"Gerry" theories, anyone seen this?

For anyone who has trashed this movie, I highly recommend watching it, and then listening to the director's commentary. I am not a big fan of audience-distancing arty things (although, again, this movie was like a train wreck for me, and parts of it I was totally engaged with).

Upon listening to the commentary and listening to Gus Van Sant talk about it, I realized that my initial distaste for the film wasn't a reaction to the film being bad (or good) as "fact", as much as it was a reaction to the fact that the film was just 'smarter' than I, and operating on a level/in an atmosphere that I don't typically cogitate in, at least not in that medium.

Honestly, see the movie, listen to the commentary, and then if you feel as strongly about it (one way or the other) I'd be curious to hear, but otherwise leave room for the fact that your opinion might just be uninformed.

M.

(p.s. and no I do not subscribe to the theory that a movie should require 'explaining' to be good. but perhaps explaining can help understand the 'why' of a film, even if it doesn't operate perfectly (on you) without instructions)
 
I am going TODAY to rent it (Does Blockbuster or Hollywodd carry this?)

I read the RES interview with Gus and he says exactly what I illustrated above:

It's a film influenced by eastern european filmmakers. Its been done for over 50 years this kind of style. Its nothing new or daring. Its tired.

And Machardi? Smarter than you? Just because you don't understand or get it doesn't make it smarter than you. I don't get Star Trek but that doesn't make it smarter than me.

What makes it operating on another level? 8 minute takes? Cinema Verite styles that border into documentary style footage that was never cut down in post? Does that make it daring?

(Been awhile since we had a fun thread)
 
See; this is the question I ask; this is what I need to know that these fans of this type of films never can seem to answer.

"What."

"What is it?"

"What is it about these films that make them great?"

"What is it do you like about these types of films?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's like my in-laws (who I love and consider parents)

They know I'm a film junkie. They're always like "John, we saw the most wonderful film this weekend; it was subtitled and it was about this little girl who lived in the moutains and blah blah..."

I'm like "I saw THE DEVILS REJECTS."

Pause. A beat.

"So how's our grandchild doing?

:cheesy:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh and D.O.C.?

Don't panic cause I don't like these art house films. We can agree to disagree without the manicness. (and for what its worth I too think Hollywood is doing nothing original and hate films like F4 and White Chicks)
 
I saw this flick and I enjoyed it. It IS very slow but that didn't stop me from watching it. The film felt very "real" and was strangely engaging. I mean what would people talk about when they are stuck out there for so long. I felt it was just what it was 2 guys in the desert and that is how it would seem out there. But I am interested in those theories that were brought up and I may sit though it once more just to see what that's all about.

I'm not a super fan of pretentious art house stuff and I hate Pollack but I believe this film in particular was good.

IMHO
 
John_Hudson said:
Its been done to death; literally. It's dead. The Filmmakers Tarkovsky, Bresson and now we have to sit through Bela Tarr and Wim Wenders crapfests. These guys are only doing whats already been done and buried.
Click to expand...
This statement couldn't be more wrong.

And again, you are showing how little you actually know about it.

You haven't seen any Tarr.

You haven't seen any Tarkovsky.

You haven't seen any Bresson.
 
Since I started this mess (it is entertaining though) I feel I am allowed to quote myself because it's relevent and humorous:

the-lyons-den.com said:
I just wish everyone that posted here had already seen it, because there's no way in hell I am recommending it and then have you all hate me for wasting your time (Hudson would probably send me Van Sant's head or something, he he).
Click to expand...

John, I just hope you can go into "Gerry" with an open mind and not with knife already well-polished waiting to take a stab at every shot in the movie. If anything read my "spoiler" questions from my 2nd post and watch for those afterthoughts of mine to see if they are something worth thinking/talking about (because I am not going to watch the movie again, I have too many damn movies left to watch!)

P.S. - There was no commentary on the DVD version that I saw...
 
machardi said:
Upon listening to the commentary and listening to Gus Van Sant talk about it, I realized that my initial distaste for the film wasn't a reaction to the film being bad (or good) as "fact", as much as it was a reaction to the fact that the film was just 'smarter' than I, and operating on a level/in an atmosphere that I don't typically cogitate in, at least not in that medium.
Click to expand...
Finally an honest thought and someone willing to admit that they just might not be ready for a film like this, rather that just saying, "I hate it!"

Thank you.
 
John_Hudson said:
I am going TODAY to rent it (Does Blockbuster or Hollywodd carry this?)
Click to expand...
Hooray! Blockbuster should have it.

(next stop Tarr, Tarkovsky, Bresson)
 
Lyons

Your post had me rolling.

Of course I can go into it with an open mind; I'm like the last person on the planet that has this kind of mind control.

But I have to ask D.O.C.

What do you mean by "not be ready for a film like this.."

What does that mean? If I show you Cubism and you just hate it can I fairly say "Perhaps your just not ready for this"

Well can I?

I love Mondays.
 
John_Hudson said:
But I have to ask D.O.C.

What do you mean by "not be ready for a film like this.."

What does that mean? If I show you Cubism and you just hate it can I fairly say "Perhaps your just not ready for this"

Well can I?

I love Mondays.
Click to expand...
If you have never seen a film that will challenge you, then when you do, you will be taken aback and likely, as a result, end up not liking it.

To a certain degree you need to be conditioned to like these films, you need to be prepared.

No one who says there favorite film is Fight Club is going to sit down and watch Satantango and hail it immediately afterwards as the greatest film ever made.

But, after getting your feet wet, then you will be able to decide objectively, perhaps on a second viewing (and after you have seen hundreds of other challenging films) whether or not you truly appreciated it.
 
Your first statement could not be farther from the truth for me personally. When I find something that challenges me I want to be closer. I want to pursue and understand it. I need to dive in head first and immerse myself in it. So save that.

First we must determine what does it mean to be challenged by a film. Is it challenged in beliefs or thought processes? Questions of Morality? Questions of faith? What? Does sitting there bored beyond means mean one is suddenly being challenged?

Are you saying that one could learn to like something they do not? Why should it be forced? Why should it be learned to like? Why can't it be immediately appreciated? Why does it have to be viewed hundreds of times? I've seen ton's of Fauvism but readily say 'I DONT LIKE IT'

Where is the challenge? If you are bored beyond tears is this a challenge or is it simply unstimulating?

Prepared? As in "Prepared to be bored out of your skull?"

I have stated more than once in this forum; I am not schooled in these works. But I have seen a number of them. So for me its not a matter of 'Getting the feet wet' as I have already waded in. I don't know all of the artists that do zydeco but can tell you I'm not into it; know what I mean?
 
But you haven't dove in.

You continue to criticize the films in which you haven't seen.

Tarkovsky/Tarr's films are unlike anything YOU have ever seen. Even Van Sant's recent films which are 100% modelled after Tarr's are a joke in comparison.

They are not retreading ground that has been walked on for 50 years, they are creating new ways for films to be made and to be looked at.

Challenging might best be put as threatening. Threatening to what you currently think and feel about film.
 
Threatening? Threatening to bore my ass? Threatening to waste 2 hours (in some cases 7) of my life?

I didn't say I dove in. I've said I've waded. To be even fairer I'll say I've dipped my feet.

To be redundant I'll say I will watch Gerry and I am always onthe lookout for Tarr/Tarkovsky.

I'll never profess to being all-schooled in this 'avant garde' cinema. That being said...

So what are they doing as far as "... creating new ways for films to be made and to be looked at."
 
It's pretty funny I debated even creating this thread thinking no one would have even seen this movie, and now it's an all out war of cinematic taste! :beer:

D.O.C. said:
No one who says there favorite film is Fight Club is going to sit down and watch Satantango and hail it immediately afterwards as the greatest film ever made.
Click to expand...
I hope this isn't a slam on me...

No one should be cutting anyone b/c of their differing tastes in movies. This will all be more meaningful once John rents "Gerry" and then we can start this all up again (Van Sant find a tree, I hear he's afraid of heights). John openly dislikes this style of movie, but at least he's willing to rent it and see what it's all about (or not all about - depending on how out in left field my thoughts are on it). And for that I give him props.

Maybe it is just a movie about 2 guys literally being lost. In that respect I think it works too. It's not a trip I ever want to go on again, mind you, but I did really feel lost along with these characters. They barely talk. I can't imagine, even if I was with my best friend, in the desert that we would be talking much, I mean you're in a friggin desert with no water. I'm sure you have other things on your mind. All the drawn out scenic shots just help place you there, out in the hot, dull days of walk walk walk. This all made it very realistic, to me.

The Gerry's eventually break down and it's that process, and the bit of action in the end, that I felt the impact on, if you're able to stick with them on that journey as a viewer, no matter how tedious the process was. And there's great shots at least to pass the time. The salty ending locale, damn!
 
the-lyons-den.com said:
I hope this isn't a slam on me...
Click to expand...

It isn't. All I meant was that a person who likes a film on one level cannot be expected to like a film from another level when they are not even accustomed to seeing films from that level.
 
Tarkovsky/Tarr's (and a few others) films need to be seen to be believed, in my opinion.

The reason I hold them in such high regard is because they seem to be on a level which no one else has reached. Their films are so different and so unique, not because they are weird or use strange techinques or anything, but just because they achieve a level of feeling that isn't touched by many other filmmakers.

It is hard to put into words.
 
The local BB or HV does not carry Gerry.

Gee; that's weird. I would be sure it would be on someone's top 10 list.
 
D.O.C. said:
Finally an honest thought and someone willing to admit that they just might not be ready for a film like this, rather that just saying, "I hate it!"

Thank you.
Click to expand...

That's the only possible "honest thought" regarding this film?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top