DVD Review

Gerry

?Gerry? is the type of film that should not be seen by many people. Despite Miramax?s support of its creators ? Gus Van Sant, Matt Damon, and Casey Affleck ? this film, about two guys getting lost in the desert, is an arthouse film if one was ever created. Spending the majority of its runtime in quiet, ?Gerry? is the type of artistic adventure that only few will be able to appreciate. I?m in that group, but I can point out many reasons why many will not. The film, clocking in at about 110 minutes, is blatantly self-indulgent and a bit pretentious but is a very important film. If films like this were not made (and unevenly responded to), independent cinema would not continue to expand its boundaries.

As mentioned, the film is about two men (Damon and Affleck, who also co-wrote), both named Gerry, who stop at a place in the desert one day for a walk. They haphazardly walk on a created path but soon they?re far from where they began and cannot find their way back. The remainder of the film resides on mountaintops and in other beautifully captured landscapes as the duo tries to find their way. Though there are sparse spurts of dialogue ? much of which was improv'd, I?m told ? most of the film?s audio is of gathering thunderstorms, the crunch-crunch of the Gerrys feet, and occasional sniffs or coughs.

At this point, most people would be thinking (or yelling), ?Why the hell would you like this movie?? That?s a rational thought; I?m the type of moviegoer who likes different, unconventional films, which is why I was drawn to it. Those that don?t have much of an appreciation for experimental or avant-garde film may find themselves as stranded as our two fellows in this film. (At least they will have a handy DVD remote, though.)

As I watched the film, Steven Soderbergh?s polarizing ?Solaris? came to mind. Like ?Gerry?, that film divided critics down the middle (loved it or hated it with a capital hate) and bored most mainstream audiences to death. Granted, ?Solaris? is a much more accessible, refined, and quality film than ?Gerry,? but the situation is nearly the same in both cases. The previous also had long stretches of silence from the actors (as its masterful scores took way), but there is probably fifteen times as much dialogue in ?Solaris? than there is in ?Gerry? and no mystery, romance, or sex to at least keep people awake.

I sided with the minority in my consensus of ?Solaris? and still feel it is a modern masterpiece. ?Solaris? is basically an art film with a large budget and George Clooney; it should never have been released nationwide in the US because, despite its misleading ad campaign, the film was certainly not for mainstream audiences. Thankfully, ?Gerry? wasn?t released in 2,000 theaters or there may have been theaters full of napping customers.

But why care about ?Gerry? if it would put everybody to sleep? Even though the film is longer than it should be and I wished there was a bit more dialogue, it is very engaging for a couple of reasons. These two characters that we spend nearly two hours with are introduced to us very uniquely and characterized very much the same. With a lack of dialogue and action for the most part, we must rely on Damon and Affleck?s performances to speak for them.

We have to study these men and not just watch, listen, and process. Instead, the smallest of occurrences ? Damon looking up and down slowly as he walks, Affleck?s blank expression ? need to be sighted and thereby taken into account. Unlike every other film I?ve seen this year, ?Gerry? asks its audience to be smart rather than constantly feeding them information.

However, I will admit that there is too obtuse of a message to clearly take any one thing from the film; in the case that a viewer cares to look far into the film, his or her interpretation will differ greatly with another person?s. I remember discussing ?Gerry? with someone who adored the film and we didn?t see the same things in it. This film, in essence, is nearly an exhibit in an art gallery in which you take what you care to from it or just walk past it without regard.

Perhaps one of the most impressive and innovative things about this film is how it plays with emotions. I?m not saying that ?Gerry? evokes any tears or consumes you in drama ? because it doesn?t ? but something very different, emotionally. Being stranded in the desert would be terrifying, even when you have a good friend by your side. What this film does throughout its course is envelop us in the mindset of the characters. Because of the film?s progressively slowing pace, we are in turn feeling somewhat stranded ourselves and even intentionally bored; ?Gerry? takes us on an adventure realistically.

The film opens with a long, music-driven shot of a car driving down the road; it?s this type of meditation onscreen that is like a car ride without speaking: long and without much suspense. There are very brief moments of humor in the film as Gerry and Gerry talk, which break the dormancy of a few scenes. It?s hard to explain what the film evokes subconsciously, but it?s truly an organic experience. The feelings that the characters may very well be having are transposed to us through the film?s orchestration. What?s slow, drawn-out, and, at times, trivial is supposed to be just that so we know what these characters are dealing with; to me, a feat like that is boldly original and inventive. The relationship between the two Gerries is also very natural; the dialogue is spread out because, often, guys don?t really say that much and the way in which the two men deal with situations is how many would.

Even though there?s a lot in this film that I congratulate, there is no denying that I had a few problems with ?Gerry.? I?ve never been a fan of pretension or self-indulgence, which is one hang-up I have with this film. Director Gus Van Sant, responsible for ?Good Will Hunting? and ?Elephant,? is obviously seeking attention, strictly geared toward the arthouse world.

Unfortunately, the film wasn?t that much of a success on the festival circuit (where there were many walk out reports) and box office response was lukewarm. By making this film, Van Sant wanted to show everyone that he could make an experimental film with marquee actors and do it with a project that is very subjective to criticism and/or praise. Miramax afforded him a few million dollars to finance his ?whatever?; I feel inclined to say that there are many other filmmakers that would kill to get such backing from a studio yet can?t.

It goes to show that if you have the name, your poetic license can get you a lot without much effort. (?Gerry? may be an independent film, but the spirit of independent filmmaking ? small budget, no-name actors ? may not be entirely present here.) Although I question his intent with ?Gerry,? I have to give Van Sant credit for a good sense of what the film should look like and the way in which it?s presented. He starts to indulge when there is shot after shot of walking through glorious scenery; perhaps he wanted to make a very arty visual postcard, too; if so, he?s successful in that sense too.

?Gerry? may be one of the most interesting films of the past year, and even if you didn?t like it, it?s certainly a fine topic to hash out with those who did. No matter if you see the film as a failed experiment, noteworthy art exhibit, or mere conversation piece, there isn?t any denying that it?s more than just standard fare. What ?Gerry? dares to do is be different and, in my opinion, is successful in its endeavor, and I?m grateful that I saw it and would recommend that those who are still interested in seeing the film see it; we can talk later.

DVD Features:
- "Salt Lake Van Sant" - Behind the Scenes
- Widescreen

Audio Features:
- (English) Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound

Stephen's Grade: B

A	8.7%
B	43.5%
C	47.8%
D	0.0%
F	0.0%