This is an abstract film. I guess that's the right way to describe it. Does it have a point in being abstract? That's a bit tricky question. The film's free-flowing visual structure is captivating. I think the process of constructing a story or an idea starts with images in your head. You're shifting through these random frames in your head as you are knitting a story, and you would try to arrange them in a manner that would serve to be a concrete narrative--and that isn't the case here. Shane Carruth preserves those jumbling abstract frames and presents to you just as they are. The result is a film that's wildly interesting but fairly isolating. You're in the moment, and you are not. You can observe things and try to make a sense out of it, but it would be hard to empathize with the characters. The film has a visual structure that seems to be of this world, and it feels alienating. I think I'll just have to admire the cinematography for that.
Does a film have to have a point in order to be admired? I don't think so. Immersion is the key to enjoy a film, and Upstream Color fairly succeeds in creating a world that stays with you long after you've left it. But there is still a hollowness. A bitter test at the end of a very fine cocktail. But I would be lying, if I said I didn't enjoy the cocktail for most of the time.
Watch it.
Does a film have to have a point in order to be admired? I don't think so. Immersion is the key to enjoy a film, and Upstream Color fairly succeeds in creating a world that stays with you long after you've left it. But there is still a hollowness. A bitter test at the end of a very fine cocktail. But I would be lying, if I said I didn't enjoy the cocktail for most of the time.
Watch it.