The Elephant in the room
I recently saw Elephant, directed by Gus Van Sant. This movie won big at the 2003 Cannes Film Festival, and I'm still trying to figure out why. The movie chronicles two days in the life of a several high school students, two of whom are plotting a school killing spree. The name of the movie comes from the old story of several blind men touching and describing different parts of an elephant. (Each man is firmly convinced that he alone realizes what type of animal he is confronting. In truth, none of the men are aware, because they do not see the entire picture of the elephant.) The film is shot in LONG shots, which follow the various students as they go about their daily activities. While many of their paths cross (you see some of the characters walking by in the background while the camera focuses on whoever you're following at that moment), they don't interact very much.
For the most part, I found this film unrewarding. First of all, I thought that the characters were dealt with very superficially. Van Sant doesn't let us get too close to any of them, and as a result I didn't care too much about any of them. Secondly, the majority of the movie just follows kids as they walk through high school halls, check out books, and eat lunch in the cafeteria. I think that a minimum of this action might have been necessary to set the scene and re-introduce us to high school life, but these shots made up the bulk of the movie. And they were, well, boring. (Who wants to go back to high school? Not this viewer.) Lastly, I felt that the erotic scene between the two shooters was gratuitous. It just felt thrown in and strained, and nothing I'd seen previously seemed to make it necessary or even meaningful.
On the whole, I thought the film was not very provocative, even though it dealt with a topic that could have been mined for some cathartic discussion and thought. The film seemed totally disconnected from any of the events that occured. Van Sant seemed to have no direction, no reason for making this film. He just gives us a fly-on-the-wall perspective of a school shooting that is detatched and emotionless. I really didn't think that was the best treatment for this subject matter.
For the most part, I found this film unrewarding. First of all, I thought that the characters were dealt with very superficially. Van Sant doesn't let us get too close to any of them, and as a result I didn't care too much about any of them. Secondly, the majority of the movie just follows kids as they walk through high school halls, check out books, and eat lunch in the cafeteria. I think that a minimum of this action might have been necessary to set the scene and re-introduce us to high school life, but these shots made up the bulk of the movie. And they were, well, boring. (Who wants to go back to high school? Not this viewer.) Lastly, I felt that the erotic scene between the two shooters was gratuitous. It just felt thrown in and strained, and nothing I'd seen previously seemed to make it necessary or even meaningful.
On the whole, I thought the film was not very provocative, even though it dealt with a topic that could have been mined for some cathartic discussion and thought. The film seemed totally disconnected from any of the events that occured. Van Sant seemed to have no direction, no reason for making this film. He just gives us a fly-on-the-wall perspective of a school shooting that is detatched and emotionless. I really didn't think that was the best treatment for this subject matter.
Comments