Movie Review: Elephant

[Ulysses]

Directed by Gus van Sant. About a school shooting like Columbine.

I'm not sure if I totally got it. It was very interesting to watch and certain parts are somewhat chilling. Overall, an interesting movie. I'm not quite sure how much I liked it.

[SmileyEH]

This is the same guy that directed the movie about the final hours of Kurt Kobain's death? I was thinking about watching it in ireland, but I saw Primer instead. The way it was described it hardly seemed like a movie at all; just following Kobain around his house for 2 hours with no dialogue. . . was elephant similar?

-SmileyEH

[istewart]

What was your opinion of the pre-death-rampage gay sex romp in the shower?

Also, I think Van Sant's thing of having long camera shots of him walking down the hall, etc. got really tiresome. But, the movie was only like 70 freaking minutes.

Yes, Elephant was very similar, and very terrible. An hour and a half of walking behind kids in a high school with guns. I don't recommend.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
What was your opinion of the pre-death-rampage gay sex romp in the shower?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seemed very random.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think Van Sant's thing of having long camera shots of him walking down the hall, etc. got really tiresome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kinda liked that as a device to tie together the different character studies (or whatever you want to call them).

[captZEEbo1]

I thought this movie was excellent. It was very intense and I was always eager see what was going to happen next.

here's an Roger Ebert review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031107/REVIEWS/311070301/1023) which explains more of what I like about it. Here's a quote from the review:
[ QUOTE ]
Van Sant seems to believe there are no reasons for Columbine and no remedies to prevent senseless violence from happening again. Many viewers will leave this film as unsatisfied and angry as Variety's Todd McCarthy, who wrote after it won the Golden Palm at Cannes 2003 that it was "pointless at best and irresponsible at worst." I think its responsibility comes precisely in its refusal to provide a point.


[/ QUOTE ]

[GuyOnTilt]

I liked it enough to buy it.

GoT

[Sightless]

Ill give it 5.5/10

It just tries way too hard, has way too many characters and doesnt go in depth on them at all.

It's like:
Oh hey Im really unpopular girl in school, Bam im dead.
Hey im black athlete, Bam Im dead.
Hi we are three girls which throw up the food that we eat, bam we are dead.

It's not that this movie didn't give any answers, it just seemed that it didn't ask any questions either.

[Ulysses]

The football dude's girlfriend is really hot.

Lots of interesting stuff here;

Elephant (http://www.elephantmovie.com/)

I didn't know that these were real high-schoolers and most of the dialogue was improvised.

[Peter666]

SPOILER ALERT

The gay sex romp does not make sense because he blew his "friend" away in the end. There seems to have been no emotional connection between those two which I find unlikely because of the planning that went into the operation.

Also, the black guy walking back into the school like a zombie and getting blown away was funny. I mean, why would anybody just walk back into the school? Again, no human qualities are exhibited.

People always have reasons for their actions. Their reasoning might be crazy or bizarre, but something is motivating them. This film did not portray that.

Interesting directing technique, but that is all what Gus Van Sant seems to offer.

[Ulysses]

That is the worst executed spoiler alert I've ever seen.

[Peter666]

I was thinking of not putting it in at all. How should I make it better? I don't know these things well /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking of not putting it in at all. How should I make it better? I don't know these things well /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, I don't think it's a big deal at all, especially since this is a thread about a movie that's not even new. For future reference though, people will generally put SPOILER ALERT in the subject line of their post and also at the start of the message, then have a bunch of whitespace or something before the spoiler so people don't accidentally see it.

[shaniac]

I saw it in the theaters and again, piecemeal, during its recent run on cable.

I think it's a beautifully understated examination of what happened at Columbine.

Good movie. 8.5/10

[LeatherFace]

I thought this movie would be awesome. How could a movie about stupid teenage punks getting shot suck? And that gay scene pissed me off! Bring on the chicks next time. The only part I liked was when he shot his friend. That was awesome.

