Review: Primer (2004)
Richard A. Zwelling
** (out of ****)
a film review by
Richard A. Zwelling
What the %#$@ did I just watch?!!
Some of you may be familiar with a newly emerging pseudo-genre of
film. It's called the "mindf-ck" genre. These are the films that
fold into themselves, contorting their narratives, breaking the normal
logic of chronological storytelling, and leaving you with that weird
feeling of, "I just saw the most profound movie ever."
Your friend asks, "What was it about?" And you take a deep breath and
reply, "How the f-ck should I know?"
The newest entry to the mindf-ck bunch is Primer, the sci-fi drama
that was a surprise smash at the Sundance Film Festival (the film took
top honors). The film was directed by Shane Carruth, who was an
engineer prior to crafting this, his debut film. He also stars in one
of the two main roles, and he acts as screenwriter, cinematographer,
and even composer. Following in the path of Robert Rodriguez and his
El Mariachi, Carruth's efforts ostensibly carry a final total of just
$7,000, which is ludicrously low, even by low-budget standards.
The story involves Aaron and Abe, two techies who spend the entire
film dressed in cookie-cutter white shirts, black slacks, and
unassuming ties. They are working on the mother of all science
projects, for which they utilize a catalytic converter (for platinum),
a refrigerator (for the freon), 12-volt batteries, and other
knick-knacks which turn their garage into a hotbed of wires, nuts, and
bolts.
They're not exactly sure what their creation will do, assuming it
actually works, but when data emerge that seem impossible according to
the "normal" fabric of things, the creation leads them on a trail of
paradoxes, chronological zigzags, and (supposedly) deep metaphysical
musings.
I was excited going into this. It has been described by various
publications as "Mullholland Drive for math geeks", "Memento for mad
geniuses", and "the headiest sci-fi movie since Stanley Kubrick's
2001: A Space Odyssey".
Here's my impression of the inner monologues of these critics, as well
as those at Sundance:
"Oooh, look at all the cool gadgetry these guys are fooling around
with in their garage. This is cool low-budget sci-fi stuff...wires
everywhere and computer screens going blinky-blinky. And the guys are
in heated discussion, too. They're talking techie language. I can't
understand a word of it, but it just sounds SOOO cool!! I don't know
anything about this stuff, but it must be true, because these guys
sound so intelligent, so urgent, so passionate."
Mullholland Drive? Memento? 2001? I don't think so. As an
engineer-turned-filmmaker, Carruth doesn't deserve to be even
mentioned in the same breath as David Lynch, Christopher Nolan, or
Kubrick. A more apt allusion is one made by film critic James
Berardinelli: The Emperor's New Clothes.
I have no doctorate to my credit at present, but as a layperson, I
have dabbled in several of the disciplines this film touches upon.
The main ones are quantum physics, metaphysical philosophy, and the
space-time continuum. Even as a layperson, I can say with confidence
that most of the astronomical amount of technical mumbo-jumbo offered
by Primer is just there to entrance you whilst duping your intellect.
True, the other aforementioned mindf-ck films were confusing, but
there is a key asset they share which Primer does not. They were
films, first and foremost, and as such, they appealed to your gut, not
your head. Mullholland Drive, 2001, and Primer may have all been
headily constructed, but the final result of the first two is
something that defies logic, completely free of rational appeal.
Memento required more brainpower to sort out, most likely after
multiple viewings, but as a film, it never lost sight of the fact that
its mission was to tweak you viscerally first and cerebrally second.
I'm sure there is a convoluted, contorted puzzle at the heart of
Primer just waiting to be plumbed. If the film can't engage me,
however, it ain't worth the time. I could be wrong, but in inserting
a massive amount of gobbledygook into his dialogue, I believe Carruth
was trying to create a kind of poetry. Unfortunately, it only works
if the techno-babble is valid, which it isn't. And by the time I
figured that out, I was too bored to care.
==========
X-RAMR-ID: 39000
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 1338648
X-RT-TitleID: 1137313
X-RT-AuthorID: 7583
X-RT-RatingText: 2/4
Karina Montgomery
Catch it on HBO
The unfair thing about this rating, well, the two unfair things are
these: 1. I know this will not be shown on HBO. So while the rating
is granted based on the dollar value I have assigned it, it is
technically an impossibility. 2. I know it's freaking hard and
freaking expensive to make a movie, and a huge obstacle to first-time
filmmakers is getting it out there and seen once you've already
killed yourself just making the thing; I want to be supportive of the
hard working, self-financed folks out there doing their thing, but I
cannot recommend that you moviegoers reward this effort with too many
of your hard-earned dollars either.
The tagline of the film is "If you always want what you can't have,
what do you want when you can have anything?" It would have been
nice if they could have explored this theme, or the moral
implications of what their invention allowed them to do, or any of
the other themes suggested by the notion of this time-folding
machine. To read interviews with Shane Carruth (director,
co-producer, writer, composer, editor, cinematographer, and co-lead
actor, the brunet), he truly believes that this work has communicated
all these powerful and deep themes. The great ideas of the movie can
be conceived of, but only by a patient filmgoer who also enjoys
filling in the blanks. I don't need to be spoon fed, but unlock the
kitchen for me, would you?
It was a frustrating mess of murky sound, "naturalistic" dialogue
which was recorded in one or two takes tops (a silly conceit in the
practically limitless stock budget of video, as compared to film),
with the head honcho Carruth also being in nearly every shot. Unlike
other actor-auteurs, he does not have a staff of 20 -200 to check his
work, and the unfortunate result is a big confusing mess. The
editing is choppy and sloppy, the dialogue frequently impossible to
hear over ambient noise, interrupting actors, and with no looping to
correct itself. Some of the shots were artistically interesting but
did not assist with the confusing story. When you have doubles of
people running around and a situation where your budget forbids that
you show us what is actually happening, you must tell it at some
point; Carruth does neither, and leaves you to fend for yourself
trying to glean sense out of words you cannot even make out.
I'm no fool, and I can needle something out of nearly everything, but
I was frustrated and exhausted leaving the theatre after this movie.
Right when it seems to get interesting, it gets confusing again.
Primer leaves unasked questions half-answered and asked questions
totally ignored. I felt like I missed whole scenes but I am certain
I was awake through the entire film. It's quite short, yet seemed
endless.
Once our leads get to a scene set in the middle of a (very loud)
fountain, the movie is effectively over. It is from this point
hugely confusing, random, and inaudible, and contradictory. It would
be interesting to have director's commentary on the DVD straightening
out some of the tangles, but Carruth has been lionized in the press
as some new wunderkind - the feedback he is getting is out of synch
with the film I saw. I support you, Shane, but I cannot praise this
work. Having one person who was not on set, who did not write the
dialogue, who did not know anything going into it, having one person
screen this film just to help you tighten it up and clarify your
sound so we can hear what the heck you people are talking about,
would have made all the difference.
In an interview with the excellent Onion's AV Club, Carruth says that
the film is about trust and a friendship unraveling and finding out
your role in another's life and the "concept of affecting something
before it is anything," (abortion) and basically it sounds like he
had a great idea and got it on tape, but basically only the people
who were there can probably even suss out the words being spoken,
never mind the high-concept plot elements. When you're too close to
it, and in it, you can't see what is not coming across.
FLM (Landmark Theatres' magazine) titled Carruth's essay "You can't
make a film for $7000." Here's the thing: you can. People do it
every day - not always successfully, of course. Robert Rodriguez was
of course first famous for doing exactly that. But while he did have
a thumb in every pie, he was not on screen, and he maintained enough
perspective to be able to monitor the product's accessibility. It's
clear Carruth was hindered by budget, but I don't speak Spanish and
El Mariachi was still clear as day. And it was shot on film, with
special effects and all kinds of stuff. It can be done. Try again,
Shane, you have good ideas - and get a new sound guy!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These reviews (c) 2004 Karina Montgomery. Please feel free to
forward but credit the reviewer in the text. Thanks. You can
check out previous reviews at:
http://www.cinerina.com and http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com - the
Online Film Critics Society
http://www.hsbr.net/reviews/karina/listing.hsbr - Hollywood Stock
Exchange Brokerage Resource
==========
X-RAMR-ID: 39005
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 1338442
X-RT-TitleID: 1137313
X-RT-SourceID: 755
X-RT-AuthorID: 3661
X-RT-RatingText: 2/5