Upstream Color - Carruth (Movie)

The intriguing poster
depicting the best moment in the film.

Welcome to Upstream Color, the second film by Shane Carruth. The first film was Primer, which I have reviewed on this blog as well. I'm locked in a battle with myself right now, trying to decide if I want to say that Upstream Color is my new favorite movie. I'm not sure if I'm ready to say that, as I've only seen it twice as opposed to the dozen-and-a-half or so views I've got under my belt for Primer, but it's safe to say that this is one of my favorite films of all time.

It's impossible to deal effectively with this film without referring to Primer, although the films are not actually in any kind of continuity with one another. However, it's clear that they are of the same school, namely the School of Carruth. It's not at all imperative to watch Primer before Upstream Color, but I recommend it. I do not believe Color would have been possible without Primer.

Like Primer, Color is a complex and provocative film. Intentionally confusing, the movie dares you to figure it out. Also like Primer (as well as another notable film that's been reviewed), this is not a movie you watch at the end of the day to unwind and have fun. (Goodbye half of the article's readers.) It's not the kind of movie you watch with a group of your buddies so you can laugh and chat over the film. If you hope to get anything out of Color, you're going to need to give it your full attention. And that is the main point I want to hit on today. This is a film that asks for your full attention, and really delivers.

Gross.

Too often, I fear, we as art intakers like what we like because we like it, not because it will enlarge or enrich us. I've said this (or something like it) before: there's more possible for art than we give art credit for. We live in a society of quick satisfaction. A world of "if it feels good do it." Now, I'm not saying there isn't a time and a place for relaxing or just good old-fashion fun. Of course there is. There is also a time and a place for being pushed around. For work. For giving up something for something better. That is the invitation extended by films like Upstream Color. It isn't easy to figure out. Nothing is given to the viewer on a silver platter. The scenes shift from one moment to the next in a disconcerting flash of colors and sounds. There are textures here. There are layers and layers of meaning.

You'll notice I haven't mentioned the plot or premise. This movie is about a pig farm. If that doesn't satiate your curiosity, then why not just watch the film? It's on Netflix right now. I, of course, suggest not looking up anything more about this film until after you've watched it.

What'd I tell you?

Watch it. Then watch it again. Marvel at how much you are being engaged. How much you are thinking. Don't expect to have fun (although you might)--expect to learn. This movie could just about give you a headache if you're not careful, not that I recommend caution here. Here is a film you give yourself to in at least some small way. This is an experimental film that pushes the edges a little. It doesn't really feel like just a movie. It is a philosophy. It is a performance. It is a living painting. But, perhaps above all this, it is a challenge.

Before wrapping up I feel it would be a mistake to not mention how excellent the acting is (especially from our leading lady Amy Seimetz), the cinematography, and Carruth's ability to be indulgent without ruining everything. In my own writing, this is something I envy greatly. Oh yes, I should also mention that as with Primer Carruth wrote, directed, produced, starred in, and composed the music for this film. Pretty sweet.

Alright, go to.

-MA 07.01.2014

Groundhog Day - Murray, Ramis (Movie)

The movie is great,
the cover leaves something to be desired.

Note: This review is primarily for those who have seen the movie, which I'm guessing is pretty much everyone reading it.  If you haven't seen it, you can just run along now.

What could be more fitting the week before Groundhog Day than to review Groundhog Day?  Obviously: nothing.  What is it about Groundhog Day that is so much fun?  It is one of those rare movies that still has something to offer after the first few views.  The story has a classic quality to it, somewhere in the same neighborhood as A Christmas Carol.  We get to watch the transformation of the character from the protagonists' point-of-view, all the while reflecting upon how we might be changed by such a magical event, or what we might do differently.  Some of the goofier aspects of what one could do in this situation are explored thoroughly, but not so much as to obscure the heart of the story, the restructuring of Phil's life.  I have felt for a long time that the moral of the story is that you don't need some crazy event like Phil to become a better person--for a long time as the days play out he changes very little--but that we have the choice to become better whenever we choose.  After all, at the end of the story it really only took him one day (pause for scattered laughter).

