Top

film

Stories

 

A Primer Primer

What the bleep we don't know about the year's headiest puzzle movie

The rare movie that can claim a kinship with Mandelbrot and Heisenberg, Shane Carruth's Primer won Sundance's Grand Jury prize as well as its Alfred P. Sloan prize for science-themed movies. (Carruth took part last week in AMMI's inaugural Sloan Science on Film Dialogue.) With questions about the film's brain-spraining narrative multiplying as rapidly as its self-cloning, time-traveling protagonists Abe and Aaron, the Voice asked the 31-year-old Carruth to help separate science from fiction and untangle some of the movie's knottier mysteries. (Spoilers below.)

How did you come up with the film's principles of time travel? Richard Feynman has some interesting ideas about time. When you look at Feynman diagrams [which map the interaction of elementary particles], there's really no difference between watching an interaction happen forward and backward in time. That's something I got interested in early on. I always knew what the story was thematically before it turned into science fiction. It would be about trust and how that's linked to what's at risk. I was reading about innovation and that's where I got the setting. Now what is this device? At that point, I'm where a lot of sci-fi writers are—just going through the list of what this thing could be. When I got to the ability to affect time, there was a lot of material to mine that I hadn't seen before—it's usually warpspace or wormholes. In almost any time travel story, people pick themselves up at one point in time and then immediately exist at another—they move from the present day to the 1950s or prehistoric times, and I never liked that because if I were to jump back a day, I'd find myself in a different space because of the orbit of the earth. Whenever you're addressing moving in time you need to talk about space. When you walk to the door you have to walk every moment between here and there, so it seems that, if you're moving through time backwards, you should have to pass through each moment back to get there. That would be the price you pay.

How much real science is there in the movie? There's almost no time travel–related science. What they're trying to do at the beginning, degrading gravity using superconductors—that was technically researched. The point where it goes from saying we're doing such an efficient job degrading gravity that we're also blocking time—that's the leap. But there are plenty of stories in the history of innovation where you're heading towards one thing and there's a side effect that turns out to be the valuable thing, like John Bardeen's accidental invention of the transistor. For a while I believed that asking to travel in time was too much, but I could almost believe that you could send information. It took a year to write the film and by the end of it—I probably shouldn't say this out loud—I have a sort of proof that it can't exist. If you buy that it exists, it means something more profound about where we live. It means we don't live where we think we live.

Details

Related:

36-Hour Party People
Thinking outside the box: First-time filmmaker reinvents sci-fi, tampers with space-time Primer
By Dennis Lim

How comprehensible is the film supposed to be after a single viewing? I'm always worried Q&As are going to turn into 30 minutes just talking about plot points. But people don't necessarily want to know the answer to everything, they want to know that there is an answer. I know that you could watch it and think it's some kind of random assemblage, like it's a tone poem to time travel. But to know that there's a method to it is half the battle. Two viewings seem to do it, but I can't say you have to see it twice; that's so pretentious.

Does everything add up, or did you deliberately leave a few loose ends? It's never tidily summed up, but I've made sure the information is there. Almost every detail, from who the narrator is to how many Aarons there are in the end. But there's one piece of information that isn't, and that has to do with [potential funder] Granger coming back and how he was able to. That's purposely vague. Abe and Aaron each have a point in the film where they find themselves in someone else's past, and they both react a little differently to it. This is Abe's moment. This man has found out about the machine and he's used it to come back, but they don't know from what point in the future or who told him about it. That's what spurs Abe to reboot the whole thing, that's how he reacts—let's redo everything and then I'm the one in control. It was important that the audience be in the same place that they are—there isn't any way to know. That's the one big question that comes up, and I'm satisfied by that—that's supposed to be the big question. I stuck with the rule that we were going to be with Abe, that we were going to see his experience. Although the narration is coming from Aaron, we only know about Aaron's experience from voiceover and flashback material, mainly because there was no way to tell a story from multiple points of view dealing with multiple histories.

1
 
2
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
0 comments
 

Now Showing

Find capsule reviews, showtimes & tickets for all films in town.

Box Office Report

Join My Voice Nation for free stuff, film info & more!

Loading...