ELEPHANT by Gus Van Sant

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 12:30pm

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.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 12:32pm

A beautiful, well-executed, haunting, spellbinding, and underrated film.I had chills from the very beginning and cried. I seriously do not have enough adjectives to describe my feelings towards this film.

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 12:33pm

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

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 12:34pm

It's on my netflix. I wish I had seen it in theatres.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 12:35pm

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

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 12:36pm

Once again, here I am to poop the party of this filmic love in. I despised the movie. Thought it was boring beyond belief with some of the worst acting I've seen in years, not to mention the most unrealistic depiction of events inside the school. Awful.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 2:17pm

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.

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 2:25pm

VERY different...and here comes a spoiler...it's about a school shooting. I don't know why I put said 'spoiler' because it's one plot point that, if known, actually enhances the movie.

Pop, I can completely understand why people hate this film. I can see others thinking its slow and being appalled by the amateurish acting...but somehow, it worked for me...deeply.

Perhaps it's because the idea of a student walking into a school and picking people off is an all-too real event here in the States. Do you guys have anything of that sort?

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 3:02pm

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.

[broadway86]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 3:07pm

This movie chilled me to the core. It was cold, devastating, and just unforgettable. Spellbinding is actually the right word. Whether you hate it or love it, you probably won't forget it.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 3:56pm

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.

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 3:57pm

'the one hurdle that Van Sant did not manage to completly jump was the motivation for the kilings'

I absolutely agree. I think it's the major weakness of the piece, though I think it doesn't really affect the overall impact.

He should not have even bothered with the spitball moments. I think focusing simply on the day, without any backstory whatsoever, would have worked better. Why? Because even though we all scream that we can't imagine why anyone would do this, deep down we all know why people lost it in one way or another.

The scene of the two boys in the shower was fascinating. Now...I'll be honest. I'd heard about it and was kinda, sorty...well...interested in seeing it. I was wondering if it would be, for lack of a better word, hot. But, like everything else in the movie, it was done with utter simplicity. And it was clear that it wasn't a moment about sex. These boys are about to go shoot up the school and they never even kissed another person. It made me incredibly sad.

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 5:06pm

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.

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 5:20pm

Forgive me for patting myself on the back, but I LOVE that I started this thread. Mainly because some things people liked, I didn't and vice versa. I loved the fact that I had to do a lot of work for this movie. It made it intensely personal for me...and I think what is most successful about it is that everyone's individual reaction (whatever that reaction may be) is very personal and very detailed. OK...maybe I'm generalizing. But I was touched by this film...flaws and all. Oh God, I'm starting to sound impressed by my own sensitivity, aren't I?

Well...I hated PIAZZA...so let me have this!

[ReederWI]

Posted: 6/28/05 at 5:30pm

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.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 6/29/05 at 11:02am

We don't have pupils shooting up other pupils here at all, but we did have one horrific event almost 10 years ago, where a deranged man broke into an elementary school and opened fire on a classroom, killing 16 children aged between 5 and 6 and their teacher. A further 12 children were injured.

But just because it doesn't happen over here doesn't mean I can't relate to it. And I wanted to love Elephant, I really did. But I thought it was truly one of the most uninteresting and uninvolving films I've seen in a long time. However, Douglas Coupland wrote a book called Hey, Nostradamus! that deals with the aftermath of a school shooting, and that ripped my heart clean out of my chest. If you liked Elephant, then you'll probably flip for Hey, Nostradamus!

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 6/29/05 at 11:05am

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.

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/29/05 at 11:17am

I just finished reading VERNON GOD LITTLE, which deals with the aftermath of a school shooting in a brutally satirical fashion.

As I was typing my response to you, pop, visions from that horrific shooting you mentioned were running through my head. In the end, I guess a great film should be easily relatable, no matter your personal experience. Perhaps it was because I used to work next to a guy some of my fellow workers and I called 'Columbine Bob' and actually had to make a complaint about him to HR because of the violent tendencies he displayed. I actually sat at my cube and came up with an escape plan. Believe it or not, he still works at my old job.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 6/29/05 at 11:30am

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.

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/29/05 at 11:39am

I actually thought the ending was a little rushed in VGL. But it was an interesting read.

Yeah...Columbine Bob was something. In some ways the nicest guy...and then he'd SNAP!!!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/29/05 at 1:08pm

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.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 9:48pm

I'm watching it right now - almost an hour in.

It's like really, really, REALLY bad improv - it has to be improv - it's obvious. I'm going to stick it out, but it's a lot of work.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 9:55pm

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.

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 10:48pm

I was, as many have said, haunted by this film. But my one qualm with it was that I couldn't figure out what its purpose was beyond disturbing me.

That may sound shallow and sophomoric of me. But the movie did not attempt to explain the motives of the killers. It did not attempt to explain people's reactions to the events, or even really explore the nature of being an outcast. It simply confirmed that, as someone already said, "you can't lay the blame on just one thing---there are many factors that we can't even explain that lead someone to do something like this. Well, I knew that. So for me, I had trouble appreciated the film past its ability to disturb me.

Does any one else have a better clue as to what this movie really set out to do? I'm probably just missing it! :)

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 11/30/05 at 12:09am

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