[private joker]

Here's the review I wrote at the time; I can't really add anything to it, but it's probably worth reading if you didn't really get it, El D.

Obviously SPOILERS everywhere...





Gus Van Sant burst through the forefront of American independent cinema with Gerry, a bold film with such undeniable power that its fans were wondering how he could possibly follow it up. Then came this year's Cannes Film Festival, where Van Sant premiered the film he breezed through production last winter and quickly prepared for its world premiere in May. Elephant won a rare double prize for Best Picture (Palm d'Or) and Best Director, cementing Van Sant's comeback as a bona-fide movement towards a vanguard other independent directors are cowardly avoiding.

Unfortunately, Elephant isn't nearly the pure masterpiece Gerry is, nor does it come equipped with on-screen talent as assured as Matt Damon and Casey Affleck. But after a couple viewings, it's clear that whatever its flaws, the film is too unique to dismiss, too perplexing to simplify, and too thoughtful to despise. A meditation on high school violence in general and shooting incidents like Columbine in particular, Elephant is stylistically similar to Gerry in that its camera is observational rather than in-your-face, and the focus is on tone and atmosphere rather than narrative and character development. Initially, this seems like a problem because while Gerry's content was its form, here the material is far more immediate and "message-y," apparently demanding answers rather than vacant observations.

And indeed this problem does create a dissonance between the relaxed cinematic approach and the bloody carnage depicted within the frame. But if one is willing to concede that Van Sant's goal, however irresponsible and negative, is to pose every question and answer none of them, then in fact the style becomes a vital way to process the disturbing imagery. Van Sant is no action director, and the massacre that dominates the film's final 15 minutes is handled with an almost clumsy confusion and lack of connection. Although we've spent over an hour inside this school, we often can't tell where we are, who is located where, and what the fates of some victims will be. But this isn't a concern to Van Sant. Since his film doesn't profess to provide an exhilarating release, glorify any of its actions, or convey a conventional narrative, his directorial eye is free to zero in on the details that give the film its ultimate cumulative power.

Elephant steadfastly refuses to give us background on characters or explain their actions. It observes a handful of high school students over the course of the day, and uses his now-standard long-take master-shot motif to show how different people respond uniquely to the same stimuli. Nowhere is this more important than in the characterization of the two killers. What might go unnoticed by many viewers is how different Eric and Alex are. Alex is polite to his family, he's a skilled piano player, and he quotes Shakespeare. Eric is rude, profane, stupid, and spends his time playing video games (the Gerry in-joke involving the video game is so hilarious that it detracts from the film significantly) and asking moronic questions about videos ("Is that Hitler?"). By showing that two radically different personalities can befriend each other and commit such heinous murders, Van Sant is asking how anyone can generalize the profile of a high school shootist.

Furthermore, we have a character named John (played by John Robinson -- all of the students are amateur actors playing characters with their own names except, inexplicably, the nerd girl Michelle) who has a drunk father and gets unfairly punished by school administrators. Conventional stereotype would have the misunderstood son of an alcoholic father turn into the killer, but we see John doing one responsible thing after another, turning protective, and greeting each familiar face at school with an optimistic, friendly exchange.

Also note the characters of Michelle and Alex. Both are outcasts, both bullied by their peers (Michelle is teased in the locker room for her granny panties and Alex is sprayed with spitballs during chemistry class), but one turns killer and one turns victim. Again Van Sant poses the question -- how can you generalize that bullies or victims are killers or not? For yet another duality, note Alex and Eli. Both are creative -- Alex with his piano and detailed sketches, and Eli with his photography (and Van Sant spends a good amount of time showing both boys at work) -- yet once again, Alex is the bad seed and Eli isn't. Van Sant's implication is that there's no easily identifiable source or characteristic that allows us to predict which kids will bring a gun to school and go to town. (Eli is so likable in fact, and his interaction with John (shown three times thanks to Van Sant's clever chronology) is so realistic and endearing, that we'd actually rather see a film about these two kids than suffer through the tragic third act.) For a final example, look at Benny and Acadia, who meet in a classroom over the dead body of one teen. Acadia leaps out the window to safety, while Benny is overtaken with an irresistible curiosity to search the school, seek out the gunmen, and look them in the eye even if it means his death.

