http://www.primermovie.com

Only cost $7000 to make, and it won the Grand Jurry Award. Amazing. Move over El-Mariachi.

Theres also a message board on the site, and you can ask the director questions.

Congratulations to Shane (http://208.185.219.205/sbux/3/ShaneCurruth.wmv).

The $7,000 figure is obviously below the actual production cost.

A blow up to 35 costs more than that, and you can't screen Super 16 with synch sound, unless it's DTS, and if the sole IMDb review currently up is any indicator, this movie didn't get a DTS treatment.

Perhaps $7,000 is what it cost to purchase and develop their negative.

I have no idea, but you make a good point. He did get alot of help as far as lower costs by asking around. We could always ask him. $7k is what the site and imdb say though.

Hey, you guys forgot to mention that Primer was shot and produced in Dallas, USA. Congratulations to Shane and his team.

Mickey Stroud

Went back and watched the Primer trailer again today.

Even more impressed. If you haven't seen this, you need to. It's very powerful. So strong that when I typed my password in for DV Info, I typed Primer by mistake. Now that's getting inside someone's head!

Of course, once something is inside my head, it sounds like a kettle drum going off in a vacuous cavern. So, does anyone know of a Primer antidote that will calm my jitters, ease this feeling of impending Panic and this tense music in my head?

From the looks of the trailer, Sundance picked a winner.

Whether the movie is explicable as a puzzle, an intellectual game, is not as important, I think, as the fact that the movie is inexplicable as a piece of art, i.e., a revelation to introspection. As far as I was able to tell, it doesn't make any attempt to answer the profound question posed by its trailer, viz., "What do you want when you can have anything you want?"

SPOILERS BELOW.

The first step to understanding the puzzle is to note, from Shane Carruth's perspective, the problem with all other time travel movies, which is that they delink space and time. The DeLorean from Back to the Future, Carruth complains, would end up out in the middle of outer space somewhere each time it traveled into the past or future, because, if there were such a thing as a universally fixed reference frame, then the DeLorean would be stuck to it but the revolution of the earth, sun, galaxy, etc. would not. So Carruth attempts to fix this problem by making a time machine that forces the time traveller to stay put in spacetime for the duration of his time travel. For this reason, the time traveller can never go back in time any further than when he first activated the time machine. This condition is inviolable regardless of the conceit Carruth quickly exploits involving packing up an extra time machine and taking it into the time machine with you. What this conceit does do is it permits for an unlimited supply of doubles who must then be drugged and hidden away someplace so that they cannot interfere with the actions of the latest iteration.

So Carruth ignores the problem of the causal paradox. In Shane's model of the universe, if you go back in time and kill yourself from a few hours ago, you don't vanish, a la Back to the Future, and the universe doesn't terminate, having loss its causal parity. But (for some reason without basis in physics) the "recursion" does induce psychobiological symptoms that progress with each iteration--fatigue, bleeding from the ears, loss of reason and the ability to focus (and hence, write clearly), frustration, paranoia, and, we presume, ultimately, madness.

So the movie follows the exploits of three time travellers. (Though the film starts with four enterprising engineers, it quickly dispenses with two of them for no other apparent reason than the hassle of needing so many actors to show up to shoot each day.) And the entire first half of the film, which deals with the invention of the time machine, seems to be a completely separate and needless story, as it delivers no real insight into either of the main characters, Aaron and Abe, at least not any that would predilect their motivations as time travellers in the second half of the film. We're just given to know they're both bright, industrious, and at least in Aaron's case, somewhat selfish, since he locks his other two partners out of the time-travelling fun once the time machine is constructed. The two young men begin their experiments by day-trading on stocks they know to be hot, living 36-hour days since each time-voyage adds 12 hours (6 spent in the time machine going back in time, and 6 spent out in the real world living out the day).

The third time traveller is Thomas Granger, the venture capitalist whom the engineers had been trying to impress for investment, and coincidentally, the father of Rachel, Abe's love interest. We're never told exactly how or why Granger travels back into time, but we suspect that he may have done so to prevent the shooting death of his daughter at the hands of a deranged ex-boyfriend. (He would have been told about the time machine by a distraught Abe in the aftermath of the disaster.)

At some point, Aaron decides to "reboot" the whole scenario by travelling back to the very beginning so that he can be in control, not Abe. The movie is narrated by Aaron 2, who is eventually overtaken by Aaron 3, who through successive iterations becomes the hero of the fateful party by memorizing the actions of and successfully disarming the murderous ex-boyfriend in a fashion reminiscent of Groundhog Day.

Abe catches on and tells Aaron's latest iteration--we have no idea how many down the line that is, or how many other Aarons have been drugged or murdered--to leave the country. Aaron does so, and goes off to build a much larger time machine in some (French-speaking?) country.

And, I think, that's about all there is to it. I've only seen it once, but I don't think I've missed anything crucial.

So. Primer. Interesting puzzle. Not profound art.