So, the story is good, but there's more that makes this truly great.  The following is an interesting exercise and I hope you'll take a moment and do it well: imagine another talented comedic actor in Bill Murray's role.  You can choose Robin Williams, Steve Carell, Jim Carrey, Will Ferell, whoever.  Imagine your favorite scenes from the movie with the exact same dialogue and with all the same supporting actors.  I'll give you a moment to do this...strange, right?  It's not just the script or the story that has immortalized this film, it's Murray.  Patrick Stewart is to TNG and Murray is to GHD.  He elevates this script.  He elevates the other actors.  I've never seen another actor who can act so tired and disinterested with as much energy as Bill Murray.

"So he can tell us how much more winter we can expect."

There are a lot of other aspects I could address, but the last thing I'm going to discuss here is the pacing and ordering of the film.  Originally, the screen writer had this presented as a much more sci-fi piece; it's funny, but before learning this I never even realized that there was an aspect of sci-fi in the story.  He had the movie begin on one of the many mornings after Phil had started his revolutions, with the audience slowly coming to an understanding of what was happening.  I imagine that version of the script was a lot of fun it its own way, but it would have sacrificed something much more important than fun, namely: real heart.  If I had been the screen writer I think I would have really struggled with changing it once asked by the director, but how much more gratifying and lasting is the story if we start with the Phil from before.  We see his potential as a quality person even behind his sarcasm and his selfishness, and we want to witness that growth.

I guess what I'm saying about this movie is that it did what it did right.  There are a lot of ways in which it could have been changed--and it still could have been a fine movie--but as it stands it is better than fine, it is great.

-MA 1.29.13


PS.  The guy who takes the groundhog out of its cage, the one who has the great "seer of seers" line is Murray's older brother, who also plays the Flying Dutchman on Spongebob.  Just thought you might want to know!

Gentleman Broncos - Hess (Movie)

"I hope everyone likes our movie, Venonka."

So, you liked "Napoleon Dynamite", but you didn't feel that cool about it because most everyone else did too, huh?  Well then, here is the film for you: "Gentleman Broncos" (2009) from Dynamite director Jared Hess!  Both films were written by Hess and his wife Jerusa.  Don't worry, this film is not well known and loved by millions; if fact, so few people thought the film would be well received that instead of being shown in theaters across the country (as was originally planned) it went straight to DVD!  This film is not loved, it has a %19 rating on Rotten Tomatoes and it doesn't fare much better anywhere else.  So you can see why--although I love this movie--I cannot recommend it without hesitation.  If you choose to see the film, you may very well be left with the unsettling feeling that you have just watched one of the weirdest movies of all time.

"Gentleman Broncos" is--at its heart--about what happens to art as it is changed or adapted.  Motivations for doing so are also explored.  Lead character, Benjamin Purvis, has written a bizarre sci-fi novel (which the movie tells us it actually quite good) in honor of his deceased father.  Throughout "Gentleman Broncos" we get to see it as it is, as it is once adapted to the "big screen", and as it is once it has been plagiarized.  I'm not delve deeply into plot points, but there's the basic premise.

"Benji Boy"

Let's start with what is perceived as being so bad about "Gentleman Broncos" that makes it so hated by so many.  In part, it's gross and it's weird.  This is one of the few PG-13 movies out there that has no sex, no swearing, and almost no violence.  What then, could earn this rating?  If you watch it, you'll know.  At points the film is almost dark in its merciless portrayal of how awkward the characters are and how strange their lives are.  I'll be the first to admit it's not an easy film to watch for this reason.  Some moments stumble over the line between comedy and horror; in one scene Benji's mom, Judith (Jennifer Coolidge) is screaming from an unexpected wound, she screams and screams as the camera zooms in disconcertingly.  Ebert complains that the plot "mystifies" the characters.  Another aspect of the film some people don't care for is how bounces around between the the real world and depictions of Benji's story.  All I have to say to that is if you'll simply pay attention you'll be fine.  Some people also think it's boring and pointless and blah blah blah.

