Arguing in favor of Gerry

Ok. So this seems a common point of contention among many different film-lovers of all types. And I wanted to write about it in particular, instead of getting into an argument with someone on a separate thread. It has less to do with personal taste than a clearer understanding of the fundamental differences between art forms, yet the fight is almost always about taste. Also, this is long. Sorry.

Movies have become recognizable to the average joe as a story told with moving pictures and dialogue. Most utilize some form of a dramatic 3-act structure (however well-hidden) and hit certain beats, depending on the genre, in ways that are satisfying to us because storytelling has always been (and will always be) a fundamental form of human connection -- to each other and ourselves. We tell stories all the time, and we like hearing a good one whenever one can be told well. One could say we make a certain sense of our lives by creating narratives all the time.

But movies are not always embedded with this dramatic code. In fact, that form of storytelling has more in common with theater than the art form of cinema, even though cinema has been co-opted by entertainment and, as I said before, that is the most recognizable version of what most people would call "a movie." Yet film has many other qualities as an art form that transcends this rigid formula (and, by the way, I am in no way bashing on this formula -- many of my favorite movies follow a 3-act structure, and great film writers know how to use that formula to knock our socks off without us even knowing how).

Cinema is moving pictures coupled with sound to create an emotional response (this is my bland definition, not the end-all definition). These pictures & sound are generally put together in favor of a story but there are other ways to manipulate this audio/visual art form. Consider the difference between a comic strip, like Garfield, and an abstract painting by Jackson Pollock. Both stem from a visual art consisting of drawing and painting (I don't mean to cobble together these separate art forms either, but I'm just making a point). We shouldn't judge the merits of a good Garfield strip (or, maybe Garfield Minus Garfield; check that out if you're unfamiliar) with the same criteria that we would judge a Pollock painting; they are completely different in every way, except that we may look at either one and feel something. That's what art can do, even in the abstract: We looked and listened, and then we felt something.

Movies, then, are a bit more like music. Can you explain in words exactly how your favorite song makes you feel, in such a way that another person who has no knowledge of the song in question would also feel the same way, simply because of your properly-chosen words? Probably not. That's because music creates an emotional response that often defies explanation and therein lies its power. So it is (or has the potential to be) with movies.

This brings me to Gerry.

If we have a movie spectrum that goes from broad, pop entertainment (like Back to the Future) on one side, to experimental, anti-narrative films (like Eraserhead) on the other, then Gerry is certainly closer to the latter. I don't think it would be fair to judge either Back to the Future or Eraserhead from the same perspective. They are as different as Garfield and Pollock. Yet, so often, people say things like, "Gerry is the worst movie I've ever seen because NOTHING HAPPENS!" This is an ignorant, though understandable criticism, because there are people who adore Gerry immensely despite the fact that "nothing happens."

This is a matter of personal taste. It's not the movie's fault that you didn't like it. It's not dissimilar to saying "I hate how that Chinese guy sounds because he's not speaking English at all." Watching a movie like Gerry will work or not work depending on how well you know the language. You may still not like it, but not simply because "nothing happens." I could spend a long time discussing the merits of everything that does in fact happen in Gerry, but it would fall on deaf ears for those who don't care for this type of film. Again: personal taste, not an error in filmmaking.

There's no such thing as a perfect film, perhaps, since personal taste will always have the final word. But a film can be a perfect result of exactly what the filmmaker intends it to be, and your response to it is your own. But that is not the movie's fault (nor should you be faulted for not liking it).

If anyone is still reading this ridiculously long ramble, feel free to talk trash about this as much as you want. I think I made my point, maybe overly so. Also, in case it wasn't clear, I love this movie like I love great music and there aren't quite the right words to ever explain why. Hope you like it too. (It's okay if you don't...)