Elephant

Billy Pilgrim 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.
Click to expand...
van sant -- as well as his primary influence, belá tarr -- speaks in a cinematic language that i have developed a particular sensitivity to and understanding of. I see poetry in silences, beauty in emptiness, and significance in the smallest of gestures. further, i find the rejection of typical plot, character and dialogue devices to be quite freeing. so, i was countering your assertion that van sant and others like him were indulging themselves in minutiae that only they were interested in.

Billy Pilgrim said:
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 bullshi*. Sometmes I just can't believe how seriously some people take themselves, and their taste in film.
Click to expand...
i'm a filmmaker and an artist. god forbid I take it seriously.

Billy Pilgrim said:
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?
Click to expand...
i would not consider 2001 and Eraserhead (haven't seen slacker) to be minimalist, which is the reductivism of form and content.

have you seen anything by hou hsiao hsien?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYIPbKIiuEc

or bela tarr?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_mz39I88x4
 
I loved the film. Too me it was like poetry. I was sort of captivated by it all, the beauty and the horror. Still, I can see where it wouldn't appeal to a mass audience.

Chris
 
hou hsiao hsien is exactly who I think of when I see a film like Elephant. Same languid air. I have come to accept that most people and friends I know won't watch these movies. I don't think I am better than them, I just wish they would see what I see. I suppose these types of films are better when you watch them alone. It's kind of like going to the museum for me, cause I have to be alone if I am ever going to get in that hypnotic state where I can just throw all of my focus into a painting. If your with somebody, you are aware of their energy and you have to cater to it.
I had a photography teacher once that came into the first day of class with a stack of photography books and magazines. He layed them all out and told us to take a look. Everyone fingered through them for about 10 minutes very casually. He then told us that if we wanted to truly deepen our experience that we should look at no more than 1 picture for the remaining hour.
I would look for awhile and get impatient and want to turn the page. I knew that I would have to keep trying as long as the teacher was there. The longer I stayed and forced myself to look for something more, the more rewarding it was because I would catch something that I didn't even notice was happening for the longest time.
I'm not gonna lie and say that I am disciiplined to live this way, but when I do I am always the richer for it.
To me, Elephant or Flowers of Shanghai seem like they are created by these types of observers, and they also remind me of the spoils of patience and focus.
 
AloysiusK said:
I have come to accept that most people and friends I know won't watch these movies. I don't think I am better than them, I just wish they would see what I see. I suppose these types of films are better when you watch them alone. It's kind of like going to the museum for me, cause I have to be alone if I am ever going to get in that hypnotic state where I can just throw all of my focus into a painting. If your with somebody, you are aware of their energy and you have to cater to it.
Click to expand...

I've never heard that put to better words in my entire life. Bravo, and thank you.
 
cygnet and aloysiusk bring up great points.... minimalism (and to an extent futurism and dada) were two of the most important areas of visual art, to me.... in that, they effected me the most and opened my mind to another stage of visual language

that said....

most peoples brains simply arent "wired" (so to speak) to experience the same deeper meanings behind these genres.... no fault of them, just how biology has shaped us.... it starts to sound borderline snobbish/pret. to here ppl balk at others for their lack of understanding/desire to exp these art forms.... but at the same time I hate hearing most ppl just write these kinds of works off as "art house garbage" or student art crud, etc


oh btw, for the few that do appreciate.... have you guys ever checked out any of Matt McCormicks films? He's an experimental filmmaker from Portland OR....I believe his website is www.rodeofilmco.com ...... specifically his film "Towlines" a sort of abstract/minimalist documentary on Tow/Tug Boats...... I found it to be quite great.... check him out
 
How about some love for Surrealism?

Anyone gone to the Magritte exhibit at the LACMA?

magritte.jpg
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
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.
Click to expand...

The acting is bad b/c they aren't actors. Just regular kids from some high school. No acting experience at all. I thought that kindof added to the film.
 
filmismymedium said:
The acting is bad b/c they aren't actors. Just regular kids from some high school. No acting experience at all. I thought that kindof added to the film.
Click to expand...
i agree with that. i didn't see "bad acting". i saw an absense of acting; or any kind of heightened dramatic performance. which is different, and more natural to my eyes.
 
If you watch any of Bela Tarr's work you realize how much Van Sant ripped off from him. I think the difference is that Bela pulls it off better and you can watch an uninterrupted eleven minute take of his and be blown away.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
If you watch any of Bela Tarr's work you realize how much Van Sant ripped off from him. I think the difference is that Bela pulls it off better and you can watch an uninterrupted eleven minute take of his and be blown away.
Click to expand...

Gerry is the real "scene stealer"...

this scene was from satantango was in gerry with tumbleweeds instead of trash.

Bela Tarr -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8DOQFccj00
Van Sant -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRE5RZijKD0 (trailer, scene is at 1m37s)

as well as this scene from werckmeister harmonies focusing on the rhythm of footsteps...

Bela Tarr -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSyv_um9LEU
Van Sant -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV2z4copeLQ
 
cygnet74 said:
i agree with that. i didn't see "bad acting". i saw an absense of acting; or any kind of heightened dramatic performance. which is different, and more natural to my eyes.
Click to expand...

Shades of Pasolini, too.
 
As I mentioned earlier, my wife is one of the principal speaking characters. Even though she's only in 2 scenes that made the final cut (the producer apologized to her on premiere night for that) she acted 3-4 full days. Gus shot way, way, way more than what you see. She said even for her cafeterie scene, which is a small bit of dialogue, that Gus had her do it for hours, a million different ways. He had umpteen different movies possible out of what he shot and he carved through all of it in post.
 
This is one of the worst movies I ever had the misfortune of watching. It got to the point where I actually knew the layout of the school. At one point I said to a friend that if this kid makes a left he will get to the library and sure enough he did.

Now I get minimalist work but this movie is just full of long drawn out sequences of nothing. We see people in their day to day life and see how violence erupts out of nowhere. Ok I get that. I get that there is no answer as to why things like this occurs or why someone dies but this movie failed at the basic thing any movie should do. That is keep the attention and interest of the audience. By the 30th minute I was sick and tired of all the characters and all the steadicam work.

This movie did not work for me.
 
mjjason said:
Now I get minimalist work but this movie is just full of long drawn out sequences of nothing. We see people in their day to day life and see how violence erupts out of nowhere. Ok I get that.
Click to expand...
if that's all you see, then you don't "get" minimalism. minimalist filmmakers opt for the voluntary banishment of any loud ornaments to reveal something substantial. instead of attractive, spectacular devices the filmmaker focuses only on the fundamental. that much you seem to grasp, but to truly "get" it, you have to understand why. and that differs from film to film and artist to artist. but generally, the minimalist artist believes every truth is revolutionary and that the true heart of things uncovers the invisible, bringing it into the light where it can be shared and better understood.

mjjason said:
I get that there is no answer as to why things like this occurs or why someone dies but this movie failed at the basic thing any movie should do. That is keep the attention and interest of the audience. By the 30th minute I was sick and tired of all the characters and all the steadicam work.
Click to expand...
that's a fairly short-sighted view of what a film is "supposed" to be. what you've described is the task of entertainment; which should only apply to jerry bruckheimer and disneyland. a responsibility to entertain doesn't apply to a filmmaker like van sant. in fact, i think the reverse may be true... that the responsibility lies with the audience to engage with what they're being presented with, if they are going to get anything out of it beyond an occasional distraction from their popcorn. you may not see it, but i'm telling you that the visible foreground does, in fact, comprise more than the obvious.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top