UPSTREAM COLOR

[Christoffer Glans]

I think it was superb, I wasn't feeded the story once throughout the movie, it was all hardchewed food for the brain which I like.
The cinematography was also superb and shows that the technology and camera is NOT what makes great cinematography. So was the editing, it was cross-cut in the best possible ways, using interesting juxtapositions.

But I missed some wider shots i some cases, it felt claustrophobic, maybe intentionally, but I think it's mostly a sign of not trusting those establishing shots when shooting a movie.

 

[Carlos Reyes]

Saw it for the second time tonight. An amazing and powerful film that really sticks with you. I hope Carruth has a long and successful career.

 

[Brett Harrison]

Yep, we can all shoot like Blair Witch did Ivan

To be fair, making your movie look like Upstream Color (more or less like 35) and not like a found footage movie - everyone wrote found footage with Tarantino dialogue for a few years.

 

[Jason Diamond]

When has this ever been different?

30 years ago people with ideas had the choice to shoot on 65mm, 35mm, 16mm or 8mm...

Every time a film like this comes up we all get excited... it was shot on 16mm... it was shot on DV... it was shot on a 5D, a red, a gh2, a bolex... an iphone... next somebody will make a story that is half decent on google glass and we will be having this same conversation yet again.

I don't see what is surprising about this. Can't we simply accept this as a given fact of life (that artist will create art with the tools they are given, within the limitations that they are given) and not treat it like some great surprise every time a new film is released?

Maybe that its just my insular look at the industry from the blogs and tweets and facebook messages of pixel peepers and people complaining about what a camera doesnt have vs what any camera can offer if used properly.

clearly great content has been made from Melies til now regardless of tech. I just saw this film as a shining example.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

To be fair, making your movie look like Upstream Color (more or less like 35) and not like a found footage movie - everyone wrote found footage with Tarantino dialogue for a few years.

I agree, it looks great, but am just joking that there are limits to what doesn't distract from the story .

 

[Jaime Vallés]

Saw it a couple of days ago. LOVED IT. Loved the story, the acting, the photography, the sound. The SOUND!

Very well done.

 

[Sid Idris]

I'll probably consume anything Carruth creates but I have to say UC lacked connective tissue. It felt a bit like a meditative study on meditation. Everything (except the script) is excellent about this film.

 

[Daniel Pearson]

Wow, saw it last night - loved it. It was an amazing sensory experience, not 100% with the script at times but overall a simply amazing film.

 

[andy black]

just saw it, loved it. its form was so close to what i think cinema should be- less expositional and dialogue driven, more subtextual and image based progression of the narrative/themes. a note on the cinematography- i am yet to shoot RED but having used dslr i am always against the idea of "exposing for the brightest part of the frame" that makes for horrible murky dslr footage imo. ive always been in favor of blowing out the highlights as long as the important part of the frame is correctly exposed. Upstream Color has ALOT of blown highlights, perhaps partially for this reason the film is shot with very shallow focus almost all the time. Unlike "Like Crazy" which looked ok, this actually is very beautiful, and he used cheap rokkinon glass to!!!

 

[andy black]

That's how Soderbergh exposes also: unapologetically digital images that are better for it.

I agree that people should be experimenting with the medium now that we can afford to. The less film becomes like a novel or a play the better. I don't think this has to be an exercise in obscurity though, which I would argue Upstream and Tree of Life are, or else they are more like music albums than stories which is fine for the cinephile but not the general public (yet). I think a certain amount of ambiguity is very useful but you should still be able to solve for x emotionally - kind of like the mask at the end of Eyes Wide Shut - without needing to read a commentary on the film like it's Finnegan's wake.

Yes indeed, i think perhaps 'yet' might be the right way of looking at it but i really feel like as the world becomes more image based and less literary people will become better at decoding more subtextual image based cinema. Out of this hopefully people become more susceptible to a more sophisticated film language which will become more prominent. Less establishing shots, less continuity, more abstract narratives moving away from traditional film language. Something i think many of the interesting modern film makers are doing- certainly Lars Von Trier for one.

Tree of Life i find to be a very different film to Upstream Color, i am a big fan of Malick but i found Tree of Life to be his loosest and most disjointed work, something i havent ever felt about him before. Upstream Color was a real assault of not just images but sound and music, it was also tight and contained not terms i'd apply to Tree of Life, although i guess thats all subjective and you are largely comparing them in narrative terms. Have you seen To the Wonder? I think everyone was fearful of Malick's recent signs of uncharacteristically quick turn arounds but To The Wonder was just superb i felt. Much brisker, less indulgent than Tree of Life and thematically a bit of a departure(perhaps dare i say a progression) for Malick, a more contained and modern film. More comparable to Upstream Color i feel.