I thought it was mostly straightforward but with healthy ambiguities remaining for subsequent viewings. Everyone keeps saying it's this grand enigma, but I don't get it. A lot of its themes, and the way it articulates them, have been in many films before. He just pushes them all into one brief running time.

Also, I like this explanation a lot. Totally didn't get this:

-Vader

Cilogy wrote:
I love diving into film analysis after watching something, but I seriously believe if a film like Upstream Color requires as much explanation and validation as it does post-viewing, then it's not a good thing. I'm convinced Carruth was trying to show everyone something only he could truly understand. I applaud the effort, but the pretension is strong with this one.

I bet even Malick would be like "lol what the fuck is this guy on?"

Um, your avvy is beautiful.

Vader182 wrote:I thought it was mostly straightforward but with healthy ambiguities remaining for subsequent viewings. Everyone keeps saying it's this grand enigma, but I don't get it. A lot of its themes, and the way it articulates them, have been in many films before. He just pushes them all into one brief running time.

Also, I like this explanation a lot. Totally didn't get this:

The pig farmer appears in the peoples lives because he is with their pigs. Their pigs are aware of his presence, so the people feel his presence due to the worm connection. Kris is alerted to the pig farmer's location and that he is a bad guy by her pig since her pig's piglets were killed and her pig was separated from Shane's pig.

-Vader

Right, which makes total sense, but only after reading about it. I mean, how the fuck were we supposed to glean that from the first viewing (unless you read about it beforehand)?

Cilogy, that's a dangerous argument. For all the times 2001's been viewed by the public, there's still no easy answers. Inception took many viewings for some to comprehend all the intricacies of the story. The first viewing of Upstream provides, for many, a sensuous and beautiful experience beyond immediate comprehension for some. Subsequent viewings would reveal what you'd want to understand. Puzzling over films is a good thing, and the beauty of discussion and interpretation is a wonderful thing.


-Vader

Vader182 wrote:Cilogy, that's a dangerous argument.

I don't understand what's dangerous about it.

For all the times 2001's been viewed by the public, there's still no easy answers. Inception took many viewings for some to comprehend all the intricacies of the story. The first viewing of Upstream provides, for many, a sensuous and beautiful experience beyond immediate comprehension for some. Subsequent viewings would reveal what you'd want to understand. Puzzling over films is a good thing, and the beauty of discussion and interpretation is a wonderful thing.

For those films, I would think people at least have a general idea of what's going on. Also, as I mentioned, I enjoy diving into film analysis and I think puzzling over films can be a good thing. In most cases I don't even believe there is a true threshold where positive discussion and analysis turns into complete confusion and pointlessness. However I think Upstream Color is one of those films that tests that boundary, or I guess I'm just too dumb for it.

I want you guys all to know that when Vader jerks himself off by describing why film is this amazingly beautiful art form, he's doing so shirtless wearing swim trunks. The truth needed to be exposed.

Cilogy wrote:

Vader182 wrote:Cilogy, that's a dangerous argument.

I don't understand what's dangerous about it.

For all the times 2001's been viewed by the public, there's still no easy answers. Inception took many viewings for some to comprehend all the intricacies of the story. The first viewing of Upstream provides, for many, a sensuous and beautiful experience beyond immediate comprehension for some. Subsequent viewings would reveal what you'd want to understand. Puzzling over films is a good thing, and the beauty of discussion and interpretation is a wonderful thing.

For those films, I would think people at least have a general idea of what's going on. Also, as I mentioned, I enjoy diving into film analysis and I think puzzling over films can be a good thing. In most cases I don't even believe there is a true threshold where positive discussion and analysis turns into complete confusion and pointlessness. However I think Upstream Color is one of those films that tests that boundary, or I guess I'm just too dumb for it.

That's my point. Almost all of Upstream Color was straightforward and linear for me. I'm confused why people are saying it wasn't.


-Vader

Cilogy, Vader's arguments often revolve around how being in minority in holding a feeling for a film generally discredits said feeling, work that into your counter. Just a friendly tip.

Crazy Eight wrote:Cilogy, Vader's arguments often revolve around how being in minority in holding a feeling for a film generally discredits said feeling, work that into your counter. Just a friendly tip.

lol, you're just mad I said Routh sucks.

Anyway, I'm actually in the minority in this case. Even critics that loved it said it's baffling. It isn't, they just weren't trying hard enough.


-Vader

Vader182 wrote:

Crazy Eight wrote:Cilogy, Vader's arguments often revolve around how being in minority in holding a feeling for a film generally discredits said feeling, work that into your counter. Just a friendly tip.

lol, you're just mad I said Routh sucks.

Anyway, I'm actually in the minority in this case. Even critics that loved it said it's baffling. It isn't, they just weren't trying hard enough.


-Vader

You always use that as a point for why someone disagreeing with you is absurd. lol You did it to me twice today, and Dave cites it as one of the most annoying and stupid ways you argue.