Primer
- 2004
- Tous publics
- 1h 17min
Quatre amis ingénieurs sont dépassés par la nouvelle invention qu'ils ont créée.Quatre amis ingénieurs sont dépassés par la nouvelle invention qu'ils ont créée.Quatre amis ingénieurs sont dépassés par la nouvelle invention qu'ils ont créée.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 3 victoires et 7 nominations au total
Avis à la une
You're going to watch this movie for the first time... and you won't understand it. It's that simple. Honestly, I don't think it's possible to grasp Primer in a single viewing, especially if you're going in with just the basics. And that's not a flaw - it's part of the design.
Once it's over, you're left with two possible paths.
The first option is to watch it again. And again. As many times as it takes until you start piecing the puzzle together on your own. This is the purest - and most challenging - way to approach the film: no spoilers, no external explanations, just your intuition, memory, and attention to detail. Trust me, two viewings won't be enough.
The second option is to look for explanations. That's the one I chose. The video that helped me the most was "PRIMER (2004) - ILLUSTRATED EXPLANATION" by LondonCityGirl. Thanks to that, I was able to understand a big part of what was going on. Still, I kept digging, reading, and watching other analyses to catch more nuances. Primer is packed with visual clues, subtle gestures, and lines of dialogue that seem insignificant but carry a lot of weight.
My first viewing was total confusion. And if I ever felt like something made sense, I was probably wrong.
The second time was completely different. I started noticing connections, details I had completely missed before. But even then, I realized something crucial: even if you understand the fundamentals of the story, a lot still remains open to interpretation. And I'm pretty sure that if I hadn't looked up any explanations, I'd have been just as lost as I was the first time.
My favorite scene is a specific one - an unexpected chase down the street - where the shift in tone, the music, the tension, and the atmosphere all come together so perfectly that I felt completely immersed in the film.
Once it's over, you're left with two possible paths.
The first option is to watch it again. And again. As many times as it takes until you start piecing the puzzle together on your own. This is the purest - and most challenging - way to approach the film: no spoilers, no external explanations, just your intuition, memory, and attention to detail. Trust me, two viewings won't be enough.
The second option is to look for explanations. That's the one I chose. The video that helped me the most was "PRIMER (2004) - ILLUSTRATED EXPLANATION" by LondonCityGirl. Thanks to that, I was able to understand a big part of what was going on. Still, I kept digging, reading, and watching other analyses to catch more nuances. Primer is packed with visual clues, subtle gestures, and lines of dialogue that seem insignificant but carry a lot of weight.
My first viewing was total confusion. And if I ever felt like something made sense, I was probably wrong.
The second time was completely different. I started noticing connections, details I had completely missed before. But even then, I realized something crucial: even if you understand the fundamentals of the story, a lot still remains open to interpretation. And I'm pretty sure that if I hadn't looked up any explanations, I'd have been just as lost as I was the first time.
My favorite scene is a specific one - an unexpected chase down the street - where the shift in tone, the music, the tension, and the atmosphere all come together so perfectly that I felt completely immersed in the film.
"Primer" starts out innocently like a "Start-up.com" docu-drama and the first part covers some of those same financial, friendship and entrepreneurial issues as computer geek engineers work out of of one of the partner's garage to perfect an invention.
But gradually, in this antiseptic atmosphere of white shirts, electrical experiments and tweaking mechanics, every human emotion, virtually as every seven deadly sin, except sloth, and beyond, starting with greed, takes them over.
Without any explanation to the audience, we gradually figure out that we're seeing a cleverer, low budget "Paycheck" or what "Ground Hog Day" played for laughs and an original "Outer Limits" episode did for irony (I didn't see "The Butterfly Effect" to see how it also dealt with time changes).
Rather this is an attempt to seriously examine the philosophical issues of chaos theory and how inventions can't be divorced from human frailties, both mental and physical.
Shane Carruth, as the lead actor/writer/director/producer is a true auteur--and could therefore give his nerd a wife and kid-- but perhaps an outside editor could have helped make the permutations a bit clearer as I didn't quite follow the intersections with outside characters. I followed enough to get caught up in the anxiety and suspense of each iteration.
It was amusing that I was the only woman in the audience.
But gradually, in this antiseptic atmosphere of white shirts, electrical experiments and tweaking mechanics, every human emotion, virtually as every seven deadly sin, except sloth, and beyond, starting with greed, takes them over.
Without any explanation to the audience, we gradually figure out that we're seeing a cleverer, low budget "Paycheck" or what "Ground Hog Day" played for laughs and an original "Outer Limits" episode did for irony (I didn't see "The Butterfly Effect" to see how it also dealt with time changes).
Rather this is an attempt to seriously examine the philosophical issues of chaos theory and how inventions can't be divorced from human frailties, both mental and physical.
Shane Carruth, as the lead actor/writer/director/producer is a true auteur--and could therefore give his nerd a wife and kid-- but perhaps an outside editor could have helped make the permutations a bit clearer as I didn't quite follow the intersections with outside characters. I followed enough to get caught up in the anxiety and suspense of each iteration.
It was amusing that I was the only woman in the audience.
