dh1989
12-06-2002, 11:34 AM
http://www.joblo.com/movienews/images2/gerry.jpg
I saw the poster above on Mike Sampson's news page. I think it looks incredible. Is anyone else excited for this flick? The director is very good. He did the wonderful film Good Will Hunting. And Matt Damon always chooses good films, in my opinion. Does anyone have any thoughts?
Here are some early reviews from IMDB......
The previous commentator is correct: many people found "Gerry" a painful film to endure, and chose to snore rather than pay attention. I admit to fighting heavy eyelid syndrome myself at times. What was fascinating to me -- and what encouraged me to keep my eyes open and pay attention -- was the almost violent audience response to the film. Because of that, I wanted to understand it, to consider why is was made as it was. Upon reflection, I think Gus, Matt and Casey made this film the way they did -- 10 minute long shots, many with only the sound of Matt & Casey's feet shuffling through the desert -- as a response to the MTV-style fast cut movies of today. "Gerry" in it's cinematography harkens to an earlier period in filmmaking, reminiscent of films like "Rope" rather than "Rush Hour". The audience shifted and yawned because 20 years of jump cut filmmaking conditioned them to do so. The modern audience is impatient, uncomfortable with long shots -- uncomfortable to the point of being irritated. Van Sant used the camera to push our buttons, and did so successfully. For me it was one of the most memorable films at Sundance this year, staying with me long after the festival's end.
Another.....
Totally unexpected. I just saw "Gerry" tonight here in Portland for the Northwest Film Center's Annual Film & Video Festival--Van Sant himself was there along with some of his crew. This is a film that needed to be made. With society being go, go, go, fast-paced and automatic, here comes a 2001-esgue film that pushes the audience to the very limits of patience. Static shots of dry landscape, 10 minute long shots of two guys walking, very little action, very little dialogue, very little story--completely unconventional and wonderful. The long shots are what get people the most, but it works because think about how it is for the characters--for them it's 16 hours of just walking in dry desert landscape. The long shots make us feel what they feel, and force us to see what only they can see. It's one of those films that stays with you, and you're glad it does. "Gerry" after "Finding Forrester"? Wow.
One more...
Gerry sees Van Sant tackle the question of 'distance' in both mental and physical landscapes and in so doing so makes (laboriously) some fascinating observations on contemporary male gender norms and sexuality, but ultimately sells out. Having failed to find or even bother to search for the elusive endpoint of their initial trek, the two main characters find themselves lost in the barren wilderness and set about relocating themselves. What follows is an exploration of male, urban, heterosexual relations played out, for greater clarity, against the bleak, natural stage. Affleck's character plays the wistful, lanky, (more) articulate of the two, while Damon portrays the high-school, buff, emotionless prototype of American pop-cult. Of the two meaningful conversations the characters deliver, Affleck's focuses on a computer reconstruction of his attack on Thebes in ancient Greece, while Damon wallows in lame game show trivia.
The fact that the couple wander across mountain, desert, gully and scree to find their car, having initially got lost in scrub, illustrates that the real searching that goes on here is personal not geographical. As the pressure starts to take it's toll, it is Affleck's character, more in touch with his feeling and worries, who begins to crack while Damon remains resolutely aloof. If Damon has the Ralph Lauren/Tommy Hilfiger body-image of contemporary American corporate imperialism, his attitude is that of late 19th century high imperialism; the lone masculine figure challenging and refusing to be conquered by the hostile environment. While Affleck hallucinates and loses hope, Damon remains resolute and battles on.
The most evocative portrayal and investigation of distance is through that of bodily contact. The two remain 'out of touch' and although Damon is happy to p*** in front of his friend and offer to break his falls, he refuses to offer physical comfort or support. In control of his body and emotions, Damon portrays the sublime refusal to give in to the precarious environment while Affleck, victim to his emotions, flounders. Nearing the end of the film, with the two figures prostrate against a shocking sterile, white backdrop, Affleck's one attempt to breach the distance of bodily contact has fatal consequences. While Van Sant used Good Will Hunting to portray the psychotic tendencies that can lay within the founding moment of contemporary western masculinity, something to be broken down and softened, here it is portrayed as the saviour and redeemer. Small budget, big sell out?
