Own the rights?
180 out of 252 people found the following comment useful :- A film that will haunt you, 7 November 2004 Author: Roland E. Zwick (magneteach@aol.com) from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
'Elephant' is Gus Van Sant's brilliant and mind-blowing distillation of teenage alienation and angst. Set on one of those sterile suburban high school campuses, the film recounts a typical day in the life of a school - typical that is until it ends in a Columbine-type massacre.Here is a film in which style does indeed become substance, where the 'meaning' lies in the form and shape of the film itself. Rather than tell us a conventional 'story,' Van Sant has chosen to give his film the look and feel of a pseudo-documentary, merely recording the events and conversations that occur that day, a day we are led to believe is not unlike every other at that school. Van Sant's prying camera eye turns us into voyeurs, as we observe the cliquishness, petty humiliations, and sheer overwhelming banality that have defined high school life for so many of us. Van Sant uses space brilliantly. Despite the fact that this is undoubtedly a school with a large student population, the characters on whom he focuses seem always to be somehow isolated from almost everyone else around them. None of the characters we see really seem to have any connection with one another, and even when they do, it tends to be of only the most superficial kind. They are like people stranded on their own individual islands, enduring their suffering alone and in silence. Van Sant sets the tone with his tracking shots of characters strolling down seemingly endless corridors heading to nowhere in particular, making little or no human contact as they go. The camera, throughout the film, seems to have a mind of its own, often avoiding what seems to be a major plot point and, instead, zeroing in on something that seems to have little or no real importance. Then through the process of editing, he weaves nothing less than a tapestry of alienation. By concentrating so intently on the seemingly irrelevant minutia of daily life, Van Sant brings to the film a sense of documentary immediacy most fiction films lack. We are made privy to bits and pieces of conversation only to have the talk dribble off as we or the characters turn the corner and move on to the next group of people. It is the deadening 'sameness,' the insignificance of so much of what we see and hear that makes this such a sad and haunting experience. One thing Van Sant refuses to do is try to 'explain' why the killers act as they do. He's smart enough to know that there is no single explanation for such behavior, that it arises from a variety of sources and that it is primarily the product of a general feeling of alienation in modern society. We see one of the murderers suffering humiliation at the hands of two schoolmates, the second killer playing a violent video game and perusing a gun magazine, but these, in and of themselves, cannot be the sole explanations. At best they are symptoms of a much deeper societal sickness, one that Van Sant can only hint at but never fully grasp - for who among us can claim to truly understand it? What 'Elephant' does is to make us focus on and actually see this spirit-crushing ennui which permeates our culture and which defines life for so many of our youngsters. The director has drawn fine work from his cast of talented unknowns. Their every word, their every gesture rings believable and true. He has also employed Beethoven's 'Fur Elise' to serve as a haunting refrain throughout the film, capturing the poignancy of a world in which beauty, spontaneity and joy seem to have been removed. There are some who will find 'Elephant' to be slow-moving, empty, arty and pretentious. For them there are plenty of mindlessly upbeat depictions of high school life to watch. But for those who can appreciate a film artist working at the peak of his form, 'Elephant' is a mesmerizing, vision-altering experience that pushes the boundaries of the medium and takes us to a place, emotionally, that we haven't ever been before.
147 out of 216 people found the following comment useful :- Brilliant and deeply affecting, 6 October 2003 Author: Howard Schumann from Vancouver, B.C.
On April 20, 1999, two boys wearing trench coats carried a daunting arsenal of weapons harnessed with military web gear into Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and systematically gunned down thirteen students. Gruesome though it was, the incident was just one of eight fatal high school shootings between 1997 and 1999. These traumatizing events began a debate about what was wrong with the nation's youth, an issue that is the subject of Gus Van Sant's Elephant. Winner of the Golden Palm at the 2003 Cannes Film Festival, Elephant is a brilliant and deeply affecting film that makes a courageous attempt to grasp the malaise of today's youth culture. Van Sant does not attempt to explain Columbine or uncover its underlying causes, and there is no revealing epiphany. His film is a highly stylized, dreamlike tone poem that defies linear conventions and is almost surreal in its approach. Using flashbacks and recurring images from different points of view, the film captures the mood and tone of its adolescent world: its perceptions, its self-absorption, and ultimately its darkest instincts. The camera is a detached observer, and the strength of the film lies in its acute power of observation and detail. Van Sant shows us all the surface rituals: the girl cheerleaders, the boys playing football, the locker-lined hallways, the academic discussions, yet an ineffable feeling of loneliness pervades. The picture features impeccable acting by a group of non-professionals from the Portland, Oregon area. Each character is introduced separately and we see them going about their business on a seemingly ordinary school day. The steadicam-tracking camera follows them as they walk through the sterile halls that seem endless. The school appears without life -- a place where one feels a desperate sense of loss.We see John (John Robinson), a blonde-haired surfer type, take over the driving from his father who has had too much to drink, then get called to task by an administrator for being late for school. Eli (Elias McConnell) is a photographer who asks classmates, including John, to pose for pictures. Football player Jordan (Jordan Taylor) meets his girlfriend Carrie (Carrie Finklea) for lunch. Three friends Nicole (Nicole George), Brittany (Brittany Mountain), and Acadia (Alicia Miles) gossip and argue about who is whose best friend. Michelle (Kristen Hicks) refuses to wear shorts, is admonished by her teacher, and then goes to work in the library. The paths of these students crisscross throughout the film and each has their own destiny to fulfill when the violence erupts. The main protagonists, Alex (Alex Frost) and Eric (Eric Deulen) are modeled after Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold of Columbine. When we first meet Alex, he is being shunned by his fellow students, called names and pelted with spitballs in science class. Alex is more outgoing and creative, Eric more passive, but their personalities complement each other. Alex and Eric wait at home until a strange package arrives in the mail while Alex plays Beethoven's "Fur Elise" on the piano. When they return to school, they are dressed in combat gear and ready to kill. Rather than giving us pat answers, Van Sant bases his approach on the elusiveness of truth, and our insatiable desire to know more. The imagery and camerawork are almost painfully beautiful, while the disconnected narrative deliberately withholds closure. On top of all this, the pacing is superb, slowly building up the almost unbearable tension. When it is finally released, the explosion hits you with a frightening energy that is as unforgettable as it is chilling.
113 out of 169 people found the following comment useful :- Throughout this Cannes-winning, almost docudrama, Van Sant turns our expectations upside down., 21 March 2004 Author: John DeSando (jdesando@columbus.rr.com) from Columbus, Ohio
What's in the name of a place? Tombstone, Columbine? The former conjures up thoughts of heroic justice, the latter mass murder. Understanding the motives of Wyatt Earp or Dillon Klebold is not as easy as the place names; interpreting a film about either event as antiviolence is not easy either.So director Gus Van Sant (`My Private Idaho,' `Good Will Hunting,' `Gerry') fictionalizes an average high school at which a Columbine-like massacre takes place. Interestingly, he makes no attempt to relay the underlying causes for the young men's decision to slaughter; in fact, he seems to try hard not to supply any reasons except for a brief segment with a boy watching a show on Nazis and a faceless mother serving pancakes. Even the lad whose father is an alcoholic is not one of the murderers.As my radio co-host, Clay Lowe, reminds me from our conversation with the director, in Van Sant's Zen Buddhist way, he seems to be saying the reasons for the crime are unknowable like human existence itself. For those critics who fault Van Sant for not committing himself to a thesis, the unknowable should have sufficed. That is not to say the director's slow pace, long takes, and interminable tracking shots aren't boring; it's just that the viewer must give in to the director's vision of teenage life as essentially devoid of humor, excitement, and rationale. For us Western rational types, this mirthless world may serve as a possible cause for the slaughter. As one of the murderers tells the other at the beginning of the rampage, `Have fun.'Throughout this Cannes-winning, almost docudrama, Van Sant turns our expectations upside down: The misfit girl is not saved just because she is like the assassins; the muscular, seemingly impervious African-American student, tracked like a savior through the halls, is not a hero at all, but another disengaged high-schooler not reading the signals.The aphorism about the ignored elephant in the living room, where it no longer can be seen because it's been there too long, or the one about the blind men who, each with a part of the elephant, can't describe the whole, can be the appropriate theme of this cinema-verite dissection of the senselessness of evil. As Joseph Conrad said about the violation of the jungle, `It was reckless without hardihood, greedy without audacity, and cruel without courage; there was not an atom of foresight or of serious intention in the whole bunch of them.' In other words, crime and it criminals are inscrutable.