Yesterday I watched "Project Almanac" which was also about time travel. The discussion board was full of threads about the temporal paradoxes created in the movie. One thread mentioned movies that did a good job with the time travel theory and "Primer" was mentioned, so here I am.
I don't consider myself a dumb or inattentive person; I typically don't need plots spelled out for me and I understood the premise, however, somewhere mid-movie they lost me. Characters were mentioned whom I hadn't heard before and nor did I know their relationship to the main characters. Then it got to the point where I didn't know what time frame they were in or who I was looking at because every time the two main characters went back there would be a double of them. It all just got too confusing; to the point I actually watched it twice to see if I missed something. Even with watching it twice I couldn't quite figure it all out. Their dialog was too ambiguous and the jump cuts from scene to scene left me behind.
What's amazing is that the movie had a narrator--and it was needed--but he added very little to helping comprehend this movie. Time travel movies are naturally confusing because of the paradoxes and conundrums in them, the last thing I need is ambiguity on top of confusion.
I don't consider myself a dumb or inattentive person; I typically don't need plots spelled out for me and I understood the premise, however, somewhere mid-movie they lost me. Characters were mentioned whom I hadn't heard before and nor did I know their relationship to the main characters. Then it got to the point where I didn't know what time frame they were in or who I was looking at because every time the two main characters went back there would be a double of them. It all just got too confusing; to the point I actually watched it twice to see if I missed something. Even with watching it twice I couldn't quite figure it all out. Their dialog was too ambiguous and the jump cuts from scene to scene left me behind.
What's amazing is that the movie had a narrator--and it was needed--but he added very little to helping comprehend this movie. Time travel movies are naturally confusing because of the paradoxes and conundrums in them, the last thing I need is ambiguity on top of confusion.
Pros-
1. Charged with heavy scientific theories(half of which i don't understand) not dumbed down for the audience. Serves it's homegrown realism.
2. High production value for a microbudget project. Shots feel calculated and cinematically composed. Once it kicks the sense of paranoia is always there. The dialogues are pretty naturalistic and creates the atmosphere of being accompanied by scientists(not seen that often). It feels homemade rather than cheap and that helps maintaining its low-key presentation.
3. For a genre known for silly pseudo-science and not giving much thought about paradoxes it faces, this film started the trend of 'science based' time travel movies.
Cons-
1. Too much theoretical talks for exposition in the first act. Nearly lost me there.
2. Convoluted plot, partially saved by the narration.
1. Charged with heavy scientific theories(half of which i don't understand) not dumbed down for the audience. Serves it's homegrown realism.
2. High production value for a microbudget project. Shots feel calculated and cinematically composed. Once it kicks the sense of paranoia is always there. The dialogues are pretty naturalistic and creates the atmosphere of being accompanied by scientists(not seen that often). It feels homemade rather than cheap and that helps maintaining its low-key presentation.
3. For a genre known for silly pseudo-science and not giving much thought about paradoxes it faces, this film started the trend of 'science based' time travel movies.
Cons-
1. Too much theoretical talks for exposition in the first act. Nearly lost me there.
2. Convoluted plot, partially saved by the narration.
A group of young scientists work at a frantic pace to invent they are not quite sure what, but their efforts start demonstrating interesting side effects. From their work in a small cottage industry of error checking devices they are forced to confront the fact that they have discovered something too valuable to market. As they explore the potential of their machine, they are caught in a frantic loop to second guess themselves.
Science fiction in the cinema has largely been dominated by the visual impact, and so this is a welcome (for some) return to the world of ideas. This is not an easy-rise entertainment film but one where you have to concentrate to keep up, working out the logical implications of what's happening. If made on the scale of Men in Black or the Matrix it would descend to the level of spoof as it is we follow the two main characters knowing that their actions are having momentous effects on the world around them and on themselves. Instead of flashy graphics, we are left to keep the ramifications of the story in mind as the characters themselves grapple with what they know is happening but can't even let themselves look at directly.
Science fiction in the cinema has largely been dominated by the visual impact, and so this is a welcome (for some) return to the world of ideas. This is not an easy-rise entertainment film but one where you have to concentrate to keep up, working out the logical implications of what's happening. If made on the scale of Men in Black or the Matrix it would descend to the level of spoof as it is we follow the two main characters knowing that their actions are having momentous effects on the world around them and on themselves. Instead of flashy graphics, we are left to keep the ramifications of the story in mind as the characters themselves grapple with what they know is happening but can't even let themselves look at directly.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe budget for the entire film was around $7000. Most of the money was spent on film stock.
- GaffesDuring numerous takes the director, Shane Carruth, mutters "cut" under his breath. According to the DVD commentary, this is due to their extremely low budget which did not allow them to "waste" film. Carruth notes that a total of 80 minutes of usable footage was shot; the final film is 78 minutes.
- Crédits fousThanks to Scott Douglass for having the faith to invest in the final stages of marketing and post production
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 7 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 424 760 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 28 162 $US
- 10 oct. 2004
- Montant brut mondial
- 545 436 $US
- Durée
- 1h 17min(77 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant