Shane Carruth
Primer

THE MOM PROJECT. In science fiction cinema, a lot of money is often (not always, fortunately) wasted on producing blockbusters that end up being sometimes even boring or redundant, or that are, in any case, forgettable. They constitute a media phenomenon of the moment. 'The Gravity', 'Interstellar', 'The Martian'. Upon the release of these films and throughout the preceding and subsequent period, everyone talked a lot about them, celebrating each one as the revival of the genre and every time as the new and the usual (because usually and excessively always mentioned) '2001: A Space Odyssey'. Let’s say that from a certain point of view, this is the effect of a high-profile advertising phenomenon that, as such, involves everyone, even those who are not at all interested or those who generally don’t care about science fiction cinema. We’re talking about million-dollar productions and a practically unlimited availability of means. About a year ago, I was struck by the fact that the Indian space program sent a shuttle, a satellite in orbit around Mars, spending practically about 25 million dollars less than what 'The Gravity' by Alfonso Cuaron would have cost. This is a fact that will certainly make those who are against Hollywood and the million-dollar expenses in the world of cinema cry scandal, but which, as usual, should also be considered for the financial and economic returns they would have achieved. We are talking about films in the three mentioned cases that have smashed box offices and at that particular time constituted more than a positive investment for film producers.

But how does this cinema relate to what is instead the general interest in science? I mean, the fact that the MOM project (Mars Orbiter Mission) was put into orbit around Mars (Indians are the first to do so after the USA, the Soviet Union, and the EU, and before China) at a lower cost than producing the film 'The Gravity' makes one reflect: what effect do these films have beyond entertaining people? I say this because, for example, upon the release of 'The Martian', there was a lot of talk about how this film would rekindle interest in space and aerospace, the exploration of other planets and particularly the red planet. But this is clearly nonsense. From this point of view, staying in Italy, the presence of Samantha Cristoforetti on the space station did much more: a truly positive model. Something real that we all looked at with the right sympathy and admiration. But I wouldn’t say the same happened for 'The Martian'. On the contrary, if you think of NASA’s announcements about recent discoveries on the red planet, released just on the eve of the film’s release, maybe we can say that the opposite happened. That is, science assisted and supported the launch of the film.

The question, therefore, is whether it makes sense to talk about science fiction cinema in the true sense of the word. That is, it has that fantastic element because why not, which is necessary for entertainment and also to arouse, trigger a lively interest, even a passion, but also purely scientific.

A 'MUMBLECORE' SCI-FI. There is a science fiction cinema, which is defined as 'indie', that is making its way and that with limited or otherwise very distant from those cited budgets managed to perhaps offer not only good level films but also perhaps more topics of interest and even scientific ones or in any case capable of triggering philosophical and ideological reflections more than the usual Hollywood brand, often redundant as mentioned and in any case, we talked about 'Vice', 'Criminal', which continues to circle around ideas already covered but always with less strength and interest from audiences compared to the past. This is also right. Because, after all, audience tastes change with the changing of generations. Today Paul Verhoeven’s 'Total Recall', to name one of the most famous titles between the eighties and nineties, almost seems like one of those low-budget films that were so popular over the years until the mid-nineties.

I’m talking about those low-cost productions that have made an actor like Rutger Hauer, the legendary Roy Batty of 'Blade Runner', and from time to time the protagonist of films that are now real cults like 'Precious Find', 'Omega Doom', 'The Blood of Heroes', and especially, impossible not to mention it, 'Split Second', a real specialist of the genre. And I refer to this phenomenon and in particular to Rutger Hauer with sympathy because he represents a more or less recent example and because we are talking about a great actor who has offered himself several times to play roles in films that did not really have particularly significant content: they only made sense in a certain historical moment. And I referred to him not wanting to dig even further back in the history of cinema and also in that of Italian cinema, which has extensively dealt with the subject, although not as much as crime and especially western genres.

The American independent cinema movement 'Mumblecore' that arose in the early 2000s (directors among the most known of the genre include the Duplass brothers, Lyn Shelton....) is mainly known for producing films with very low budgets (sometimes shot in digital) primarily focused on interpersonal relationships between the protagonists. The actors are not always professionals and are rarely known to the general public. To mumble in English, but anyone who reads or used to read 'Topolino' will surely know, means to whisper, but also to mull over. In this sense, the movement primarily aims to put back at the center of the creative project what are ‘ideas’ and confrontation doesn’t just constitute one of the themes addressed by films but also something that is part of the actual creative process and realization of the work.

'Primer' was released in 2004, its production cost only $7,000 and was entirely filmed in Dallas. Awarded at the Sundance Film Festival as the best dramatic film, it subsequently did not gain great critical and public acclaim, thus becoming a sort of cult object. However, it cannot be considered a film belonging to the above-mentioned 'Mumblecore' movement because Shane Carruth is not part of it, but many elements are the same. I’m clearly talking about ideological and structural elements and not just what concerns the budget and making of the film, the methods used to shoot it, and the choice of actors (Shane Carruth is himself one of the two leading actors). Above all, as we will see, the film’s alignment with such a movement lies in those that ultimately are the dynamics of the story and especially concerning the relationship between the two protagonists.

PRIMER. Where to start in recounting the film’s plot? Apparently, we are in front of one of those films where at the end of the viewing - in this case: recommended - it might be worthwhile to watch it again to grasp all the twists and untangle the various temporal nodes and understand how things exactly unfolded. This is something I generally don’t do, I say: rewatch the same films and/or watch them twice in a row, and even in the face of an apparent complexity like that of 'Primer'’s plot, I will refrain from rewatching it, not now, also because in the end, without any presumption, I believe that at the end of this great tunnel (or, if you prefer, of the ‘box’) set up by director and actor Shane Carruth, there is still what we might call a solution and which is simpler than all the various hypotheses that could be put on the table and each perhaps worthy of its own credibility and deserving of being discussed.

Some temporal passages, some loops perhaps are not entirely clear to me, I think some are deliberately left to the viewer’s free interpretation - as is right - but in fact, I don’t intend to bang my head on it too much because I don’t think the film should be interpreted according to the various temporal twists, but according to what is ultimately still a continuous line. It’s a film about time travel, but not only, and as such, it should be watched from start to finish. But I believe in any case this is the right approach in front of any film or work that uses an 'entanglement' of any kind and this also because, in the end, if the author has decided to use this strategy there must be a reason, a particular reason among all these that he intends to highlight and which, as such, goes beyond any temporal logic and/or narrative technique.

Shane Carruth stated he tried to assimilate as much 'physics' content as possible before shooting the film, and this is to his credit and also for the way he tries to explain how the two protagonists, the two young engineers Aaron (Shane Carruth himself) and Abe (David Sullivan), almost accidentally make a revolutionary discovery that practically consists of a 'box' that allows them to travel back in time. A casual discovery, as pointed out by the director himself, like for many other discoveries then determinant in the history of humanity: a discovery made by chance and in what wouldn’t even really be a laboratory, but a simple garage equipped as an operational structure by the two, who to realize their invention practically use recycled materials including the catalytic converters of their cars and copper pipes from the home refrigerator.

The concept at the base of the time travel function in this case is less spectacular and pyrotechnic than those seen in other films dealing with the subject. Once the machine is activated at moment A, the traveler enters at a subsequent moment B and can only exit at the same moment A, which therefore besides being the machine's activation moment, also constitutes the point of arrival. With the coincidence and temporal inconsistency that in the time span between A and B, the time traveler will have already exited from point A and is in the meantime waiting to enter point B.

Apparently, as said, everything seems very complicated, but as explained a moment ago, the matter is quite straightforward. Let’s add that Aaron and Abe spend the time between A and B in a state of complete isolation to avoid what might be inconsistencies or the usual dreaded time paradoxes. In any case, the two are not clear on exactly how to utilize this possibility - the basic idea, the usual one, would be to get ahead in the stock market or simply to bet, already knowing how things would turn out - but they begin to use the machine daily, practically extending their days to thirty-six hours and doing everything according to what soon appears to be a consolidated routine.

MAN IN THE CENTER OF TIME. Clearly, otherwise, the film would not have an actual reason for interest and that is, the plot must develop in some way, not all things at a certain point begin to function with that regularity that the two had imagined. What they expect to happen does not always occur exactly, and above all, they begin to adopt a different attitude towards time travel, resulting in what initially are only divergences and then become actual ideological clashes leading to a definitive breakup.

The truth is that, after all, the relationship between the two characters is the main motive of the film. Their friendship bond and how their lives, both individually and considered as a whole, radically change somehow for this experience even if apparently nothing seems to happen or change. And this is also to the eyes of the spectators, who see the time travels and what are the different 'versions' temporal of the two protagonists on the screen in a succession that is not made of plots, but according to a logical and chronological order. But this instead happens among the different time exchanges, and thus it’s as if Aaron and Abe were both watching impassively their deterioration even physical (Abe at one point will say he has resigned to living 36 hours a day) as well as mental. The thing happens in a way that I would call almost inertial, and this is because both start to suffer what is the wear of time, not intended as moving forward in time and therefore as something that could be linked to the aging of the physical as well as the mind. Between point A and point B, in fact, as we have said there is always a version of the time traveler that does nothing but go back and forth and is as such stuck in a time loop that is unproductive and in which the single subject cannot in any way grow in everyday life and concerning the acquisition and especially the understanding of new experiences. If we add that the time travelers in this case are two, the effect of this loop assumes a potential value, negatively affecting the two subjects and not only constituting a lack of growth but an actual regression. As if constantly returning back in time always brought them back to the same place. But when you should go forward because time always goes forward and this is an indisputable fact, and instead, you keep going back to the same place then it means you are standing still or worse, you are going back.

So, when the process stops, it is man and his relational dynamics with others that return to being the rightly dominant theme. After all, if we were completely alone in this universe, could we ever assert that time is passing? The very concept of time is something that has its real rationale only in social life and interactions with others, and in this case represented by the relationship between Aaron and Abe and this is something significant because it means that man does not undergo time - sure it passes anyway inevitably - but can dominate it at will. He can give it a meaning, and this is all the more accomplished if his actions are carried out within a community and a society of people. I believe it was Pascal, but I'm not sure, I was a terrible student, who talked about man’s indefinability and his contradictory essence, also stating that man as such and his evolution has a complete sense only if we consider his existence from the beginning. And this obviously also applies to man, the 'individual', I mean: we all have a story, which can take different roads and infinite detours, but this no matter how many things may happen to us, is and will always be constituted by experiences in chronological succession with each other. A continuum.