Elephant & Gerry

Note that I didn't think that last year.

Also note that I did also think that before he made Good Will Hunting.

Not that I'm fickle or anything.

im not really sure what to make of the final act. i read a review that said the movie should have ended with that beautiful sunrise shot of them shuffling along the salt flats, and i might agree. i guess liking it also depends on you buying the sharp change in tone, from strangely comical to deeply despairing. the ending just seems pat in this regard. i could be wrong.

(I'm seeing Dumon't latest, Twenty Nine Palms next week and I can not wait. . .)

Could you elaborate a bit more as to why it's terrible?

(Humanité was pretty good. It's an interesting film that is really hard to like.)

Ryan -- from what I remember reading, GVS was just really impressed with the pacing, the length of scenes, etc. Not so much the actual dilemma of Humanité but the execution.

Eric -- Don't know if I agree with that. While the two appear similar, I think if you dig deeper you come up with great differences between the two.

the cahiers bunch, excepting mr frodon, all gave it masterpiece reviews, which strikes me as...inconceivable, unless we can explain it in extra_aesthetic terms

i think they really did conceive of it as a companion to elephant, especially since it only came out in france after elephant's success

to me gerry has all the worst features of elephant, none of the best ones, and just a few compensations, actually just one, the landscapes

dis. a. gree.

i just changed it in a fit of pique, but it doesn't really suit me

i read 'formally inventive' as 'formerly inverted'

"Gerry" was by far my favorite of the two. I thought the first half of "Elephant" was brilliant, addressing the stereotypical nature of teenage cliques without delving into cinematic stereotypes, as often happens with these types of films. The subtlety & distance it allowed (the fact that you are often following characters from behind, as if walking to class with them, overhearing conversation) was particularly impressive.

However, the second half just seemed to fall apart. The more dramatic nature seemed to unravel the world that Van Sant had created, and the cast of non-professionals just didn't seem to be able to hold it up (especially the gunmen--why Van Sant even bothered giving these guys dialogue to butcher is beyond me). To sum it up, I was mesmerized by the "calm before the storm" setup, but the ridiculousness of the "storm" (I told my girlfriend it seemed like a "Columbine on Trazodone") destroyed the film for me.

"Gerry," on the other hand, blew me away. All of the elements of the first half of "Elephant" (the maturity shown in the subtlety & restraint) carried to complete fruition. The blend of humor and horror, the stark landscapes and desperately long takes mirroring the internal states of the characters, the almost seamless integration of more avant-garde elements--brilliant. It reminded me quite a bit of "L'Avventura", but perhaps with a bit less emphasis on structuralism and a lot more on character development. I definitely think the idea of there only being a single character is valid, and I'll have to do a rewatch to look more carefully into it. What an incredibly bold film.

but i haven't seen it (and won't)

What's this supposed to mean?

"but i haven't seen it (and won't) "

why? you're missing one of the most daring american films in the past decade, at least.

Did it not play in theaters? I figured it at least received a short run in some art house venues in the big cities. living in vermont results in me being completely out of touch with what indie/underground films came out in the theaters.

I saw Gerry at home on a 27" trinitron, and it certainly seemed pretty powerful to me. I'm sure the power of the landscapes would have had a much greater effect viewed on a big screen, but i also feel that the wonderful cinematography achieves such a vision of depth and vastness in the shots that you identify with the terror of confusion and isolation on any size screen.

It's estimated that within the next five years, LCD and plasma HDTV sets will be produced in such a large quantity that you'll be able to get a 60 inch set for the price of today's 32" CRT's. It will be interesting to see how films adapt, and how the filmgoing audience adapts. I myself have pretty much abandoned going to the movie theater as a result of high ticket prices, lack of good films in regular distribution, uncomfortable seats, sticky floors & a general dislike of film viewing as a collective experience. I find that besides the big screen and better sound, I don't really miss the theaters at all.

All in all, I was left thinking, "Okay, this film neither glorifies this kind of violence, nor condones it. It basically just says: You can get your guns online, kids." I mean, that's what I got from it.

The one thing I want to tell high school kids is: Don't worry. I know high school sucks, it sucks for everyone. Seriously. College and life after won't be like this. You just have to get through it like everyone else. So, I guess this movie does show that none of the students lives are perfect. The kids with the early a.m. drunk father, the girl who doesn't want to wear shorts to gym, the girl who might be pregnant, the three girls who puke up their salads, etc.

I'd hope troubled high schoolers watch this movie and understand this message but it's indie, no one's really watched it, maybe it's too subtle for teenagers, etc. I think this movie should be shown in high school, during English class or something and then discussed. That would be the best way to show it to younger people.

I also like Gerry more than Humanite, since it lacks unintentional laughs.

Matt & Casey FAR more bearable than Matt & Ben... "Gerry" supports the two sides of the same persona reading, the lovers reading, maybe a few more...