Elephant (2003) User Reviews (732)

8/10 good dialogue, unique storytelling

[ShimmySnail · 8/10 · 6 June 2004]

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.

What we learn when we look from the inside out...

[Mercenary151 · 7/10 · 5 April 2004]

I just finished watching this movie and I am struck by how quickly I forgot how the world looks when you are a teenager. The movie was excruciatingly slow to start. Instead of formulaic pacing, this film forced us to move at its pace, where we were committed to each long slow camera pan or walk through with the characters. As I have grown up the scope of my life has been ever widening. It stands to reason then that during my younger years I barely conceived of life outside of what I knew, or where I was able to walk. This is what stands out to me about Elephant. When events like this take place, we immediately contextualize them and are unable to look at it from the level of those involved. What Gus VanSant does is bring us very close to the story. I don't see that he attempted to answer many questions, or to portray any specific characters in any light, but he attempts to bring the audience inside such a situation. To the villains in this film there is no deep reasoning, and no evil justification. Aside from revenge over minor school harassment they want to play a more realistic video game. They have created their own reality and carry out their deeds inside of it. This film was made without exploiting the memory of those who have actually been involved in such an event. Since it has been 5 years since these events took place, I am surprised to see a fresh look at this subject matter. What is especially heartbreaking about these tragedies is that when there is no meaning and just random violence there is nothing we can learn by investigating it. The irony of course is that I got this message from viewing a movie that explores this subject matter. I think the movie tells us we can only move on after senseless tragedy, and not solve the problems that caused them. When there is nothing behind the eyes of the people carrying this out, there is no great value in making sense of their actions. It is human nature to do so, and you would think that logically there would be theories, conclusions, etc about the causes. However we would gain much more by focusing on the people who were the victims, and learning about them. In this way they may make a positive mark on us.

Elegantly Disturbing and Shallow

[WriterDave · 7/10 · 3 October 2005]

I've never been a believer in Gus Van Sant the auteur. "Drugstore Cowboy" was a quasi-entertaining and promising first feature most notable for its pretty North Western scenery and the even prettier Heather Graham in her film debut, but nothing too special ever followed, and the "Pscyho" remake was an abomination on every level. Van Sant's mainstream films were successful for reasons beyond his artistic input. "To Die For" heralded Nicole Kidman's first tour de force, and "Good Will Hunting" launched the careers of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck for better and for worse.

Here, with "Elephant" Van Sant returns to the same pretty North Western scenery (just an in "Drugstore Cowboy" the movie was filmed on location in Portland, Oregon) and populates it with even prettier young men and women sleepwalking through an "interpretation" of the events of the Columbine Massacre. There's an elegant listlessness to the camera-work as Van Sant lulls us into a beautifully mundane day in the life of some random high school students. There's a creepy undercurrent, not only in the voyeuristic way in which he films his young charges, but also in the long lingering single shots of students walking through hallways and sidewalks from behind. Suddenly, as the plot of two alienated young men comes to fruition, you realize that the camera-work is meant to copy the "killer's-eye-view" of the violent and sadistic video games the young men play before making it a reality at their school. There's a rising tension that few film-makers have been able to craft, and for that Van Sant deserves accolades.

For all the artificial prettiness, this is without a doubt a highly disturbing viewing experience. In the end, some of it seemed too random (what was the point of the "Benny" character or the kiss in the shower?), and it culminates ambiguously with all the loose ends untethered. A more capable story-teller would have offered a conclusion, but all Van Sant leaves us is with some haunting classical music and beautiful shot of a cloud covered North Western sky.

A film that will haunt you

[Buddy-51 · 7 November 2004]

'Elephant' is Gus Van Sant's brilliant and mind-blowing distillation of teenage alienation and angst. Set on one of those sterile suburban high school campuses, the film recounts a typical day in the life of a school - typical that is until it ends in a Columbine-type massacre.

Here is a film in which style does indeed become substance, where the 'meaning' lies in the form and shape of the film itself. Rather than tell us a conventional 'story,' Van Sant has chosen to give his film the look and feel of a pseudo-documentary, merely recording the events and conversations that occur that day, a day we are led to believe is not unlike every other at that school. Van Sant's prying camera eye turns us into voyeurs, as we observe the cliquishness, petty humiliations, and sheer overwhelming banality that have defined high school life for so many of us. Van Sant uses space brilliantly. Despite the fact that this is undoubtedly a school with a large student population, the characters on whom he focuses seem always to be somehow isolated from almost everyone else around them. None of the characters we see really seem to have any connection with one another, and even when they do, it tends to be of only the most superficial kind. They are like people stranded on their own individual islands, enduring their suffering alone and in silence. Van Sant sets the tone with his tracking shots of characters strolling down seemingly endless corridors heading to nowhere in particular, making little or no human contact as they go. The camera, throughout the film, seems to have a mind of its own, often avoiding what seems to be a major plot point and, instead, zeroing in on something that seems to have little or no real importance. Then through the process of editing, he weaves nothing less than a tapestry of alienation. By concentrating so intently on the seemingly irrelevant minutia of daily life, Van Sant brings to the film a sense of documentary immediacy most fiction films lack. We are made privy to bits and pieces of conversation only to have the talk dribble off as we or the characters turn the corner and move on to the next group of people. It is the deadening 'sameness,' the insignificance of so much of what we see and hear that makes this such a sad and haunting experience.

One thing Van Sant refuses to do is try to 'explain' why the killers act as they do. He's smart enough to know that there is no single explanation for such behavior, that it arises from a variety of sources and that it is primarily the product of a general feeling of alienation in modern society. We see one of the murderers suffering humiliation at the hands of two schoolmates, the second killer playing a violent video game and perusing a gun magazine, but these, in and of themselves, cannot be the sole explanations. At best they are symptoms of a much deeper societal sickness, one that Van Sant can only hint at but never fully grasp - for who among us can claim to truly understand it? What 'Elephant' does is to make us focus on and actually see this spirit-crushing ennui which permeates our culture and which defines life for so many of our youngsters.

The director has drawn fine work from his cast of talented unknowns. Their every word, their every gesture rings believable and true. He has also employed Beethoven's 'Fur Elise' to serve as a haunting refrain throughout the film, capturing the poignancy of a world in which beauty, spontaneity and joy seem to have been removed.

There are some who will find 'Elephant' to be slow-moving, empty, arty and pretentious. For them there are plenty of mindlessly upbeat depictions of high school life to watch. But for those who can appreciate a film artist working at the peak of his form, 'Elephant' is a mesmerizing, vision-altering experience that pushes the boundaries of the medium and takes us to a place, emotionally, that we haven't ever been before.

VanSant's best thus far?

[davidals · 10/10 · 24 May 2004]

Gus VanSant's ELEPHANT isn't an unquestionable masterpiece, but it's close. I found it to be hypnotic and gripping, and in spite of knowing how things would end, I still found the ending to be devastating.

The lone flaw I can identify is originality - this film owes a tremendous debt to certain international directors (Bela Tarr and an earlier Irish ELEPHANT, along with current maverick directors like Abbas Kiarostami, Hirokazu Kore'eda and Tsai Ming-liang) in both look and perspective, and it's not the only recent American film to make effective use of poetic imagery: FAR FROM HEAVEN, LOST IN TRANSLATION, CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES, RAISING VICTOR VARGAS all took a similar approach to their subject matter, and were all just as effective.

But VanSant's style has matured - the sky scenes in ELEPHANT seem to quote DRUGSTORE COWBOY, and in both films they symbolize the passage of time, the general drift of life, and in opening with such a scene, VanSant is offering a subtle warning that ELEPHANT is poetic and interpretive, not a docudrama or realistic take on high school shootings, and shouldn't be taken as such. Characters drift through the day, knowing each other at mostly superficial levels (not moving beyond the level of stereotypes), which feels like what I remember high school to often be, and VanSant has no interest or need to move beyond that - to 'read into' these characters, or have them make grand speeches and gestures would've only made this film preposterous.

ELEPHANT isn't about the media (which is ubiquitous), homosexuality (a random genetic occurrence found in any setting), bullies (which exist everywhere as well, though for psychological or sociological reasons) or any variety of high school caste system - it's about the randomness of violence, and the first two thirds of this film - in both the gliding long shots following characters (and the audio, with conversations drifting in and out), and the fragmented timeline (shifting back and forth in time as it moves from one character to another) - is a startling portrayal of the random, anonymous nature of an average day at school. It could be noted that the school is just a location of convenience in VanSant's hands; this film (or the incidents depicted in it) could be set anywhere, which is partly the point. In much of the world, random, senseless violence is always a possibility, which is really what this film observes and (in the horror of the depiction) protests, and it's just as much of a tragedy when it occurs in a generic, random, average setting (like this school and the people in it), as when it occurs in a dramatic, unusual setting that creates martyrs and heroes.

A very challenging film, in the best of ways. For quite a while, we've seen a number of films attempt to explore similar themes (most interestingly, many of Stanley Kubrick's films), often going for the opposite approach - startling an audience with intensity and violence: the heavy-handed brutality of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (the most brilliant example of shock tactics used effectively, though lacking the subtlety that makes other Kubrick films stronger), or Larry Clark's far more exploitative and dull KIDS (a genuinely sloppy and anticlimactic film which seems to exist mainly to give a sheltered audience a few 'shocking' cheap thrills to get off on, offering few insights that hadn't already been offered elsewhere). ELEPHANT stuns primarily by taking the opposite route - languid and poetic - which ultimately makes it all the more powerful.

Too Little, Too Big

[canadude · 6/10 · 11 May 2004]

Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" is what critics claimed it to be - an observation. The film strains very hard from any bias and undue sentimentality. It seeks to create a distanced atmosphere of void allowing the viewer to fill it with his / her emotional or intellectual reaction.

Does it work? In maintaining his distance Van Sant succeeds admirably, faltering only once or twice, satisfying some distasteful or satirically exaggerated high-school cliche. For instance, the camera follows three clearly popular girls, all concerned with their diet, through the lunch line in the cafeteria to the table where they have an empty and inconclusive discussion about the meaning of friendship (this is not the problem) and wander into the bathroom and synchronize vomiting behind closed stalls (this is). While there are, doubtless, instances of such behavior in all high-schools, the scene seems like a forced joke, irony shoved down the throat of the audience. Still, these shortcomings are few and far between. Most of the film consists of unfinished, meandering conversations and meandering people, wandering in and out of focus of the observing camera, which traces its way through a Portland school on one fall day. It does so, portraying the school life with solid realism, focusing on a few characters who experience this life differently.

However, these variegated experiences fade into meaninglessness when Columbine-style violence breaks out and the characters, known and anonymous, are shot by two boys. Van Sant's implication, objective camera observation or not, is clear in the way he tells his story. Whatever these kids that we meet experience is rendered meaningless by the violence, equally meaningless, that comes to end them. We are left with tragedy, questions, and shock. "Elephant" achieves this emotional resonance quite well precisely through its merciless observation, its refusal to preach and to sentimentalize the events it portrays.

Nonetheless, I think that "Elephant" should not necessarily be judged by its lack of sentimentality and bias. In an somewhat exaggerated comparison, "Elephant" feels a little like Van Sant's remake of "Psycho," shot for shot. Here is a film which is an attempt at a recreation of something like that which happened at Columbine in the course of one day, without the media and social baggage that came afterward. (Michael Moore dug into that). Its goal is exacting realism, its method strict self-discipline and austere self-restraint. And Van Sant leaves us with a haunting picture of school violence. So what? Yes, he manages to shed a lot of the embellishments with which society and the media have adorned school violence, but it leaves us with very little. The meaninglessness of the violence is self-explanatory as is the ordinariness of the day on which the violence occurred, until it occurred.