105 out of 164 people found the following comment useful :- From the guy who brought you a scene-by-scene remake of Psycho..., 24 March 2005 Author: Jexxon from Norberg, Sweden
High school, kids having a normal day, two other kids shoot up the place, the end. There's the plot - glad we got that out of the way ...Elephant is a perfect example of how an utterly worthless film can hide behind an important message and get praised for doing so. How is it possible that this film has won so many awards? There's absolutely nothing in here to warrant it.Most of the film consists of steadicam shots of students walking through corridors - long endless corridors. Occasionally they stop and say something trivial to some other student. Oh, and since this is an "art film" the chronology is out of order and we get to see the same pointless events from different angles. Why? Because that's what makes the film seem like something else than a countdown to a bunch of executions.If you didn't know that this film was about school shootings, would you still be watching it after the first 30 minutes? Are the lives of John, Elias, Nathan, and everyone else really that interesting? Or are you just waiting for the guns to start blazing.There are no answers in this film (to be fair, there are no real questions raised either). Does Elephant bring anything new to the discussion regarding school shootings? No. I guess the (sort of) improvised acting and long takes are supposed to add an element of realism to the film. But it just feels fake and forced. Not for a second do I "believe" in any of these kids. They're just as stereotyped as always before.I don't believe that Van Sant is interested in giving a real depiction of this kind of shootings. Just look at the actual shooters: bullied, slightly less good looking than everybody else, Nazis, gay, gun freaks, playing video games... Talk about taking the easy way out with those characters.Elephant is the worst kind of pretentious film there is. It knows it's got nothing to say, so it discovers itself as art - that way people can look at it and say: "Oh it's so beautiful and poetic. And such an important message." The only thing Elephant managed to do, was to earn a tied top spot (together with Eyes Wide Shut) on my list of the most boring films ever made. [0/10]
60 out of 98 people found the following comment useful :- Topical tribute that we should never forget., 17 July 2004 Author: Mr Ben from Hampshire, England
I remember the fuss that surrounded this obscure movie upon release. How dare a film-maker, even one like Gus Van Sant, make a film based around the tragic shooting at Columbine? I suspect that most people's fears were based around what the film might be like. Would the murderers be defended? Would the violence be explicit or glorified? Perhaps they should have taken a moment to watch this film which treats its subject matter with the respect and gravitas it deserves.The film introduces us to several high school kids and follows them around during a normal school day. Frequently, the film overlaps itself as each character interacts with others or visits the same location other characters are doing their bit in. Groups of girls gossip in the canteen, a wannabe photographer develops his prints, a shy girl helps out in the library after a physical education lesson. Only when the horrible truth of what is to come becomes clear does the film's terrifying core reveals itself.There is no doubt that this is a powerful film, despite almost nothing happening until the final reel. All the actors are unknowns, the dialogue is largely improvised and the soundtrack is reduced to a simple piano tune played by one of the participants. But because you know what is to happen, you remain fixed on the characters milling around doing nothing - imagine "Big Brother" but with the added thrill of knowing that something sick and evil is coming. If anything, it becomes worse when the two gunmen begin to reveal themselves and their plan to the viewer. I found myself wishing I could step in the screen and stop them and it is a long time since any film made me care that much. It is quite strange how time seems to ebb by so slowly, especially as the tragedy unfolds.The violence is never glorified or justified, merely portrayed as though it were actually happening before your eyes. It will almost certainly have greater resonance among American viewers as it displays the dark side of U.S. gun laws. How many more schools must suffer tragedies such as this before something is changed? It took Britain just one such incident before some of the most strict gun laws in the world were introduced. The film is almost pleading through the screen: would you still back our gun laws if this happened at your school or your child's school?It has to be said that "Elephant" is a difficult film to watch, the sense of unease growing in the viewer as everyone in the film carries on as normal. I think that rather than exploit Columbine, Gus Van Sant has treated the memory of those who died with respect and honour. Admittedly, the film has it's faults. The ending felt rushed and confusing and the pace throughout is dreadfully slow, probably to allow the full extent of what's happening to sink in. There is no doubt that "Elephant" has more than a message at its heart - it is a powerful tribute to the pupils and teachers who died that day at Columbine High School. Never forget.
