Varios estudiantes de instituto viven un día ordinario mientras dos de ellos preparan algo más siniestro.Varios estudiantes de instituto viven un día ordinario mientras dos de ellos preparan algo más siniestro.Varios estudiantes de instituto viven un día ordinario mientras dos de ellos preparan algo más siniestro.
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Elenco
- Premios
- 8 premios ganados y 13 nominaciones en total
Carrie Finn
- Carrie
- (as Carrie Finklea)
Ellis Williams
- GSA Teacher
- (as Ellis E. Williams)
Chantelle Chriestenson Nelson
- Noelle
- (as Chantelle Chriestenson)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
A refreshing film that was so simple that all of the complicatedness of the motives was so simply explained, and it worked. Not to mention the cinematography and lengthy shots were amazing. Also, from a 52 year old man, I expected worse of high school student dialogue, but boy was I surprised. Being in high school myself, I completely was convinced of this being actual high school dialogue, perhaps because much of it was improvised. I just cannot describe my feelings after watching the movie, like when most finish great films. It was realistic and simple, yet went to levels of insanity.
p.s.--the sound design was absolutely fantastic
p.s.--the sound design was absolutely fantastic
I just finished watching this movie and I am struck by how quickly I forgot how the world looks when you are a teenager. The movie was excruciatingly slow to start. Instead of formulaic pacing, this film forced us to move at its pace, where we were committed to each long slow camera pan or walk through with the characters. As I have grown up the scope of my life has been ever widening. It stands to reason then that during my younger years I barely conceived of life outside of what I knew, or where I was able to walk. This is what stands out to me about Elephant. When events like this take place, we immediately contextualize them and are unable to look at it from the level of those involved. What Gus VanSant does is bring us very close to the story. I don't see that he attempted to answer many questions, or to portray any specific characters in any light, but he attempts to bring the audience inside such a situation. To the villains in this film there is no deep reasoning, and no evil justification. Aside from revenge over minor school harassment they want to play a more realistic video game. They have created their own reality and carry out their deeds inside of it. This film was made without exploiting the memory of those who have actually been involved in such an event. Since it has been 5 years since these events took place, I am surprised to see a fresh look at this subject matter. What is especially heartbreaking about these tragedies is that when there is no meaning and just random violence there is nothing we can learn by investigating it. The irony of course is that I got this message from viewing a movie that explores this subject matter. I think the movie tells us we can only move on after senseless tragedy, and not solve the problems that caused them. When there is nothing behind the eyes of the people carrying this out, there is no great value in making sense of their actions. It is human nature to do so, and you would think that logically there would be theories, conclusions, etc about the causes. However we would gain much more by focusing on the people who were the victims, and learning about them. In this way they may make a positive mark on us.
It's been over five years now but we still try to understand why Columbine happened. As exploration of the tragic and shocking event, poetic, poignant, and sadly under-seen "Elephant" has no equals. The film did not have a lot of press, and my local video store had only one copy sitting on the bottom shelf.
There could be different reasons for the title: it could've came from the old saw about the elephant in the room no one notices, or from the legend of four blind men who only could feel one part of the animal and described the whole as a part; or it could've come from the fact the elephants have a good memory and remember all insults.
The film shows several kids who just spend a typical day in a typical suburban American High school that ends up in a massacre. "Elephant" asks questions: What was it like to be there that day? Who could've seen it coming? What does it mean to be an American teenager and live in the world where it happens? For many of the film's characters those questions will never be answered.
"Elephant" is painfully honest and sincere about the complexities of teenage life - the time when one tries to achieve impossible - to be unique and to fit with the crowd.
I think "Elephant" is the best film about teenagers since - well, the only one that comes to my mind is "Welcome to the Dollhouse" (1995) by Todd Solondz.
I think it is one of the best anti - violence films ever.
There could be different reasons for the title: it could've came from the old saw about the elephant in the room no one notices, or from the legend of four blind men who only could feel one part of the animal and described the whole as a part; or it could've come from the fact the elephants have a good memory and remember all insults.
The film shows several kids who just spend a typical day in a typical suburban American High school that ends up in a massacre. "Elephant" asks questions: What was it like to be there that day? Who could've seen it coming? What does it mean to be an American teenager and live in the world where it happens? For many of the film's characters those questions will never be answered.
"Elephant" is painfully honest and sincere about the complexities of teenage life - the time when one tries to achieve impossible - to be unique and to fit with the crowd.
I think "Elephant" is the best film about teenagers since - well, the only one that comes to my mind is "Welcome to the Dollhouse" (1995) by Todd Solondz.
I think it is one of the best anti - violence films ever.
'Elephant' deals with one of the elephants in America's living room (one of the obvious but not dealt with problem - the culture of vulgarized violence which, combined with the easy access to weapons lead to the violent high school incidents like the one in Columbine. Director Gus Van Sant after cashing some good money from a previous commercial success did this movie the way he wanted, so he is the only to praise or blame for the film success or failure. The treatment is really different from what you expect, much is being invested in showing the banality of the teenagers life, the next door kid profile of both vilains and victims. No obvious message, the viewer is left completely on his own to draw its own conclusions, like in real life. The method works for much of the film, you feel the tension because you know what happened, but otherwise much of the film could be a high-school documentary, sometimes amusing, sometimes boring (why these long corridor shots?). I liked this approach to a point, but then too much is left to the viewer, and the characters (acted mostly by non-professional actors) do not have enough emotional depth. A film is to be judged based on what you see on the screen. Based on this it gets only 7 out of 10 on my personal scale, although the discussions it opens on the subject, and the thoughts after the screening may grant it a higher rate.
This movie is a fictional story, but it is essentially a retelling of the Columbine High massacre. It only spans maybe an hour in time, but it coves the points of view of a lot of people, from victims to bystanders to the murderers themselves.
It's a particularly important piece because of its storytelling style. Van Sant has the camera follow one character at a time, on the day of the murders, and lets the story tell itself. It is about as neutral as one can get, really. Van Sant doesn't use foreshadowing, he doesn't frame any character up as a particular archetype, he doesn't play ominous music, and the dialogue is about as inane and high school-ish as you can get, very realistic actually. There are no jokes, and relatively few scenes designed for maximum shock effect. That's the whole point: the situation was a normal high school day, and the very events, regardless of how you paint them, should be as shocking as anything. All the while you're asking yourself, "How can this possibly lead to a massacre? These are all normal kids," which faithfully recreates the tone of morning leading up the unexpected real life events.
If you're looking for a conventional movie with a clear beginning, middle, end, good and bad guys, glorified heroism and demonized violence, you won't like this movie, it's not a made for TV special, it's closer to an art film.
Some people have expressed anger at the movie, accusing it of some sort of liberal Michael Moore anti-2nd amendment sympathies or heavy handed preaching. Having seen it I can't possibly understand what they're talking about. My suspicion is that they're seeing what they want to see. And that leads me to wonder just what a good movie about Columbine would look like, in their opinions. To me, this is it.
It's a particularly important piece because of its storytelling style. Van Sant has the camera follow one character at a time, on the day of the murders, and lets the story tell itself. It is about as neutral as one can get, really. Van Sant doesn't use foreshadowing, he doesn't frame any character up as a particular archetype, he doesn't play ominous music, and the dialogue is about as inane and high school-ish as you can get, very realistic actually. There are no jokes, and relatively few scenes designed for maximum shock effect. That's the whole point: the situation was a normal high school day, and the very events, regardless of how you paint them, should be as shocking as anything. All the while you're asking yourself, "How can this possibly lead to a massacre? These are all normal kids," which faithfully recreates the tone of morning leading up the unexpected real life events.
If you're looking for a conventional movie with a clear beginning, middle, end, good and bad guys, glorified heroism and demonized violence, you won't like this movie, it's not a made for TV special, it's closer to an art film.
Some people have expressed anger at the movie, accusing it of some sort of liberal Michael Moore anti-2nd amendment sympathies or heavy handed preaching. Having seen it I can't possibly understand what they're talking about. My suspicion is that they're seeing what they want to see. And that leads me to wonder just what a good movie about Columbine would look like, in their opinions. To me, this is it.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThere are only about 88 shots in this film. More than half of them are in the last twenty minutes.
- ErroresAs Michelle is show pushing a trolley of books in the library over to a shelf just after the photographer walks in, you can see the yellow and white tape markings on the floor that indicate where she is supposed to stop the trolley and were she is to stand to stack the shelf.
- ConexionesFeatured in Siskel & Ebert & the Movies: The Best Films of 2003 (2004)
- Bandas sonorasPiano Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor, Op. 27 No. 2 'Moonlight' I. Adagio sostenuto
(1800-01)
Composed by Ludwig van Beethoven
Courtesy of FirstCom Music, Inc.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Elephant?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 3,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 1,266,955
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 93,356
- 26 oct 2003
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 10,012,022
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 21 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.33 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta