With something of an interest in Gus Van Sant—his first few films, though flawed, are very interesting—and a major fondness for thematic trilogies, I was quick to seek out Gerry, the first of Van Sant's "Death trilogy".
Both of the same titular name, two friends drive out for a walk in the desert. Primarily silent as they go, they enjoy the beauty of the surrounding landscape. As they day goes on, they grow increasingly aware that they have become lost, clueless even as to which direction they should turn.
Perhaps my biggest motivation in exploring Van Sant's trilogy was the widely reported inspiration of the Hungarian director Béla Tarr upon this film; indeed Tarr even receives a thank you in the closing credits. The first point to be made is the braveness of the idea itself. With little dialogue, next-to-no narrative as such, and essentially nothing to attract a wide audience, the presence of Damon and Affleck as cast and writers is to be applauded. For such mainstream stars (perhaps not so much the latter) to appear in quite so independently-minded a film is intriguing on many levels. Many still regard Gerry as a prank of a film, and it's not difficult to understand why, the former collaborators of mainstream success Good Will Hunting taking so different a route with this. I tend to disagree, taking Gerry instead at face value: a deeply unconventional, ruminative film. The subject of much criticism for its perceived meaninglessness, the film is among the most polemic I have encountered in quite some time. Quite undeniably, it is an extremely aesthetically pleasing film. Whatever your opinion of the importance of narrative and such to the effect of a film, I defy anyone to honestly call the film anything other than a delight to look at. Paying particular tribute to Tarr's Werckmeister Harmóniák, Van Sant's is an extraordinarily well shot film, from the wide angle shots of the unforgiving desert horizon to the static distant shot of one Gerry attempting to help the other down from a large rock to the slow and methodical circling of Affleck as he sits, slowly losing hope. The cinematography does everything in its power to draw us into the world of the film, and whether or not we are depends entirely upon our own predilections. Those who value the aesthetics of cinema will be entranced, just about every scene laced with astounding beauty. Those who place more importance in narrative development may find themselves disappointed. Primarily in the former camp myself, I squealed with delight to see the references to Werckmeister (though the most obvious one, in essence a borrowed shot, is drawn out to excess), the splendour of the images sufficiently engaging. That said, the narrative is lacking. This was a film about which I thought for a very long time after seeing it, slowly building and formulating my opinion within my head. The conclusion: I'm not entirely satisfied that the film carries the thematic weight to back itself up. Visual proficiency is, to me, of the utmost importance, but when it falls short of saying something meaningful and incisive, as I believe Gerry does, it seems something of a waste.
A film which I see as more of an unsuccessful experiment for Van Sant than either a misfire or a masterpiece, Gerry is an absolute delight to feast your eyes upon, and one of the most visually moving films you're likely to find. It's just a shame that it doesn't quite have the depth underneath to really utilise the moving power of these beautiful wide angles, long takes, experimental shots, and dazzling camera movements which signal Van Sant as a real force to be reckoned with.
Both of the same titular name, two friends drive out for a walk in the desert. Primarily silent as they go, they enjoy the beauty of the surrounding landscape. As they day goes on, they grow increasingly aware that they have become lost, clueless even as to which direction they should turn.
Perhaps my biggest motivation in exploring Van Sant's trilogy was the widely reported inspiration of the Hungarian director Béla Tarr upon this film; indeed Tarr even receives a thank you in the closing credits. The first point to be made is the braveness of the idea itself. With little dialogue, next-to-no narrative as such, and essentially nothing to attract a wide audience, the presence of Damon and Affleck as cast and writers is to be applauded. For such mainstream stars (perhaps not so much the latter) to appear in quite so independently-minded a film is intriguing on many levels. Many still regard Gerry as a prank of a film, and it's not difficult to understand why, the former collaborators of mainstream success Good Will Hunting taking so different a route with this. I tend to disagree, taking Gerry instead at face value: a deeply unconventional, ruminative film. The subject of much criticism for its perceived meaninglessness, the film is among the most polemic I have encountered in quite some time. Quite undeniably, it is an extremely aesthetically pleasing film. Whatever your opinion of the importance of narrative and such to the effect of a film, I defy anyone to honestly call the film anything other than a delight to look at. Paying particular tribute to Tarr's Werckmeister Harmóniák, Van Sant's is an extraordinarily well shot film, from the wide angle shots of the unforgiving desert horizon to the static distant shot of one Gerry attempting to help the other down from a large rock to the slow and methodical circling of Affleck as he sits, slowly losing hope. The cinematography does everything in its power to draw us into the world of the film, and whether or not we are depends entirely upon our own predilections. Those who value the aesthetics of cinema will be entranced, just about every scene laced with astounding beauty. Those who place more importance in narrative development may find themselves disappointed. Primarily in the former camp myself, I squealed with delight to see the references to Werckmeister (though the most obvious one, in essence a borrowed shot, is drawn out to excess), the splendour of the images sufficiently engaging. That said, the narrative is lacking. This was a film about which I thought for a very long time after seeing it, slowly building and formulating my opinion within my head. The conclusion: I'm not entirely satisfied that the film carries the thematic weight to back itself up. Visual proficiency is, to me, of the utmost importance, but when it falls short of saying something meaningful and incisive, as I believe Gerry does, it seems something of a waste.
A film which I see as more of an unsuccessful experiment for Van Sant than either a misfire or a masterpiece, Gerry is an absolute delight to feast your eyes upon, and one of the most visually moving films you're likely to find. It's just a shame that it doesn't quite have the depth underneath to really utilise the moving power of these beautiful wide angles, long takes, experimental shots, and dazzling camera movements which signal Van Sant as a real force to be reckoned with.