this is a first time feature that Just won the grand jury prize at sundance -- this guy claims to have shot this for 20 grand - he wrote, directed, shot, composed, edited, etc -- go to primerthemovie.com -- i can tell you one thing -- this film costed much more than 20 grand --and his claim that he had "no idea what he was doing" is bullshit -- any thoughts?
http://primermovie.com/
I read he made it for around 7k.
I read the 7k thing too. I think that's BS, but he probably could have done it for 20 if he pulled a lot of favors (this is judging by the trailer, which is admittedly really well done and could be fooling us with its flashiness). I'm surprised I never heard of it...I try to keep track of most indie productions made in Dallas (just scoping the competition, you know).
Anyway, I've read a lot of reviews of it on AICN and such and most were mixed to negative. I think I remember one positive review out of the whole lot.
I've heard varying reports about the budget, but that's not the issue to me. The fact that a bunch of nobodies scraped a film together, got it into sundance (I mean, that itself is an accomplishment), and then won the grand jury prize... sheesh, that's the dream! The film sounds pretty intriguing, I'll definitely be checking it out, provided it gets picked up and not Public-Access-ed.
A film for $7000? The director of "Primer" tells you how:
http://www.primermovie.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14
Quote from: MacGuffinA film for $7000? The director of "Primer" tells you how:
http://primermovie.com/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=14
i wonder if the budget was "in the can". i truly can not believe that it was 7000 all included -- i know he mentioneed that it was not including the print -- but even processing/transfer costs would be well over 7,000 -- the last short i shot with many many favors costs 3000 -- it was 20 minutes on super 16 -- all i paid for was film and processing. i think the story of "young filmmaker comes from no where and makes movie for cicken feed" is a publicity stunt.
Trailer here. (http://www.primermovie.com/)
THINKFILMS HAS MADE A DEAL WITH DIRECTOR SHANE CARRUTH FOR THE SUNDANCE WINNER, "PRIMER"
Source: dallasobserver.com
So whatever happened to the hi-tech thriller “PRIMER,” which was shot for only $7000 dollars and took the Grand Jury prize at this year’s Sundance?
Well, after a long-time of dealing and wheeling, software engineer-turned-filmmaker SHANE CARRUTH has made an “oral” agreement with THiNKFiLMS, the distributor responsible for such pics like the Oscar-nominated documentary “Spellbound” and the Jodie Foster drama “The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys”
Originally reported on Dallas Observer, the report claims that Carruth was even willing to shelf the Sundance-winning film if a distribute deal was not done within his own terms.
"I hoped, like everyone hopes, that somebody wants the film enough to buy it and put the money that it takes to distribute it, but I never thought about the fact I was gonna have to sell it to somebody and lose it and give up that control. And I think that's part of what's making these talks last so long, the fact I am having a hard time giving it up."
Carruth later adds, "What I'm thinking about is the DVD boxed set that comes out in 10 years, and I don't wanna be hassling with these guys for the rights to this film."
The terms of the deal with THiNKFiLMS have not been disclosed and a release date has not been announced.
Click on the link here (http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2004-02-12/stuff.html/1/index.html) for the Dallas Observer article, where Carruth' also talks about his experience in Sundance and how he made the film with literally no money.
this guy is going to fuck his movie -- gaining control of the filmmaking process is one thing, but also obtaining control over distro. is a whole nother story -- if hes not willing to give his film up, itll die a very quick death -- i saw it happen to my friend who had a feature at sundance last year. he had every aquisition heavyweight calling him, making him offers and he kept on holding out -- soon the phones stop -- never was bought and will never be seen -- a sad tale.
Can you give up distribution rights, but retain the right to keep the cut as is, so they can't alter anything? I'm thinking that would be key...
Quote from: SoNowThenCan you give up distribution rights, but retain the right to keep the cut as is, so they can't alter anything? I'm thinking that would be key...
that can be included in the contractual sale -- but i think the "control element" of distro. is less about the actual film and more about how it is marketed. you dont have control over trailers and taglines and posters -- your film is being represented by people other than you, I.e.: marketing firms who think "this is how to sell your film." some filmmakers may argue that a bad trailer or distasteful movie poster can do more harm to a film than cutting a scene...
so did anyone ever see this?
the main character lives about 15 minutes from where i live. there were a few articles on him in the paper.
this trailer is great, which makes me want to see the movie.
I saw this this morning and I really liked it. I'd compare it in an instant to Chris Nolan's first film, Following. It's very much along the lines as that. Maybe Shane Carruthers will direct the sequel to Batman Begins.
It is almost incomprehnsibly dense, in terms of subject matter -- it's just about impossible to know what's going on half the time -- but if the plot were made any clearer, it might not have worked. The thrill of the film is trying to decipher the incredibly authentic techno-babble and figure out just what the hell is going on. It takes a lot of work to follow, and while it's not entirely rewarding (I think a lot of that techno babble is used to effectively cover up the fact that the story is basically a Twilight Zone episode with massive plot holes), it's a lot of fun to watch. Technically, it looks and sounds great -- I still don't know how it was made for 7 grand, and I have a feeling a lot of sound work was done on it since it got picked up for distribution, but it's got that gritty-but-slick indie style we haven't really seen since the late nineties, before DV took over.
Ghostboy I just read your posted review of it on AICN -- this is the first time I've heard of this movie and just went through reading several interviews with the filmmaker. What is it specifically that you found so engrossing? Were the performances by the actors (and the director) convincing? Obviously all of the elements in the film have to be working together to produce a gem, but was it the plot that you tried to untangle that made it so interesting? In other words - is the film much like doing a crossword puzzle you're enjoying, performances or flaws be damned?
the deep ellum film festival will be having another screening of this on Oct 4.
www.def2.org
I'm not sure why people are questioning a 7k budget though. I didn't see anything in the trailer that made me think otherwise.
Quote from: metroshanethe deep ellum film festival will be having another screening of this on Oct 4.
www.def2.org
I'm not sure why people are questioning a 7k budget though. I didn't see anything in the trailer that made me think otherwise.
