Gus Van Sant's quietly released Elephant has gotten quite a bit of praise for its deadpan portrayal of a Columbine-like school shooting. The movie leaves nearly every question unanswered, supposedly forcing the viewer to provide their own answers. The movie's texture is long, slow takes with little action or dialogue, timelines that cross and loop repeatedly, building to staccato bursts of violence at the end, blank and affectless. The movie intends not to shock, but to confound.
(Note: this review will spoil many movie points. While the story line is already known, there are many directorial choices and tricks that will be discussed.)
I have to say, while this is by no means a bad movie, neither was I especially impressed by it. I kept waiting for "something" to happen, which I guess was Van Sant's point. While it is supposedly "deadpan" and "realistic" I found it instead to be very, very restrained but deliberate in its use of camera movement, soundtrack and incidental music, and editing. It resembles a documentary in some ways, but make no mistake: this is a work of fiction.
While he uses Columbine as his source material with some fidelity, there is one major authorial thematic intrusion. The first classroom moment we see is a meeting of the school's Gay Student Association as they discuss stereotyping, knowing a person is gay by their appearance. I may be old-fashioned, but when a school movie's first class scene is a GSA meeting, I think a point is being made. (It's even in the credits!) Had this been all, it wouldn't rate mention, but late in the movie when the killers are showering before leaving for school, they take a shower together and kiss deeply! There is no evidence that either of the real Columbine killers were gay, so this is a directorial invention that unnecessarily rattles. It smacks of making an extraneous point. Some have said that since the beta-male boy has said he's never been kissed, that it's a "last wish" thing, but it doesn't feel that way, in the context of everything else.
Van Sant borrows some documentary techniques, but they are always used in a standard Hollywood way. The film uses static camera POVs, framing that allows some action to happen or to drift out of the frame, long tracking shots without expediting cuts, and long sections without dialogue. But the static camera still pans, sometimes to stop, other times to complete a 360 degree sweep and other times conveniently following the action. He also violates that simulated docu-purity by using slow motion at key moments and by using background sounds or added "music."
For example, one early scene has the camera focus on a pick-up football game. Action moves around and out of the frame constantly. Then a new character appears in the front of the frame, running track. She stops, looks up and around and behind her, then restarts her run. This makes the important point that we can only know what we see, that things happen outside our view that may be vital to understanding. After she has left, another character approaches the camera, to change shirts, then walk into the school.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - AIRocks
I think you are way off on this film, because you don't get it.
Sure they show a whole bunch of things that could be the "reason" the two boys go on their spree, but none of them is singled out. That's the point: There is no explanation. You can't blame the video game, the nazi documentary, being picked on or easy availability of the guns (sure this couldn't happen in real life, but in Columbine, the boys bought ammo from K-Mart).
Those things are thrown out there to show that these boys are pretty normal: Lots of people are picked on, play video games, enjoy documentaries on Nazis, have easy availability to guns/ammo, and don't kill. These guys did, but for who knows what reason. That's the point. And no, the movie is not anti-gun. The movie is not "anti" anything, not even anti-violence. It's merely a portrayal of mass shooting. Nothing more. "Thirteen" is an "anti" movie, and if you threw in some guns into "Thirteen", it would be anti-gun. Elephant is NOT anti-gun.
I can't believe you made a comment about the acting: Obviously you are unaware that no actors were used in the movies. They were ALL local kids of the Oregon high school it was filmed at. NOT professional actors.
AGAIN, the point is realism.
"Where the real Columbine killers had ample evidence laying in the open in their homes, the two Elephant boys have none at all, only lots of teen-angst art and the usual teenboy clutter. "
Exactly! This is the point! People who could commit crazy violence could be ANYBODY. They don't need to be Klebold and Harris. Why don't you get that????
Perhaps your problem is that you want to think that this is a portrayal of Columbine, when in fact it's simply a portrayal of mass shooting at a school. It's fiction. Sure it might be inspired by Columbine, but a fiction film doesn't fail because it doesn't mirror non-fiction elements.
Don't be fooled: "Elephant" is Cinema Verite at its finest. Definitely a must see, but if you have kids in HS, you will be too scared to send them to school the next day because you will fear that anyone could pull the next Columbine (which is true), you don't need to be a freak/goth/etc to be ultra-violent. That's the point, and it's worth learning.
2 - mike hollihan
Thanks for the comments, AIRocks. You may be right and I don't get it. That's why I reviewed a movie I didn't particularly like: to explore my reactions and see what's going on. But I stand by what I said.
This movie IS NOT cinema verite. You can read more about CV here and here. Clearly, Elephant isn't CV. GVS uses the forms and techniques, but he has clearly shaped the whole project to a preconceived end. Watch the "making of" featurette and you'll see them rehearsing the hallway scenes, with the actor making suggestions about changing how he walks to allow the camera to catch what GVS wants to see. That's not cinema verite!
This movie is a highly stylised standard Hollywood fictional film. GVS has points to make and uses the film to make them. The movie is the vehicle for GVS' point; the point doesn't arise from the subject of the film.
I didn't know that all the student "actors" were just students! That kid Alex (the John Cusack lookalike) needs to get an agent. Of course, Tim Bottoms and the guy who played the principle were real "Hollywood actors"....
My feeling is that GVS was trying to gull us with his movie and you fell for it. But I thank you for sharing your thoughts.
3 - Sigma
Your review is extremely thoughtful! My friend Chris and I watched this movie and hated it immediately afterwards, but I kept thinking about it for the next few days and decided there were portions I liked a great deal (and visually, it's a pretty movie, although the long static shots were irritating). I was really impressed to find out the kids were all local students- if you go to the film's website it gives you short biographies on each. In fact, they all used their first names. 'Alex' was played by Alex Frost.