Van Sant does not blame the media, videogames, or rock-music (though videogames feature in the film more prominently than media, while there is a total absence of rock-music). He just shows us what happened. I think the problem is not that people didn't know what happened, but utilized events like Columbine to attack things they hated about society, to push censorship, or to oppose gun laws, to push for education, or oppose lax security at schools. Columbine created a forum for many bubbling issues and offered a chance at scapegoating. It warned of the growing alienation of high-school kids (which the film depicts reasonably well), while signaling of a much-deeper crisis emerging within our society. While I think that Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine" is a film hardly without biases and agenda (something that is to be treasured in "Elephant), it attacks that second, more prominent problem much more successfully. Columbine exposed many contradictions within schools, homes and in the the much larger social and political arenas.

"Elephant" is a film that expertly portrays alienation of its subjects and the meaninglessness to which they are reduced by the violence that breaks out. And, while I do not oppose but praise its restraint, "Elephant" says far too little to be watched again and again, or remembered for a long time.

Beautiful, sensitive and chilling

[transatlantic-drawl · 9/10 · 17 February 2004]

There are very few films which manage to keep the entire audience seated through the credits, but this is one of those few, at least at the screening I attended. Ok, so the abrupt nature of the ending may also have had something to do with that, but I felt that rare feeling of total dislocation and nausea once the film was over, so realistic and horrific was the violence.

This disjointed examination of the causes of a Columbine style shooting works so much better, I think, than a 'straight' drama would have done. In destroying our expectations of a traditional narrative and avoiding what could have easily become cliched characterization, Gus Van Sant also demonstrates what the probable reality of a situation like this would have been, which is senseless, anti-heroic and totally random. A lesser version of this story would have had Michelle, the geeky outcast, or Benny, the brave and silent student who helps a distressed student out of a window become heroes. Their inherent goodness or strength would have them saved. Here, they are simply snatched away from us without glory, fanfare or mourning.

Van Sant's method of using long shots without dialogue or cuts works brilliantly, not only lending the film a doomy atmosphere, but also a highly lyrical quality that captures perfectly the isolation and loneliness of these characters, so often unable to communicate. These kids talk about nothing, and everything, their brief, clipped conversations pregnant with subtext. It is as close as a fictional film has come to creating truly believable, real people in recent memory (Harmony Korine 'Kids' also comes to mind).

Being less than two years out of school, one of the elements I appreciated most was the way in which the film captured the social structures of school, and that all enveloping feeling that everything is so important. After all this delicate build up, the shooting feels like a truly cataclysmic, apocalyptic event. That Van Sant shoots one seemingly unimportant scene from three points of view further enhances the sense of the randomness, and at the same time the inevitability of this event. The violence itself is extremely well handled, never glorifying or even being too explicit, and is yet completely devastating.

The only area of the film that I felt was unconvincing was the build up that we saw from the killers point of view. Having them watch a documentary about Hitler seems too heavy handed, and the nature of the relationship between the two is far too undersketched, and unnecessarily complicated by having then kiss in the shower.

Ultimately however, this is a powerful film, beautifully and sensitively made. It is one of those films, alongside Schindler's List that should be compulsory viewing for school children. It's shocking nature would be best utilized for people of this age, as I feel it would no doubt help kids to think more carefully about their actions to others.

Excellent, diffuse, but ultimately dissapointing

[bubsy-3 · 6/10 · 9 August 2004]

I must say that I thought the beginning of Elephant was excellent. Watching ordinary people in ordinary situations led me to believe that what would come after would be interesting. Unfortunately, the movie moves toward the "diffuse" (acting without explanation) then downright dissapoints as it ends abruptly. Some have compared Elephant to "Kids". I found the characters in Kids repulsive and unlike any "kids" I've ever known. The characters in Elephant do seem real. Yet I have to say that after watching both movies, I respect Kids more.Elephant could have been a fine movie. Unfortunately, it isn't.

My own private Oregon

[jotix100 · 10/10 · 20 December 2003]

This film probably will attract the wrong kind of viewer who is expecting to see a violent movie. Gus Van Sant has made a very strange film, in which the events of the Columbine High School massacre will be looked as a model for the movie. But is it? Under the surface Gus Van Sant has infused the film with symbolism that is too subtle for a lot of people to grasp, and who will undoubtedly look at the big picture, one in which almost shows no action, and will get the wrong message.

The film is haunting in that the camera follows the principals of the tragedy from behind. We are basically looking at how these lives crossed one another and how fate brought all these people together for the catastrophic ending. The film is brilliantly choreographed by Mr. Van Sant as we get to see how each person is affected.

Alex, the sick mind behind the killings is seen briefly in class being splashed with a substance on his jacket. He is probably bullied in school because he shows all the characteristics of being an easy mark. The most revealing aspect of Alex comes toward the end of the film in which we get to know a dark secret of his life and perhaps it could make us understand this troubled soul a bit more.

The use of the music, played by Alex, is very effective in creating the mood for what will follow. One wonders how Beethoven's Moonlight sonata and Fur Elise will have any dramatic impact in the young player, who, while executing both works seem to be preparing for the devastating and tragic ending.

The film is short, but as far as this viewer is concerned, it went by very fast. This shows a slice of life in suburbia that some of us never experienced and thanks to Mr. Van Sant we get to understand why, if everything is apparently so perfect, tragedies like this one happen again and again.