Also...isn't the running time 78 minutes? That puts it at under an hour and a half, barely what it takes to be a feature film. 7k seems plausible to me. Transferring to 40k for 35mm also makes sense, however. :)
Quote from: SalGhostboy I just read your posted review of it on AICN -- this is the first time I've heard of this movie and just went through reading several interviews with the filmmaker. What is it specifically that you found so engrossing? Were the performances by the actors (and the director) convincing? Obviously all of the elements in the film have to be working together to produce a gem, but was it the plot that you tried to untangle that made it so interesting? In other words - is the film much like doing a crossword puzzle you're enjoying, performances or flaws be damned?
Pretty much, yes. The performances are nothing to write home about...they're all good, just in perfect service to the plot. And it's not so much the plot that interested me per se as the way it was told. The style is fascinating, and what makes it even more so is the knowledge that the style was implied by the budget.
Yeah it is incredibly short, and yes the trailer doesn't have anything that LOOK expensive, and neither does the movie really...but once you shoot anything on film, at least in my case, you start to realize how impressive making a feature for seven thousand (on film) actually is.
did anyone end up going to the showing and Q&A at the Magnolia in Dallas this past weekend?
Kick ass interview with Shane, dude. Nice work.
link: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18545
Quote from: SalKick ass interview with Shane, dude. Nice work.
link: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18545
do i need to wait until after seEing the movie to read this?
i was wrong about the thing at the Magnolia. it hasn't happened yet.
Quote from: SalKick ass interview with Shane, dude. Nice work.
Thanks.
And no, I don't think there's anything that could be considered a spoiler (although the one special effect in the film, while not really a spoiler to the plot, is discussed in detail and could possibly ruin one's suspension of disbelief when it occurs in the film).
Quote from: GhostboyQuote from: SalKick ass interview with Shane, dude. Nice work.
Thanks.
And no, I don't think there's anything that could be considered a spoiler (although the one special effect in the film, while not really a spoiler to the plot, is discussed in detail and could possibly ruin one's suspension of disbelief when it occurs in the film).
It sounded clever, and I think it'll play that way when I see it October 13th. Of course, I probably won't get his comment about the sweater out of my head when I do. :shock:
The thing at the Magnolia is tomorrow, Oct 3. I'll be there!
Quote from: GhostboyQuote from: SalKick ass interview with Shane, dude. Nice work.
Thanks.
And no, I don't think there's anything that could be considered a spoiler (although the one special effect in the film, while not really a spoiler to the plot, is discussed in detail and could possibly ruin one's suspension of disbelief when it occurs in the film).
Actually, by the interview (which was fucking great), I couldn't grasp at all what y'all were talking about. Maybe because I don't understand what the visual is exactly because I haven't seen this movie. I know something is floating and he used a digital camera (?) somehow. Maybe someone could spell it out for me.
Went to the "Dallas Premier" tonight which had a short Q/A afterwards with Shane and Gary Cogill.
I went in a little jealous and bitter, and competitive. But I have to say I'm very proud of what this nice young man was able to accomplish. Do I think it had a few problems and holes? Sure. Do I think it's Oscar worthy? No. But hey, he was one of us who did it...and for that I'm greatful and proud. And it's not half bad. An entertaining little movie. And Shane seemed very nice. The Q/A was very short so I ambushed Shane (yes I was that guy) as he was leaving and told him I enjoyed the film. Couldn't have been a more affable and genuinly nice dude. Then I pulled a douche-bag move and slipped him a dvd of my movie. He took it with gratitude and I let him go. He may have thrown it away as soon as I was out of sight, but hey, I honestly wanted him to have it one film maker to another.
I really wanted to dislike him and the movie, but I can't.
QuoteThen I pulled a douche-bag move and slipped him a dvd of my movie.
Ouch
It's well publicized that Shane claims to have made this movie for 7K, but he's been doing alot of interviewing around here lately and his numbers don't really add up. I'll present several facts that I've heard him claim personally (no heresay) and leave it to you to decide.
1. At premier, he told Gary Coghill that he shot for five weeks. During the Q/A he was asked about some of the smooth shots and he mentioned he rented a dolly at $400/week.
total: assuming he used it every week = $2000
2. On Russ Martin he claimed he rented the camera for $1000/week, in response to why he didn't shoot on video.
total = $5000
So that's 7K right there before we consider the cost of the rest of the essential processes such as, sound mixing, processing, final edit (he gave a EDL after cutting on Premier), video transfer, optical print, release print.
That's assuming he got all the talent for free (easy enough), Locations free, no food, no drink, no gas money, no electricity, free lighting, etc. Also on Russ Martin show he said he did it after reading about Rodriguez doing it for 7K....and we all know RR was loaned his camera (5K to Shane) and still barely got in under 7K. Is Shane just trying to spin PR? You decide.
Quote from: metroshaneSo that's 7K right there before we consider the cost of the rest of the essential processes such as, sound mixing, processing, final edit (he gave a EDL after cutting on Premier), video transfer, optical print, release print.
Like "El Mariachi," the budget is for what it was 'shot' for; the 'in-the-can' costs.
http://www.primermovie.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=37
http://www.primermovie.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=40
I'll have to read RR's book again, but I was thinking the 7k included processing (considering he talks of the cost to transfer to beta). Maybe not. But then Shane says he got a lot of the film free, not all of it. So he had to pay for some of it.
Granted in my humble opinion, it probably cost more around 10K...too convenient that the magic number is 7k just like RR. He only mentions he borrowed 30K for the 35mm blow up. If you are correct that the 7k only includes the in-the-can status...where did he get the money for the post?
Still a good film, and I'm still proud of the dude...just doing some mental adding.
I got the impression too that the 7k on Primer included the transfer -- especially since when I interviewed him he talked about working with the lab to stay within that budget. While 1000 dollars for a camera and 400 for a dolly on a weekly basis is a very reasonable rental rate, I'll also bet that the two breaks in the 5 week shooting schedule knocked things down a bit -- he probably didn't pay for a full 5 weeks (he talked in my interview about having to return the camera and gear during those breaks). And he probably didn't rent the dolly for the whole shoot either.
If he shot on a 2:1 ratio and the film is only about 80 minutes, that's about 6500 feet of 16mm film; average processing price is about 15 cents per foot, but he could have got a deal on that too. He probably did a one light transfer and didn't pay more than 100 bucks an hour (that's the low rate that Video Post & Tranfer here in Dallas often gives) for that (for about three hours of footage). So I think it could be feasible that he didn't spend more than 2000 on the film stock, processing and transfer.
