GERRY – The fine like between genius and stupidity.
I am not a fan of Gus Van Sant. Overall, his films usually just don’t do it for me. And when I heard about GERRY, I thought to myself, oh well, another Van Sant film I’m going to hate. And why wouldn’t I? The film was shot in the middle of nowhere, with no script and little talking. When it was released it was either loved or hated by those who saw it. And now I understand why.
Van Sant has done something that isn’t tried very often. GERRY is basically an experimental film that portrays itself as mainstream. With Casey Affleck and Matt Damon in the leads, who wouldn’t think the film was mainstream? And there lies the first of many hurdles that GERRY puts in front of its viewers. The film is about two friends who go out into the desert to find “the thing.” Of course they never find it and end up getting lost. They walk alone in an Antonioni-esque landscape. They almost never talk, when they do its about something pointless, like Affleck’s video game score. To replace dialogue the viewer gets long takes of the two walking. I timed one take at over three minutes and I’m sure there was many more like it. I could see where this would make some viewer angry, sleepy, depressed, whatever. The film is not entertaining. I’m sure even Van Sant would agree to that. This is not a film that one rents for a fun Saturday night viewing.
Herein lies yet another problem with GERRY, experimental films are from the underground. Only the people who want to see them, know how to find them. GERRY can be picked up at Blockbuster for anyone to view, and since it has familiar names attached to it, it seems like it would make for an entertaining viewing. I have read some very negative things about GERRY. That it’s one of those films that only intellectual film lovers will “get” making the general public feel stupid since they don’t understand it. I wholeheartedly agree there are films like that that exist. However, I don’t think GERRY is one of them. Van Sant is not a filmmaker who tries to go over the audience. Much of my dislike for his comes from his shot for shot remake of PSYCHO. Where I think remakes are useless, Van Sant had an almost scientific reason for doing what he did. Although I hated it, I respect what his thought process behind it.
It’s easy to assume that these two guys are lost in the desert for metaphorical reasons. But as I watched the film I thought, maybe there isn’t any deeper meaning here. Van Sant is trying to put us into the place of the two and he does a good job. The long takes and nothingness put the viewer directly into the film. The little dialogue that is in the film could also be seen as having hidden messages. The two guys call each other Gerry. But they also seemingly call everything from mountains to mistakes “Gerry” as well. At first I thought, well this must mean something. But as the film went on I was it, as talk two friends would have. The word “Gerry” is a joke, a cool phrase, something between friends. And then there was the ending (spoilers ahead!). One Gerry kills the other Gerry and the suddenly finds the road back to civilization. This turn is a little harder to grasp. After everything that goes on throughout the film it seems too simple to say that one was holding the other back, and therefore when the other is gotten rid of the solution is found. I could be a metaphor for life or friendship. Perhaps, Gerry couldn’t take the silence between the two. Or maybe the ramblings of video games and other uselessness drove him to a point of madness. Maybe there never were two Gerry’s in the first place. I almost fault Van Sant's decision as far as the ending goes. It adds an unneeded twist. As the film played I thought so much it just was, rather than things having deeper, secret meanings. Van Sant seems more and more drawn to open endings, and GERRY certainly has one.
To say the film is a piece of art is to get close to pretentiousness. In a good film the sum of the parts must equal the whole. Just because the film has no talking doesn’t mean it is artistic. The film is filled with beautiful landscapes and cinematography, but anyone with a camera can make beautiful places look beautiful. And just because the ending is open to interpretation that doesn’t mean the film was a success. There were several points during GERRY when I thought to myself, is this genius or stupid? There is such a fine line between the two. But as the film went on, I found myself getting drawn in rather than put to sleep. I didn’t necessarily care about the two Gerrys or what happened to them. But I was eager to see where the journey would take them. I wouldn’t call GERRY an art movie. But it certainly isn’t an easy, fun viewing either. So it falls into an odd place. It’s very experimental, but at the same time it has a very common touch. The result is a film that more closely resembles a cross between a poem and a video instillation. The fine line between what is genius and stupid is one that filmmakers have to walk when they play with new ideas. Van Sant walks the line very carefully.
Dave Bohnert
4-30-04