Aside from the merits of these profound actions, Van Sant's film also benefits once again from gorgeous visuals thanks to ace DP Harris Savides. Savides uses Portland, Oregon's lush greenery and open skies to create a dichotomy between the joy teenagers have when they're out in nature and the portentous doom of the interiors. Watch the shot where the jock leaves a pleasant football field and crosses through delighted, active students everywhere for the controlling, imposing institution of the school, a gray, monolithic monster interrupting the frame with ominous weight. Then there's the shot where Michelle enters the empty gymnasium and Savides's low-angled camera lets her march through the dark wooden floors and echoing silence. Characters often look skywards (Michelle in appreciation of fresh air, Alex in appreciation of his own insidious plans of massacre) as do Van Sant's visuals, almost declaring the director's fundamental atheism -- the sky offers no judgement, no answers, no guidance. Only passing clouds and fading light.

A few things do stand out as problematic. Aside from the aforementioned shaky handling of the massacre and woeful lack of screen time granted to John and Eli, there's the amateur actor problem of kids occasionally looking into the camera or moving stiffly through the frame. Scenes like the three snotty girls who vomit up their salad lunches feel contrived, and the shot of the killers watching a Hitler video tips the scales too much with a cheap cliche. But Elephant is a film that sticks with you, and even if it's a disappointment after the frighteningly brilliant Gerry, Van Sant has proven that he is now a director of considerable artistic vitality and intelligent discourse, and an American voice to be reckoned with.

[Dominic]

I thought it was interesting but not completely sucessful. I wouldn't bother watching it again.

[Blarg]

I liked Van Sant's Drugstore Cowboy a lot. That blew people away when it came out. Since then he seems to have gotten artsier and gayer. Which is okay, if you're into that. Doesn't push him to the top of my list, though.

I also find most fictionalizations of things like these incredibly simplistic and lame. I usually feel preached to but without any moral authority or artistic integrity. This incident didn't strike me as deserving of that, and from the reviews I read, this film did more of a riff on the facts than really do right by them. I think I'll continue to stay away, on this one.

I went to high school with the kid who played one of the shooters. Alex Frost is his name I think, and a bit of the movie was directed about 7 blocks from my house

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
from the reviews I read, this film did more of a riff on the facts than really do right by them. I think I'll continue to stay away, on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foolish. The movie does not claim to be about Columbine. It takes place in Portland, OR. It's just inspired by those events. Much like LAST DAYS is about a guy named Blake, who is a lot *like* Kurt Cobain, but not exactly Cobain.

[Blarg]

That's what I mean. That seems like a sucky concept.

The actual event is important enough not to be trifled with and artsied up.

I'm sure the boys giving each other blowjobs in the shower or whatever really helped illuminate the issues and was no reflection on Van Sant's personal fantasies.

[private joker]

They just kiss. It's not a big deal.

[JihadOnTheRiver]

I thought it was a pretty dam bad movie. The cinematography and directing seemed to be both quality and creative, but the script and acting were both pretty week. The storyline was very cheesy and the characters were way too typical for my taste. It was also very politically biased IMO.

All that can be countered by the fact that I was pretty deep on a bottle of Grey Goose when I threw it in.

-Jihad

[jnalpak]

[ QUOTE ]
How could a movie about stupid teenage punks getting shot suck? And that gay scene pissed me off! Bring on the chicks next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

while everyone is entitled to there own OOT opinion on life. Your response is the reason why movies like elephant dont become huge successes and movie's like Daddy Daycare go number 1 weak after weak...

[ QUOTE ]
The only part I liked was when he shot his friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

'course it was.

[JihadOnTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How could a movie about stupid teenage punks getting shot suck? And that gay scene pissed me off! Bring on the chicks next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

while everyone is entitled to there own OOT opinion on life. Your response is the reason why movies like elephant dont become huge successes and movie's like Daddy Daycare go number 1 weak after weak...