Okay cool, now that we have that crap out of the way let us move on to a much more accurate review: mine.  From this point on I'm going to be pretending like everyone would love this movie.  "Gentleman Broncos" has it all!  Humor!  Originality!  Superb acting!  And lest we forget, quotability!  This is the kind of movie you can watch over and over again because you definitely missed something the first, second, and third times through.  Like Napoleon, it has a lot of short scenes.

 I could easily write about this movie for hours, enumerating what I feel is artful scene after artful scene, but I'll spare you.  It suffices me to say it is well written and well directed.  I would actually like to focus on just one aspect of the movie, one which I feel those who gave negative reviews all but completely ignore: the acting.  I can think of few movies with more consistently good acting then this one.  "Flight of the Conchords" co-star Jermaine Clements plays esteemed sci-fi novelist Ronald Chevalier, whose dualistically styled name is a window into the nature of his character.  He plays Chevalier with such effortlessness you would swear he wasn't acting, but we know from his other work that he is nothing like the pompous and arrogant (not to mention deep-voiced) writer we see on-screen.  Sam Rockwell pulls off his twin roll of Bronco/Brutus with about as much ease.  I didn't even realize my first few times viewing the movie that it was the same actor; the characters seem to exist in different galaxies.  Although Coolidge is a well-known Hollywood actress, she takes on a level of believability in the admittedly difficult role of Benji's mom that again makes us think she is just a woman who acts that way all the time, more-or-less playing herself.  This is not the case.  And finally we come to Benji himself, the "star."  Rarely do we see a protagonist with so few lines, though he is in the majority of the movie's scenes.  He doesn't have much to say, but that's alright because his face tells us all we need to know.  Pay special attention to his eyes, which seem to have a life of their own.  Other notable performances include Mike White as Benji's "guardian angel" from church and "Nacho Libre" co-star Hector Jimenez who plays a bizarre native-American high school student who makes films; "mostly trailers," he explains.  Critics complain that while there are Big Names on the screen, nothing is happening.  I feel this is akin to complaining that your nature walk was boring; while you wait around in vain for the movie to push you through one tired comedic plot-point to another, you are missing the art of the film, the execution of each moment.

Bronco triumphantly rides a battle stag.

The director and the actors know that the material is over-the-top, the characters are wacky, their motivations and the results are wacky, so they handle it the right way.  In a word: understated.  There's not a lot of crazy screaming or goofy faces.  The movie is even beautifully absent of that almost undetectable comic inflection seen in so many movies that let's you know the actors are "just kidding."  They are sincere, which I think is a turn-off for some.  For me however, I can't get enough.  All throughout the movie we hear some of the finest line deliveries in memory, but these gems are too quickly discounted because someone threw up in the last scene.  People sometimes throw up; get over it.

Who can forget such memorable quotes as, "How about this?  Moon Fetus... A fetus is found on a moon base...that's the premise."  And, "Circle of life, man."  And, "My dad, kind of, died when I was young."  And, "I couldn't find any tampons so I just bought some treats for Lonnie and me."  And so many more I can't even begin to write them all.  Well I guess I did begin, but you know.

I leave you with the following promotional video that is actually not in the movie (it actually is kind of relaxing to image a planet with life forming on it): 

-MA 12.10.12

Primer (Movie)

Before I begin allow me to offer a warning: If you do not know what Primer is about, consider yourself blessed to be able to watch it with no preconceptions of what you are seeing.  Do not look it up on IMDb or Wikipedia, do not talk to friends about it, simply go out, rent the film and watch it.  More so than any other film of which I am aware, it is important to watch Primer for the first time without knowing what it is about.  I won't tell much about the actual plot here. 

I recently decided that Primer (2004) is my favorite movie, dethroning Groundhog Day.  Anyone who knows me well has heard me talk about this movie.  I post about it, I think about it, I quote it. I have seen it thirteen or fourteen times and I would gladly watch it again.  Primer, to me, is just about the perfect film.