Pretty Boys Walking Around Pt.2

[cornflakeboy20 · 6/10 · 18 August 2004]

This is Van Sant's second consecutive docudrama about pretty boys walking around, not doing much of anything. While some might be fooled by pretentious arty justifications, I do hope Gus returns to making narrative movies with characters and plot. His experimentations post-Good Will Hunting have all fallen flat. This movie lacks any kind of focus, avoids making any point, and generally leaves absolutely no impression of any kind. Also, Gus ought to know that any scene of boys kissing drives viewers to such extremes of distraction that they can focus on nothing else, as certain postings on the bulletin board I've seen about this film prove. While I agree with an earlier user's long assessment of this movie, a 1 out of 10 vote is a bit hyperbolic. Like this movie, my vote is neither here nor there. It aroused no grand feelings in me, positive or negative, and deserves a lackluster 5.

From the guy who brought you a scene-by-scene remake of Psycho...

[Jexxon · 1/10 · 24 March 2005]

High school, kids having a normal day, two other kids shoot up the place, the end. There's the plot - glad we got that out of the way ...

Elephant is a perfect example of how an utterly worthless film can hide behind an important message and get praised for doing so. How is it possible that this film has won so many awards? There's absolutely nothing in here to warrant it.

Most of the film consists of steadicam shots of students walking through corridors - long endless corridors. Occasionally they stop and say something trivial to some other student. Oh, and since this is an "art film" the chronology is out of order and we get to see the same pointless events from different angles. Why? Because that's what makes the film seem like something else than a countdown to a bunch of executions.

If you didn't know that this film was about school shootings, would you still be watching it after the first 30 minutes? Are the lives of John, Elias, Nathan, and everyone else really that interesting? Or are you just waiting for the guns to start blazing.

There are no answers in this film (to be fair, there are no real questions raised either). Does Elephant bring anything new to the discussion regarding school shootings? No. I guess the (sort of) improvised acting and long takes are supposed to add an element of realism to the film. But it just feels fake and forced. Not for a second do I "believe" in any of these kids. They're just as stereotyped as always before.

I don't believe that Van Sant is interested in giving a real depiction of this kind of shootings. Just look at the actual shooters: bullied, slightly less good looking than everybody else, Nazis, gay, gun freaks, playing video games... Talk about taking the easy way out with those characters.

Elephant is the worst kind of pretentious film there is. It knows it's got nothing to say, so it discovers itself as art - that way people can look at it and say: "Oh it's so beautiful and poetic. And such an important message." The only thing Elephant managed to do, was to earn a tied top spot (together with Eyes Wide Shut) on my list of the most boring films ever made. [0/10]

Guns at my school (Hüsker Dü)

[dbdumonteil · 8/10 · 31 December 2005]

"Safety is a big disguise that hides among the other lies" (Hüsker Dü, Divide and Conquer, Flip Your Wig, 1985).

Generally I don't go much into Gus Van Sant's stuff. I have only a vague recollection of "My Own Private Idaho" (1991). "Will Hunting" (1997) was highly overrated while "Psycho" (1998) was a waste of time and money. That said, "To Die For" (1994) had a staggering Nicole Kidman and some critics may have slated Van Sant's most recent effort "Last Days" (2005), it stands out as a palatable and even, valuable piece of work. "Elephant" (2003) which deservedly pocketed the Golden Palm at the Cannes festival in 2003 is perhaps the finest hour in all his career.

In 2002, Michael Moore, one of the most eloquent prototypes of the committed director had shot a documentary, "Bowling for Columbine" with a thorny and prickly topic since it dealt with the selling of guns in America and their consequences. Moore went beyond his subject to construe the problem of violence linked with guns in America. I read in a French newspaper pieces of information which sent shivers down my spine: at least 100 000 teenagers go to school with a gun and between 1997 and 1999, the USA knew a dozen of deadly slaughters in high schools. Van Sant's flick is a perfect illustration of both Moore's documentary and one of the major American plagues revolving around guns although "Columbine" is never explicitly mentioned in the film. It also offers a deeply pessimistic view of a vulnerable American youth.

Van Sant's film hits its stride from the first minutes. The introduction presents John who goes to his high school with his alcoholic father (acted by Timothy Bottoms who thirty years ago acted Johnny in Dalton Trumbo's excruciating "Johnny Got His Gun", 1971). The fact that John's father is alcoholic speaks volume about the delicate stance American youth finds herself. Then, as soon as John arrives in the high school, Van Sant's directing works wonders. The pace of the movie is haunting and hypnotic. To stay back and modesty are his formula keys. He opposes majestic travelings with static shots. The first device is favored for several functions: Van Sant's camera follows several high school students from behind them (a little like Stanley Kubrick follows his astronauts in certain sequences in "2001: a Space Odyssey", 1968 even if one can deem the comparison as far-fetched!) like a benevolent angel but also to make the audience share that impending tragedy waits around the corner. One could also argue that these travelings help to underscore how much these days are ordinary, humdrum, even empty. They also bestow a familiar place with a eerie side with these long corridors dimly lighted. As for static shots, they help to capture his young interprets' thoughts and how they feel in the high school. It's either blossoming like for Elias, keen on photography or either traumatic for Michelle: she nearly doesn't say a word but her silence speaks louder than words. Besides, dialogs don't have much importance, these high school students speak about all and nothing. Especially, senses express themselves. Then, to give more weight to the fact that each teenager has its own perception in this high school, Van Sant chose a bunch of teenagers he follows individually. It doesn't matter if we see a sequence again a couple of times, the standpoint is different according to the followed young person. Ultimately, Van Sant's directorial style has something aerial coupled with a documentary side which pervades a major part of the film.

