Elephant

FilmMakerr

FilmMakerr

Veteran
Gus Van Sants "Elephant"

Who's seen it?

I just watched this, its definatly long at times and very slow, but I think it was very reastically done, to the point where I could just remember all the dialogue being used by friends and people back in high school.

7 out of 10, -3 for being slow and having a bad ending.
 
A lot of the acting was really, really bad. I don't know, Gus Van Sant has gotten really self-indulgent. Last Days is even worse than Elephant, with 20 minute static shots of a guy cooking macaroni.
 
I thought it was a boring piece of crap to be honest. When you watch that movie you watch it several times in different angles and I thought that was just stupid. There weren't really any cool shooting scenes either. I expected waay more from Gus Van sant. That must have been a weekend project for him.
 
I had such high hopes for this film but the film reminded me of that kid with his homemade hasn't been patented yet steadicam just walking around following people for hours on end. He had these long shots that added nothing to the story, second rate acting that didn't work, and a storyline that doesn't progress the story. In my opinion it was garbage and I think Van Sant should have stepped aside and let Smithee take credit for this one, because it really is that bad. Honestly, what a complete piece of crap.
 
I rented it a while ago because I had heard great things about it. Even got my wife to watch it. Needless to say she was close to taking away my video rental privileges after that steaming pile of dog feces.

not only was the acting, shooting, directing and script bad but the movie is based on the premise that you know what's going to happen. if you don't it's so boring you start contemplating changing out the water in your aquarium instead.

mor10
 
yeah, I expected better as well, I only liked it because of how realistic it was. Its totally something I could of made, or anyone here could of made, even better for that matter. I expected all the characters that we were introduced to to die at the end, there was no reason what so ever to introduce them to us, and tell us alittle about their background just because they "ran" or "bumped" into the estranged killers at the end.
 
I watched it in High Definition and thought it looked unbelievably great. HD is the best way to enjoy this slow paced movie. Just enjoy the color and the shots themselves. I thought the story was alright and good enough of a base to showcase the gorgeous visuals.
 
So far, people have referenced a different Gus Van Sant movie to detract it with a false statement that there was a 20 minute shot of a guy cooking macaroni(in the other film, no less)....a disappointed viewer because there were "no cool shooting scenes"....somebody who was upset that it was based on a real event...and a somebody who says that they could've "totally" made this movie themselves.

IT's cool if you don't dig a film, but with reviews that are filled with words like stupid, crap, and garbage that don't cite specific scenes or examples of how things don't work, I don't understand what kind of contribution is being made to a discussion. People's expression of opinion tends to reveal more about themselves than what they are speaking of.
Maybe its just me, but I would like to see some reviews/opinions on this site that give evidence that people made an attempt to create a thought or an argument, without writing whatever visceral, reactionary emotion that pops into their heads at the moment.
Its not the negativity that is irritating, because I find it equally amateur to post positive reviews with this same, animalistic effort. It's the quality that is missing.

And as far as the no cool shooting scenes comment goes, besides it being a disturbing opinion given the events it was based upon, I think this is one of the biggest reasons the movie is interesting. I'm pretty sure when people at Columbine witnessed the shooting spree they didn't think it was cool either. Anybody who has been involved in a traumatic event such as this, usually cites the randomness of it all. The big questions are why did it happen to me? There are no definitive answers, for the most part.

I don't think this movie was meant to be "enjoyed". For me it was more of a nutritious experience. I don't know how long it stuck with me, but after I watched this film I really felt like I was reminded that people have breaking points. The breaking points are equaled from how others treat them in everday life. High school can be a pretty awful place for many people. This film is a pretty explosive reminder for me that we should treat eachother with kindness and attention with every chance we get. Not only for the sake of others, but for the community around us, since they may be victimized for something that had little or nothing to do with them. Its a tragic result that many have to pay for the cruelty of a few.
The documentary, non-actor feel made it feel less like a movie for and more like real people. Spending moments of banality with them heightened my horror when the shooting spree begins. I found this to be more poignant and stomach churning than coming up with contrived converstaions that they never had that we're appointed for the purpose of generating a sensational sympathy response in the audience.
 
Last edited:
I actually liked Elephant, one thing I thought really effective was the camera work. At times the camera just sits in a scene like a bored teenager, and then it travels around the school, it really does function as a strong POV for the teenagers in highschool.

