(Starting now, I’m going to provide YouTube links to clips of the movies that I like. That’ll be fun)
23. Primer (2004, Written and Directed by Shane Carruth)
It is crucially important to me that you understand something about this list, Dear Reader: it is not a compilation of the 25 most perfect films I have ever seen. Flaws or potential flaws are a part of the arts, but never are they more inevitable than in film. Movie making is an extraordinarily bizarre process: unlike theater, you’re totally disconnected from your audience and cannot modify your performance to their reactions; you must compose in an isolation chamber, and then release the naive monster of your creation into a cold world. The script you write must be brought to life by dozens of actors and technicians, all of whom will (intentionally or not) change the thing they are making along the way. And perhaps most troubling of all, what film making sets out to do is fundamentally absurd: we capture a scene from three or four different angles and ask you to believe that cuts between them are instantaneous, but somehow we are never able to keep God from meddling with our canvas. Whole departments strive to monitor each actor’s hair do, their clothes, their position on the screen, and then the simplest discontinuity reveals us for the charlatans we are. If the biggest flaw in a scene is that a cigarette magically appears and disappears from an actor’s mouth—something that would be ludicrous in any other art form trying to be realistic—than we count ourselves as lucky. Film simply does not permit perfectionism (at least not live action film), you cannot control your canvas with the iron authority of a novel.
“Primer” is, by some standards, the most imperfect movie on this list. Although a huge hit at Sundance, there is a sizable body of detractors who insist this movie is a mess, and they are not altogether wrong. It’s made for under ten grand and looks like it, a few scenes demonstrably suffer from a lack of financial resources to sell crucial plot elements. It can’t be bothered by exposition, and although the main characters have an arc, its hardly the strict definition of dramatically satisfying. To call its third act incomprehensible is an insult to incomprehensible things. This is not a nice, clean, neat movie.
But it’s an absolutely stunning one anyway.
“Primer” is the simple story of two young entrepreneurial engineers, toiling away in their garages, who one day invent something they cannot handle. The first act is a loving rendering of that moment of discovery, expressing every little event, every twinge of emotion, that builds up to something no man on Earth is prepared for. The second act consists of these two men employing their new device, trying to understand it, maybe even testing philosophies about its use and purpose in the world. They are fumbling awkwardly with Prometheus’ fire. The third act is a jumble of plot elements (which have been helpfully sorted out by a color graph on Wikipedia), but it doesn’t matter, because what it means is perfectly clear: the inevitable descent into madness. Abe and Aaron—those are their names—do not actually go crazy, that would be the kind of cheap out that “Donnie Darko” employs. They go human. Their destructive behavior is completely rational, in fact some of it is almost common sense. They evaluate an extraordinary situation, and move to systematically reduce risk and elevate likelihood of safety and security; they don’t even lust for power or money, for heaven’s sake. But a film like “Primer” forces you to acknowledge how primitive mankind’s view of reality is. We simply do not have the perspective to handle such a situation.
“Primer” is a revelation to me. It is the most naturalistic film I have ever seen, aside from several European movies that sucked. There is no “dialog” in the traditional sense (except for a mildly crummy voice over), no one makes speeches and then waits for their next line. Aaron (portrayed by writer/director Carruth) and Abe (David Sullivan) have an interchange that is effortless, the actors fool us into thinking these men have worked together for years. When they talk and argue, their conversations are full of wrinkles and arhythmic pulses that are so authentic it’s actually uncomfortable. The suspension of disbelief that results is unfair, allowing “Primer” to get away with out-and-out absurdities. No matter what happens, or how lost we get, these two lead actors are so damned convincing that we cannot make ourselves stop believing. It must be real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPflrB1jRq8&feature=related
(For one of the best moments in the movie, skip to about the 6:00 mark on the video above)
I cannot imagine the bravery it would have taken to submit this thing, in the form it currently exists, for the world to watch. Its tone is punishing, unforgiving: nothing is ever explained to the audience, you are expected to keep up or shut up. Information washes over you faster than you can process it. Millions of Americans, I think, would not sit through ten minutes of this thing, because it is not our custom in Western storytelling to act as if the audience is truly not there. I’ve seen and heard about countless frustrated sci-fi fans squinting angrily at this movie and then snapping it off. It’s their loss.
Watching “Primer” successfully requires a willingness to release control, like putting your hands in the air on a roller coaster. If you try to consciously process what’s happening, the movie will keep moving past you. But if you simply watch, and listen, and absorb, the movie will begin communicating vast amounts of information on the subconscious level. The details will disappear and all that will be left is an authentic sense that you are a part of something, that you are seeing the most secret, dangerous discovery in the history of science. Like “Blade Runner” and “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Primer” is about moods, emotions, images, and (above all) ideas. It is a philosophical encounter with your eyes, meant to be processed below your rational thought. Watching it is hypnotic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dfaVQFgWs4&feature=related
The movie’s practical relevance in our world is obvious. The conditions it depicts are identical to those in which the personal computer was created. Labs and white coats are no longer required to push the boundaries of science. As technology democratizes information, we are forced to contend with the fact that anyone with enough drive could roll up their sleeves and alter world history. Even thirty years ago, an audience might have scoffed at “Primer,” but no one would dare do so now. History has taught us too much.
What this film is ultimately about is not “man pushes science too far” (a frankly overplayed theme), but simply “man pushes himself too far.” Abe and Aaron get a good enough view of the reality of time for it to tear down their lives as they know it. Darren Aaronofsky’s masterful “Pi: Faith in Chaos” is this film’s brother in that respect: both contend with low-income, high intelligence individuals whose lonely lifestyles drive them into the arms of the unknown while the world isn’t watching. But whereas “Pi” is a vicious psychological thriller, “Primer” is a science fiction odyssey; a lyrical visual piece about how dim the light of our understanding is in the darkness of reality.
0 Response to “Number 23”