39 out of 62 people found the following comment useful :- Just because it's artistic doesn't mean it's good, 22 February 2006 Author: noahthek from United States
Elephant could have been a very beautiful short film. As a feature length movie, however, it is awful. And I fear the reason it has gotten so many positive reviews is that people feel they should like it. Maybe if I were 16 I'd think this film was spectacular too. But just because it's artistic doesn't mean it's good.I didn't have a problem with the acting, in fact the dark haired killer was pretty good. And the fact that we never know why they decided to kill everyone was acceptable. The biggest problem with the movie was that it was filmed like a short, yet was over 80 minutes long. In a feature length movie you need character development. At least one. In Elephant you learn more about John's drunk father than you do about anyone else and he had only two or three lines.And these interesting camera techniques that Van Sant employed needed to be complemented or contrasted with something. If the film ended with the surviving killer walking down a hallway as the credits rolled, then maybe the 20 minutes of other people walking wouldn't have been pointless.My advice: if within the first ten minutes of this film you find yourself waiting for something to happen, stop watching it. You'll save yourself those other 70 minutes that, otherwise, you'd never get back.
86 out of 159 people found the following comment useful :- VanSant's best thus far?, 24 May 2004 Author: David (davidals@msn.com) from Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gus VanSant's ELEPHANT isn't an unquestionable masterpiece, but it's close. I found it to be hypnotic and gripping, and in spite of knowing how things would end, I still found the ending to be devastating.The lone flaw I can identify is originality - this film owes a tremendous debt to certain international directors (Bela Tarr and an earlier Irish ELEPHANT, along with current maverick directors like Abbas Kiarostami, Hirokazu Kore'eda and Tsai Ming-liang) in both look and perspective, and it's not the only recent American film to make effective use of poetic imagery: FAR FROM HEAVEN, LOST IN TRANSLATION, CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES, RAISING VICTOR VARGAS all took a similar approach to their subject matter, and were all just as effective.But VanSant's style has matured - the sky scenes in ELEPHANT seem to quote DRUGSTORE COWBOY, and in both films they symbolize the passage of time, the general drift of life, and in opening with such a scene, VanSant is offering a subtle warning that ELEPHANT is poetic and interpretive, not a docudrama or realistic take on high school shootings, and shouldn't be taken as such. Characters drift through the day, knowing each other at mostly superficial levels (not moving beyond the level of stereotypes), which feels like what I remember high school to often be, and VanSant has no interest or need to move beyond that - to 'read into' these characters, or have them make grand speeches and gestures would've only made this film preposterous.ELEPHANT isn't about the media (which is ubiquitous), homosexuality (a random genetic occurrence found in any setting), bullies (which exist everywhere as well, though for psychological or sociological reasons) or any variety of high school caste system - it's about the randomness of violence, and the first two thirds of this film - in both the gliding long shots following characters (and the audio, with conversations drifting in and out), and the fragmented timeline (shifting back and forth in time as it moves from one character to another) - is a startling portrayal of the random, anonymous nature of an average day at school. It could be noted that the school is just a location of convenience in VanSant's hands; this film (or the incidents depicted in it) could be set anywhere, which is partly the point. In much of the world, random, senseless violence is always a possibility, which is really what this film observes and (in the horror of the depiction) protests, and it's just as much of a tragedy when it occurs in a generic, random, average setting (like this school and the people in it), as when it occurs in a dramatic, unusual setting that creates martyrs and heroes.A very challenging film, in the best of ways. For quite a while, we've seen a number of films attempt to explore similar themes (most interestingly, many of Stanley Kubrick's films), often going for the opposite approach - startling an audience with intensity and violence: the heavy-handed brutality of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (the most brilliant example of shock tactics used effectively, though lacking the subtlety that makes other Kubrick films stronger), or Larry Clark's far more exploitative and dull KIDS (a genuinely sloppy and anticlimactic film which seems to exist mainly to give a sheltered audience a few 'shocking' cheap thrills to get off on, offering few insights that hadn't already been offered elsewhere). ELEPHANT stuns primarily by taking the opposite route - languid and poetic - which ultimately makes it all the more powerful.
