RunPepe

I find this to an amazingly bold film. It is a critical look at political correctness, and a highly comedic one, although most people are probably too offended to see that. I can say from experience that the first segment of the film, "Fiction", is a rather accurate view of a college creative writing class. And the second segment, "Nonfiction", has one of the creepiest characters ever in the young kid in the family. With this film you either get it or you don't, and the majority don't seem to get it. I can't say with time this film will be looked back on any more favorably, although it deserves it. If anything it will probably be even more offensive. Solondz' comedy works for me, because it is not forced, although his punchlines are more like social commentary. Like Spike Lee's greatest films, this is one that is bound to make a lot of people angry. And like Spike Lee's films, it also has several points to make.

It saddens me that the only thing discussed about this film is Vincent Gallo's penis. It's barely seen and only for a couple minutes out of the entire film. The blow job scene is explicit not so much in what it shows, but what it tells us about the character. The rest of the ending I will refrain from discussing as it is somewhat of a "twist" or, rather, unexpected. This style of film, with the lengthy shots that so many so-called film buffs seem to find boring, seems to be an

increasing trend in films, possibly as a reaction to the Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez films, which I also enjoy. Tsai Ming-Liang has been shooting this

way for years, and of course the style has existed for many years, quite

obviously in films like L'Avventura, but it's really becoming almost like a

movement. Gus Van Sant's last two films, "Gerry" and "Elephant", and even

Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation", along with "Brown Bunny" represent, to me, an as yet unlabeled movement.

In my opinion it is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. But it also goes much deeper than that. On the surface it's two guys lost in the desert. What it's really about is two sides of the same person. Hence such shots as the one of them walking side by side and the one of Casey Affleck dragging his feet far

behind Matt Damon. This is also why they are both named Gerry. It's the same

person. In the end Matt Damon is forced to kill off this weaker side of himself in order to survive. The "long, drawn-out, pointless shots", as some have called them, are used to emphasize this concept as well as the feeling of being stuck out in the middle of nowhere, trying to walk back to civilization. We are forced to watch these lengthy shots just as they are forced to partake in their lengthy journey to find a way out. Vincent Gallo's "Brown Bunny" uses them to a similar effect. Also, with lengthy shots we are forced to ask ourselves why we are being shown this image. If there were nothing to analyze about the shot then there

would be no need for the lengthy shot.