But today, tragedy dangerously lurks. Alex and Eric go to the high school to shoot down several of their classmates. The murders are shot with a certain remoteness behind the killers' backs and in some moments, Van Sant prefers the off-camera illustrating Alfred "Hitch" Hitchcock's golden rule: "horror is more heinous when it's suggested". Facts are here, causes aren't. At this level, Van Sant only skims over them and raises the inklings about what may have urged the two boys to act. It can be social or academic problems. The first apparition of Alex places him in a chemistry lesson and he's a little apart from the other students whom some laugh at him. Alex, a scapegoat? Then, just before Eric kills one teacher, he says facts to him that give ideas about the relationship he may have with him. But also, their parents are often absent, they play violent video games, they watch a documentary about Nazism... Up to the viewer to try to decipher the slayers' motives.

Symbols are also Van Sant's forte: recurring images of a cloudy sky and when Michelle is killed, blood spreads on the books. Guns at my school, indeed.

More than acted, it's nearly lived by these non-professional actors whose roles fit them like a glove. Van Sant had fostered improvisation among them, it paid off well.

The depiction of a vulnerable American youth in prey to the major plagues of her country, especially violence linked with guns, the fearless "Elephant" is this and more. See it any costs!

Van Sant makes an interesting film, but it's a hard sell

[FilmOtaku · 6/10 · 12 December 2004]

"Elephant", Gus Van Sant's film that is based on the actions that occurred at Columbine High School in 1999 is definitely a powerful film. The film is set at a high school in Portland, Oregon on what is generally a typical day for the students, except that come midday, two of their fellow students are going to go on a shooting rampage and kill several students and teachers. One of the most interesting aspects of the film is that for the most part, the events that we see over the course of the 81 minute film are actually what is occurring in the five or so minutes before the shooting begins, something that wasn't ascertained (at least by me) until about the middle of the film when the actions of each of the various students profiled begin to intersect. Before that, we are seeing short profiles of a smattering of students – a photographer, a jock, a regular well-liked kid, a nerd, a trio of shallow girls, and of course, the two shooters. It isn't until their paths begin to cross that the story begins to come together. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, this is about halfway into the film. By briefly being introduced to these kids, I found that, counter to what Van Sant may have perhaps intended, I didn't have any more or less sympathy for any of them when the shootings occur. This didn't limit the impact, but it didn't add to it for me either.

Van Sant is heavy on atmosphere and artistic expressions in "Elephant". In one scene, a kid will be walking down a hallway, and the scene will last for about three minutes, with the intent being that we soak in everything that is going on around him, knowing what we know and what they obviously don't. Or during gym class outside, the nerd stops and looks in slow motion around her and up at the sky. The scene seems questionable and even superfluous until it dawns on the viewer that this is probably the last time she's going to do that. There are long shots of the sky, (which I can't really explain) and long dialogues between teens in the halls, lunchroom and classrooms that make the viewer feel like a fly on the wall, or an invisible outside observer – this technique certainly lends an intimacy and reality to the film. Also worth noting is that most of the dialogue was improvised, and the actors weren't really actors at all, just kids who auditioned for Van Sant who mostly used their real first names as their character names.

I liked "Elephant", but it's a hard sell. While it is powerful, it could be construed as pretentious. I would probably recommend it mostly to anyone who enjoys art house-style films, because it is a film that is certainly original and more thought-provoking and evocative than "entertaining". 6/10 --Shelly

You're kidding me, right?

[bugaboo-7 · 1/10 · 1 November 2006]

If a film study class ever needed to find an example of shallow, pretentious film-making this gem would fit the bill.

With a listed running time of 82 minutes literally half of it was spent on laborious, pointless tracking shots of people walking. Walking through hallways, across fields, through courtyards and other places I've probably repressed by now.

To add to the train wreck, there wasn't a shred of meaningful dialog, what there was of it.

I guess that's because the majority of the characters were high school students and we're supposed to believe they generally don't say anything meaningful during a typical day. But this is a film and it would've been nice to get some nugget of insight or humor or anything to make us care about any of them.

Finally after being bludgeoned by this seemingly interminable minimalist dreck, accented by useless time shifts, arduous 360 degree pan shots and different points of view of the same inane scenes (all a first year film student's wet dream), we arrive at the film's predictable Columbine conclusion. Yipee.

Killing sprees in schools are bad, thanks for pointing that out.

Brilliant and deeply affecting

[howard.schumann · 6 October 2003]

On April 20, 1999, two boys wearing trench coats carried a daunting arsenal of weapons harnessed with military web gear into Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and systematically gunned down thirteen students. Gruesome though it was, the incident was just one of eight fatal high school shootings between 1997 and 1999. These traumatizing events began a debate about what was wrong with the nation's youth, an issue that is the subject of Gus Van Sant's Elephant.

Winner of the Golden Palm at the 2003 Cannes Film Festival, Elephant is a brilliant and deeply affecting film that makes a courageous attempt to grasp the malaise of today's youth culture. Van Sant does not attempt to explain Columbine or uncover its underlying causes, and there is no revealing epiphany. His film is a highly stylized, dreamlike tone poem that defies linear conventions and is almost surreal in its approach. Using flashbacks and recurring images from different points of view, the film captures the mood and tone of its adolescent world: its perceptions, its self-absorption, and ultimately its darkest instincts.

The camera is a detached observer, and the strength of the film lies in its acute power of observation and detail. Van Sant shows us all the surface rituals: the girl cheerleaders, the boys playing football, the locker-lined hallways, the academic discussions, yet an ineffable feeling of loneliness pervades. The picture features impeccable acting by a group of non-professionals from the Portland, Oregon area. Each character is introduced separately and we see them going about their business on a seemingly ordinary school day. The steadicam-tracking camera follows them as they walk through the sterile halls that seem endless. The school appears without life -- a place where one feels a desperate sense of loss.

