Like everyone else, I like to think I'm a reasonably smart guy. Don't get me wrong, Ken Jennings would certainly kick my ass in a no-holds-barred answer-and-question deathmatch, but at least my VCR's not blinking 12:00. So I generally consider it a bad sign if the first thought I have when a film's end credits start to roll is, "I need the Cliff's Notes for this movie."
Primer opens with a cryptic voiceover from one of the main characters which, by the end of the film, takes on a much larger significance. That's par for the course with this film, which is a time travel story without any intergalactic spacial anomalies or customized DeLoreans. By the end of the film the timelines have crossed each other more times than the Sopranos, and the audience is ready to fuhgeddaboutit. The filmmakers are perhaps too clever by half, choosing to tell the story by inference rather than good old fashioned storytelling. The end of the film builds to an accelerated montage of quick-cuts just screaming for a more comprehensible pace, leaving the audience exhausted and utterly baffled. It's as if Columbo gathered all the suspects in one room, said, "I suppose you're wondering why I've gathered you all here tonight," and turned around and left. The clues, the filmmakers insist, are all there. The audience is left to piece them together for themselves.
Normally I'm a huge fan of not being clubbed over the head, but by the end of the film I'd have bought the lead pipe myself. Seven of us hung out in the theater at 2 AM, just trying to make sense of what we'd seen. People are calling Primer brilliant. I'm calling it inscrutable.
And yet. I kept turning the film's plot over in my mind as I lay in bed last night, and this morning a number of pieces seem to have fallen into place. Like The Usual Suspects or Memento, this is certainly a film that would benefit from repeated viewing. But I'm not sure if I could sit through it all a second time. The characters aren't engaging on any level, so you really don't care what happens to them. The camera is often unsteady and the sound is almost universally murky. The characters tend to talk over each other in a way that feels very realistic but does nothing for the film's comprehensibility.
The backstory on Primer is at least as unusual as the film itself. Shot for a paltry $7,000, the film was selected for exhibition at Sundance and proceeded to win the Grand Jury prize. Now it's got a distribution deal and is popping up in arthouse theaters around the country, where its target audience of Mensans and film students will hopefully find it.
My advice is to wait for the DVD. You'll lose nothing on the small screen, and just like the characters you'll have the ability to replay events over and over via your own little time machine: your remote control.
Posted by Peter at October 13, 2004 08:25 PMSounds like a modern take on Chris Marker's "La Jettee" (the kernel at the core of Twelve Monkeys). It was also a richly involving movie shot for no money at all (it's mostly stills).
Posted by: Howard M. Lewis Ship on October 14, 2004 05:22 AMBut which is it, Peter? Pr-eye-mer like the paint, or primmer like the book?
Posted by: Mark on October 14, 2004 11:03 AMDefinitely a short i. I believe the title refers to the narration.
Posted by: Peter on October 14, 2004 11:14 AMI'm not as certain as Peter is. I think that saying the narration is a "prim-er" is a bit of a stretch. But then, saying it's a "prime-er" is also a bit of a stretch. Like much of the movie, it isn't clear. I'm beginning to think that the title was intentionally vague, meant to provoke these kinds of discussions.
La Jetee is far superior in my mind. But it is far less difficult to unravel, as well. Seven people sitting around after La Jetee would have "solved" it in no time. Primer is still great fun, and despite the problems Peter mention I think it's worth seeing in the theatre (as long as you can see it for free).
Posted by: Nathan Beeler on October 16, 2004 11:45 AM