Has anyone else seem the recent film “Primer”? I just saw it and loved it to death - in fact, I’ve watched it about five times now (three of them because I had to in order to get everything straight).
The basic story is about two guys who accidentally invent time travel in their garage. But this is no swashbuckling Back to the Future type treatment - it’s about as realistic and convincing as possible. They can only go back in time about a day, and they’re not even really sure how it works or what they’re doing - but the point is that they are indeed traveling back in time, and the movie deals with the mindblowing personal implications of such a discovery.
At first they use it in subtle ways, but soon they start attempting more grandiose experiments, and the movie spirals out of that. There are twists within twists and mounting interpersonal tension. I don’t really want to say anymore for fear of giving away what goes down.
More incredibly, the movie was shot on film for only $7,000, and made by a former engineer who just decided he wanted to make a movie one day. For those unfamiliar with the astronomical costs of even basic things like lighting and camera rentals when it comes to filmmaking, this is a bit like finding out that your favorite band recorded their latest record using a PalmPilot or that your favorite website was programmed with a Speak-n-Spell and a TI-82 calculator - just jaw-dropping.
One valid complaint is that once things start moving along, the film gets really confusing as multiple trips through time begin to overlap each other, and we see things like a character seeing himself on a previous trip through time observing his original pre-trip self. It definitely warrants two or three viewings before you feel like you have a firm grip on what exactly went down in what order and how it all adds up. Luckily, it’s only about 70 mins long, so multiple viewings are doable.
I thought the concept was OK, but it got buried under a mound of technobabble, often further obscured by several characters babbling at the same time. I think it’s cool that the movie was made on a shoestring, and it had some decent shots, but it all added up to a big mess.
A valid complaint, but I think that the “technobabble” made the characters twice as believable. These are engineers, and young, impassioned ones at that. If one of them had come out with a simple, “So the way it works is like if you have a potato, right, and…”, just to make the concept palatable to Joe Sixpack, it would have sucked me right out of the movie. Regardless, the “how” is the least important aspect of the film - the time travel is, after all, simply a McGuffin that allows us to explore the relationship between two very brilliant and creative people, simultaneously friends and competitors.
I saw it in the theatre when it first came out, and I really enjoyed it. The grainy, “cheap” quality of the photography made it seem very realistic. I definitely got confused by some of the techno-speak, but not so much so that I felt lost. I should probably rent it and try and fill in some of the blanks.
I completely agree. Primer goes on my list of all-time Sci-Fi faves, which is right up there with 2001, Contact, and Close Encounters. I would go so far as to say it was some of the hardest of hard science fiction ever shot on film. The film paid attention to real-life details and conversation. The technobabble wasn’t there to offer insight to how the machine worked; it was there to add a layer of realism. This is esoteric shit, and it was portrayed as such; unabashedly and with subtle nuance that made you really feel like these guys knew exactly what they were talking about when they knew what was gong on, and you were right there with them when they didn’t. It served as tone, and I thought the technical conversatiion they had was actually interesting in context with the film. It really was a nice blurring of exposition and dialogue.
Shane really realized a tone and visual style for this film which i think most big Hollywood directors would have flubbed given the same script. He wasn’t concerned if the audience GOT the events in the telling of the story. He wanted you to be as confused as the characters in the movie… to only know as much as they know. And, for me, it worked in spades. I think the best compliment for the movie i can give (and for which, I think most Hollywood-type movies are guilty of), is that it doesn’t insult your intelligence. In fact, the movie DEPENDS on it.
I’m not so sure about that. The main reason the movie didn’t work for me is because we increasingly don’t know as much as the characters do. I really enjoyed the first half, technobabble and all, because the characters are just as confused as we are. But as things progress, the director intentionally keeps the audience out of the loop: the characters obviously know a lot more than we do about what’s going on, and the director makes no attempt to clarify things. I love movies that require the audience to pay attention (Memento, The Usual Suspects, House of Games, etc.), but when a movie goes out of its way to be impenetrable and the story doesn’t require it, it just seems pretentious and self-indulgent. Clarification is not always the same thing as dumbing down.
I remember several reviewers praising the film while at the same time admitting that they didn’t understand much of it (Roger Ebert was one, IIRC). I find that strange, because if a story fails on the most fundamental level – communicating the events to the audience – why is it worthy of praise?
I did, however, enjoy the minimalist style, the performances, and subject matter of the movie, and would appreciate anyone who could provide a good explanation (or a link to one) for what the hell was going on in the second half.
I loved the technobabble, even though I didn’t understand a word of it. It sounded like real technogeeks being passionate in an authentically geeky way. Please don’t tell me the techno stuff didn’t really make sense or add up when translated. I assume that. I jut liked the aesthetic of the lingo.
If anyone could explain the ending to me, I would greatly appreciate it. I watched it twice, back-to-back and was still completely out to sea.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it pretentious either. I do think that the film did suffer somewhat because of its practical/financial limitations on the production side. I think Shane even mentions in the commentary somewhere where he had more scenes for certain plot laying areas, but because of circumstantial reasons, was not able to incorporate into the movie. From the very efficient way the movie was made, I’m guessing if Shane had a scene, then it served an important role in the telling of the story. If on the back end, for whatever reason, the scene couldn’t make the final cut, then the story suffered. Unfortunately, I think this was the case… because there are noticeable “blanks areas” in the plot, which I think could have been cleared up with a scene or two (or three). Anyway, all that said, the story does add up… if you have already seen the movie, then you won’t be scared of by the spoilers in THIS EXPLAINATION.
For tons of discussion on the film, check out http://primermovie.com/phpBB2/index.php. Shane hangs out there and answers Q’s all the time. A few guys have even really nailed the whole thing, complete w/ diagrams and stuff.
That timeline does so little to help. It’s all too much. I think I’d have to watch the movie several times and read through the timeline very thoroughly just to have a basic understanding of what was going on.
I just got this film on DVD today, based on this thread.
I did not read any of the spoilers, and in fact didn’t read much of this thread until after I watched the film. Watched it twice, in fact, to make sure I was sure I thought I had it.
I’m pleased to say that I got nearly everything right the first time, but that a second viewing helped me place certain events in sequence correctly.
Thanks to all for recommending a truly great film. If anyone is reading this who hasn’t seen Primer, go out and buy a copy right now. Unless you already have…
I watched this the day before yesterday. I felt I missed something important. I watched it again a little while ago. A couple of things made more sense, but I still didn’t get it. Maybe it’s this tooth that’s been bothering me for nearly a fortnight, or maybe it’s general ennui I feel in my life. Or maybe I’m just dense. I need to get the DVD back to SchlockCluster soon, but I’ll watch the commentary and see if it makes more sense. I’ll read the links provided here later. Probably tomorrow morning.
Where I’m getting confused – I think – is when they go back to change some event. Why does Aaron want to punch Platt? Who’s Mr. Granger, again? What’s the deal with the guy with the shotgun? What were their wives’s names? Is Rachael married to Aaron or Abe? Or is she a ‘lost love’? Seems I was trying so hard to catch all of the details that would lead me to an answer that I missed a lot of the details that would lead me to an answer.
From time to time I have scouted movies for an associate who distributes in the UK. One barometer I have for predicting others’ enjoyment is whether or not it sustains my interest throughout its duration. Doesn’t mean it has to be great, move me, anything. But it’s got to keep me tuned in, so to speak. My psyche has this failsafe method for letting me know: I often fall asleep if it doesn’t.
I put on Primer at 3:30am after minimal sleep the night before. I was completely lost as far as the story was concerned about halfway through, but was completely riveted until movie’s end. A terrific effort on the filmmaker’s part IMO, especially considering budget constraints.
