Gerry (2001)

Gerry (2002)

---

Agreed. Endurance needed.

I completely respect what Gus Van Sant was trying to do here. It just didn't work for me. I enjoyed the long sections of scenery and silence, which was mostly their footsteps and quiet weather sound effects, but many of the long interesting camera shots went on way too long. For example there was a shot that seemed to go on for minutes too long. It was a side shot of both of the two main characters faces (Casey Affleck and Matt Damon) as they trudge along in the desert, lost. For a while I thought it was a great camera angle but it just went on forever.

It's not that I didn't like the long-running camera shots, I did, I just felt like almost every shot could have been cut down by about 20% and it would have been better. Even then it would be pushing it's limits, but I would have enjoyed the movie more.

There was one specific shot that I particularly enjoyed which lasted seven minutes (again slightly too long) where both characters start off in the dark and all you can see are the tops of their heads silhouetted against the dusk sky. As they walk, taking tiny slow steps, it gets lighter and lighter until you can see their whole body silhouetted against the ground and eventually the ground detail as well. It really showed the hopelessness of their situation and near defeat.

I wanted to like it, especially after watching Van Sant's Elephant before it. Elephant seemed more calculated in it's long camera shots whereas Gerry was obviously improvised throughout and was given a bad overall timing in the editing process.

Capo, and others, what did you think of this scene:

*Spoilers*
The scene near the end where they are laying in the desert and Affleck's character first says "So how's the hike going so far?" then shortly after says "I'm leaving now." Then Damon's character reaches over and apparently strangles him to death. Very odd. I guess we are supposed to assume that this was something they discussed ahead of time in order to put one or the other out of their misery. I'm further assuming that Van Sant was trying to go for that shocking, broken-hearted ending where if they had only walked a little further instead of Damon killing Affleck they would have lived because the highway was right there.

SPOILERS Or are there even two characters? They're both called Gerry, for one (they also call a missed or wrong turn a "gerry"), and there are hints throughout that it's just two different traits of the same character: the weak, easily defeated character who wants to cry, and the strong flip-side who has to conquer the weak tendencies within himself. Affleck is always the one who risks overcoming the pair with his weakness; Damon has to kill him. Just a theory; take it or leave it. END SPOILERS

As for shot-length, it's necessarily immersive, hypnotic, frustrating, whatever. Two guys lost in a seemingly endless desert? What better way to capture that; form meeting content, there. The longer the camera holds on their faces in close-up, or on their fragile figures in the harsh terrain, the more chance you have of "forgetting" the literal meaning; it takes on an almost transcendent experience. Gruelling, challenging, beautiful. Like I said in my review above, the length of the shots is what distinguishes them. It provokes interest from otherwise normality.