Gerry

This is not a good film.

But it's not a bad film either.

Consider the blank canvas hung in the museum. Questions arise: What is this? Why is this here? Who did this? Why did they do this? And most importantly, do I care about this?

These are the type of questions you will be left with after seeing `Gerry.'

The film is painfully slow to watch, the dialogue unrewarding, the landscape more interesting than the cinematography, the characters undefined, and the plot full of holes.

And yet, the film sticks with you and makes you think... just as the blank canvas does.

After leaving the theater, you truly contemplate the strange trip you just took through the middle of nowhere while you draw parallels to your own adventures.

And for these reasons the journey is worthwhile... the film, worth seeing.

Like many who have commented on this film, right after I saw it on DVD last night, I really didn't like it. However, this morning, I really came to the conclusion that like any piece of art, once it leaves the artist, it is up for interpretation, so here is my two cents: Gerry (whether he is two persons, or one person and the alter ego, as some have suggested) is really a product of world popular culture. We wonder if he has ever read a book, or had an original thought. We expect this to be a story that give us a rich backstory (who are these guys, where did they come from, where are they going, etc) and instead we get vapid dialog about Wheel of Fortune, or perhaps a rehashing of Dungeons and Dragons? These guys HAVE no backstory.. .they watch tv, play video games, and are completely out of touch with nature and the world at large. It is only at the very end of the movie, when death looks them in the face, that the thought process is engaged - probably for the first time in thier (his) life. They reach down deep inside and finally notice which direction the sun sets in, which way is north, and think about direction. . .is this what they were looking for in the first place - why they came to the wilderness? Is this a metaphore for life? I don't want to trash the younger generation (I am 45) because one could look back to Rebel Without a Cause in the 1950's to see the emptyness of suburban American life even then.

The slow pace of the film is the antithesis of MTV quick cuts, so I doubt if the intended audience, those under 30, will be able to sit through this - and isn't that the point!

If you are looking for a Hollywood film that spoon feeds you (ultimately forgettable) entertainment don't Rent Gerry. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being spoon fed on a Friday night after an exhausting week of work or on a lazy weekend afternoon.

I knew what was up going into Gerry and I was fully prepared to shrug and say, "Sorry Gus, little too pretentious for me." But it's not. And it's not an acting exercise, not wildly entertaining, not a lot of things. What is it? It's like a slow yoga class that lasts 103 minutes. If you have no patience for that you would want to smother your vinyasa instruction with his or her yoga mat, and you would want to track down Gus Van Sant and slap him in the face.

Like a ritual, you can't judge this movie and enjoy it at the same time.

If you've ever taken a tai chi or yoga class you've probably been asked to do something like "pretend you are holding a beach ball between your hands" or "imagine there is a log jam in your mind that you have to clear one tree at a time." I think most people immediately feel like idiots doing that, but maybe 50% of us do it anyway no matter how stupid we're sure it is because we're there to learn to relax and center ourselves. And maybe it's the second month of that same yoga class and you're picturing your asinine log jam and for the first time you really feel it, like a dream, and you clear that silly image away one log at a time. And it's still silly, but it feels good. And an hour passes and you feel like you've been there for a lifetime.

Gerry is brave and patient for being painstakingly NOT impressive at first glance. Anyone familiar with Gus Van Sant's other films knows he could have made this more complex and "entertaining." The fact that he didn't spruce it up for us doesn't make this film self-indulgent.

Or maybe it does, because he had to believe, along with Matt and Casey, that there would be enough viewers with the patience to stop their busy/important lives for an hour and forty minutes to experience a very personal expression of a simple artistic idea. Maybe Van Sant was a little naive there, to expect so much of such critical people as your average Film Festival attendee. Or maybe it was worth it if just he and his two actors got to experience it themselves and see it finished and on screen. I was thankful to be in the right frame of mind to experience Gerry and all nods to the 3 talents who brought it to life.

I was very much surprised when I first saw Gerry. It appeared to me that I was watching the latest work of Hungarian director Bela Tarr, a genius who had inspired not one independent filmmaker around the globe. But how come he could gather the money to shoot in the US with Matt Damon and Casey Affleck, I wondered. And then, in the end credits I found the name of Tarr among those who had indeed inspired Gus Van Sant while writing and making Gerry, this slow-paced, very pure piece of art. It is a masterpiece of suspense, things unfold (if at all) with the speed of a sedated snail. Damon and Affleck set out on an excursion we don't know where to and get lost in the desert. Camera movements, angles are very basic yet very effective, thanks in most part to the peerless beauty of the Nevada, Death Valley and Argentinian scene sets. It is obvious that this film is not for all tastes. Lovers of David Lynch, Bertolucci and Gus Van Sant's latest works like Elephant will definitely find pleasure in sitting through Gerry though. Whereas, a mainstream viewer might find it difficult to force himself to view this movie without wiggling his derrière in the seat, no matter how pure its elements are.

Two friends (both called Gerry) take a drive out into the New Mexico wilderness to go and see the thing. Following the trail they assume will lead them right there they eventually decide they are not going to find it and decide to head back to their car. However they have been blindly hiking for hours and before long they realise that they are lost. Sleeping rough that night, they continue their trek across the desert in search of a way out, putting their friendship under stress with every passing hour.

Perhaps this is one of those like it or hate it type movies but I do dislike the way that those that love it feel the need to lash out at those that don't, claiming that they are perhaps stupid or hollow people for not getting the beauty of this movie. Personally I do slightly suspect that the viewers who fall over themselves to love this film have never really seen many films that compare and perhaps mistake being different and non-multiplex as being the same as having depth. That the film is minimalistic and different is not in question but there is no substance to this film other than what the viewer forces into their own experience of it.

Having said that the film is still hauntingly beautiful to watch. The desert landscapes are impressive and really well captured – what a shame that you do not go to the cinema just to stare at landscapes. The cast of two have nothing to do but, as they are also responsible for the concept then they have nobody else to really blame. Affleck and Damon stumble around the place vaguely improvising but they have nothing about them; most of the time I found them an intrusion in front of the landscapes that were of much more interest.

Overall then a beautiful but empty film. The landscapes are haunting but I could not find any of this beauty in the material (such as it was). Those desperately seeking something deep will find it, but that is different from the film actually having depth.