Yeah, I guess it's feasible...7k or 10K. What's the difference, really? I just wanted to bring up conversation. After all, it's a great achievement...but is it possible to replicate? I mean could he make his next movie for 7K? Is it fair to have all the actors and crew work for free once you've gained success?
BTW, my movie only cost 3K! 8) But then I haven't won any awards. :cry:
Quote from: metroshaneAfter all, it's a great achievement...but is it possible to replicate? I mean could he make his next movie for 7K? Is it fair to have all the actors and crew work for free once you've gained success?
Nope. One of the things I hate the most about indie filmmaking is not being able to pay people, and as soon as anyone has the opportunity to do so, even if it's very small amounts, that should be a big priority.
And while I guess anyone could make a movie for 7 grand if they really worked hard at it, it's probably more trouble than it may be ultimately worth -- especially if you don't
have to. As great as it may be for marketing a first film, I doubt Rodriguez or Carruth or Joe Carnahan (who made his first film for somewhere around that figure too) would ever have any desire to work under those conditions again.
why don't we stop talking about the budget and start reviewing the movie.
Perhaps you have short term memory problems...or didn't read any of the other posts. We have discussed the merits, take a look. Perhaps you have something constructive to offer?
Quote from: metroshanePerhaps you have short term memory problems...or didn't read any of the other posts. We have discussed the merits, take a look. Perhaps you have something constructive to offer?
i was kind of half joking...or i guess, really, making a point that this film gets too much attention because of it's budget, and the film is judged too much on that rather than the story.
Quote from: Pedro the AlpacaQuote from: metroshanePerhaps you have short term memory problems...or didn't read any of the other posts. We have discussed the merits, take a look. Perhaps you have something constructive to offer?
i was kind of half joking...or i guess, really, making a point that this film gets too much attention because of it's budget, and the film is judged too much on that rather than the story.
A point well brought up.
Yes, he did bring that topic up well.
How unsettling.
Primer
Director: Shane Carruth (PG-13, 80 min.)
Cast: Shane Carruth, David Sullivan
At a time when the science-fiction label generally applies to big-budget space adventures with nothing on their minds, it seems fitting that Primer, the $7,000 debut feature of writer-director Shane Carruth, should bring the genre back to smart, idea-driven speculative fiction. An achievement at any cost, the film makes an asset out of its financial liabilities, because without the money for gleaming spectacle, it can only afford to tinker with the audience's imagination. Much like his brainy heroes, who run a scrappy tech-hardware business out of their garage, Carruth creates a homemade wonder out of available materials, stitched together with just enough credible pseudo-science to stoke an atmosphere of escalating paranoia and dread. And he does it all through little intangibles—subtle grace notes in the dialogue, a dense soundtrack, the suggestive use of screen space—that don't cost a dime.
An engineer who taught himself filmmaking, Carruth also stars as one of four young hardware developers who sweat over their obscure gizmos in a cluttered suburban garage. Unbeknownst to the other two, Carruth and David Sullivan are secretly developing an amazing invention that can disrupt the space-time continuum in ways both potentially lucrative and catastrophically dangerous. A time machine of sorts, their creation allows them to glimpse the future by manufacturing doubles of themselves, but they have to be careful not to make themselves conspicuous or alter events in an irreparable way. At first, they seize on obvious benefits like retroactively "predicting" the stock market, but when they start to lose the thread, matters quickly veer out of control.
Already swimming with technical jargon and logical conundrums, the last 30 minutes of Primer are nearly impossible to fully decipher on first viewing, and probably aren't much clearer several screenings later. This isn't a flaw. Carruth deliberately refuses to dot i's and cross t's, because at a certain point, the logistical ramifications of what his characters have done spin off into infinity, if not some sort of apocalypse. A brainteaser of the first order, Primer ranks among the best of recent thrillers such as Memento or The Matrix, which rupture the fabric of reality and radically destabilize the narrative in kind. While it's not always easy to gain a solid foothold, the resulting anxiety triggers the mind into concocting new solutions to explain what's happening, which is a far more frightening experience than knowing with any degree of certainty. As a riddle, Primer gains its seductive power by leaving the solution tantalizingly out of reach. —Scott Tobias
I saw this last week at the Denver film festival. It was funny, too, because I'd been up for 24 hours and the film kept me awake the whole time. So that's the first good thing about Primer. It's interesting and never dull. The story kind of reels you in because you want to know what these characters are up to. Now, you walk into a movie like this, and the first thing you're thinking is, okay, my mind is running on full cylinders because people say the plot becomes confusing. So that's what I did. I tried being attentive to whatever I could, but also became distracted by the movie's style, which I liked a lot. Its pace was just the right amount of "cool" to give it the benefit of the doubt. The acting stays in one level and doesn't fluctuate into any intense moments, probably because it's a limitation on the actors. So a good eye on Shane's part to understand that and let the plot pull the movie forward. I thought there were genuinely ambiguous moments in the movie, however, that could have been clarified. I do believe all of the information is in here for you to break down and resolve into a cohesive story, but it seems like there were intentionally misleading things here that can't really be understood through a first viewing until you settle upon the end.
I had a lot of problems with it. First off, in the first half, a lot of shots were out of focus. I thought this might be the theater, but then the shots would be in focus afterwards. That was really distracting in an already complicated movie. Then, I remember my brain had to cram in all the information from like the last 45 minutes, because some small logical puzzle piece was missing, a piece that would have caused all the dominoes in my brain to finally topple over. But instead, I couldn't figure it out, and the dominoes kept standing and getting longer.
After the movie, I was really pissed off, because I thought it was stupid for a director to choose to confuse an audience rather than have them enjoy a movie. Not enjoy, but at least kind of understand it. And Ghostboy, you fucking nailed it on the head when you said this movie has 'negative amounts of exposition.' That is probably the most accurate description of this movie so far. When I remembered you saying that, I thought well ok so it was Carruth's intention to make a ponderous movie, and it's clearly not 'bad filmmaking' that makes it so confusing. Plus, I've been thinking about this movie for the past week, and it's so much fun to just think about.
