people then hit
rock-bottom and once they recover they aren't the same people anymore.
There were external forces working on them that they weren't/aren't
aware of but now they have to build a personal narrative of how to deal
with the consequences of their addiction. The part I haven't figured
out yet is The Sampler and the pigs but I'm sure the answer is there
somewhere, hopefully the previous interpretation I gave is somewhat
accurate and helpful.
0