Thanks for the review. I saw it at the Vancouver film fest and I walked out with a big *shrug*. Your review confirms my thoughts. What I liked about the film was the setting, the authenticity of the work they were doing. I thought it ramped up too quickly after the time machine was discovered without giving us a chance to feel the joy of discovery and reveal how their characters would act out in the ifnal act.

I forgot to add that stylistically, the film adds nothing to film vocabulary that wasn't already made standard by Darren Aronofsky. Watch for shamelessly ripped-off storage unit door closings and meal preparations.

I have yet to see this but want to. Bravo to the first time filmmaker and kicking butt at Sundance. Its the stuff dreams are made of.

Robert -

Interesting puzzle but not profound art? So, was it a good film?

Shamelessly ripping off Aronofsky? Come on.

"Interesting puzzle but not profound art? So, was it a good film?"

Is a Chinese finger trap a good toy?

I'll say yes. (Did I win something?)

Cool, some others are seeing this now. I got a chance to see it a few months ago at the cinevegas film festival. Q&A with David Sullivan - Abe. I think it was probably an audience of 100, but only 10 stayed around for the Q&A in the hall. I guess that tells you something, but it was cool to have that few people in a circle.

I thought the movie was really cool. The voice over by Abe was actually my favorite part, and the coolest part of the movie. Did Primer have it's flaws? Sure, but that didn't stop me from enjoying it.

Between this, and the other "indie" movie I saw this year, Open Water, I'd give Primer an "A-", and Open Water a "D".

saw the trailer... interesting it got release, etc. definitely a rental for sure.

now as for the $7k... as others have noted... i'm suspicious of that. is it just an amount to impress people? i mean... is it possible even?

There are a ton of articles out on the film with interviews with the director about this very issue.

did you all think it was shot well? It was lit plainly, simply and, in some parts, poorly.

Yes, an interesting and good idea, but I think they could have shot it on video with more attention paid to lighting and gotten the same results. Anyone agree/disagree?

In some shots yes, in some shots, no. Certainly the night scene by the fountain, in which the stock is pushed so far that the grain becomes really unbearable, would have been better off shot on video with a better light package than shot on film with virtually no light at all.

OK, I'm coming way late to this thread, but I finally just saw this movie. I thought it was really impressive how much they accomplished with so little resources. I was really intrigued by the movie, and it never lost my attention, but I don't know why it had to be so cryptic. If Robert could explain the whole damn thing in one page, I think the filmmakers could have made it a little clearer. It kind of seems like they were trying to make it more thought provoking by keeping people guessing. Still, I really liked it. Robert, I can't believe you figured all that out after just one viewing. Tip 'o the hat to you. Anyone notice the crew list? It consisted of like seven people.

Hey Marco!

I'm similiarly ambivalent about Primer. On one hand, anyone who can make an feature without outside support and get a theatrical release for it deserves the adulation of independent filmmakers and aspiring ones. On the other hand, what is the value if having your film seen by a larger audience if your film only challenges its watchers' puzzling abilities, but does not move them, inspire them, or challenge their prejudices or their conceptions of themselves?

Did any of us have that experience with Primer?

I gave up on it after 45 minutes. It wasn't the quality of the movie that killed me, as much as it was the plot... or the dragging out of it. I didn't watch long enough to see a plot.

But congrats on the Film Fests and the release.

I rather enjoyed it. Saw it at Cinevegas, own it on DVD now. ::shrug::

I did watch more of Primer, than I did Open Water. I had better hopes for Primer though, but I also have a short attention span... oooh! Something shiney!

I walked out of Primer with a headache like I've never had before. I think part of it was that I was more interested in the filmmaking and didn't catch some of the plot, and the other part of it was that it was just so damn confusing!

I have to say, it was a good movie, and although I would have almost preferred the sterile and clean look of video, the film was good enough. I just think that the plot was a bit too much, and it wasn't even remotely easy to follow.

I thought Primer was overall pretty interesting. I did find it sometimes difficult to follow, poorly lit, photography was nothing dynamic, and it could have been edited a little tighter.
Not a bad project but certainly not a prize winner. It's worth the rental.

wow, some of you guys are pretty tough! he he

im glad the sundance crowd was more open-minded, otherwise i probably wouldnt have ever heard of this little gem of an indie. i dont think you can expect technical greatness in the kind of situations this film (and others in its class) was made in. its all about story #1 and it saddens me that some people were bored by it.

i think sometimes people concentrate a bit too much on the technical aspects and not on the material itself. there hasnt been a good sci fi story like this for years and although we all like to think that we are tired of the disaster pictures and romcom's and that all the flash isnt worth spit if theres not a good plot, I get the feeling that's not really so true.

I will admit the techno talk in the first 5 minutes is pretty brutal, but I didnt have any issues after that. But maybe it's just me, I don't usually like my movies spoonfed to me. I'm a sucker for a good "thinker" picture. I have seen Primer 3 times now and I definitely still don't have it all figured out, but that intrigues me, it doesn't bore me at all.

my 2 cents.

John, I don't think it's a good idea to assume people are too dumb to have liked a film on this forum. If you look through all of the film review threads on DVInfo you'll find quite a range of tastes and opinions.

