Elephant
- Thread starter FilmMakerr
- Start date
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
back on topic:
I think minimalist fillmakers such as the Dardenne brothers, Hou Hsiao Hsien, Bela Tarr and now Van Sant are some of the ballsiest out there. The fullness of minimalist storytelling is a rare gift for a receptive viewer. It offers deep sensation only in a particular case if it is able to intimate that the visible foreground does comprise more than the obvious, where a more substantial experience exists beyond the incidental events. I consider them 'ballsy' risk takers because to the uninitiated, unreceptive masses... "nothing happens" in their films.
I think minimalist fillmakers such as the Dardenne brothers, Hou Hsiao Hsien, Bela Tarr and now Van Sant are some of the ballsiest out there. The fullness of minimalist storytelling is a rare gift for a receptive viewer. It offers deep sensation only in a particular case if it is able to intimate that the visible foreground does comprise more than the obvious, where a more substantial experience exists beyond the incidental events. I consider them 'ballsy' risk takers because to the uninitiated, unreceptive masses... "nothing happens" in their films.
Last edited:
FilmMakerr
Veteran
just out of curiousity, was I the only one that thought the characters we were introduced too were all gonna be victims?
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
that's what i thought the red colored clothing was going to signify. a big point was made about introducing certain characters in that color. and with john in yellow, i thought he would be a hero or protected. as well as the black student in yellow i thought would be protected and a hero. as it turned out, there was no decipherable meaning, which i believe was the point.FilmMakerr said:
Last edited:
FilmMakerr
Veteran
cygnet74 said:
right, well, with me I thought every character introduced had a reason for the introduction. After I watched the movie, I realized they could of introduced ANY of those students at the school, since none were gonna die whats the point of introduction?
van sant should of gone in deeper with the suspects instead, showing some background there, atleast it would of made more sense.
Shawn Philip Nelson
Veteran
My wife is one of the principal actors in Elephant (she was picked by Gus himself). She was originally cast as the lead bulimic girl but was too short so Gus made a new part for her. She's the girl in the cafeteria that brags about her singing skills then later in the movie she runs into the bathroom and has a staredown with the bulimics right before the killers run in. Anyhow, I think the movie sucks but it got my wife into acting (she wasn't before) which eventually led her to audition for my movie (I was thrilled to get one of the "legit" actors instead of just acting students). So, I feel some personal debt to the movie Elephant 
.
.
Billy Pilgrim
Stye in my eye
Sad Max said:
I don't know, I guess.
I haven't been logging on often, so this is obviously late. I think this thread is kind of funny, because it's one of those threads that's of a film considered to be "high art", and it starts off with some people saying they didn't like the film, followed by a really pretentious post from another user, saying that everyone who didn't like it, didn't like it because they're stupid and they don't get it. Only they say it in a more pedantic, long-winded manner. Then they critisize the people who wrote their two-sentence-long opinions, as well as critisizing another user for comparing the film being discussed with another more recent work by the same director that incorporates the same style, not realizing that they're using another example to illustrate how they feel about the film at hand in a vague way, in a weak attempt at trying to come off as intelligent.
Yeah, this is definitely one of those threads. I thought Elephant was good the first time I saw it. Then, after a while,I realized how self-indulgent it was, and how obvious the message is. I always knew the acting was horrible though. Well, as I recall, the dark-haired shooter was okay. I'll give the shooting sequence to Van Sant. It was terrifying. At least it was when I first saw it--my senior year in high school. Last Days is even worse.
I dunno. 'Good' and 'Bad' are so hard to stick, once you're outside the realm of hard technical stuff. Sometimes even then. Either a film/book/painting/dance number speaks to you, or it doesn't, and I suspect that the less something speaks to someone, the more likely they'll perceive it as 'bad.' I lose track of the number of works I've seen that made a very poor first impression, in which I found things to admire or enjoy on repeat exposures...
Billy Pilgrim
Stye in my eye
Films have had that effect one me. But it was the opposite with Elephant. The more I watched it, the more I realized how much I didn't like it, and how bad I thought it really was. But as you were saying, some thigns speak to you, others don't, which I percieve as a way of explaining the difference between "good" and "bad" to people. Some people don't like certain films for shallow reasons, but I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt, before board members begin to condescend. Elephant scared me a little, but it didn't say anything important to me, that hasn't already been said before, and well at that.
Billy Pilgrim
Stye in my eye
Films have had that effect one me. But it was the opposite with Elephant. The more I watched it, the more I realized how much I didn't like it, and how bad I thought it really was. But as you were saying, some thigns speak to you, others don't, which I percieve as a way of explaining the difference between "good" and "bad" to people. Some people don't like certain films for shallow reasons, but I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt, before board members begin to condescend. Elephant scared me a little, but it didn't say anything important to me, that hasn't already been said before, and well at that.
Billy Pilgrim
Stye in my eye
Okay, I've had double posting happen before, but that is ridiculous. I only double-clicked it once.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
what does self-indulgent mean here? would you consider any minimalist filmmaker that aspires to communicate his own subjective view as self-indulgent? is he or she giving you too much room to consider what you're seeing? the spaces are there for the people that want to engage the film. and because this is a temporal art form, the timeline on shich events unfold is the canvas. that doesn't mean every film needs to compress time to "keep things interesting". no, watching a student make his way to class can hold an infinite number of minimalist revelations. i don't think it's selfish of a filmmaker to explore this. especially when so few do. and on the flip side, a moviemaker like michael bay is someone i consider to be largely self-indulgent. watching 'the island' was like having michael bay masturbate in my face. frankly.
Gee, thanks for a mental image that I will take with me to the grave...cygnet74 said:
Really, isn't almost any creative art 'self indulgent' for the person creating it? Especially film. William S Burroughs observed that most critics don't complain about what an artist actually *did*; they complain because the artist didn't do what they thought he *should* have done.
Last edited:
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
well, i guess the defining line is whether or not what the filmmaker has to say speaks to you (what you said earlier). a film like elephant was made for and speaks to a select audience that has developed a very specific sensitivity to its kind of aesthetic. whereas, your more mainstream work is made for broad appeal by indulgng the most common escapist fantasies. my problem with that however is when you make a film for everyone, you're really making it for no one in particular.Sad Max said:
Billy Pilgrim
Stye in my eye
cygnet74 said:
I don't know if you're speaking directly to me, but either way, I'm insulted. There are those who think Picasso was a genius, and those who think he wasn't. To each his own. I feel as if you're challenging me to an intellectual pissing contest. How does Michael Bay's name make an appearance in every thread created for an art house film? I really hope you're articulate enough to realize that, not liking a certain art film, does not automatically mean that someone doesn't appreciate art. If you look at it from a more abstract angle, it could be that my tastes are so refined that I can recognize Elephant as being bullshit. Sometmes I just can't believe how seriously some people take themselves, and their taste in film. By the way, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Slacker, and Eraserhead are a few of my all-time favorite films. So yeah, I can handle a minimalistic style and a slow pace. Who the hell cares about what I think of Elephant anyway?
Well that was a lot of hot air... Using the term self-indulgent is a huge cop out when discussing films. It's laziness. We're not really discussing the film now, we're discussing people's opinions of them, how someone can call it art, which is all good and fun, but the art versus taste debate always seems to be the last stage of discussion when a film draws polar opinions.Billy Pilgrim said: