by Bruce E. Parry
This is my final review of Primer, after having seen it with my Movie Group and reflecting my changed perceptions after sharing with my friends and hearing their input. I pretty much stand by my last review, but have a deepened understanding of the technical aspects, including the camera work, the story, and the appeal of the film.
I really underestimated the camera work. I have referred to it in both previous reviews, but didn’t appreciate its subtlety until going over it with the group. In the group, the Blair Witch Project(1999) came up again (from Patrick) as another film where the feeling of the camera work is that you, the viewer, are in the film and part of the action. In the Blair Witch Project this was accomplished by using the hand held camera extensively. While there are some hand held camera shots in Primer, here it is accomplished more by using intimate shots of the details of what the characters are going through, using a graininess in many of the shots, and many of the shots—to my mind—having the feel of an amateur cameraman showing us the unfolding drama.
That said, the camera work is anything but amateur; it is of the highest order. The shots are composed beautifully. Many shots are extremely creative. We had extensive discussion about the shot from above Abe’s apartment, looking down on Aaron and Abe at Aaron’s truck. Half the shot is illuminated concrete that is very bright, very soft and reminiscent of the shot of Abe looking down on Aaron, used twice elsewhere in the film. The truck shot has the truck exactly parallel to the concrete. The overall effect is amazing. It is followed a moment later by an opposite shot, also down on the truck, but from a rear angle, with a section of the scene entirely in black. The second shot lasts only a split second, but creates a mesmerizing, balancing effect.
Throughout the film, the camera reflects either the content of the film, or, in some cases, the opposite reality of what appears to be happening. Some of the circling shots, where the camera actually circles 360 degrees around Aaron, for instance, reflect he hyperbolic nature of the time travel that is being discussed. That circular theme is repeated with the basketball that Aaron is playing with as well and in other aspects of the scene.
There are some scenes that are ambiguous. We had a significant discussion about whether the film is completely understandable in the final analysis. I think not, but others (David) suspected that with more viewing, it is. There is a scene where Abe puts a gas mask—we assume from the previous dialog that it is nitrous oxide—over another incarnation of Abe. The only way I knew they were both Abe was from the Director’s commentary and that was the only story aspect revealed in that commentary. But what was he doing? Nitrous oxide just puts the other Abe to sleep. Then the first Abe comes out looking like he killed him (himself, his other self). The scene is totally ambiguous to me.
There is also the aspect of the timelines. The voiceover throughout the film is Aaron, but it seems to take on different voices or points of view at different times in the film. At the beginning, it is clearly a phone call. Later it appears to be a god-like commentary. Still later, it is clearly an Aaron who has full knowledge of the events that have taken place due to time travel. Is it Aaron number one or Aaron number two or who?
I believe that we could do a detailed analysis of the film based solely on what the characters are wearing. The ties that are ubiquitous throughout the film may show which Abe and Aaron we are dealing with at any particular time. Later they are shown without ties, in sweaters, in underwear, etc. There seems to be continuity (and discontinuity) in their clothes, but it is extremely hard to follow. The ear pieces give important hints as well.
All this brings us back to understanding the story and whether that is important or not. I think that one of the most attractive aspects of the film is trying to figure out the story line and whether it is fully comprehensible or not. As mentioned, one of our group thought it might be; I am not convinced. But trying to understand it (as predicted) is a huge part of our discussion and the overall attractiveness of Primer. While I think that the relationships—particularly the deteriorating relationship between Abe and Aaron—are the key to the success of the film, understanding the story line to some degree is part and parcel of unravelling the interactions among the characters.
One of the things that came out in group was that a driving force in Aaron is his need to become a hero. He actually goes back in time to reconstruct what happens at the party so that the guy with the shotgun is apprehended and jailed after the party. But the question remains open as to what the guy with the shotgun actually did at the party. There is no indication that he shot anyone, especially Rachel. Furthermore, Aaron—who goes back to reconstruct all this—wasn’t even at the original party. However, if the danger to the partygoers—Rachel—wasn’t great, then why did Tom Granger go back in time as well? And what happened to him anyway? That is never resolved in the film.
The hero aspect of the Aaron character seems to be what drives the conflict between Abe and Aaron and what leads to the culmination of the film. Abe is concerned more with the safety of Aaron’s wife and kids than Aaron is. That, too, is part of the final conflict when Aaron leaves. Finally, an important aspect of Aaron going back are his control issues. He reconstructs the party, but after all is said and done, he is building an even larger box. After all that has happened, I have to ask, why would he do that? What does he want to do with it? What does he expect to happen? He’s had to leave (leaving behind other Aarons) after what’s already happened. What will his continued interference with time and causality do in the future?
I think this is the appeal of the film. As I said in the last review (more generally), it is the unresolved nature of life, the conflict and confusion that we experience, that is reflected in the action of the film, that makes it attractive. At the same time, the beauty of the camera work and technical aspects of the film, coupled with the intriguing complexity of the story keep us absorbed in the film and have lad to this becoming a cult classic. I think that the film bears (demands?) multiple watchings and that it grows with each one, just like the storyline itself.
Copyright Bruce E. Parry
This is my final review of Primer, after having seen it with my Movie Group and reflecting my changed perceptions after sharing with my friends and hearing their input. I pretty much stand by my last review, but have a deepened understanding of the technical aspects, including the camera work, the story, and the appeal of the film.
I really underestimated the camera work. I have referred to it in both previous reviews, but didn’t appreciate its subtlety until going over it with the group. In the group, the Blair Witch Project(1999) came up again (from Patrick) as another film where the feeling of the camera work is that you, the viewer, are in the film and part of the action. In the Blair Witch Project this was accomplished by using the hand held camera extensively. While there are some hand held camera shots in Primer, here it is accomplished more by using intimate shots of the details of what the characters are going through, using a graininess in many of the shots, and many of the shots—to my mind—having the feel of an amateur cameraman showing us the unfolding drama.
That said, the camera work is anything but amateur; it is of the highest order. The shots are composed beautifully. Many shots are extremely creative. We had extensive discussion about the shot from above Abe’s apartment, looking down on Aaron and Abe at Aaron’s truck. Half the shot is illuminated concrete that is very bright, very soft and reminiscent of the shot of Abe looking down on Aaron, used twice elsewhere in the film. The truck shot has the truck exactly parallel to the concrete. The overall effect is amazing. It is followed a moment later by an opposite shot, also down on the truck, but from a rear angle, with a section of the scene entirely in black. The second shot lasts only a split second, but creates a mesmerizing, balancing effect.
Throughout the film, the camera reflects either the content of the film, or, in some cases, the opposite reality of what appears to be happening. Some of the circling shots, where the camera actually circles 360 degrees around Aaron, for instance, reflect he hyperbolic nature of the time travel that is being discussed. That circular theme is repeated with the basketball that Aaron is playing with as well and in other aspects of the scene.
There are some scenes that are ambiguous. We had a significant discussion about whether the film is completely understandable in the final analysis. I think not, but others (David) suspected that with more viewing, it is. There is a scene where Abe puts a gas mask—we assume from the previous dialog that it is nitrous oxide—over another incarnation of Abe. The only way I knew they were both Abe was from the Director’s commentary and that was the only story aspect revealed in that commentary. But what was he doing? Nitrous oxide just puts the other Abe to sleep. Then the first Abe comes out looking like he killed him (himself, his other self). The scene is totally ambiguous to me.
There is also the aspect of the timelines. The voiceover throughout the film is Aaron, but it seems to take on different voices or points of view at different times in the film. At the beginning, it is clearly a phone call. Later it appears to be a god-like commentary. Still later, it is clearly an Aaron who has full knowledge of the events that have taken place due to time travel. Is it Aaron number one or Aaron number two or who?
I believe that we could do a detailed analysis of the film based solely on what the characters are wearing. The ties that are ubiquitous throughout the film may show which Abe and Aaron we are dealing with at any particular time. Later they are shown without ties, in sweaters, in underwear, etc. There seems to be continuity (and discontinuity) in their clothes, but it is extremely hard to follow. The ear pieces give important hints as well.
All this brings us back to understanding the story and whether that is important or not. I think that one of the most attractive aspects of the film is trying to figure out the story line and whether it is fully comprehensible or not. As mentioned, one of our group thought it might be; I am not convinced. But trying to understand it (as predicted) is a huge part of our discussion and the overall attractiveness of Primer. While I think that the relationships—particularly the deteriorating relationship between Abe and Aaron—are the key to the success of the film, understanding the story line to some degree is part and parcel of unravelling the interactions among the characters.
One of the things that came out in group was that a driving force in Aaron is his need to become a hero. He actually goes back in time to reconstruct what happens at the party so that the guy with the shotgun is apprehended and jailed after the party. But the question remains open as to what the guy with the shotgun actually did at the party. There is no indication that he shot anyone, especially Rachel. Furthermore, Aaron—who goes back to reconstruct all this—wasn’t even at the original party. However, if the danger to the partygoers—Rachel—wasn’t great, then why did Tom Granger go back in time as well? And what happened to him anyway? That is never resolved in the film.
The hero aspect of the Aaron character seems to be what drives the conflict between Abe and Aaron and what leads to the culmination of the film. Abe is concerned more with the safety of Aaron’s wife and kids than Aaron is. That, too, is part of the final conflict when Aaron leaves. Finally, an important aspect of Aaron going back are his control issues. He reconstructs the party, but after all is said and done, he is building an even larger box. After all that has happened, I have to ask, why would he do that? What does he want to do with it? What does he expect to happen? He’s had to leave (leaving behind other Aarons) after what’s already happened. What will his continued interference with time and causality do in the future?
I think this is the appeal of the film. As I said in the last review (more generally), it is the unresolved nature of life, the conflict and confusion that we experience, that is reflected in the action of the film, that makes it attractive. At the same time, the beauty of the camera work and technical aspects of the film, coupled with the intriguing complexity of the story keep us absorbed in the film and have lad to this becoming a cult classic. I think that the film bears (demands?) multiple watchings and that it grows with each one, just like the storyline itself.
Copyright Bruce E. Parry
RSS Feed