I also thought about movies that were this puzzling, and I couldn't think of one that was puzzling like this. Some are symbolically puzzling, but none are logically puzzling, which is fantastic. I hope this gets a good dvd release.
Here's a how-to 'Primer' in film
Shane Carruth's audacious learn-it-on-the-fly method of getting his first feature in the can and then to theaters was a three-year journey that left even him a bit amazed. Source: Los Angeles Times
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2004-11%2F14961649.jpg&hash=e4dcd9dad115897fcb1c7af3930fe2fa6f624579)
Roughly one-third of the way through Shane Carruth's cerebral sci-fi drama "Primer," two amateur scientists invent a mysterious technology that will allow them to elliptically curve the time-space continuum — in effect, to travel through time. Voice-over narration addresses the difficulties the twentysomething protagonists Abe and Aaron face: "Their enthusiasm became a slow realization that they were out of their depth."
The same might have been said of the movie's writer-director, who nearly quit the project in disgust four times during "Primer's" three-year production. Unlike the characters he created, however, Carruth stifled the self-awareness that he had most likely bitten off more than he could chew. With no formal training in film, the former software engineer wrote, directed and edited "Primer," relying on filmmaking procedures he mostly taught himself.
Further, Carruth, who earned a degree in mathematics from Stephen F. Austin State University in Texas, composed the film's score with no professional knowledge of music, single-handedly raised its $7,000 budget and performed one of the lead roles, despite never having acted before.
"The only thing I can come up with is that I was really naive," said the Dallas native, 31. "And my naivete allowed me to get through."
It's not every day a math major makes a film that ties together quantum physics, renegade clones and time travel with conundrums involving trust and risk in a way that makes the viewer unsure whether what they are watching is more science than fiction.
And fewer still are the calculus freaks who get their movies into the Sundance Film Festival.
So when "Primer" won the Grand Jury Prize there this year, beating out more buzzworthy films including "Napoleon Dynamite" and "Garden State," no one was more stunned than Carruth, who remains so blindsided by his victory that he still possesses only fragmentary memories of his acceptance speech.
But to hear it from Mark Urman, the head of theatrical distribution at ThinkFilm, the company that bought "Primer" after the festival and released it two weeks ago, the filmmaker's broader achievement doesn't end with his festival win and distribution deal.
"It's not just the Sundance story of the little film that hit it big," Urman said. "It's the story of this fabulous autodidact who literally made a film all by himself in his garage — about guys who make a time machine all by themselves in their garage.
"Shane is an information junkie who really needs to figure everything out," he added. "This film was a learning experience for him."
Just as the talky, jargon-driven "Primer" eschewed the traditional three-act narrative structure, Carruth's journey of bringing the movie to the screen also defied the industry standard. In the years leading to the movie, he tried writing a novel but realized his storytelling agenda leaned more toward externalizing the characters' actions than revealing their interior monologues. Despite a spotty knowledge of film history and no industry contacts to speak of, he turned his hand to writing a screenplay with the intention of directing it.
The script took a year to complete, during which time Carruth experimented shooting and editing footage with his brother's mini-digital camcorder: "I would put it on a tripod and shoot me coming out of the bathroom, me coming down the hall and me going into the kitchen, and then edit the three together — stupid little things like that."
Auditing a film course for two weeks at Southern Methodist University, Carruth learned how to disassemble a Bolex 16mm camera and load a mag of film. But he ultimately lost interest in the class when the teacher steered it away from production and toward film theory.
Learning the basics
Carruth insists his screenwriting education was limited to scrutinizing a handful of scripts to learn such conventions as how to separate description from character names, how to distinguish voice-over from dialogue, and most importantly, to ascertain what font to use on his word processor.
After reading that writer-director Robert Rodriguez had shot his feature debut, "El Mariachi," for $7,000, Carruth decided that figure would also be the budget for "Primer." "That was roughly the amount I had," he recalled. "But once I had that number in my head and I knew it could be done for that much, I wouldn't let it get above that amount."
After the completion of the third draft, the writer-director was involved in a bad car wreck and wound up convalescing at his parents' home in Dallas. Awake with insomnia most nights, he watched seminal '70s dramas on Turner Classic Movies and found himself particularly inspired by the Dustin Hoffman-Robert Redford Watergate investigation drama, "All the President's Men."
"Here I am with all these pages of an investigative procedural that I've been writing about these two guys where we're finding out little bits of information that add up to something bigger," he said. "To see 'All the President's Men,' this is exactly what's going on."
Answering an ad on a local film production bulletin board, Carruth volunteered to operate the bat microphone on a Dallas-based independent movie production. The experience would heavily inform his shooting style.
"I got to see the director and cinematographer work," he said. "But the biggest thing I took away from that experience is we would show up and have a crew of 40 people trying to set things up, and we would wait for hours … each set-up is taking two hours and none of it is pre-planned. That had a huge effect on me in terms of where the cameras were going to be and how the characters were going to move."
From there, he decided to storyboard each camera movement on Tungsten 35mm slide film (to mimic the film stock on which he planned to shoot "Primer") and learned what kind of F-stops to use on his camera through reading articles from American Cinematographer.
When it came time to cast the leads, Carruth auditioned over 100 people for the roles of Abe and Aaron. David Sullivan, a local with an 8x10 glossy head shot but no professional acting experience, was awarded the Abe part. The director decided to play Aaron himself. "I couldn't find the right person," he said.
The two rehearsed for four weeks in the children's section of a Dallas library, a time in which "Primer's" low-key, conversational dialogue came together. "I just wanted it to be as naturalistic as I could get it," said Carruth. "The only trick I ever learned was that if we repeated something 30 or 40 times, we'd get so bored with the material that it would start to sound like it was ours."
Over the course of the film's one-month shoot in 2001, the filmmaker says his main mistake was not budgeting enough money for production and taking on producing duties himself. The actors did double duty both in front of and behind the camera and most shots were completed in one take. For his part, Carruth scouted and secured his locations such as the U-Haul storage locker where much of "Primer's" time-travel action takes place, delivered his 16mm film stock to the lab for processing and rented his own cameras.
"I was so relieved when the shoot was over," he said. "It was such a joy not to feel like I was letting my crew down all day, every day. It was way too guerrilla."
But the filmmaker's main hurdles were still ahead.
Carruth had gleaned bits of advice from haunting local video production companies and pestering the assistants with technical questions. He arrived at the conclusion that the cheapest way to shoot would be to transfer his 16mm footage to mini-digital video film and then edit on his home computer. "I used Adobe Premiere, which isn't made for film," he said, still audibly exasperated at the mistake. "It … doesn't handle sound properly. I spent the first two months syncing audio to video. It was a hundred little things that I didn't predict and had to muddle through."
In all, postproduction on "Primer" took nearly two years to complete — an eternity in front of a computer screen by any professional standard. Beside technical inefficiency, Carruth's choice to shoot only one take of any given shot resulted in a dearth of material.
"For the most part, it saves a lot of time and money," he said. "But when there was some kind of continuity error or I lost a shot because of a tech problem, it becomes a puzzle trying to get it back in there.
"I quit the movie three or four times. I'd say … 'I don't even know what the story is anymore.' "
Instead, he returned to the project again and again, teaching himself sound design he says he "ripped off" from Steven Soderbergh's arty revenge caper "The Limey." And Carruth used a computer music program called Fruity Loops to create his own piano samples and sequence what he calls some "rough and quick" music for the film's ethereal, minimalist score. ("I took piano lessons when I was a kid, but I whined, so my mom let me quit," is all the musical education Carruth will cop to.) He finished cutting the film in November 2003 and submitted it to the Sundance Film Festival with a $50 check. And "Primer" was accepted.
Carruth spent the next month overseeing the film's blowup from 16mm to 35mm so it could be projected properly at the festival. During that time, he hired the film publicity firm mPRm, which began hyping "Primer" to the William Morris Agency. They took on Carruth as a client. At the movie's first public viewing, he says he was more worried about the film transfer than his career prospects. To his surprise, "Primer" first won the Alfred P. Sloan Prize for science and technology in film. Grand jury members were unanimous in selecting "Primer" for the grand prize.
Gaining experience
Although Carruth entered into negotiations with both ThinkFilm and Magnolia Pictures, which offered him almost identical deals for upfront money, he ultimately entered into a handshake agreement with ThinkFilm's Urman — that is, before Carruth got cold feet and decided to protract negotiations with the company to land a greater percentage of back-end participation.
"Negotiations were lengthy, and quite frankly, they needn't have been so lengthy," Urman remembered. "But it was more about Shane learning than a tough negotiation. In the same way he taught himself how to make a film, he taught himself how to make a deal."
"I wasn't trying to strain every last penny out of them," Carruth said. "But the bigger thing is, if I'm lucky enough to ever make another film, I want to know about this process also."
In the final analysis, Carruth said he still can't explain how he persuaded himself he could defy all the odds. "I don't know why I thought I was going to be able to go out and do this," he said flatly. "It all boils down to one part being naïve, but also I have a religious fanaticism when it comes to story.
"It makes it so that I'm much less likely to compromise anything," he added, sounding like some kind of dispassionate mathematician. "I'd rather work by myself for months, doing something the way it needs to be done, than to find some compromising way around."
luckily i stumbled across the movie listings for Longview and caught it on it's last night. i'm wanting to call Carruth a genius.
does anyone want to talk in depth about the plot and what exactly happened?
http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?r=0&s=1&c=5625&n=1&burl=
New Line Home Entertainment has announced Primer which stars Shane Carruth and David Sullivan. The film tells the engrossing story of two engineers who stumble upon a remarkable invention that will change their lives in unimaginable ways. The disc will be available to own from the 5th April, and should retail at around $27.95. The film itself will be presented in 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen along with an English Stereo Surround track. Extras will include an audio commentary from the writer/director Shane Carruth and a second commentary from writer/director and cast/crew. English and Spanish subtitles will also be provided.
Quote from: Gamblor not so gone.http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?r=0&s=1&c=5625&n=1&burl=
Anyone catch the typo on the cover yet?
Roper?
saw this tonite. facinating and confounding. it was interesting because it reminded me of what i think soderberghs low budget films might be like. i really need to watch it again, or have someone explain it to me like an idiot just to make sure i get it all. but, thats good. it looked great, too. it can be done. it kind of reminded me of Pi, as in this guy could really be someone to look out for.
Yeah, it's pretty cool, I need to see this again too-- at least just for the small things like the 'birds' in the attic. Several times I felt completely disoriented, but because it's so obvious that Carruth knows what the hell he's doing/talking about, I don't care. There's nothing more exciting then being dragged along by a director who has the answers and it's up to you whether or not you catch up.
Agreed. For me, this is one of the most inspirational movies I've ever seen. What a triumph of independent filmmaking, and even moreso, a triumph of intelligent sci-fi.
well since its been revived again, i guess i'll tell my little story..
bethie and i went to ebert's overlooked film festival last weekend and saw this. i had seen it several months ago but bethie hadn't. shane did a little Q&A with ebert right after the showing. as he was with GB's interview and virtually everyone else's, he was pretty floored by any praise given to him. ebert also referenced mamet (you were first, GB) and he was pretty appreciative of all his praise since ebert compared him to scorsese when he made his first film and mike leigh's.
bethie and i met shane after and i told him he was disgustingly modest and was clearly pretty brilliant. i asked how he felt being compared to scorsese, leigh and kubrick with their debut pictures and he said he was pretty intimidated and worried he'd disappoint people with his future films. bethie proposed he stop making films. i asked about the title of the film and he went on to explain the various meanings and how he originally referred to it with a short 'i' sound instead of a long 'i' sound. but nobody knew how to spell the movie until he pronounced it the way it is now.
i asked more about individual scenes and other things, then asked about his next project. he said hes writing a screenplay that centers around religion that would feature all children acting. i asked him more about that then we thought we were taking up too much of his time so bethie and i got a picture with him and decided to take off.
we had some stranger take the picture for us.. my digital camera has a bright red light that appears before you take the picture so i said "shane, just pretend the red light is Hal" he got a little kick out of that. then as we were leaving, i shook his hand then bethie did and she asked "how old are you?" and shane said "32" and then we left. shane probably thought she was hitting on him. she probably was. i didnt talk to her for the rest of the trip.
according to the film's site, the dvd was released the 19th. i haven't seen it anywhere, but then again i have not looked for it either.
apparently the director didn't even get to see the actual dvd before it was released:
http://primermovie.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=415
I was at the premier of the film in Dallas and went to the Deep Ellum Film Festival. I know Alot of you guys are from Texas did anyone catch the round table disscusion with Shane Carruth David Gordon green Allison anders and the tarnation guy.
I found it really intresting Shane addressed The Peter Biskind book and winning Sundance which was worth the price of admission right there
Well what did he say about Biskind's book?
Who here is from Texas?
RK, ghostboy, and big ideas, and george bush are from texas that i know of........
as for primer i saw it yesterday and it made me feel stupid....please someone help me understand this film.....please..pleaase..
Well he said that he hoped he didn't win beacuse of the book. That he could only make the best movie that he thought possible and that he couldn't help what others did.
Did you know he edited it on Adobe Premiere? thats one of the reason it only cost 7k and he did he's own music and ADR'd it himself as well
Quote from: Chrisdarkodid anyone catch the round table disscusion with Shane Carruth David Gordon green Allison anders and the tarnation guy.
I was there, actually.
What did you think?
Quote from: MeatWho here is from Texas?
I and Stephen Tobolowsky.
It was cool. I went to see David Gordon Green, mainly, since I'd already spoken to Shane Carruth and Jonathan Cauoette, but it was a good discussion, overall (although I wish they'd said at the beginning that the food and drinks were going to be on the house).
I think thats why they didn't say it at the begging otherwise i would have certanlly partook.
It was really pretty awesome I got to meet David Gordon Green and tell him How much i loved George washington. And the room was really intamate the panel was probaly just 5 feet away or so.
The coolest thing about primer is simply the success story I thought the movie was ok but the fact that 2 years ago this guy was working at a bar living with his parents to make money for the movie is really rather inspiring and I hope he gets to make more movies.
Did you go to the Robert Duvall Interview?
admin tip: (https://xixax.com/templates/xixax/images/lang_english/icon_edit.gif)
QuoteThe coolest thing about primer is simply the success story I thought the movie was ok but the fact that 2 years ago this guy was working at a bar living with his parents to make money for the movie is really rather inspiring and I hope he gets to make more movies.
See, that's my main problem with the movie....all of the hype. It just doesn't add up (see my $ arguments earlier). I read, in the observer I think, that he was successful as an engineer, wrote a script and taught himself to make movies on the fly. I've never heard the bar/parents angle. These success stories sure are inspirational...but are the accurate...and are they fair to those that are really looking for inspiration? I'm proud the dude did it himself too, but I think he'd rather let the movie stand on it's own without the hype.
BTW, I'm really jealous too.
For me, it's not proving that he did do it with exactly $7000, or that he'd never done it before. Those are extremes for a first time filmmaker and it's a miracle that he made it and got it sold. For me, the inspiration comes from the fact that this guy knew what he wanted to do and just fucking did it. That he did it as economically as possible is just fucking brilliant.
I did learn one valuable lesson from him. Confuse the audience and they will think you're f'ing brilliant!
Spoilers.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/board/nest/18735491
That is a pretty solid explanation of the order of events right there. The Granger bit had me pretty much throwing my hands up in the air, but now I'm impressed that Carruth had the balls to not only make a non-linear time traveling movie, but he even put in something that has no answer on purpose. That's the kind of filmmaking I like.
I like how the movie has a pretty simple and semi-logical explanation, but it wouldn't have really mattered. The story completely sucked me in for this first go-around. I anticipate further viewings to be less exciting, but if I'm wrong all the better.
Worthy of its admiration.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1568%2Farticle.jpg&hash=e19f137ed75661063971a9416978be426ea89d91)
Shane Carruth rocked the 2004 Sundance Film Festival when his $7000 directorial debut Primer won the Grand Jury Prize over such films as Garden State, Maria Full of Grace and Napoleon Dynamite. But it was accolades well deserved because Primer is one of the most brilliant and complex films to come out of America in many a year. Primer is the story of a small group of men who when attempting to make a breakthrough in error-checking devices instead make a breakthrough in time travel. Soon one of them is using the device for the wrong reasons and they all must confront one another.
Daniel Robert Epstein: How did Primer do in the theaters?
Shane Carruth: Terribly.
DRE: Did it make back the money that ThinkFilm spent on it?
SC: I have a hard time nailing down what they spent on it but from what I’ve heard there is no way they could have made that money back.
DRE: How did that affect you?
SC: I have limited information about what happened so I don’t know. On the Primer website forums and from what I heard it was frustrating to hear that there were people who wanted to see the film but they couldn’t find a theatre near them that had it or if they did it disappeared after a week. I live in Dallas and I would go out to Los Angeles for a meeting every month or so, because I’m a total sellout now, and even during the week of release and about a month afterwards people were asking me if I had found a distributor yet. The marketing wasn’t even touching the people who would be into this type of film.
DRE: When did you know that the DVD was going to be released by New Line Home Video?
SC: I found out when ThinkFilm asked me to add New Line to my errors and omissions insurance policy.
DRE: What’s that?
SC: There is something called errors and omissions insurance policy that if you accidentally put a logo from a corporation in your film and you get sued later you have insurance policy to cover that. A couple of months ago they asked me to add New Line to that policy.
DRE: You must have been a bit excited because obviously New Line is a huge company.
SC: Yeah I guess so but I didn’t know what that meant and I still don’t know what it means. There is more marketing now than there ever was theatrically. I go onto websites and there are Primer DVD banners. But I honestly don’t know who is doing that.
DRE: For the DVD, did you do things like supervise the transfer of the film?
SC: Luckily what is on the DVD is precisely what was turned into Sundance. We went through a digital intermediary process where the original Super 16 is scanned into the digital world in a hi-res format and then that’s lasered out to a 35mm negative and that’s where the all the prints, including the one that went to Sundance, came from. So we’re actually going back to the digital form that I first gave to ThinkFilm and that’s what they made the DVD from.
DRE: There are not a ton of extras on this, just the two commentaries. Will they do a better DVD if this one sells well?
SC: I don’t know. I had tons of stuff I wanted to put on there but I couldn’t reach an agreement with ThinkFilm about it.
DRE: What kind of stuff do you have?
SC: A lot of making of stuff. I edited these featurettes together where it compared the original storyboards to what we ended up with. Some of them are even animated storyboards.
DRE: How was doing the commentary?
SC: I’m really glad that we have the crew commentary because those guys were really involved during the shoot and this was the first time we were able to get together and talk about it. I’m glad the experience of that shoot is documented because it really wasn’t that great. For my commentary I tried my best to be informative about the preproduction and the postproduction process because I’ve listened to so many commentaries that I felt weren’t informative enough. I hated doing my commentary because I put a lot of pressure on myself for that reason. There are no silences in my commentary and I never say “Oh that so and so was a joy to work with.” I don’t think you can tell but I redid a lot of it. I would talk for a few minutes then stop and tell the engineer to let me listen to it then if I didn’t like it, I would redo it.
DRE: Is that attention to detail what made the shoot itself so hard?
SC: Possibly [laughs]. It was definitely not the number one reason, that was lack of funds.
DRE: When we last spoke you had said you met with the head of Paramount. Well now they have a new head of Paramount, did you meet with him?
SC: No I haven’t [laughs]. All my cache is out the window now.
DRE: Have you gotten the chance to do rewriting work?
SC: I’ve been talked to about that but I’m not interested so those conversations don’t go far. I’ve been sent scripts and I try to understand what someone in my position has the opportunity to do but in the end I have to write what I want to direct. So it’s been a year of becoming sure enough to do that. I’m writing now and I’ll be done in about four months.
DRE: Did they send you scripts that you read and wondered what the heck they saw in Primer that made them want to send you those scripts?
SC: Yeah that’s happened. The first maybe five scripts I got all had to do with time travel. Ok now I’m time travel guy.
DRE: Your costar in Primer, David Sullivan, is going to be on an HBO series called Big Love which is about Mormons and polygamy. Did he get that as a result of Primer?
SC: I don’t think so. I know he auditioned for it so he must have got it out of sheer performance. The guy has been out there for a while and if Primer was going to be his lunch ticket I think it would have been that a while ago. It’s weird because at one point in my life I was interested in doing a story about polygamy. I thought it would be a good background for a murder mystery.
DRE: Do you think you will want to act in the next project you do?
SC: I doubt it.
DRE: Did you like your performance in Primer?
SC: Most of it is fine but I don’t think it’s great. Considering we only did one take on many shots, it's passable. But I’m not really an actor. I’m more interested in writing and directing. When directors act in their films I’m constantly trying to figure out whether it’s a distraction or not. What’s weird is that if any director has the ability then they should perform as a character in the rehearsals. Any information I have to be able to communicate with actors comes from the fact of experiencing the scene with somebody. I would find it difficult to be outside the rehearsal and be effective in talking to people about it.
DRE: Is the next movie you’re doing this nautical romance I read about on CHUD.com?
SC: That one I hope to do eventually. I’ve kind of been taken away with what I’m working on now. It’s about some kids, religion and ideology.
DRE: What religion were you raised with?
SC: Christian, my parents used to be in a pretty charismatic church but my grandfather was a Baptist preacher. There was a lot of back and forth between regular Baptist church and then the more hippie church.
DRE: Will your movie tackle those ideas?
SC: There is actually no mention of religion in the film because it’s all subtextual. It’s the story of the beginnings of ideology and how different people can look at the same sort of the same magic and come up with a different set of rules to explain it.
DRE: So it’s like Primer, meaning it tackles a lot of things without the characters coming out and saying it directly.
SC: That’s the hope.
Not sure how I feel about that. He never mentioned me slipping him my movie. What a jerk. :oops:
Here's my problem with Hollywood...a movie's success has everything to do with marketing and nothing to do with quality. Since the majority of box office gross is made during the first weekend or twos 'first viewings'...you only have to get people into the theater once. It's not like they ask for their money back if it's bad. And it's not like it's a recurring charge they cancel. They pay their money whether it's a good film or not. So you need a big marketing budget to tell the sheep it's good and get their butts in seats. Why do you pick up a movie and not market it? Tax write-off?
Here's my problem with the romanticism of independant film. Listen to Shane talk about errors and omissions insurance. Is that part of the 7K budget? I don't think so...and do you really have a valuable product until you take care of all the legal stuff? How did Robert Rodriguez get clearances from all of the people and places he photographed? It's appearant from the books that he didn't the first time around. What about the beer logos and playboy logos? Did the distributor have to go back after they bought the rights to film and get clearances? Sure I can make a movie for no money...but then I could just have a million dollars by stealing it.
Quote from: metroshaneWhy do you pick up a movie and not market it? Tax write-off?
Fact: most non-event films (and even some of those) never have a chance of making money theatrically, and thus the mareketing is minimal. However, the theatrical release is an important form of marketing for the DVD release, which is where profit is eventually made. Movies that were released theatrically sell a great percentage more DVD/video units than straight-to-video titles. It all evens out, from the financial perspective.
So, Primer will make money back eventually on DVD. And I hope to god Carruth's cache isn't as gone as he implies, because I really want to see his next film.
Quote from: GhostboyI hope to god Carruth's cache isn't as gone as he implies, because I really want to see his next film.
I think he was being sarcastic.
Who knew time travel could be so fucking boring? :yabbse-angry:
I can't think of a better argument against this movie than that the resident David Lynch freak said this about it:
Quote from: NEON MERCURYas for primer i saw it yesterday and it made me feel stupid....please someone help me understand this film.....please..pleaase..
This is a movie that has traded completely on its production value. If this movie wasn't made on the cheap, everyone would have realized how impenetrable it was. Visually, it's great and the IDEA of the movie (since there's no real plot) is interesting. But the characters are 1-dimensional, covered up by copious amounts of boring dialogue so they have plenty of chances to "act" (this is THE textbook example of why starving actors shouldn't write their own scripts), and this is the first time I saw a movie where the lack of exposition insulted me. This flick was so intentionally incomprehensible that I didn't necessarily feel stupid like Neon said, but I felt like I was being
made to feel stupid, which I found insulting.
Naturally, I was reminded me of Pi, but more because I was trying to think of why Pi worked for me and Primer didn't. It was similar with the technobabble but at least there was something more to grab onto in Pi. The number was the MacGuffin and that's OK because we really don't need to know the actual significance of the number, we just need to know that there is a significance to the number.
