Elephant

Elephant (2003)

**** (out of 4)

Gun Van Zant's haunting and powerful look at a handful of teenagers at school leading up to a deadly shooting clearly inspired by the Columbine massacre. I'm not sure if I'd call this a flat out masterpiece but it's pretty damn close. The non-actors used was a terrific decision by Van Zant because it adds to us getting to know them and we're not distracted by any named actor who would clearly become the star of the film. The poetic camera movements just pulled me into this hypnotic imagery, which is somber at every turn and just grows sadder as the film moves along since we know where it's going to end. Van Zant also wisely doesn't glamorize any of the characters, which is important since I personally didn't see any type of message here. I think this film could have been used to display all sorts of messages but instead it's just a filmmaker with a camera and telling a story. The film isn't about weak kids taking revenge or about innocent kids being killed. The film isn't really about anything except for the sudden outbreak of violence, which can pop up at anytime and anywhere. The way Van Zant takes all the stories and blends them together is something we've seen countless times before but the director makes it all seem very original and unique here. A lot of films would try to answer questions but this one doesn't, which I think is another great move because we can never really understand the reasons behind these violent outbursts. It could have been the bullying, it might have been depression or it might have just been something to do for fun. To say this film is brave would be an understatement but balls isn't something common among films today and this one here certainly has them.

Imagine it: A horrific tragedy has taken place in a local school, the violence and inexplicability of which has stunned everyone who has heard of it. A meeting is announced that will address the issues that such an event has raised. At the meeting, the main speaker takes the floor, stares at his audience for a few long seconds, then shrugs his shoulders and mumbles "S**t happens". What? You ask. That's it? "Well," he says, "you can't expect me to provide YOU with the answers. But I did take some nice photos".

That's "Elephant".

It would be hard to tackle such a topic without sinking into "Movie of the Week" territory, so Van Sant avoids this by sitting down and not doing much of anything. But artfully.

Why was this film made? What does it tell us about the events? That they happened. What does he tell us about the victims? Nothing, absolutely nothing. We follow them around, interminably (I feel I knew the backs of their heads intimately, if nothing else) and it's a lot like reality tv -- dull: uninvolving, unrevealing and uneventful. What does it tell us about the perpetrators? Nothing we don't already know, haven't already read. Insights? None. It exists in its own universe, blank and unfeeling, a perfect circle, Art for Art's sake.

As far as it goes, there are some beautiful touches, here -- the overlapping time frames, the slowing down of the action to signify a small, private, joyful moment -- but Van Sant bottles out on taking them anywhere, afraid as he seems to be of taking a stand, making a statement or engaging, emotionally, in any way with anything here.

All in all, an Artsy and pointless exercise in navel-gazing, one that masquerades as something much deeper, and hopes its own silence and blankness will be taken for wisdom.

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.

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

My opinions regarding 'Elephant' are somehow mixed. Okay, so I knew beforehand that the film was going to be about a shootout in a school. So that may have influenced my opinion but on the other hand if I did not know this, would I have sat through the entire movie? I ask this because the first hour drags. The cinematography is good and at times the viewer feels like a stalker or a fellow student observer. 'Elephant' takes place during the day of the shoot and the director gives us a glimpse of the lives of some of the teenagers but none of them were particularly interesting and Van Sant has adhered to using clichés such as portraying the 'nerd', the 'loser', the 'popular one', the 'bulemic girls' etc. Some questions I want to ask: Is it really that easy to get hold of such a high profile weapon, that too, delivered at your own doorstep? Van Sant doesn't directly give the motivation behind the student who decides to massacre the students although he does hint bullying and teasing as a possible motive. The shooters had to be repressed homosexuals? Why was it necessary to show them as homosexuals? I think many have liked it for the shock in the final thirty minutes but what I would have rather liked to see was a story about what causes young teenagers to take drastic action or what was going through the minds of students when this happened (which is what I thought 'Elephant' was going to be about). I like 'Gus Van Sant' as a director but in my humble opinion 'Elephant' is far from his best work. However, after seeing the film, it did get me thinking of the real life incidents that happened and the innocent lives that were lost. So, it would be wrong of me to say that 'Elephant' was a complete waste. It's not horrendous. It just could have easily been far better.