I am very intriuged by this flick.
I saw the poster above on Mike Sampson's news page. I think it looks incredible. Is anyone else excited for this flick? The director is very good. He did the wonderful film Good Will Hunting. And Matt Damon always chooses good films, in my opinion. Does anyone have any thoughts?
Here are some early reviews from IMDB......
The previous commentator is correct: many people found "Gerry" a painful film to endure, and chose to snore rather than pay attention. I admit to fighting heavy eyelid syndrome myself at times. What was fascinating to me -- and what encouraged me to keep my eyes open and pay attention -- was the almost violent audience response to the film. Because of that, I wanted to understand it, to consider why is was made as it was. Upon reflection, I think Gus, Matt and Casey made this film the way they did -- 10 minute long shots, many with only the sound of Matt & Casey's feet shuffling through the desert -- as a response to the MTV-style fast cut movies of today. "Gerry" in it's cinematography harkens to an earlier period in filmmaking, reminiscent of films like "Rope" rather than "Rush Hour". The audience shifted and yawned because 20 years of jump cut filmmaking conditioned them to do so. The modern audience is impatient, uncomfortable with long shots -- uncomfortable to the point of being irritated. Van Sant used the camera to push our buttons, and did so successfully. For me it was one of the most memorable films at Sundance this year, staying with me long after the festival's end.
Another.....
Totally unexpected. I just saw "Gerry" tonight here in Portland for the Northwest Film Center's Annual Film & Video Festival--Van Sant himself was there along with some of his crew. This is a film that needed to be made. With society being go, go, go, fast-paced and automatic, here comes a 2001-esgue film that pushes the audience to the very limits of patience. Static shots of dry landscape, 10 minute long shots of two guys walking, very little action, very little dialogue, very little story--completely unconventional and wonderful. The long shots are what get people the most, but it works because think about how it is for the characters--for them it's 16 hours of just walking in dry desert landscape. The long shots make us feel what they feel, and force us to see what only they can see. It's one of those films that stays with you, and you're glad it does. "Gerry" after "Finding Forrester"? Wow.
One more...
Gerry sees Van Sant tackle the question of 'distance' in both mental and physical landscapes and in so doing so makes (laboriously) some fascinating observations on contemporary male gender norms and sexuality, but ultimately sells out. Having failed to find or even bother to search for the elusive endpoint of their initial trek, the two main characters find themselves lost in the barren wilderness and set about relocating themselves. What follows is an exploration of male, urban, heterosexual relations played out, for greater clarity, against the bleak, natural stage. Affleck's character plays the wistful, lanky, (more) articulate of the two, while Damon portrays the high-school, buff, emotionless prototype of American pop-cult. Of the two meaningful conversations the characters deliver, Affleck's focuses on a computer reconstruction of his attack on Thebes in ancient Greece, while Damon wallows in lame game show trivia.
The fact that the couple wander across mountain, desert, gully and scree to find their car, having initially got lost in scrub, illustrates that the real searching that goes on here is personal not geographical. As the pressure starts to take it's toll, it is Affleck's character, more in touch with his feeling and worries, who begins to crack while Damon remains resolutely aloof. If Damon has the Ralph Lauren/Tommy Hilfiger body-image of contemporary American corporate imperialism, his attitude is that of late 19th century high imperialism; the lone masculine figure challenging and refusing to be conquered by the hostile environment. While Affleck hallucinates and loses hope, Damon remains resolute and battles on.
The most evocative portrayal and investigation of distance is through that of bodily contact. The two remain 'out of touch' and although Damon is happy to p*** in front of his friend and offer to break his falls, he refuses to offer physical comfort or support. In control of his body and emotions, Damon portrays the sublime refusal to give in to the precarious environment while Affleck, victim to his emotions, flounders. Nearing the end of the film, with the two figures prostrate against a shocking sterile, white backdrop, Affleck's one attempt to breach the distance of bodily contact has fatal consequences. While Van Sant used Good Will Hunting to portray the psychotic tendencies that can lay within the founding moment of contemporary western masculinity, something to be broken down and softened, here it is portrayed as the saviour and redeemer. Small budget, big sell out?
I am very intriuged by this flick.