38 out of 65 people found the following comment useful :- You're kidding me, right?, 1 November 2006 Author: bugaboo-7 from Illinois
If a film study class ever needed to find an example of shallow, pretentious film-making this gem would fit the bill.With a listed running time of 82 minutes literally half of it was spent on laborious, pointless tracking shots of people walking. Walking through hallways, across fields, through courtyards and other places I've probably repressed by now.To add to the train wreck, there wasn't a shred of meaningful dialog, what there was of it.I guess that's because the majority of the characters were high school students and we're supposed to believe they generally don't say anything meaningful during a typical day. But this is a film and it would've been nice to get some nugget of insight or humor or anything to make us care about any of them.Finally after being bludgeoned by this seemingly interminable minimalist dreck, accented by useless time shifts, arduous 360 degree pan shots and different points of view of the same inane scenes (all a first year film student's wet dream), we arrive at the film's predictable Columbine conclusion. Yipee.Killing sprees in schools are bad, thanks for pointing that out.
10 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :- Don't be fooled by how stylistic it is, 24 April 2008 Author: Ruttiger Johanssen from Welcome, Minnesota
This was one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen. When I began watching it, I was enthralled by the hypnotic images that Van Sant is known for. It seemed cool. Then... my high wore off, and I realized that there was little to no plot, hardly any dialogue, and the movie made no point whatsoever. I hated this movie even more than I hated Gerry. There was so much potential to make a great movie about a school shooting. He could have put some characterization into the two main characters, or any other character at that. Showing small scenes of happenings around each character, and then disbanding them before something actually opens up about their persona makes me mad. Or on the other side, just showing the two shooters get into a shower together without showing a reason why is really dumb. Why were they gay? Is that why they shot up the school? Did they just decide they wanted a homosexual experience before they tried a mass murder? A character walks through the halls as if he was some sort of prophet only to be murdered without speaking a line. There are so many things that I could say to try and convince people to not see this movie, but maybe you should all see it so you can understand what makes bad movies that tons of people seem to like for absolutely no reason. Artistic doesn't automatically make a movie good!
10 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :- Awful simply awful, 22 January 2008 Author: zennikku_10 from Puerto Rico
I had high expectation going into the movie "Elephant" and was extremely disappointed. This movie is a look in the day of a school shooting, much like Columbine. It takes the audience through the high school and some of it's students, basically their day to day activities following up to the shootings.The movie has been praised for its unbiased look at theses events. It's true it doesn't take any sides and offers no real explanation for the horrible events that transpired. It also doesn't show anything about the students involved either victims or victimizers. This movie was painful for me to watch. There is really nothing good I can say about it. But there are lots of things that I can complain about. I am still baffled at the praise this movie received and maybe I just don't get this style of film making but this is the worst movie I have seen in a very long time and I believe it deserves to be in the IMDb bottom 100.My first problem with the movie is its pace. It has very long sequences of people walking around, nothing more but people walking around and we see every step that person takes from point A to point B for no good reason other than to see them walking. There is also a one minute sequence showing the sky and clouds, nothing more for a full minute. Again, maybe I just don't get these films but that to me isn't artistic or edgy it's pretentious and boring.The film makers try to create an atmosphere or reality and in my opinion they fail miserably. The "objective" view they try and create just takes away from the story they're trying to tell. Essentially, the people watching the movie don't care what happens to any of these characters because we don't know any of them. How are we supposed to care who dies if we don't find anything about them besides how the back of their heads look when they walk? The only thing that we do learn about the students are a group of "popular" girls who are superficial and don't eat and then throw up what they do eat. It doesn't show us anything, not the people being attacked nor the people attacking. So we are left to believe that theses two kids who know nothing about just woke up one day and decided to shoot the school. WHY?! What took them to such horrible and violent actions? This bothered me so much about the movie, and it bothers me even more that no one seemed to mind. While other movies are attacked for their lack of character development this one is praised.The last thing that bothered me about this movie was the acting. If they were trying to make this look real they should have hired actors that could actually act. I swear the dialog sounded like that of a soap opera. It was terrible, not like they had a world shattering script to work with. The most random things happened for no good reason. There's a scene where a boy is crying and this girl enters and asks him if he's OK and that he's crying and that's it, that's the entire scene. Nothing really happens through out the movie.This movie had the potential to be great. And I get that the film makers wanted to show us a glimpse of the school shootings and still remain objective. That's fine but they could have told a story while they were at it. They could have gotten the audience invested in the film by showing us the lives of these students, who they were, what they did, what they were going to do. Most importantly they could have showed us why these two teenage boys decided to shoot up their school. Instead we get over an hour of people walking and extremely bad acting. So disappointing.
Add another comment
