Well, Soderbergh's "Solaris" is something that I've seen more times than probably anything else. And I've gotten into a weird habit of leaving a few films on a loop in the background. I lived a sort of isolated existence in the suburbs, I mean, I've moved away from that now but at the time, I was writing in this sort of empty house and I would have "Vivre sa Vie" and "Lawrence of Arabia" and 'Zhivago' and they would be on this loop all the time. And maybe I'd turn the volume down and turn some music on instead but I would always look back and see "Oh, we're at that scene now, isn't that lovely? I hadn't noticed…" There are definitely movies that work like that for me.
Christopher Nolan, for example, famously prefers not to offer up definitive answers as regards the debates around his films. Where does your opinion fall on the spectrum between there being a multiplicity of valid interpretations and a singular, empirical, "true" vision?
Well, I definitely know that I'm not here to do morality tales. I'm not here to speak a truth, other than to hopefully open an exploration into something that I think is universal and true, but I don't have an answer and that's not what I think narrative is for.
But it's definitely specific and I don't subscribe to "we throw up language and you interpret it the way you like." My fear is if we do that, I mean, that could be done with anything. That could be done with a beautiful tree, with a splatter of paint on the road. We can all look at that and see our mother, or a dog we had, it can all mean anything and I don't think at that point we're having a conversation, we're just looking at clouds.
So there has to be something singular and specific, so that we can… here's the way I feel. When I'm an audience member I need to know that what I'm looking at is specific, is singular because that's the only reason I would spend time puzzling through it. Because if it's open to suggestion or interpretation then I don't necessarily need that material in front of me.
Heh, yeah, I'm learning that I'm not going to stop being a control freak. I was trying and I didn't succeed. So now what I know is I need people that are willing to sort of work like this, where I need to be able to compose music the way that I compose it, on my crappy little laptop system, but then at some point get together with a musician who will help me with the mechanics of orchestrating it.
I need utility, basically. I need someone to collaborate with on that level. I don't want somebody to take the material and interpret it according to their version of it. I unfortunately need something from them that they may or may not actually want to do, which is servicing what I want that certain department to be. So we'll see if we can make that happen… I think we can. I'm not so difficult to work with, but I definitely have a certain idea of what things are meant to be, and it's only going to make people mad if they try to… if we try to change it.
That's pretty much right! But one thing that did happen on 'Upstream' -- I did have Tom Walker, the production designer. And this is what it ends up being: we have so many conversations that we eventually land on the same page. So at a certain point I just become so confident in what he is doing and that he's servicing what we're doing, that it becomes so much easier.
But more times than not, people think "collaboration" means "I'm gonna bring my version of this story to it and we're gonna mix all our versions together and that'll be the story" and unfortunately I don't subscribe to that. But, like David Lowery editing, it was the same way, he just inspired me with so much confidence we just talked so much and got on the same page as well that I was happy for him to inform the film. He made some really wonderful additions to it, and I feel like there really was a true collaboration there.
So I know it's possible, but there's probably only a small sliver of it with me, because I am a control freak.
It's oblique but apropos, tell us where did the title come from?
Well, in the film the main characters are being affected at a distance by things they can't speak to. And the three points in the triangle, as far as the worm-pig-orchid cycle, each of them are performing acts that are independent of the next one in the line… they would all be dealing with things that seemingly came from "upstream." And "color"… I think of it as building up a personal narrative, and the shape of that is easy, the color is what's difficult. I don't know if that means anything, but it seemed appropriate to me at the time.
Shape and color, then, are perhaps analogous to the film's characterizing duality between the almost mathematical precision and the dreamlike lyricism of the approach. As that a balance you made conscious effort to achieve or is that simply how you express yourself?
Wow, I don't know -- which comes first: do you try to do it or are you doing it and you recognize you're doing it?
For this story there is an architecture, the story I believe is very strong and the broad strokes are strong and could be re-purposed in any other form and you would still retain the core of it -- the tortoise-and-hare-type version. The execution of the film is when it becomes lyrical, because once we have got that framework, the way we play with it and define its edges is lyrical.But I don't think you could have one without the other and I wouldn't want one without the other.
But then that's what I want out of everything. A bit of music I'm listening to, I want there to be a well thought-out composition, but when it's executed I don't want the computerized midi version of that playing, I want a human that it interpreting it on a moment-by-moment basis because they know something about the way I'm hearing it, because they're hearing it. We need that human paintbrush to get to somewhere that's moving.
We'll run the final part of our interview (in which Carruth talks more in depth about the themes and motifs of "Upstream Color") next week, when hopefully many of you will have had a chance to see it after it opens Friday, April 5th.