Primer was a labor of love.  The man behind the masterpiece, Shane Carruth (Writer, Director, Lead Actor, Composer, Producer, and Editor of the film), began with a dual idea of what he wanted to portray.  a)  He wanted to present a more realistic depiction of technological invention, having been disappointed over the years by how far the movies depicting invention had strayed from the reality of it, and b) to write a morality play about the acquisition of power.  The purity of this genesis is to be applauded, if more filmmakers began their films with these kinds of ethereal goals (as opposed to, "I want a movie with good explosions" or, "I want a movie that would be fun for a young couple to watch together") I think we'd see a lot fewer achingly predictable films.

Carruth was not a movie maker before the creation of Primer, he was (and probably still is) an engineer. Perhaps this is a part of what makes the film so comfortable about being non-conventional.  Unfortunately, despite the film's critical success he has yet to make another (although Arrested-Developmentesque talk about another film has floated around for the past few years).  Primer was produced for the meager sum of $7,000--which is not even enough to film a decent commercial these days--and yet the film looks flawless.

Aaron looks on as Abe drops little circles of paper on the plates.

The plot of Primer is beyond complex.  It is not the kind of film that twists the mind a little bit, but becomes clear by the end or after a second viewing (such as Seven Pounds or Inception, which I like to think of as "Primer Lite").  The film intensely challenges the attention and intelligence of its audience.  The characters (engineers themselves) speak confident technical jargon one strains to keep up with.  The events of the film do not unfold as a clever brain teaser like so many other "cerebral" movies, rather the scenes pan out in frustrating confliction with one another, mirroring the confusion the characters are feeling, creating an near-impossible web of convolution and interest that preys on the mind.  Though the subject matter is not horror fanfare, the film often takes on sinister notes of dread, because we fear what we don't understand. 

The music (again, composed and performed by Carruth) is beautiful and unearthly.  Moving from more concrete acoustic instruments to fragile synthetic sounds.  It would have been easy to just through in a few notes and low noises and call it good, but the more I hear it, the more I realize the music was as carefully thought out as the rest of the film.

Primer is humorous and entertaining, the acting and cinematography is superb, but all of that is swallowed up in our need to understand what is happening on screen.  It can seem more laborious than fun to watch Primer, but once you begin to see what it is about, how its various parts connect, and how many vital scenes are implied but never shown, you start to feel that the tremendous payoff is worth the work.  The ending alone opens the door to an imaginative frenzy of possibilities in the mind of the astute viewer.

I'm not going to pretend that there are no flaws in the movie.  A few of the lines fall a little flat on the part of the actors, and some viewers might feel cheated about a few of the "side-effects" shown not being adequately explained.  In one or two shots you can see a boom mike, if you look very closely.  My biggest complaint with the film (which really is not a serious infraction) is that I think it would be difficult to know the film was meant to be a morality play if you didn't know it was intended as such.  Carruth mentions this in the DVD commentary, but I don't feel like it's really possible to know that's a main point of this film just by watching it.  But every film has at least a few weak points. 

If you are the kind of person who is only interested in a movie that helps you relax or that demands your attention with surface level twists, conflicts, and gags then Primer is probably not the movie for you.  Certainly, there are people who hate it, who see it as a gross waste of time.  I've read several reviews regarding the film as "nonsense" of one sort or another, I assure you that is not the case.  If you like art to challenge you, if you are interested in the experimental, the strange, (if you liked Faulkner's "As I lay Dying" in other words...) then I definitely recommend watching Primer several times, preferably back-to-back.  I suggest watching with the subtitles on, as the characters sometimes talk over each other and speak quickly.

As you unlock the treasures of this film you might find yourself asking, "How could I ever have been satisfied by finding out that Bruce Willis was dead?"

"I was dead the whole time, sry!!"

If you have already seen Primer, click here for some of my thoughts on particular scenes.

-MA 10.15.12

P.S.  The internet is trying to tell me "confliction" isn't a word.  No matter.