MovieChat Forums > Gerry (2002) Discussion > just one Gerry?

just one Gerry?

posted 15 years ago by bearlean-1
12 replies | jump to latest

ok, i don't know what van sant says about this movie so i might be totally wrong, but... did any of you think that both gerrys were one person? i mean, while watching this movie i started do wonder what's the reason for naming the only two characters by the same name. also, look, there are no other characters, so it's not like anyone else sees two people (which would indicate there are in fact two men). all the things the guys say to each other during the movie are like things one could say to himself. like "let's go that way" "but what if it's not the right way?" "hell, let's do it anyways". i mean, imagine one man on the desert for like four days - he'd start talking to himself for sure. especially when lost and scared. even the scene when casey has to jump down the rock. matt didn't really do that much to help him (i believe the fall would be just as painful without matt's sand cushion). so, the dialogue could be just one gerry trying to convince himself that he'd be ok if he jumped down. and, finally, the last scene. matt kills casey just to find the road not so far away from the place where they'd been. i think it's clearly shown during the movie that matt damon is the strong gerry and casey affleck is the weak gerry. matt always walks faster, runs faster, is better prepared for the hike, while casey gets tired more easily, cries and stops when they're so close to the road. so, if there was only one gerry, the symbolic scene of matt killing casey would mean that the strong side of gerry beat his weak side. thanks to his strenght, bravery and determination, he could reach the road and survive.
what do you think?

[–] god_khnum 15 years ago

you might be right :)

[–] god_khnum 15 years ago

you might be on to something ;)

[–] lilplasticsword13 15 years ago

I had never thought of that interpretation, but it is very interesting, and possibley the meaning of the film. It sounds very poetic, going out to the desert to kill part of yourself. I rather like that.

[–] Gloede_The_Saint 15 years ago

The film is about two version of the same guy and their battle for existence. It's kinda like Identity only that it's the mind and not the personality that are killing them self.

Thought that was fairly obvious. The films alternative name is "The Actual Gerry" for beeps sake. Are you telling me people didn't get it???

Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle

[–] tinkerbell_6374 15 years ago

Wow sounds like somebody is mighty pleased with them self. If what you are saying is true, then why does the information about the film read that it is "based on the true life murder" (Just watched this on Charter OnDemand and this was in the info given about the film)? Was is based on the "true life murder" of one man existentially killing the weaker side of himself. Don't think so...try again. What you so patronizingly try to point out as "obvious" is in actuality "ludicrous". Somehow I don't think Charter teamed up with Gus Van Sant to try and mislead film goers in an attempt to "draw out the suspense" of the film. I'm sure the "info" given was based on factual details provided from the film company with the movie when it was negotiated with Charter to be released on OnDemand. Maybe instead of trying to make other people feel stupid for not reading something you deem so obvious into the meaning of a film and then wikipediaing up clever little quotes to support your over inflated sense of importance in a pathetic attempt to appear droll and scholarly you should make sure all your facts are straight. You never know when someone might prove you to be so obviously ignorant "for beeps sake".

[–] marionettes 15 years ago

The story is only slightly resembling that of the true life story and why couldn't it use the basic true story to create a movie about a more existential fight with ones-self than against two real people. you're both out of line.

[–] Rickinator69 15 years ago

I think that's a really great insight and makes perfect sense. Especially at the end when Affleck's Gerry said he was leaving and Damon's Gerry killed him, which we can take to be Affleck's Gerry wanting to give up and die but Damon's Gerry overcoming that and willing himself to survive. Sure enough, soon after we see Damon's Gerry finding the road and being rescued.

And I didn't see anything wrong with the way you put your idea.

~Rick

[–] lebowski555 15 years ago

I saw it recently once again on TV, and thought about the same thing, as a possible interpretation (although I generally don't like to look for one at any cost). Still, I think it's an interesting way to look at the movie, even if I think I also came across a line about it being (more or less) based on a "true story" or something.

[–] Piston_Smash 8 years ago

It's been a while since I have seen this film, but the OP's theory holds water I think. While the film may be based on a true story it doesn't necessarily follow that Van Sant's intention was to simply re-tell the events of the true story. He would be able to use the true story as a basic premise for the film and adapt it to his own agenda. That happens all the time in cinema where real life events are adapted to suit the film makers' story telling intentions.
The simple fact that the film is called 'Gerry' - singular - and not 'Gerry and Gerry' or 'The Two Gerries' or 'Gerry and Dave' seems quite explicit: there is only one Gerry but he is represented by two actors. Why would Van Sant choose to have two lead characters with the same name if not to suggest that they are the same person? It's not a massive leap to accept that Matt killing Casey is, as others have suggested, a symbolic method by which the positive side of Gerry's character or mind defeats the negative other side and allows Gerry to survive.
It is possible to view the film as a literal re-telling of the true story of the friends in the desert (did the real individuals have the same name?) and it is equally possible to view it as an examination of an individual psyche wherein one character represents the self doubt of the other.
PS why do these boards attract such abusive comments from other posters? I thought the idea was to discuss film, not attempt to verbally destroy the person making a post...

[–] Joeyjag_97 7 years ago

I thought the same thing.

"A man chooses. A slave obeys."