"i dont think you can expect technical greatness in the kind of situations this film (and others in its class) was made in. its all about story #1 and it saddens me that some people were bored by it."

It was not the technical/quality that lost me. I have watched countless movies, and a lot of them weren't even as well shot, lit, or had the sound recording that primer did. Most of those sucked. Some were really rather good. What I couldn't get into, was the story/plot. If it were paced a bit quicker, it might have held my attention. I thought Primer was ok, but I just lost interest.

Keith, I never said anyone was dumb, sorry if I came off like that. Guess I got a bit defensive since I like the movie and the potential it shows for indie/low budget (whatever you want to label it as) cinema... It's easy to lose interest in a 2-4 hour movie, but for a 70-some minute film means its gotta be pretty bad.

I was merely talking about people's tastes and I was a bit surprised how the conversation was going towards the technical side with some of the posts.

As a movie Primer isnt for everyone, I will agree with that. I just think probably a lot of us here in the forum are on the same level as this Shane guy who wrote, directed, edited, and starred in it. I know I am. So I think we should all kind of look at it for it's achievements, notoriety to the little guys, and use it as an inspiration to the work we are all trying to do. Instead of trying to say he didn't have a great light kit or something.

No offense all! Promise!

Yeah, I'm sorry if my post came off as me being bored and hating the film. In fact I really did love the film, all it's quirks and twists kept me thinking, but I did think it could definetly be toned down to the point where it still is confusing, but it makes some logical sesne.

It still is a great feat of production (I really was inspired by their homebuilt rigs), and it still is a very cool plot, but it could have used some more refinement, at least in my opinion.

www.primermovie.com's forum may help work out a few of the kinks (shane posts on there himself pretty regularly). If anybody is remotely interested in clearing any of it up I suggest that site, although you may get more questions than answers :-) But I think the movie makes more sense after repeat viewings...

John, I like smart films also and given most of my current access to filmmaking resources, to me smart always wins out over glitz. For that reason I wanted to like "Primer" but ended up liking the concept and production more than the execution. "Primer" as a production is certainly a valuable measure for indie filmmakers who want to make a mark with limited resources, but in the end it has to be evaluated by the same standards of storytelling as a multimillion dollar production.

(ALERT: POSSIBLE SPOILERS!)

I guess I'm alone on this one:

I had a hard time following ANYTHING in the movie, let alone the time travel stuff. I got the gist of it at the end, but I literally could not understand what was happening except in a very overall kind of way. I didn't know who these people were, or why they were building this box, or generally what was going on.

I think some of it had to do with the mumbly, hurried nature of the dialogue, and the other is that I don't think things were explained (basic things like "these are four entrepreneurs trying to impress a venture capatalist", "a girl got murdered at a party (I heard the shotgun thing, but somehow missed that this girl was killed)" except in a very hurried way.

Anyone agree? Is the Bass alone?

And it looked very very cool. I don't care what you people say.

The below was copied from his forum, and gives a basic budget breakdown.





Shane

Joined: 09 Aug 2003
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 1:09 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's roughly what I paid for:

~$2500 - camera rental
~$3000 - film processing
~$1000 - film stock (mainly short ends and expired stock)

The blow-up to 35mm was done as soon as I learned the film would screen in competition at Sundance. That cost $28,000.

Shane

Primer represents to me the ultra low-budget indiefilmmaker finding sucess at the sundance film festival. Unfortunatley that's where it stops.

At first glance, I liked the film for 'what is was'. When I went into the film originally I knew all too well the details of the budget and the backstory on shooting it (I had been to Shane's site prior to Sundance) but after that wears off I gotta ask:

How did this win Sundance? I love the idea of time-travel but talk about just taking all of the fun out of it. It's not just that it was technical; it's just that is was extemely boring. Nothing ever happens.

We float back and forth between a storage facility, a house, a hotel, a garage and a few driving scenes. BUT NOTHING EVER HAPPENS

I found that the film doesn't do anything new or interesting. Even doing the 'Same old' Time Travel Take would have helped this film. It's boring. It lack's any punch. It lacks any climax, suspense or drama.

At one point inthe film he makes mention of going to his boss. He never does. That would have been fun. We never even see the altercation or changing of time at the 'Party' but are merely told through exposition.

I think people tend to get too caught up in the 'Low-budget' indie aspect more than the movie itself.

I also think people praise it for being confusing as if this is genius. It's not. It's simply annoying to have to lock your brain down in a vice in order to grasp what is happening.

I'm a believer in film being a visual medium; turn off the voulme and you should still be able to tell what is going on. Not in this film. And I love those few people that say "Oh I totally got it the first time." Yeah okay.

So many films at SUNDANCE 2004 I felt entirely more deserving:

Garden State
Napolean Dynamite
Woodsman

At least these films made me feel something; laughter, sadness, joy, horror whereas PRIMER just annoy's.

But hey! Peope to the indie guy right? :/

Jeez. I didn't mean all that. I thought it was cool idea, decently executed. And yes, I liked the woodsman. Garden state okay, ditto Napoleon.