We see John (John Robinson), a blonde-haired surfer type, take over the driving from his father who has had too much to drink, then get called to task by an administrator for being late for school. Eli (Elias McConnell) is a photographer who asks classmates, including John, to pose for pictures. Football player Jordan (Jordan Taylor) meets his girlfriend Carrie (Carrie Finklea) for lunch. Three friends Nicole (Nicole George), Brittany (Brittany Mountain), and Acadia (Alicia Miles) gossip and argue about who is whose best friend. Michelle (Kristen Hicks) refuses to wear shorts, is admonished by her teacher, and then goes to work in the library. The paths of these students crisscross throughout the film and each has their own destiny to fulfill when the violence erupts.

The main protagonists, Alex (Alex Frost) and Eric (Eric Deulen) are modeled after Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold of Columbine. When we first meet Alex, he is being shunned by his fellow students, called names and pelted with spitballs in science class. Alex is more outgoing and creative, Eric more passive, but their personalities complement each other. Alex and Eric wait at home until a strange package arrives in the mail while Alex plays Beethoven's "Fur Elise" on the piano. When they return to school, they are dressed in combat gear and ready to kill.

Rather than giving us pat answers, Van Sant bases his approach on the elusiveness of truth, and our insatiable desire to know more. The imagery and camerawork are almost painfully beautiful, while the disconnected narrative deliberately withholds closure. On top of all this, the pacing is superb, slowly building up the almost unbearable tension. When it is finally released, the explosion hits you with a frightening energy that is as unforgettable as it is chilling.

All i can say is "wow!" Its all i could say when the credits rolled, its all i can say now!

[Ben_Cheshire · 8/10 · 12 May 2004]

(Caution: this is one of those movies that its best not to read about before you see it. Not because there are major plot points to spoil or twists, but because you'll be more impressed by it if you discover it for yourself. So much as i'd love for you to read what i have to say about it, please come back afterwards!)

This film unfolds with the delicate beauty of a flower. Van Sant has made so much commercial rubbish of recent years (Finding Forrester, Psycho, Good Will Hunting), that you forget what a surprising, original artist he can be. The second most original project Van Sant has made, My Own Private Idaho, pales in comparison to the significance of Elephant. I haven't seen a movie in a long time where i've thought "this is an important film." This, at last, is an important subject for cinema.

You know you've seen an incredible film when while you're watching it you forget all the other movies you've ever seen, and say to yourself "ah, so THIS is cinema, i never knew!" And three days later you can't think about anything else.

The school in this film becomes a live universe. We follow one character around, spend some time with them, so we feel that what happens to them is happening to us, and we switch to someone else and spend some time with them. They all have names, they are all living breathing people. Through suggestion, Van Sant creates an atmosphere where we feel that this school is a living, breathing environment, a world unto itself, and we feel the separate humanity of each member of it. We feel Van Sant could just as well have chosen to follow any of the other thousand members of the school.

Twenty minutes into the film, one character heads out of the school and sees two boys with army gear on carrying big loaded bags. He asks them what they're doing, and one of them tells him: "Get the f**k out of here and don't come back. Some s**t's going down."

I've never seen such an original treatment of structure and style that serves the story. We follow each of these characters around the school in real time, so certain portions of each of their stories are given to us piece by piece. I won't say any more, and i don't want to spoil my memory of this beautiful film by putting it into any more words. Go out and see it. You'll never forget it.

It's time to talk about the elephant in the room in which, is this movie. This movie is harrowing moving realistic depiction of school relate gun violence. It's haunting.

[ironhorse_iv · 7/10 · 28 February 2016]

Being the second film in director Gus Van Sant's "Death Trilogy" — the first is Gerry (2002) and the third Last Days (2005) in which, all three of which are loosely based on actual events. Elephant is by far, the most disturbing and most riveting of the three, because it deals with mass-murders. While, school violence has existed, since the born of the education system, it's the real-life events of the Columbine High School massacre of 1999 that put the issue on the map. Widely held to be a serious problem in recent decades in many countries, especially where weapons such as guns or knives are involved. Elephant is allowing an inside look at how something so unthinkable and surreal such as mass-murder, can logistic happen, using an illusory story in fictional high school in Portland, OR. The film stars mostly new or non-professional actors, including John Robinson, Alex Frost, and Eric Deulen, in very limited dialogue roles, and the script was "written" to its final form during shooting, with cast members improvising freely and collaborating in the direction of scenes, gives the movie, it's realistic, yet mysterious tone. While, this movie might not have much story. Still, with its brilliant narrative construction—where some scenes leading up to a high school massacre are seen at different times from three different perspectives—combined with cinematographer Harris Savides' camera roving the hallways in tracking shots, Elephant's subtle examination of Columbine provides no easy answers to teen angst, but certainly asks questions about what's is wrong with some of America's youth. Is bullying, a big cause of this teen angst? Yes, it is, but like my review of 2011's documentary, 'Bully', bullying is a complex issue. Not only does, it can detrimental to a child's well-being and development, but also, it does somewhat builds character that is need for the harsh adult life. It's need for children to interact with those having diverse points of view. In some ways, bullying is just part of life, you just have to deal with it, in a positive or negative matter. It's the same of other issues in which this film showcase, like gun rights, gay rights, drug use, media, juvenile delinquency, racism and social classes. There is no real true 'black and white', answer to this. After all, who is to blame for this tragedy!? The killers or society's harsh reality. I just glad, the movie isn't heavy-handed or preachy. However, Gus Van Sant's movie also feels a bit exploitation; capitalizing on a national tragedy, just to make a few bucks. It's somewhat offensive to every victim that die, in such of an event, before. Being the first high-profile movie to depict a high school shooting since Columbine, despite being released after similar film, 2003's Zero Day & 1999's Duck! The Carbine High Massacre. The film was so-controversial for its subject matter and possible influence on teenage copy-cats that some protests call for a ban or boycott of the film. Nevertheless, I can understand, their worries. It's clear, that the movie does have a subliminal message toward violence. After all, it did supposedly cause the Red Lake shootings of 2005, after the gunman viewed the movie, 17 days earlier, before committing to his crime. Indeed, watching movies based in part on the 1999 Columbine High School massacre could be view as unhealthy. However, the movie can also be viewed, as soul-searching, and inspiring to open and useful discussion. The movie does always show a positive message about learning tolerance and trying to help, your fellow man. Some of the students in the film, does this. Not everybody in the film, was cookie cutter, evil or good. It's a lot more complex than that. It's like the parable of the blind men and elephant in Anekantavada. It's hard to describe. However, I do have to say, the movie seem to be, very influence, by the 1989 British short film by director Alan Clarke of the same name. Not only does, Gus Van Sant's film borrowed Clarke's title, but also closely mirrors his minimalist style in which the movie's disconnected and ethereal quality flows. Overall: This powerful and provocative movie might not be for everybody. It's really is hard to watch, but a very well-made film. Check it out, on your own risk.