In Primer, we're just watching two guys time travel, which sounds great but it ends up being infinitely more interesting to the characters than it could ever be to anyone except the .0001% of the audience who understands quantum physics. It boils down to a pseudo-intellectual mess.
That all being said, I think that for a $7000 movie, it looked good, but all my praise for this movie is limited to the technical aspects of it. Shane Carruth is a decent director, even if he cribs the FUCK out of Soderbergh (which I intend to do with the short I'm filming this fall, so I can't fault him for that).
But those shots where characters went in and out of focus (which I liked) implies, to me anyway, that it's not meant to make sense to anyone... and frankly, I have no use for that unless your name is David Lynch.
I haven't been this pissed about a movie in a while.
Pissed? This movie made me excited to be alive. To think that an idea could be unrelentingly thrown at you, no time to slow down and think, that a movie would really challenge its audience. Not just with moral and value dilemmas (there are plenty of those), but of pure narrative confusion, and yet if you looked at it closely, it still all makes sense. It's not going fast to make up for it's lack of plot, it wants to take the audience further by refusing to spell out anything. Maybe this is over the top, but I saw this back in October, and I've felt the same way since I saw it. I love the fact that this is the most confusing movie I've ever seen, but it's really just a puzzle waiting to be unwrapped.
That was such an enjoyable reply and reminded me completely as to what I liked the movie.
Quote from: Gamblor Posts DrunkPissed? This movie made me excited to be alive. To think that an idea could be unrelentingly thrown at you, no time to slow down and think, that a movie would really challenge its audience. Not just with moral and value dilemmas (there are plenty of those), but of pure narrative confusion, and yet if you looked at it closely, it still all makes sense. It's not going fast to make up for it's lack of plot, it wants to take the audience further by refusing to spell out anything. Maybe this is over the top, but I saw this back in October, and I've felt the same way since I saw it. I love the fact that this is the most confusing movie I've ever seen, but it's really just a puzzle waiting to be unwrapped.
After sleeping on it, I've had a chance to think about what made me have such a violent reaction to a movie I've been eagerly waiting to see. It comes down to length mostly. I still think that it's a slight degree of contempt for the audience to not even give a clue as to what's going on but if you're going to do that, don't pad your movie with at least 40 minutes of useless dialogue.
Plain and simple, Carruth could have accomplished everything he set out to do in 30-40 minutes. The opening 10 minutes of dialogue that means nothing to the audience was unnecessary. Honestly, just show us the goddamn machine and get right to the bit about the watches and how the one guy builds the machine in the storage space.
It's not even so hard to grasp what's going on in it so much as it's just difficult to want to wade through the parts where nothing happens to get to the good stuff. There are so many scenes where nothing actually happens - we don't really learn about the characters (to the point that I don't know enough about them to care about them), we don't really learn anything about the machine, we don't really learn anything about anything except that these two guys like to talk really fast back and forth to each other... great.
Bottom line, I can't say that Primer is poorly constructed but it's just that I see what he was trying to do and I just don't like it. I don't think it was actually "challenging" but manipulative. I don't think there's a real puzzle there, just the pretense that there might be. Very little of the dialogue seems to be there for any other reason than to squeeze all the shit that Carruth wanted to squeeze into the movie. If he had cut the script in half, he'd have been able to shoot one fucking great short for half the money... but no one would know who he is, so things worked out well for him, I guess.
I don't know...every time I see it, I pick up new things that do factor into the plot. There are very few throwaway lines or moments...there's a real economy of narrative at work. Sure, he could have told the story in 30 minutes, but that's sort of like saying 'Memento' could have been told in normal progression, isn't it?
Quote from: GhostboyI don't know...every time I see it, I pick up new things that do factor into the plot. There are very few throwaway lines or moments...there's a real economy of narrative at work. Sure, he could have told the story in 30 minutes, but that's sort of like saying 'Memento' could have been told in normal progression, isn't it?
Not really. Memento was more compelling backwards than forwards. I can't imagine anyone, whether they liked it or not, finding Primer less compelling if it was trimmed down to a short.
I admit that it's the sort of film that requires more than one viewing and maybe I missed a lot of stuff in there. I REALLY want to see what everyone else sees in it but that first viewing left such a bad taste in my mouth.
This movie sucked.
Quote from: Cassius KingThis movie sucked.
i wish i could delete my previous post on this film...b/c i really do no wthink its sucks....so much so that i even sold traded this film in for tommy boy...i know i have been saying shit sucks lately and i thinks its b/c i am sexually frustrated... thats what happens..bu ti will elaborate more than just saying "it sucks"....i think th estory is clever but its executed pathetically, incomprhensiblly, [sort of like my posts], and sloppy......the editing is awful...and i think that fact that the film is so short they proboblee decided to get a 13 year old kid w/ twitchy fingers and sense of mind to edit it..its almost nausiating to watch....i seen iorreversible and i could sit througfh that easily...well, much more than this....
Primer is so self-involved it seems to forget there is an audience...kind of like having a three-way with two lesbians.
Quote from: Cassius KingPrimer is so self-involved it seems to forget there is an audience...kind of like having a three-way with two lesbians.
that's fucking great man, i love it. i'm going to use that.
great movie though, you're wrong
-sl-
"Primer" is a movie that rewards paying attention and severely punishes casual viewing. Everything in the movie makes perfect sense, assuming you caught the bits earlier in the movie that set it all up, and assuming you can handle a little bit of deductive reasoning amidst your viewing. For those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, it's going to be a frustrating experience. For those who can follow a story and an idea simultaneously, it's a vastly rewarding movie.
"But... but...," many of you are now sputtering, "are you inferring that people who didn't like 'Primer' aren't intelligent?"
No. I'm implying that. Buy a dictionary.
8)
The above post deserves a big
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsab.ucsc.edu%2Fthumbsup%2Fthumb.jpg&hash=1df977f8d980b605317d751668141f42cf87de29)
Quote from: polkablues
"But... but...," many of you are now sputtering, "are you inferring that people who didn't like 'Primer' aren't intelligent?"
No. I'm implying that. Buy a dictionary.
8)
if I promise to never consider myself intelligent, can I please be excused from ever seeing this movie again?