[ QUOTE ]
The only part I liked was when he shot his friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

'course it was.

[/ QUOTE ]
you sound pretty enlightened

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
think it's a beautifully understated examination of what happened at Columbine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Was there anything about the actual comlumbine kids being gay, (or atleast having a sexual relationship). Either way, I don't believe that it was dealt with thuroughly enough in the film. But, if the columbine kids didn't have a sexual relationship, then I think the scene in the movie was cheap.

[young nut]

I didn't like this movie that much. I don't know much about the director, but I saw the movie on the ON DEMAND movie section and I recognized the directors name from somewhere, so I decided to watch it.

I liked the interesting cinematography at first, kinda just following around people doing every day school things. But it seemed to get a little tiresome and not enough action. I mean, I know that when you want to walk from the football field to the front door of the school you have to walk about 100 yards.....I don't need to see someone walking 100 yards.

The characters were decent, but I felt Van Sant could have spent a little more time building their personalities and less time showing how well they strut through the quad.

The shooting scenes were mediocre at best, but i'm guessing the director wasn't going for the gore type movie here. It just almost seems necessary that the movie be a little more graphic as to truly depict and make the viewer blieve that they are witnessing a school shooting.

And the gay sex scene should have been cut; way to random and not necessary to the plot whatsoever.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How could a movie about stupid teenage punks getting shot suck? And that gay scene pissed me off! Bring on the chicks next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

while everyone is entitled to there own OOT opinion on life. Your response is the reason why movies like elephant dont become huge successes and movie's like Daddy Daycare go number 1 weak after weak...

[ QUOTE ]
The only part I liked was when he shot his friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

'course it was.

[/ QUOTE ]
you sound pretty enlightened

[/ QUOTE ]He is, jnalpak is spot on here.

[MyTurn2Raise]

Watched it...kept me interested, but not enough that I'd recommend it to anyone without being prompted. Worth seeing, but not a top option.




Totally pointless side note:
I read Douglas Coupland's novel "Hey Nostradamus" and it seemed to capture the whole Columbine/school shooting thing in much better detail for a side part of the story. Now that book was freaking fabulous.

[captZEEbo1]

I think some of you guys are putting too much emphasis on the Columbine aspect of it like this post...[ QUOTE ]
Was there anything about the actual comlumbine kids being gay, (or atleast having a sexual relationship). Either way, I don't believe that it was dealt with thuroughly enough in the film. But, if the columbine kids didn't have a sexual relationship, then I think the scene in the movie was cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]

This movie just used the Columbine premise (ie. a school shooting) to show the pointlessness and inexplicability (word?) of violence like this, not OF Columbine.

[LeatherFace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How could a movie about stupid teenage punks getting shot suck? And that gay scene pissed me off! Bring on the chicks next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

while everyone is entitled to there own OOT opinion on life. Your response is the reason why movies like elephant dont become huge successes and movie's like Daddy Daycare go number 1 weak after weak...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm positive a response I made on the movie elephant on an internet forum years after the movie was created is not the reason it became a huge failure. I'm pretty sure you meant to say it was a train of thought like mine that makes it fail? Do I sound like I like Daddy Daycare? How would someone with my train of thought like Daddy Daycare. It sounds like your just spewing horseshit because
A) You're a stupid teenager.
or
B) You're gay.

Also who spells week, weak? Honestly.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
think it's a beautifully understated examination of what happened at Columbine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Was there anything about the actual comlumbine kids being gay, (or atleast having a sexual relationship). Either way, I don't believe that it was dealt with thuroughly enough in the film. But, if the columbine kids didn't have a sexual relationship, then I think the scene in the movie was cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was nothing I read about in the actual incident that suggested the kids were gay. This is pure Van Sant fantasy/wish fullfilment, and it's one of the reasons I say I don't like what people tend to do to real happenings like this. Not only do they get up on a soap box, but they make highly dubious "improvements" or artistic riffs on it that just don't do the subject any favors at all.

The new film about Mark David Chapman coming out, the murderer of John Lennon, that gives him Lindsay Lohan as a cute girlfriend, is another example. Sometimes Hollywood really overestimates itself severely, which is fine when you're talking about a Bruce Willis movie or something. But it seems stupid and contrary to the spirit of real events, and really serious ones, to "spruce them up" with an "artistic insight" that has nothing to do with the event in question and is really all about artistic egotism and self-indulgence.

Really, most subjects deserve better than they tend to get from Hollywood.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]


Was there anything about the actual comlumbine kids being gay

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but why should there be? Since Elephant isn't about the Columbine kids, why can't Van Sant make a movie inspired by Columbine wherein there are actual differences between the two stories? Furthermore, who said these guys in Elephant are even gay? They have one kiss in the shower once. Have you ever been at a party where two chicks make out with each other, then go home and sleep with their boyfriends (or whichever frat boy date-raped them that night)? Are those girls now lesbians for life?

The kiss is more about an emotional bond for a moment and an activity than it is about sexual orientation.

[ QUOTE ]

Really, most subjects deserve better than they tend to get from Hollywood.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, which is why I'm glad Elephant is not a Hollywood film. It's totally indie, made and financed by people who wouldn't be let in the door of any Hollywood studio with an idea like this. Van Sant spent his time in Hollywood making crap like Finding Forrester. Elephant is as far from Hollywood as movies get.

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
crap like Finding Forrester.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://content.ytmnd.com/assets/images/shirt.gif

[tdarko]

it seemed like when i made this thread 7 months ago everyone hated the movie.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Was there anything about the actual comlumbine kids being gay

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but why should there be? Since Elephant isn't about the Columbine kids, why can't Van Sant make a movie inspired by Columbine wherein there are actual differences between the two stories? Furthermore, who said these guys in Elephant are even gay? They have one kiss in the shower once. Have you ever been at a party where two chicks make out with each other, then go home and sleep with their boyfriends (or whichever frat boy date-raped them that night)? Are those girls now lesbians for life?

The kiss is more about an emotional bond for a moment and an activity than it is about sexual orientation.

[ QUOTE ]

Really, most subjects deserve better than they tend to get from Hollywood.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, which is why I'm glad Elephant is not a Hollywood film. It's totally indie, made and financed by people who wouldn't be let in the door of any Hollywood studio with an idea like this. Van Sant spent his time in Hollywood making crap like Finding Forrester. Elephant is as far from Hollywood as movies get.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're kidding yourself a bit here. Or maybe a lot.

Obviously the movie is meant to address Columbine. You can't reward it for its daring or insight or whatever into the thing and then brush off criticisms by saying that it really wasn't about it after all. That's just schizoid.

As far as the gay thing, I guess you just think that boys kissing each other in the shower is a lot less gay than I do.

Which is all well and good. But my guess is the teenage boys kissing scene had a lot more to do with Van Sant's personal collection of private thrills than it did with the subject at hand.

And again, I think Columbine deserves better. These artistic reveries on real life tragedies strike me as generally hopelessly masturbatory even without teenage gay kissing shower scenes.

I realize you have a strong emotional investment in this film and we'll never agree unless I complete capitulate to seeing things your way, which isn't going to happen. For what it's worth, I like the few reviews I've seen you post, but in this case I'll just have to say you haven't sold me on either the film or your appreciation for it. Don't feel it personally or take it as an insult, because I think Van Sant is very talented and I have no beef with you whatsoever. I just feel that this film sounds very much like the typical exploitive stumble that films like this usually are.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

while everyone is entitled to there own OOT opinion on life. Your response is the reason why movies like elephant dont become huge successes and movie's like Daddy Daycare go number 1 weak after weak...

[/ QUOTE ]


...Also who spells week, weak? Honestly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it did sorta fit with the point he was making. It was either a pleasing rhetorical device, or a brilliant mistake.