l'm pretty sure this is considered indie...if not, sorry...

Elephant (2003, Gus Van Sant)

Probably spoilers ahead...

l'd heard mostly good things about this movie, soooo...l rented it. l must say l was very disappointed.

It really seems to me as if there is no point whatsoever to 90% of the movie. The introduce all these kids, and show them living a "normal" day...for what? Just to show them being killed? I really didnt get anything out of that at all. Not to mention, it's really not an accurate portrayal of high school. At least not either of the ones l've been too.

And then, the two shooters...what's up with that? Introduce them, show them ordering a gun, and then have em go kill people? :? It didnt explain WHY they did it...what would cause two seemingly normal kids to do something like that?

Next there is the timing aspect. Blonde kid shows up to school, somewhere between breakfast and lunch. Lets say...10 o'clock. His brother is supposed to come at 11:30 to pick up the dad. But at the end, dad's still there, and brother doesn't appear to be. So everything in between happens before 11:30. Which l guess is ok, if stuff is happening simultaneously which it appears to, with that whole weird overlapping thing. But then that one couple, checks out when the blonde comes in, and says they'll be back around 1:30. Yet they're there when the shooters come in (before 11:30). So did they just not leave yet, which would lead me to believe the whole movie takes place in the span of about 15 minutes or so, or what? Finally, as far as the timing, the two shooters...it shows the one pianist coming home from school, and the rest of that night into the next day. So in the middle of the movie, they must have backed up a full day to show their story. It's so frusterating trying to figure the whole thing out.

Plus, are there no classes? l mean, there were meetings going on, lunch happening, people wandering around all over the place...but no classroom scenes, that l recall...

There were some good things, too, though. The cinematography was beautiful. Lovely to look at. And l've heard the shooting part is very realistic...I've never seen someone get shot, but it definitely felt very real...

Overall, l just really didnt like it at all...

So, what did you think? : )

Don't worry Kypade, we're very open about this, and I gladly encourage you to post anything in this forum that you think won't get the light of day in the general film discussion forum. And yes, Elephant is indie enough in my book.



Yep..sounds about right. I've not seen elephant, but nor do I care to because I think Van Sant is seriously overrated. I despised his remake of Psycho, disliked Drugstore Cowboys and Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, and thought Good Will Hunting was sappy but okay. The only film to date I've seen of his that I like is To Die For. This just reminded me of someone who is has been long out of touch with youth trying to do a film about it anyways. And I think, in general, most directors mishandle death when it is on a private level (vs. war, etc). I don't see him being great enough, IMO to pull that off. Apparently you thought so as well.



Classic, school without classes. It sounds a bit like an exploration of Columbine from your description. Do you know of the school footage was one of Van Sant's sources?


He just wrapped up Gerry about two years ago, which was Daman and little Affleck alone in the dessert, so I'm sure it tightened up his visuals quite a bit. I have to say it was one of his strengths in To Die For as well.



Thanks for the review Kydape...welcome to the forum.

-Dolce

His Psycho remake was trash, Good Will Hunting is overrated Sentimental crap, To Die For was good, Even Gowgirls Get the Blues was unimpressive and I didn;t see Drugstore Cowboys.

That said I saw Elephant and I would give it 9/10, it certainyl manipulates its audience. Elephant is the first film sicne To Die For that actually warrants buzz for Gus Van Sant.

Elephant is crap. Except the last 10 minutes or so the movie is boring like hell. Most of the time nothing happens. You can't get any connection to the characters. You just see them walking and walking and walking and THAT is brilliant? Why? Please explain me.

Well ... I saw the movie.

Alot of people criticize it for not trying to say anything larger about the school shootings ... for not really um ... trying to make a point I guess. And that is partly true .. because it doesn't make a point. I would dissagree with those saying that it doesn't let you form a connection with characters, I think it does. I just think it fails to get across the point it tries to make ... and that is that the class structure ... the group or type mentality of american HS is what leads to this.

I really think the movie tried to ... and did a fairly good job with portraying an acurate american HS landscap ... unfourtunatly it fails to go beyond that ... to ... show how its a problem, why its a problem, and to say anything more on the subject. That in the end is the movies failing, it simply doesn't make any point whatsoever.

I really think he tried to show the various social groups and the overall social ladder of HS and just failed to comment on it ... thats my opinion anyway.

Well, I don't think there is a "point" to be made. We're talking about exploring a psychological landscape, its not good or bad, it just "is." That's like saying Frued's work was not making a point. I haven't seen it, but my interest has been piqued. I might try to watch this soon. I think the American (or anywhere) Highschool landscape is impossible to fathom. Its challenging to make an audiance relate to something they don't. Either because they never had such an urge, or because their memories of highschool are different. The only way to address the breakdown of social groups in highschool is probably to address family alienation, which hasn't been done yet in the proper way. People that are somehow missing a security blanket, and flail for it at school will end up being very possessive of their respective spaces. Does this hold true to kids genuinely comfortable with their families? Its anyone's guess, I can only speak from personal experience, and I had a twin sister, so I never had trouble in high school.

I think trying to fathom this particular topic is very taboo in society. Not like sex drugs and rock 'n roll (which we actually blame for these school incidents) but because it may be about our societal failure as parents, guidance, and financial providors. The tendency towards drama in such situations makes the "nuetral" vibe I'm getting seem fairly progressive, even if its uninteresting. But again, nuetrality may not be the best thing, and I wonder if he makes the same mistake Virgin Suicides did with collapsing physical isolation with emotional alienation?

Bull shit!

There is a problem in HS and in america and its very obvious.

Dolce you can go to ANY HS across the country, and there will be a few terms your going to here, and categories that people will place others into in HS. Jock, Punk, Skater, Goth to mention a few. These have gotten to the point where kids will isolate themselves from other groups, people that don't even fall into a group are left grasping trying to find a group of there own. Certain groups put down on other groups, and I think that is exactly what is explored by this movie, except it does so poorly and fails to grasp the underlying problem.

I have never understood this segregation in groups on American high schools...

Yay! Finally someone else who dislikes Good Will Hunting!

Can't stand it.

Psycho wasn't exactly a highlight either.

I'm not saying they don't, I'm simply saying that the reason's why have to do with broader failures in society, which is why its so hard to address them in literature, film, and any other media. We'd rather find a scapegoat in "violent music" without realizing the propensity towards consuming violent music already has to do with relating to it. Why would someone buy music about being alone in High School if they never felt like that. The problem in American Highschools clearly runs deep and wide. So, as far as a movie goes, it could either cruise around on the surface without trying to find a scapegoat (not a bad thing) and allow the viewer to try and make connections. or it can try and be expository, that is, address what the director thinks the problem is. Going the second route has lead to Bowling for Columbine with mixed results. From the sound of it, Elephant tried it hand at the former approach instead. I'd be interested to know if what you came away with from it was just that groups pick on eachother, or if it got you thinking as to why?

It is hard to explain, maybe I will re-watch it sometime soon to better commentate on it. I just remember specifically thinking that while a good movie and very well made, it totally failed to say ANYTHING about the subject at hand.

It's amazing how much some people see in this movie...

But there is nothing new about this even though there is a tendency to dramatize the current school situation. It really is no worse than it was 10 or 15 years ago. Hell 25 years ago my mother's family (in an affluent suburb) was dealing with school violence, the science teachers selling acid, being threatened by the Black Panthers (because she witnessed a rape of a friend).

I mean, me and my friends talked about walking into a school and shooting up everyone when we were in high school. Everybody did who was put in unfavorable cliques and categories. What made the Columbine or the kids in Elephant actually go ahead and do it? Hitler, guns, music, the internet, and repressed sexuality… the problem with Elephant is Gus Van Sant doesn’t know and worse... is he doesn't seem to have a firm opinion (even in his fictional film), so he will throw every single little issue at the wall and see if it sticks. It just becomes a collage of silly one dimensional villans.

So while some of the decisions in the movie are inspired (and definitely not the kid who walks leisurely down the hall, although I understand the “hero” moment that he was trying to create) the rest of the film has absolutely nothing to say.

So it’s a fictional, semi-historical day-in-the-life of the moments leading up to panic.

Elephant’s biggest problem, is that is kinda-sorta a huge waste of time.

Not to get off the subject of the movie (I still haven't seen it), but I think a lot of people get into seperate groups to find themselves in a sense. Myself, I'm kinda the Ferris Bueller type in that I get along with almost everyone. The jocks, the thugz, the "nerds", the preps, I can talk to tons of different people, but I definitely have my own group. But I think that unlike middle school where there was more of a "popular kids" and "unpopular kids" ladder, high school is more of a web of tons of different smaller groups like raindrops in a spiderweb.

Your very right Moviedude in the difference between HS and Middle school. But some groups are still picked on by others. When a horrible family life leads into a horrible school life it can lead to horrible results.

It really doesn't take much for a kid to say fuck it and snap ... not much at all.


Addrock, in a way I agree with you ... he deffinatly couldn't figure out what the hell to say, and was obviously grasping at straws, that is the major failing of the movie.

The black hero kid thing was just freaking moronic. I have never seen a worse developed character, or a more unrealistic action. God I was so happy when he got embaressed, it was like a lesson ... don't try to be the freaking hero, just freaking run.