A family walks into a talent agency. It's a father, mother, son, daughter and dog. The father says to the talent agent, "We have a really amazing act. You should represent us."
The agent says, "Sorry, I don't represent family acts. They're a little too cute."
The mother says, "Sir, if you just see our act, we know you would want to represent us."
The agent says, "OK. OK. I'll take a look..."
Oh, wait. I was thinking of The Aristocrats. Sorry.
--
Primer is about these four bright, MIT-engineer-type guys who work on their inventions in a 2 car garage belonging to one of them.
Somewhere along the line, a "machine" is invented that can transport objects or people ahead in time. Not years or months, but hours or days.
I didn't get it either. But, then again, I think my neurons must have melted over the hot summer, because the past three movies I've seen were all head-scratchers, even though they came highly recommended.
My daughter and I watched Primer, subtitles and all, and every ten minutes or so, one would look at the other and ask, "What's this movie about?" and the other would shrug. We made it through to the end, though. But then I gave it to my husband and he thought it was Deep and Meaningful and full of Ambiguity and Moral Uncertainty. So maybe it was just me.
It was like the exercise where you become aware that you are aware. Then you become aware that you are aware that you are aware...
In a sense, the movie pulls you right through time, so you gain the sense, the "experience," of being in two places at once. Does it mean anything? No.
It may have moral implications. If John becomes a time-replicated plurality of people, is his wife guilty of polygamy? Important stuff like that.
I also think it's "deep," if not too meaningful, and full of ambiguity, if not moral uncertainty either. Right?
Thanks for your thoughts! If you see it again, or reconsider your opinions, c'mon back.
Actually, I have reconsidered and I do have something more to say.
The tagline: "It's better to have something to remember than nothing to regret."
Wouldn't it make more sense, or at least be more poignant, to say: "It's better to have something to regret than nothing to remember?" I mean, the point is that even if it means having some regrets, it's better to have lived your life, rather than do nothing at all for fear of regret, and end up not having lived, right? You can have something to remember without having something to regret, and still have lived, but if you have nothing to remember, hence, nothing to regret, you haven't lived. See my point? :P-->
Oh, wait, the movie. That's right. Well, I couldn't figure out what they were trying to invent in the first place, and it took me a long time to figure out what they invented in the second place, so when they started going back in time and having doubles, I was a little lost. I guess the conflict came in when they realized the implications -- that they could change history to their own advantage, and they became addicted to that knowledge, trying not to abuse it, but barely holding temptation at bay. So that's where the moral dilemma came in, as I saw it.
Different genre, different movie, but I liked The Constant Gardener (or at least I liked it better than some of the other movies I've recently seen), based on a John LeCarre (if that's the author) novel about a woman who tries to take on the pharmaceutical industry's exploitation of patients in Africa.
I think I'll watch it with Mike next time I visit San Diego... :D-->
Well.. I saw stuff... but was it supposed to make sense? As I remember it, not much in that movie did to me... should I have seen the first one first?
I think I've got a lot of other movies to watch before I watch that one again... maybe it's like when I saw "Fire Walk With Me"... I watched it with someone who knew all about 'the stuff' because I hadn't ever gotten to watch "Twin Peaks"...
Got Primer yesterday, haven't watched it yet... but will and will report back...
OK... I finally got around to watching the DVD last week (I don't know why they say I procrastinate)... I went into it 'knowing' it was about some guys that built a time machine and what the reviews said up there in Satori's post...
I liked it, I followed it and was pleasantly surprised at the ending... although I was starting to get an idea but only towards the end just before they revealed...
I do need to go back and watch it again, this time (thinking) I know what to look for... but who knows when that will be? Look how long this took me!
Thanks for suggesting it Satori... I did like it...
Now... wasn't there a "The Illusionist" thread around here somewhere? I got around to watching that last night...
The tagline: "It's better to have something to remember than nothing to regret."
laleo, I don't know... you'll have to take it up with Frank Zappa... it's a quote from him.
Recommended Posts
Tom Strange
I saw the Memento was mentioned in one of the reviews... sounds kinda like that... what's the story line? Or whatever you can give away...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Okay Tom.
A family walks into a talent agency. It's a father, mother, son, daughter and dog. The father says to the talent agent, "We have a really amazing act. You should represent us."
The agent says, "Sorry, I don't represent family acts. They're a little too cute."
The mother says, "Sir, if you just see our act, we know you would want to represent us."
The agent says, "OK. OK. I'll take a look..."