Strange but unforgettable experience

[Dockelektro · 8/10 · 9 December 2003]

Many people hated it, now I know why. This is not for everyone. Strangely shot and strangely structured, it's a novelty item all the way. Gus Van Sant has freed himself from every bit of possible mainstream blood that he still carried inside him, and made this slap in the cheek to everybody who thought they could preview what kind of movie this would be. Not a morality tale, not an easy readable message, not at all. This movie is as curious and strange a movie can be. And it's one of the most original and exquisite pieces of movie language I have seen this year. Many will hate it, I just gaped in awe to the burst of such silence.

Putting a recognizable face on tragedy...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 10 January 2005]

Writer-director Gus Van Sant returns to his early promise with this insidiously-mounted and gut-wrenching tale of violence. Putting a recognizable face on tragedy, Van Sant casually introduces us to students at a Midwestern school who go about their day, their lives intertwining and connecting even beyond their own comprehension (they have no idea how much they matter in each other's lives). Of course, the day ends in tragedy à la Columbine, but the filmmaker isn't exploiting real-life headlines: he shows artfulness in spreading this story out and then twisting it around, encircling both his cast of players and us. We learn bits and pieces, and then it's all over. Depressing, certainly, but quite real, scarily concrete and final. I didn't care for the abrupt ending (it's as if they decided upon it in the editing stages) and some of the inexperienced actors are a bit self-conscious, but we finally have the real Gus Van Sant back and that's a gift. **1/2 from ****

A slow paced cinematic gem with an intense ending

[ScottDMenzel · 8/10 · 2 December 2003]

I have been waiting for Elephant to hit theaters near Philadelphia and New Jersey for a good two months now. It finally arrived this past weekend in Philadelphia so I decided to make a day out of it and see Elephant along with some other Indies.

Elephant is basically a slow paced film, which follows many students in a day at their High School before a school shooting. Each character is followed in the film and is an average student you would find at a high school for example, the jock and the cheerleader girlfriend, the nerdy girl, the troublemaker, the dork who everyone picks on, etc. The movie seems extremely real as though this is your local high school and these are students that attend the school.

The director and writer of this film Gus Van Sant did a great job. The camera angles are the expertly shot. Gus Van Sant did a great job of following the characters in the film and building some characteristics of each character. The film for the most part is silent and this makes the film more effective. The movie rewinds many times to focus on its different characters.

The acting was great especially since everyone in this movie is a nobody and looks like the actors and actresses all just came out of high school. It made the film even more powerful that we did not see big teen cast in this film but just a bunch of nobodies.

The movie's ending is not a pleasant one and ends abruptly. The film has a very powerful ending and is very creepy. It makes you really think. I really liked it.

The film is marketed as a movie about a school shooting but I think it's more than just that. Its a very true life film that makes you question the people you attend school with. It is a film that very few will see but is one powerful film. Its ending alone being not a happy one is worth the price of admission alone. If you get a chance to see Elephant, I highly recommended it. My final rating is for Elephant is an 8/10

Off the Beaten Track.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 25 October 2005]

If you didn't know that Gus van Sandt was an experienced and talented director ("Mala Noche," "Drugstore Cowboy," "To Die For"), the first 40 minutes of this film wouldn't convince you.

It's as if the kid of some immensely wealthy tycoon decided he wanted to make a movie and Dad bought him everything he needed. Lord knows what his directions would have looked like. Okay. Let's have it spontaneous. You walk down the hallway, see, and turn right, and then turn left. Well, no -- turn right again. The camera will stay behind you for five minutes but you ignore it. And the three of you guys, you sit there and make up a conversation. I don't know about what. Okay, the two of you be jealous of Brittany there. Then you go into the toilet stalls and do something. Yes, you can vomit if you want. Make it up.

It just goes on like that. Endless tracking shots. Not endless, really, but lasting far far longer than any viewer would expect, and at the end of the shots nothing much happens. Most of the conversations aren't audible anyway. They're part of the white noise of a typical high school milieu. We can get enough snatches to understand what's up, but those snatches are nothing more than the highly ritualized, phatic exchanges that aren't meant to signal anything except that the two people are on friendly terms. ("Can I take your picture?" "Okay.") Some of these interactions are shown several times, from the points of view of independent witnesses, for reasons a little beyond me. Once was enough. Even the school shootings are done without bells ringing.

I'm making this sound like an amateur enterprise, so let me take everything back. There is nothing here that resembles a catastrophe-of-the-week TV movie. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but it's an original production in every respect. There is no musical score to speak of -- just one of the kids imperfectly playing a piece by Beethoven. A lot of the kids have equal screen time so we're deprived of the easy narrative hook in which we identify with a particular character. The photography is splendid. There is no grand plan spelled out for the Gotterdamerung, only one kid explaining to another where they'll go once they get into the school. (We can't follow the directions ourselves.) No lingering over the beautifully ugly guns and explosives for the testosterone deranged. We don't even know how the kids got the guns. And we learn that one of them is a Tech-9, which must mean something to Charlton Heston. But no automatic weapons are used. No heads explode on screen. Only one or two shootings, I think, includes both the shooter and the victim in the same shot. We find out virtually nothing about the family life of any of the kids. We don't even find that the mass murderers came from dysfunctional families or anything, thanks for small favors. The kids kill whimsically, seemingly without passion. "Remember, above all, have fun tomorrow," one says to the other. It seems all the more tragic for the absence of anything out of the ordinary. Kids flee through the hallways in silence except for the scuffling of their shoes. The cops don't arrive at the end. Nobody is outside with a bullhorn trying to talk the murderers into giving themselves up. The school building is not turned into a crocheted shambles by a shower of bullets.

If many movies about a subject like school shootings would have been done sensationalistically, by the numbers, both the sensationalism and the numbers are remarkably absent in this film.

A good job by everyone concerned and, as I say, original above everything else.

Just because it's artistic doesn't mean it's good

[noahthek · 1/10 · 22 February 2006]

Elephant could have been a very beautiful short film. As a feature length movie, however, it is awful. And I fear the reason it has gotten so many positive reviews is that people feel they should like it. Maybe if I were 16 I'd think this film was spectacular too. But just because it's artistic doesn't mean it's good.

I didn't have a problem with the acting, in fact the dark haired killer was pretty good. And the fact that we never know why they decided to kill everyone was acceptable. The biggest problem with the movie was that it was filmed like a short, yet was over 80 minutes long. In a feature length movie you need character development. At least one. In Elephant you learn more about John's drunk father than you do about anyone else and he had only two or three lines.

And these interesting camera techniques that Van Sant employed needed to be complemented or contrasted with something. If the film ended with the surviving killer walking down a hallway as the credits rolled, then maybe the 20 minutes of other people walking wouldn't have been pointless.

My advice: if within the first ten minutes of this film you find yourself waiting for something to happen, stop watching it. You'll save yourself those other 70 minutes that, otherwise, you'd never get back.

A Tale of Alienation and Violence in a Great Low Budget Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 25 March 2005]

In a school day in an American high-school, two deranged teenagers bring a couple of bags full of weapons and start shooting and killing the students and teachers. This tale of alienation and violence was visibly inspired in the shooting in Columbine, recently explored by Michael Moore in his awarded "Bowling for Columbine". However, on the contrary of the foregoing director that looks for guilts, reasons and motives for such an insane act, Gus Van Saint uses a hypothetical American high-school, with fictional characters, and two apparently normal teenagers to present this awesome low budget movie. He just shows how easy is to buy a weapon in USA. The unknown cast is magnificent, and the filming technique, with long sequences and traveling with the camera, is outstanding, giving the sensation of a documentary to the viewer. One point that I liked very much is that in most part of the movie, the viewer does not know who will be the responsible for the massacre, and many characters might be the future killer. For example, there is a girl very rejected by the class; there is a boy with a drunken father and unfairly punished by the principal; there are many other students with common problems of the adolescence. Gus Van Saint selects two of them to slaughter the others. Just for the records, another massacre has happened this week in a high-school in Bemidji, Minnesota. Considering that their country is constantly in war against others nations, being very explored by the media through powerful images on TV, and weapons are so easily achieved, I think that these might be two of the main causes for such behavior of a few problematic kids. I can not imagine how the parents of the victims of these two recent massacres in high-schools might feel watching this movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Elefante" ("Elephant")

too much is left to the viewer

[dromasca · 7/10 · 20 June 2004]

'Elephant' deals with one of the elephants in America's living room (one of the obvious but not dealt with problem - the culture of vulgarized violence which, combined with the easy access to weapons lead to the violent high school incidents like the one in Columbine. Director Gus Van Sant after cashing some good money from a previous commercial success did this movie the way he wanted, so he is the only to praise or blame for the film success or failure. The treatment is really different from what you expect, much is being invested in showing the banality of the teenagers life, the next door kid profile of both vilains and victims. No obvious message, the viewer is left completely on his own to draw its own conclusions, like in real life. The method works for much of the film, you feel the tension because you know what happened, but otherwise much of the film could be a high-school documentary, sometimes amusing, sometimes boring (why these long corridor shots?). I liked this approach to a point, but then too much is left to the viewer, and the characters (acted mostly by non-professional actors) do not have enough emotional depth. A film is to be judged based on what you see on the screen. Based on this it gets only 7 out of 10 on my personal scale, although the discussions it opens on the subject, and the thoughts after the screening may grant it a higher rate.

Don't be fooled by how stylistic it is

[s_hemann · 1/10 · 24 April 2008]

This was one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen. When I began watching it, I was enthralled by the hypnotic images that Van Sant is known for. It seemed cool. Then... my high wore off, and I realized that there was little to no plot, hardly any dialogue, and the movie made no point whatsoever. I hated this movie even more than I hated Gerry. There was so much potential to make a great movie about a school shooting. He could have put some characterization into the two main characters, or any other character at that. Showing small scenes of happenings around each character, and then disbanding them before something actually opens up about their persona makes me mad. Or on the other side, just showing the two shooters get into a shower together without showing a reason why is really dumb. Why were they gay? Is that why they shot up the school? Did they just decide they wanted a homosexual experience before they tried a mass murder? A character walks through the halls as if he was some sort of prophet only to be murdered without speaking a line. There are so many things that I could say to try and convince people to not see this movie, but maybe you should all see it so you can understand what makes bad movies that tons of people seem to like for absolutely no reason. Artistic doesn't automatically make a movie good!