At other times the camera's POV functions as a videogame, and that parallels the first person shooter the two psychotic kids play. The film strongly establishes the disconnect between the kids parents and their lives. One of the problems with elephant, or maybe it's a strength is that it doesn't provide commentary on the events. I don't think America, or even Van Sant can give any clear answers as to why Columbine occured. (Doing my best not to get things into political territory, even though this film begs for offtopic political discussion)

It's not a typical narrative, which is interesting but not easy for an audience to engage in. The audience doesn't have a main character to folow, unless you want to call the camera the main character, it is in a way, but it's like an insect exploring the school, a fly on the wall here and there. I haven't seen it in a few years, but I didn't think it garbage or a piece of shi*. I wouldn't call it great entertainment either, but it's still a worthwhile film. :)
 
i got a kick out of trying to determine to what purpose the very deliberate use of the color red was meant to 'mark' characters in the story. would they be killed? would they survive? and what was the meaning of 'lifeguard'? in the end, there was no pattern.. which i believe, was the point.
 
gus van sant work is always smart.
i've seen "gerry", the story is the more minimalist i've ever seen: 2 guys lost in a desert, nothing more. i've been hypnotized for 2 hours.
i loved "elephant" too.
it's like music. there is some music on which you want to dance or destroy your motel room. and there is music you're just enjoying, laying down on the floor and smoking some illicite stuff.
most of the movies tell you what to think every second. "elephant" (and "gerry") pushes the audience to think.
 
AloysiusK said:
And as far as the no cool shooting scenes comment goes, besides it being a disturbing opinion given the events it was based upon, I think this is one of the biggest reasons the movie is interesting. I'm pretty sure when people at Columbine witnessed the shooting spree they didn't think it was cool either. Anybody who has been involved in a traumatic event such as this, usually cites the randomness of it all. The big questions are why did it happen to me? There are no definitive answers, for the most part.
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying that shooting kids at school in real life is cool. You never watched a movie and saw someone get shot and said to yourself, "wow that was a COOL"? Like when Marvin gets his head blown off in Pulp Fiction. Who says that movie was based off of Columbine? It doesn't say that in the movie. The only word that comes to my mind with this movie is CRAP. Like someone else said, its almost like some guy just got his steadicam from B&H and he wrote a script that would involve alot of stedicam shots.
 
NO CA$H said:
I wasn't saying that shooting kids at school in real life is cool. You never watched a movie and saw someone get shot and said to yourself, "wow that was a COOL"? Like when Marvin gets his head blown off in Pulp Fiction.
Click to expand...
my mind is splitting from how terribly ironic this is. i can honestly say i don't have a "that's COOL!" reaction to seeing someone's head get blown off. usually, im horrified or shocked which i believe to be the intended result. it's not something that brings me a brief moment of joy. which brings me to the undeniable irony -- certainly for Eric and Dylan it was a gratifying experience. which happens to be one small thread contained in Elephant's throughline. get help. ;)
NO CA$H said:
Who says that movie was based off of Columbine?
Click to expand...
who says? :huh: i think you could rely on even below average intelligence to extrapolate that one. oh, and the film's director says so, too.
 
Intersting interview, I liked what he said here.

"It's not that I don't want you involved in the characters, but I want you involved by watching them, an observation, the way documentarian Frederick Wiseman sits back and lets things occur. We could have invented a more traditional psychological narrative. I have my ideas why Columbine happened, but that's not this film. I wanted a poetic impression rather than dictating an answer. I wanted to include the audience's thoughts."
Click to expand...
If you've never seen any Frederick Wiseman work it's worth checking out Titticut Follies or Highschool. I like that Van Sant adapted that style in the context of a fictional film. I thought it was effective.

And I was right about this reference, which was very obvious...

When I talked with Van Sant at the Toronto Fest, he confided one major influence on Elephant which he certainly hadn't mentioned at Cannes. Video games. "I didn't know anything about them, but people kept saying, 'It's those games that cause violence,' so I started watching them. And playing them. I played Tomb Raider until I was obsessed with it. It calls for an interactive imagination, and there are some intellectual sides to some other games.
Click to expand...
 
cygnet74 said:
my mind is splitting from how terribly ironic this is. i can honestly say i don't have a "that's COOL!" reaction to seeing someone's head get blown off. usually, im horrified or shocked which i believe to be the intended result. it's not something that brings me a brief moment of joy. which brings me to the undeniable irony -- certainly for Eric and Dylan it was a gratifying experience. which happens to be one small thread contained in Elephant's throughline. get help. ;)who says? :huh: i think you could rely on even below average intelligence to extrapolate that one. oh, and the film's director says so, too.
Click to expand...
I can tell the difference between a movie and real life so maybe you're the one who should be getting the help. The movie wasn't anything like Columbine. -SPOILER- The kids bought the guns on the internet, they made out in that shower, they weren't named Eric and Dylan, and the school wasn't Columbine. Gus Van Sant seems to make movies based off things but its like he's scared to go all the way with it. He did the same thing with Last Days.
 
If the movie wasn't anything like Columbine, then how come residents convinced their local theaters that they we're "not ready" to view the film, and it was still too sensitive?

Literal approximations usually devolve into biopic exploitation, while this film is more about involving the audience, and not specific people.
"Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about events, and small minds talk about people."
 
Uhh...this movie directly referenced Columbine. That's why there was controversy surrounding its release.

Now back to discussing the film, or is it bedtime for this thread already?

3....2.....1.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top