Oh, wait. I was thinking of The Aristocrats. Sorry.
--
Primer is about these four bright, MIT-engineer-type guys who work on their inventions in a 2 car garage belonging to one of them.
Somewhere along the line, a "machine" is invented that can transport objects or people ahead in time. Not years or months, but hours or days.
Their thoughts turn to the possibilities...
You will enjoy it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
sounds cool... I'll give it a look...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Let me know how you liked it, or didn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I suspect that I'll have to see it nine or ten more times before it sinks in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
I didn't get it either. But, then again, I think my neurons must have melted over the hot summer, because the past three movies I've seen were all head-scratchers, even though they came highly recommended.
My daughter and I watched Primer, subtitles and all, and every ten minutes or so, one would look at the other and ask, "What's this movie about?" and the other would shrug. We made it through to the end, though. But then I gave it to my husband and he thought it was Deep and Meaningful and full of Ambiguity and Moral Uncertainty. So maybe it was just me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
laleo! he didn't know either!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
To me it was just a crafty story well told.
It was like the exercise where you become aware that you are aware. Then you become aware that you are aware that you are aware...
In a sense, the movie pulls you right through time, so you gain the sense, the "experience," of being in two places at once. Does it mean anything? No.
It may have moral implications. If John becomes a time-replicated plurality of people, is his wife guilty of polygamy? Important stuff like that.
I also think it's "deep," if not too meaningful, and full of ambiguity, if not moral uncertainty either. Right?
Thanks for your thoughts! If you see it again, or reconsider your opinions, c'mon back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*finally reads the thread*
Sounds like I might enjoy this.
Either way, it's worth the effort to TRY to like it.
I mean, I saw Blair Witch 2:Book of Shadows, but only because
of the Secret of Esrever and trying to find all the hidden
stuff in the movie.
If anyone here saw it besides me (like the Traxx fans), I
found out what the sentence spoken "widdershins" was.
The captions for the sentence read "(speaking gibberish)"
but it WAS a sentence of script. The trick is that,
instead of parsing the syllables and writing it out
backwards, they did the lazy thing and just reversed the
letter order of each word. The actress then read the words
as they now looked, and this changed the pronunciation of
everything.
Oh, and if you didn't figure out what REALLY happened in
BW2:BoS, let me know, I have all the 'whats', but not the
'why', which they left open for a 3rd movie which, if ever
made, will bypass theaters and home video and just be
deposited directly into the city dump.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Actually, I have reconsidered and I do have something more to say.
The tagline: "It's better to have something to remember than nothing to regret."
Wouldn't it make more sense, or at least be more poignant, to say: "It's better to have something to regret than nothing to remember?" I mean, the point is that even if it means having some regrets, it's better to have lived your life, rather than do nothing at all for fear of regret, and end up not having lived, right? You can have something to remember without having something to regret, and still have lived, but if you have nothing to remember, hence, nothing to regret, you haven't lived. See my point?
:P-->
Oh, wait, the movie. That's right. Well, I couldn't figure out what they were trying to invent in the first place, and it took me a long time to figure out what they invented in the second place, so when they started going back in time and having doubles, I was a little lost. I guess the conflict came in when they realized the implications -- that they could change history to their own advantage, and they became addicted to that knowledge, trying not to abuse it, but barely holding temptation at bay. So that's where the moral dilemma came in, as I saw it.
Different genre, different movie, but I liked The Constant Gardener (or at least I liked it better than some of the other movies I've recently seen), based on a John LeCarre (if that's the author) novel about a woman who tries to take on the pharmaceutical industry's exploitation of patients in Africa.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
They would have to admit to having seen it, first. I don't think you'll get many takers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You're saying they'd admit to seeing "Traxx" and believing the
1942 promise at one point, but would be embarassed to admit
seeing BW2:BoS?
At least there was a puzzle involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
there was hidden stuff in BW2? I never saw BW1 but saw BW2... then I was sure I'd made the right decision on BW1...
Got Primer yesterday, haven't watched it yet... but will and will report back...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, BW1 was better than BW2:BoS in terms of suspense and so
on. I enjoyed it on its own merits, even though it broke most of
my usual rules for enjoying movies. The story was suspenseful,
and DID have a linear plot. One of its strengths was its
ambiguity-you could argue that the "truth" of it was one of at
least 2 possible answers, both of which were supported by the
facts. I also liked a few little touches.
One woman supposedly frightened in the past by the Blair Witch
was carrying a worn Bible...in fact, she had a deathgrip on it and
held it almost like a shield. It looked like a Bible that had been
much-used and much-read, but also cared-for. It was a VERY subtle
touch which I appreciated. My favourite line from BW1:
(Night before the trip, in a hotel room)
"Let's do an equipment check."
"Right-I have a bag of Utz and a beer."
BW2, of course, had a bigger budget, but the plot was MUCH harder
to follow, since so much was going on.
You're kidding-you didn't know there was hidden stuff in BW2:BoS?
It was ALL OVER the movie! When watching it the first time I saw
something! For one thing, they hid little BW insignias all over the
movie. For another, there were words hidden in some of the scenes.
They're in the scene with the campfire (in the flames that shoot
up-watch for when someone hands over a cigarette),
in the scene when they pick up the last team member-she's napping
on a headstone (look for when the camera's not on her),
in the scene when one member claims she wants to learn from the
BW (look at the leaves when she's on the ground),
one scene in the factory/loft/whatever, in the one room with just
the long table (watch the window behind the 2 characters talking),
and when one character is trying to protect herself
(look at the carpet she's sitting on-this one was obvious to me
when I was watching it)
There's other stuff, too, and I don't think I saw all of it.
If you saw the "Secret of Esrever" short after, it explained that
there was hidden stuff, and gave clues on which scenes they were
in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You mean, it was ubiquitously hidden?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I think I'll watch it with Mike next time I visit San Diego...
:D-->
Well.. I saw stuff... but was it supposed to make sense? As I remember it, not much in that movie did to me... should I have seen the first one first?
I think I've got a lot of other movies to watch before I watch that one again... maybe it's like when I saw "Fire Walk With Me"... I watched it with someone who knew all about 'the stuff' because I hadn't ever gotten to watch "Twin Peaks"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Well, for Twin Peaks you'll want to direct questions to Raf.
Before seeing the 2nd BW movie, you just need to know what
"everybody" knew about the first movie:
3 kids went looking for the truth behind the legend of the Blair
Witch, and wandered out into the forest. They taped themselves.
Their tapes were found later-they were not. Nobody knows for sure
what happened to them-the only clues are in the tape footage.
(If you like the premise-following the action from the footage, and
trying to follow along-then it's entertaining as a suspense film.)
The second movie was based on the hype SURROUNDING the first movie.
That's why the one local guy made his living selling BW souvenirs,
doing tours of Burkettsville (formerly known as Blair), and so on.
The other team members were following the legend, but each for their
own reasons. They seemed to each represent different factions among
the fans. The investigators thought there was a simple, mundane
explanation, one was a fan because of the "witch" connection, and
figured that the legendary "Blair Witch" was the victim of vicious
rumours, one's only question was "how can I make money off this?"
and one's connection: "Why are you here?" "I thought the movie was
cool."
The key to making sense of the second movie is thinking about the
continuity, and makes more sense seeing it a SECOND time after
figuring that out.
As I see it, the answer is...
All video footage in the movie reflects what ACTUALLY HAPPENED at
any moment.
The audience is experiencing the movie with the characters AS THEY
REMEMBER IT, which is sometimes DIFFERENT from the video footage.
Once you know what's on the footage, you know why the events as you
saw them WITHOUT footage don't add up. Compare the scene when one
character goes to the grocery store, buys something, ends up with
something else in the shopping bag, and someone throws rocks at the
van,
with the video footage of the store's surveillance camera.
If the camera's correct, the rocks and the bag items made sense.
If what we/the character saw was correct, then it doesn't make sense.
BTW, I think it was suggested they got "the chair" for what happened-
the supposed psychic saw a flash of one of them in "the chair" and
being electrocuted-I think that was supposed to be a foretelling of
his future.
=====
Wasn't this a thread about "Primer" at some point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
ohhhh... my head hurts...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
The digressions are worth the detour.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OK... I finally got around to watching the DVD last week (I don't know why they say I procrastinate)... I went into it 'knowing' it was about some guys that built a time machine and what the reviews said up there in Satori's post...
I liked it, I followed it and was pleasantly surprised at the ending... although I was starting to get an idea but only towards the end just before they revealed...
I do need to go back and watch it again, this time (thinking) I know what to look for... but who knows when that will be? Look how long this took me!
Thanks for suggesting it Satori... I did like it...
Now... wasn't there a "The Illusionist" thread around here somewhere? I got around to watching that last night...
laleo, I don't know... you'll have to take it up with Frank Zappa... it's a quote from him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Satori, have you re-watched it since?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Not yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.