"Gerry" theories, anyone seen this?

The reason I said that was because people *cough*hudson*cough* were attacking it though they had not seen it.

If you don't like it, fine.

But at the same time, you need to be somewhat credible, film isn't as subjective as one might think.
 
Something in your throat?

I havent attacked it alone; I have stated time and again I HAVE NOT SEEN IT.

I WANT TO SEE IT and IM ON THE LOOKOUT FOR IT. I have made this clear from the get go regaridng the fairness of my opinion and the fairness of this thread.

I have attacked this style of filmmaking; yes indeed.

Of course its fine if one doesnt like it. Why wouldnt it be?

Credible? Pray tell? What makes one credible?
 
Don't be frightened off by the casting...

It's an intriguing film...let me know once you've seen it.
 
I'm gonna have to search it out

I do not do NETFLICKS as I am not guaranteed to RENT THAT MANY a month (Im streakY) and I hate being obligated or indebted

I do the BB Rewards program. Works out okay.

Ill found this damn film
 
D.O.C., if someone doesn't like a film, they don't like it. Period. It is subjective.

What you are trying to get at is for people to approach films differently, to look for and admire things they haven't admired before. Then after that, they begin to change their focus from that to simply "experiencing" a film. I used to approach Tarr and Tarkovsky's work differently from say Hollywood offerings, but now I approach them all the same, believe it or not.

I just sit down and watch. And that is ultimately coming full circle....but with a newfound "built in" and not "thought about" awareness.

But not everyone is going to like Tarr or Tarkovsky, no matter what. Those films work for some, but not for everyone.

It is my goal as a filmmaker to make films that do work for everyone. I don't believe that has been done before.

I don't want people to watch my films and come away confused or not getting anything out of it. The idea of "feeling" DOC is the right one...but done in such a way so as to avoid confusion and all that.
 
Return said:
But not everyone is going to like Tarr or Tarkovsky, no matter what. Those films work for some, but not for everyone.

It is my goal as a filmmaker to make films that do work for everyone. I don't believe that has been done before.

I don't want people to watch my films and come away confused or not getting anything out of it. The idea of "feeling" DOC is the right one...but done in such a way so as to avoid confusion and all that.
Click to expand...
You're right they don't work for everyone, but I think even you would admit that they are actually better films and when compared to Fight Club it is not a subjective choice, but instead they really are just better.

As a goal, what you have said sounds nice but will be virtually impossible.
 
D.O.C., seriously, give it a rest.

"Fight Club" and "Gerry" couldn't be more different from one another in a structure and style aspect, but my mentioning of FC was regarding the multiple personality idea within G that I had. It's like two people arguing between "Devil's Rejects" and "Amelie" on which one is the better film. It just doesn't make any sense.

Listen, we all know your opinion on movies is law and the rest of us are wrong to disagree, but try and not rub it in our faces so much, ok? Please come down from your horse and mingle with the rest of us in reality once in awhile.
 

You're right they don't work for everyone, but I think even you would admit that they are actually better films and when compared to Fight Club it is not a subjective choice, but instead they really are just better.
Click to expand...


(Sound of coffee spitting all over monitor)

As a goal, what you have said sounds nice but will be virtually impossible.
Click to expand...


This was evident from the beginning




 
There's some merit to any film that can generate this much conversation, and have said conversation still be even loosely related to the film and filmmaking and not just... pop-culture gossip.

M.
 
Fight Club or Gerry? (I don't think Gerry is the particular subject of conversation here) Jesus I can't even rent it at Blockbuster in SAN DIEGO.

Hell, we can debate White Chicks all dya as well; doesn't mean it was a good film.

Let me ask you witnesses of Gerry something:

Is there really 2 scenes that are 8 minutes and 6 minutes long back to back of NOTHING but them WALKING into and from the horizon?

Are you kidding me?
 
D.O.C. said:
You're right they don't work for everyone, but I think even you would admit that they are actually better films and when compared to Fight Club it is not a subjective choice, but instead they really are just better.

As a goal, what you have said sounds nice but will be virtually impossible.
Click to expand...
I disagree completely. Films and art are completely subjective and there is no in between. I wouldn't say that Tarr or Tarkovsky is more impressive or anything than say a Fight Club, but I find them to be much more powerful and that is why I appreciate and like them more. But that is just my taste.

People would sit there and tell you that Rules of the Game is OBJECTIVELY better than some film you like the same way.


And I believe if you truly make a film with the right intentions and motives, it will have the power to reach all people. It will not be made for a certain demographic. There will be no necessary film knowledge or appreciation. It will just be a pure work of art for all mankind.
 
John_Hudson said:
Is there really 2 scenes that are 8 minutes and 6 minutes long back to back of NOTHING but them WALKING into and from the horizon
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. The two characters are quiet, and they walk for days in a desert, before eventually breaking down. And you're there with em every step of the way. And that's how it feels.
 
Interesting. I can appreciate and kind of dig that from an experimental aspect. Without seeing it firsthand I can see your take on 'not wanitng to do it agian but glad you have' angle.
 
I actually haven't even commented on Gerry.

This is a phenomenal film, truly. It is an experience like really no other film.

Obvioulsy it is not plot driven...it is just an experience.

I cannot remember being more engrossed in a movie theater than I was during this. I forgot I was watching a movie.

I think some of you need to realize that there can be more to a film than a story.
 
Art is only slightly subjective.

You can prefer something to something to else.

However, if it really is art, then how could it be completely dismissed? It would at least need to be respected, but a lot of what is going on here is complete dismissal rather than a preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top