Gerry

Gus Van Sant's `Gerry' is a bit like `The Blair Witch Project' minus the sensationalistic, supernatural elements. In this two-character film, Matt Damon and Casey Affleck (both of whom co-wrote the film with Van Sant) are buddies who decide to go hiking in the desert. When Damon offhandedly suggests leaving the trail, the decision turns out to be a fateful one for the both of them. The young men are both named Gerry, an appellation which turns out to have allegorical significance, since `gerry,' we are informed, is slang for `mistake.' And these guys sure come up with a beaut.

Like `Blair Witch,' `Gerry' taps into the almost primordial fear humans have of being lost in unfamiliar, hostile territory bereft of even the most rudimentary supplies necessary for survival. It also shows how even the most seemingly insignificant decision a person makes can wind up having fatal ramifications in the end. Despite the fact that the film runs a little over 100 minutes, the three screenwriters have opted to have the characters speak as little as possible, both before and after the fateful decision. Although this does prevent us from really getting to know the men in any great depth, the purpose of the filmmakers seems to be not so much to craft a narrative-driven drama but to create a kind of lyrical tone-poem about fate and the ways in which people face the inevitability of impending death. As director, Van Sant lingers long on both his images and his scenes, probably too long for many in the audience, who may well become restless and impatient long before the closing shot has faded from the screen. Personally, I found the rhythm and the pacing of the film to be both hypnotic and entrancing. There's an immense sadness that hangs over the film, enhanced by the starkness and bleakness of the setting and the grimness of the subject matter. Damon and Affleck turn in subtle, taciturn performances, relying on body language and facial expressions rather than words to convey their thoughts and fears. Arvo Parte has also provided a brooding, melancholic score that enhances the atmosphere of the film.

`Gerry,' is occasionally self-conscious, frequently padded and often maddeningly superficial in the way it fails to develop its two characters. Nevertheless, the film has an amazing ability to draw you into its world and to haunt you long after you've seen it.

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.

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.

I've seen "My Own Private Idaho", "Finding Forrester" and "Good Will Hunting" by Gus Van Sant which were all fairly impressive but now am very eager to watch the 2003 Palme D'Or winner "Elephant", especially after my initial screening of "Gerry" last night which tops all the Van Sant flicks I've seen to date. This is an engaging effort from Gus, and outstanding career highlight performances for the main actors Casey Affleck and Matt Damon. I can see why people are saying that some shots are "too long" and other comments like "I fell asleep", however I love this style of cinema which reminded me a lot of the spectacular effort from Kitano with "Dolls". Minimal, hypnotic, and great shots throughout. The camera trickery has to be highlighted with varying depth of field shots giving you a deluded sense of fatigue, plus the ongoing buzzing sound which intensifies with the sun throughout the evolving journey, similar to the buzzing lights in Noé's "Irréversible". The main point I want to bring up is the film was very well structured and scripted for the time it covers. It's realistic and well balanced with regular events. However if your comfort zone sits around the 'Hollywood standard' where there's a 5 camera shoot for every scene with 3 second cuts between shots and the suspenseful default score to keep you 'on your seat', then you'll be pleasantly appalled with this 'real' rendition of a devastating true story.

8/10

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.