Primer
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
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews