by Bruce E. Parry
This is my second review of Primer, done after I’ve seen the film four or five times, including listening to the Director’s Commentary. I want to do this review before the Movie Group, so that I can do a third review after the Movie Group, focusing on what changed for me as a result of the group.
First, let me say that my first review was really quite wrong. After actually watching the film more closely and listening to the commentary, I realize there are not a lot of hand-held camera shots. It is the grainy and unconventional nature of the shots that make them seem to be done by an amateur cameraman in a way that makes you feel like you are in the film. That was correct; the technique I quoted for achieving it was wrong in the first review.
Second, the Director’s Commentary was all about how they made the film. At first I thought that the Producer/Director/Writer/Star, Shane Carruth, was just preoccupied with the details of making the film. Then it hit me: he doesn’t want to talk about the story; the film stands on its own and doesn’t need further explanation. That’s why most commentaries are that way. I have to decipher the story for myself.
And that, I think, is the key to the attraction of this movie. It seems to occupy us with trying to figure out the details of what’s happening in what order. Does it make sense? Does everything come together in the end? I believe that my tendency is to think that the directors and writers of films make movies that make sense and when I don’t understand them, I need to go back, rewatch the film and make sense of it.
Wrong! I don’t think that this film tracks. In Pulp Fiction (1994), the film is purposely cut out of chronological oder. I figured out what order things had to go in to make sense and when I did, everything made sense. But Primer deals with time travel and paradoxes and I don’t think there was ever an intent to make the film totally coherent. In fact, I think that is a large part of its charm. Nevertheless, it makes enough sense to keep us locked in and coming back for more. That said, I’ll bet that the majority of conversations about the movie, including in my upcoming Movie Group, are about making sense of the time travel and logic of the film.
I think the real attraction of the film lies in the developing conflict between Aaron and Abe, the confusion that results and the incomprehensibility of time travel. The characters are as confused as people in real life. Real life is difficult. It is impossible to know what all the factors, all the parts of any problem or situation are. The movie is the same way. Time travel presents indeterminate dilemmas that are only resolved in practice buy the “last iteration” of the event. And then the players don’t know what happened before. Just like life. This creates—between the two key time travelers—a growing conflict that is never really resolved. They separate, but that doesn’t “solve” anything, just like life.
Life is confusion, incomplete knowledge and conflict and those are the themes of the film. Life is also comprehension, insight and love, and the movie has those, too. They come in the development of the time machine, in understanding its looping process, in seeing how it can be used (for better and for worse) and in trusting each other in the process of invention and use. The loss of control through the replication of Aaron, Abe, Thomas Granger, and ultimately the machine itself, creates the ultimate clash.
After watching the film all these times, I have to ask, “How many Aaron’s are there? How many Abe’s?” It seems that every time they go through the machine, another double is created. When Aaron is trying to resolve the issue of the shotgun at the party, they ask whether he might not have gone through 20 times. If he had, wouldn’t there be 20 Aaron’s running around? That would create conflict no matter what happened or who was involved. Talk about multiple personality disorder!
I am beginning to see why this is a “cult classic.” It took a while, but the movie is a real reflection of life and its ups and downs. I guess all good movies are, but this one snuck up on me. I liked it, but it took a while to put my finger on what was attractive about it. I’ll write a short blog on what I learned and felt at Movie Group (unless, of course, I need to write a long one). I’m fascinated to see what others have seen in this film.
Copyright Bruce E. Parry
This is my second review of Primer, done after I’ve seen the film four or five times, including listening to the Director’s Commentary. I want to do this review before the Movie Group, so that I can do a third review after the Movie Group, focusing on what changed for me as a result of the group.
First, let me say that my first review was really quite wrong. After actually watching the film more closely and listening to the commentary, I realize there are not a lot of hand-held camera shots. It is the grainy and unconventional nature of the shots that make them seem to be done by an amateur cameraman in a way that makes you feel like you are in the film. That was correct; the technique I quoted for achieving it was wrong in the first review.
Second, the Director’s Commentary was all about how they made the film. At first I thought that the Producer/Director/Writer/Star, Shane Carruth, was just preoccupied with the details of making the film. Then it hit me: he doesn’t want to talk about the story; the film stands on its own and doesn’t need further explanation. That’s why most commentaries are that way. I have to decipher the story for myself.
And that, I think, is the key to the attraction of this movie. It seems to occupy us with trying to figure out the details of what’s happening in what order. Does it make sense? Does everything come together in the end? I believe that my tendency is to think that the directors and writers of films make movies that make sense and when I don’t understand them, I need to go back, rewatch the film and make sense of it.
Wrong! I don’t think that this film tracks. In Pulp Fiction (1994), the film is purposely cut out of chronological oder. I figured out what order things had to go in to make sense and when I did, everything made sense. But Primer deals with time travel and paradoxes and I don’t think there was ever an intent to make the film totally coherent. In fact, I think that is a large part of its charm. Nevertheless, it makes enough sense to keep us locked in and coming back for more. That said, I’ll bet that the majority of conversations about the movie, including in my upcoming Movie Group, are about making sense of the time travel and logic of the film.
I think the real attraction of the film lies in the developing conflict between Aaron and Abe, the confusion that results and the incomprehensibility of time travel. The characters are as confused as people in real life. Real life is difficult. It is impossible to know what all the factors, all the parts of any problem or situation are. The movie is the same way. Time travel presents indeterminate dilemmas that are only resolved in practice buy the “last iteration” of the event. And then the players don’t know what happened before. Just like life. This creates—between the two key time travelers—a growing conflict that is never really resolved. They separate, but that doesn’t “solve” anything, just like life.
Life is confusion, incomplete knowledge and conflict and those are the themes of the film. Life is also comprehension, insight and love, and the movie has those, too. They come in the development of the time machine, in understanding its looping process, in seeing how it can be used (for better and for worse) and in trusting each other in the process of invention and use. The loss of control through the replication of Aaron, Abe, Thomas Granger, and ultimately the machine itself, creates the ultimate clash.
After watching the film all these times, I have to ask, “How many Aaron’s are there? How many Abe’s?” It seems that every time they go through the machine, another double is created. When Aaron is trying to resolve the issue of the shotgun at the party, they ask whether he might not have gone through 20 times. If he had, wouldn’t there be 20 Aaron’s running around? That would create conflict no matter what happened or who was involved. Talk about multiple personality disorder!
I am beginning to see why this is a “cult classic.” It took a while, but the movie is a real reflection of life and its ups and downs. I guess all good movies are, but this one snuck up on me. I liked it, but it took a while to put my finger on what was attractive about it. I’ll write a short blog on what I learned and felt at Movie Group (unless, of course, I need to write a long one). I’m fascinated to see what others have seen in this film.
Copyright Bruce E. Parry
RSS Feed