ELEPHANT by Gus Van Sant

Spoilers are probably included below.

A week ago, I finally watched this movie that I've been meaning to watch for quite some time.

I had heard a WIDE variety of opinions from 'I loved it!' to 'I loathed it!' Knowing only the theme of the movie and these very vague thumbs-up/thumbs-down references, I didn't know what to expect.

A week later I'm still haunted by it. Van Sant was fetish-istic in his exploration of a moment in time. I'm sure some people found the unconventional narrative form was simply a gimmick and some were bored by it. I, however, was completely captivated from beginning to end. The obsession with capturing the ordinariness (am I making up words left and right today), heightened my awareness of the impending tragedy/slaughter. I found myself becoming obsessed with these students and wondering which would survive and what simply action would be their last moment on earth. The amateurish acting worked in immersing me in this world.

I sat there for over an hour waiting for the 'click'. And when it arrived, I was truly startled. The ensuing violence was disturbing because it wasn't glorified or 'enhanced' in any way. It was as ordinary as the rest of the movie.

I'm wondering if anyone else has had a chance to see it and what you thought...especially those who didn't like it.

---

I actually had terrible nightmares after I saw it. But I still recommend it to any and everyone.

---

The night I saw it at the Angelika the theatre was packed and EVERYONE was crying.

I absolutely HATED Kids, so I had no interest in seeing Elephant. If the characters are not as despicable and loathsome as Kids, then I might see it. I just kept hoping someone would haul all their disgusting bigoted vile asses to jail.

---

I think that visually the movie was stunning, and overall I'd say that it was very effective. I thought that, like RobbieJ said, the acting added to the uncomfortable realism of the piece, which given the content, made it all the more, well, as I said... effective.

**SPOILERS**

I will say that the one hurdle that Van Sant did not manage to completly jump was the motivation for the kilings. While he made it clear that there was A LOT of modivation beind what these boys did, I think that he decided to sample the cliche's that our society has put on these kids who committ such violent acts-- that they listen to a certain kind of music, that they are teased, that they have difficult home lives, and that some of them lean towards homosexuality (the scene in which the boys take a shower together, if I remember correctly, came off to me as being played in a matter-of-factly way, as if to say "well I guess we might as well try this now") and while a lot of these stem from reality, I felt like instead of examining their psychology, he instead opted to let it be dictated by the headlines.

It's actually been a while since I saw the film, so the review I gave isn't exactly the most fresh I could offer, but that's what I remember thinking about it when I saw it.

Saw it in the theater. I wanted desperately to have Robbie's reaction, to respond to that flat, studied matter-of-factness that Van Sant employed. I got the idea, intellectually. But it was too cerebral for me.

Though I was in some ways mesmerized by the technique, and the rhythmic, repetative imagery, I was also ultimately let down big time. This is very sujective, but at this point in post-Columbine America, I wanted more questions asked from any artistic investigation of this subject, some new point of view that took us deeper. Not that it owed us answers, easy or other wise, but it didn't lift enough rocks for me.

I am in the minority: I ended up put off by the homoerotic touches, finding the studied kinkiness of the boys' desperate 11th hour fumble exploitative. In a film that revealed so little in terms of motive and emotional underbelly, the shower sequence stood out, and seemed included simply because it fell within this (gay) director's comfort zone. If Van Sant is opining that internalized homophobia is a crucial factor in these boys being pariah, I wish he'd made a more persuasive case. If he's saying it's an arbitrary last-ditch effort to find some sexual connection -- why was that detail more important than others? Just didn't get it, and I respect Van Sant enormously.

---

That was pretty much mine feeling, Auggie.

And while I did understand the underlying sexual desperation (which wasn't even all that sexual) surrounding the sex scene, I felt like I had to add that bit of understanding to it myself, because Van Sant didn't feel like studying the more primal realities of their situation. The matter-of-fact tone, in that sense, did not do the film justice.

I liked this film. I saw it in a nearly empty theatre for the one or two weeks it played in my city. I heard it was mesmerizing and unsettling. I found both of these adjectives to be good descriptors of the film. The film was co-executively produced by Diane Keaton. She felt that there was a sense of urgency in bringing a film like this to the screen.

The film did play with time a lot. I liked how the lives of the charcters intersected so seemelessly in the hallways, the bathrooms, the cafeteria and outside of the school.

People have mentioned acting or rather poor acting. Most of the student actors were your typical, run of the mill high schoolers (or homeschooled kids)from Washington and Oregon. Many had no acting experience whatsoever. I think that sort of adds to the intensity of the film and van Sant was smart in not Hollywood actors. That would have detracted from the intensity of the subject matter.

One character who threw me off was Benny. He seemed so strong and had an "I am gonna take this guy down" attitude. His entrance and exit in the film made it all the more freaky...like no one is safe.

I kept thinking to myself, what would I have done in that situation- as a student, as a teacher, or as a parent, etc?

I also liked how a kid like John came from a crappy background- a drunken father, etc and he didn't end up shooting his classmates. His family life probably sucked and he made the best of it. It's far too easy to lay blame on factors like Nazism, gun control, poor family like, school bullying, homosexuality, violence in video games and film, rock music, etc. The film made it harder to lay blame on any one factor.

This film did disturb me and it made me think. I love and hate it when films do that to me because it makes them feel more real.

I hated Hey, Nostradamus!, but I loved Elephant. I watched it again last night and had the exact same reaction that I did the first time I saw it: Chills and tears.

He sounds lovely. I read Vernon God Little too, and I thought it was good but not great and lost its way a little in the middle.

---

After reading this thread, I rented Elephant last night and I'm glad I did. It was not the freaky shock-fest I was expecting and I was quite relieved. I have mixed feelings about the film, but I did find it artistic and engaging. The pacing did not bother me at all, but I did find aspects of it quite inconsistent.

I think there was too much time spent on the shooters before the event. I think it would have been more effective and consistent if we really didn't know much about them at all. They were the only ones we saw in a home environment and it interrupted the flow of the film. To have them be as anonymous as the rest of the students only makes their actions more terrifying. Think about how many people in your yearbook you never knew and that one of them could have done the same thing. It's pretty scary. They gay moment was so brief, ambiguous and nondescript, I don't think it had any effect whatsoever on the impact of the film other than give ammunition to the bigots saying, "I KNEW they were fags!" And I didn't buy the Benny sequence for a second. The idea that there's this one guy just nonchalantly walking around dead bodies, fire and carnage with absolutely no fear or sense of urgency just isn't plausible to me. Most everything else seemed viable and realistic, but that just appeared Hollywood. I really didn't think there was "bad acting" at all. The film is mostly a visual narrative and the acting is secondary. All of the actors' performances serviced the film. I really don't think "stars" could have delivered something more believable. I know Van Sant had some sort of reason for the abrupt ending, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what it is. I didn't have a problem with any of the scenes emotionally except one. When the kid shot his friend in the cafeteria. That was the only moment that really got to me.

My biggest struggle is in the light of Columbine, I haven't yet settled whether or not I find this an informative wake-up call (as the title suggests) or distasteful and exploitative. When I think of the parents of the victims of Columbine, I can't help but wonder what they would think about this film.

If anything else, the film is thought-provoking. I also liked the short feature Shooting Through Time.

---

I saw this finally a month or so ago. Loved it. Some films suck when they try this pacing, but I thought he nailed it. I was mesmirized. I agree with your review, robbiej.

---

I was so relieved when they hopped into the shower together... I thought for a second that I was imagining the sexual tension...