Gus Van Sant's Elephant (potential spoilers)

[scouse_dave]

...i went to see it tonight.

i'm not going to waste my time typing out a huge piece if noone's seen it...

so, anyone...? Irrelevant? 13? Jenniferkate?

[DeviousJ]

Cornerhouse?

[scouse_dave]

Originally posted by DeviousJ
Cornerhouse?

hahahahah

you got me!

[beef curtains]

http://www.paulaugustinus.com/advent...e_dzanga19.jpg

[scouse_dave]

this is already the funniest thread today...

i've laughed out loud twice already.

[zimzumprincess]

i've seen it and.... well, that's about it. i didn't hate it. but there was way too much focus on people walking form one place to another. if they'd cut out all the walking scenes... the movie wouldn't have been even half as long.

it was filmed here, and i've driven by the school it was filmed at quite a few times... so that part was interesting for me. and it wasn't awful. the ending was crazy. interesting.

yeah. i'm really not sure what i thought about it.

[13]

I saw it and i'm interested in your thoughts.

[Irrelevant]

well... i thought it was an amazing movie. beautiful cinematography, the use of scenes being shot from different perspectives was fascinating, and the way van sant plays with time is downright genius.

some people have a problem with the acting. i didn't really, this is how real people act. a few times i could tell it was forced, but as the film went on it was mostly unnoticeable. the long scenes of walking... if you didn't like them i don't suggest seeing his previous movie, Gerry. it was about the most exhausting movie i ever watched. in a good way i think. anyway, the long takes create excellent pacing (leaving me in suspense for almost the entire movie) as well as giving you an intimate feel for the characters without them doing flashy things that real people don't do on a regular basis.

i still have quite a few movies to see from last year... but Elephant is probably the best movie i've seen since i saw City of God in early '03. it's definitely much better than all 5 best picture nominees, including Lost in Translation.

it's not coming out on dvd until May 4th. which sucks, i really want to show my friends this amazing film. i might have to encode my divx copy of it to vcd to show it to them since i don't feel like waiting.

well yeah. so that's what i think.

[ChristHimself!]

I liked how it left you with characters who were sitting thinking and all you could hear is the background noise... it lets you think and formulate your own opinions on the character. Anyways it was pretty good.

[scouse_dave]

Originally posted by 13
I saw it and i'm interested in your thoughts.

um, okay

similar to ryan, i really liked his style of direction. i enjoyed how the camera followed the central characters down the hallways of the school, perhaps to illustrate how mundane and run-of-the-mill the day was to each character prior to the shootings, but also heighten the sense of impending doom. i also liked how for large parts it was only that character that was in focus of the camera lens and everything beyond their immediate vicinity was in a haze.
i thought the inter-weaving of the different perspective's on the day was clever and well-done - particularly liked that in 'john's day' it showed the kids going into the school kitted-up fairly early on, it gave a real sense of anticipation for the rest of the movie. this, for me, was the highlight of the film. after that i think it lost its way somewhat.

there were too many things that were either badly thought out, poorly executed or erroneous to the story in general. why did Van Sant feel the need to have the 'bad kids' playing 'violent' computer games'? seemed like a cheapshot to me. what was the significance of having them watch the Hitler propaganda video? just seems like a easy trick to pull, to slide the nazi card in there and provide no justification/opinion/background etc etc. in a sense you knew nothing about the dark-haired 'bad' kid other than he watched a Nazi documentary once, had violent computer games on his hard drive, visited gun websites and had bits of wetted paper thrown at him in class. not much in the way of character development - seemed 'disturbed kid by numbers'. i didn't like the way his blonde friend just appeared without an introduction/background.

i have lots of niggles. what was the point of Benny? what the hell was the point in him being in the story? there were too many things like that. also, where people acted unrealistically IMO. the social studies class seemed far too calm for my liking when one of their classmates was shot dead right outside the door and was dragged inside, blood streaming behind him. why did the 'couple' at the end of the film not previously escape before going into the freezer. they were left alone from the camera for at least 10 minutes whilst everything was getting shot up, then when the camera did follow them they walked past 2 fire exits that i could see, along with dozens of windows. no, instead...let's get in the freezer. also re: the 'geeky girl' that didn't want to undress/wear shorts etc...everyone in her class was unbelievably attractive, i just don't think it was thought-through. i see the point they're trying to illustrate but they don't do it very well by having 95% beautiful girls then 5% (=ONE) awkward girl. why didn't john phone the police when he saw two kitted-up army dudes walking into his school?

some of the characters seemed wafer thin to me: there was the 'geeky library girl', the 'sorority clueless girls', the 'jock', the 'arty photographer type', they were like cardboard cut-outs. generally poor character development.

the shootout scenes in particular were an anti-climax for me and probably the worst scenes in the film. the film made a feature of the build-up/anticipation of the attack that i think concentrating so much time screen-time to it at the end was never going to work.

bringing it back to the positive points, i really liked the acting and the script. i don't think i ever thought to myself "ugh, he wouldn't have said that", which i do in nearly every film...so, for that, it gets credit. in general, i thought it was slightly disappointing given its good start.

btw, i went to see it with 3 of my mates..and we normally ask eachother what mark we'd give a film out of ten. i gave it 6. the others gave it 7, 3 and 0.7 respectively.

[sleeper]

elephant was one of the first films ive seen in the past 3 years that has left me unresolved. not in plot, but in overall opinion. i feel as though ive been shown greatness, but i dont know how to respond to it. the common criticism are on what superficially appear to be flaws: bad acting, slow progression and shots, etc. but films, especially from experienced respected directors, are now kinda immune from some topics criticisms. you cant really say the shots were too long because you must understand that guys like gus van sant rarely make these type of 'mistakes' and everything that is, is for a purpose - and in the case of this film, i think all they served a very delicate and deliberate purpose. i understand this and i thought about right after the film but i still couldnt really come to an equal level with what i just saw. but what really revolutionized my view of it was a two word description i read somewhere at sometime by someone: tone-poem. i think if you hated the film for whatever reason maybe this could reveal a new perspective on what you saw. the fact alone that confusion is so rampant and opinions so passionate about this kinda suggests that this is something important and precious, and there is enough content and mystery in it to validate this

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by scouse_dave

there were too many things that were either badly thought out, poorly executed or erroneous to the story in general. why did Van Sant feel the need to have the 'bad kids' playing 'violent' computer games'? seemed like a cheapshot to me. what was the significance of having them watch the Hitler propaganda video? just seems like a easy trick to pull, to slide the nazi card in there and provide no justification/opinion/background etc etc. in a sense you knew nothing about the dark-haired 'bad' kid other than he watched a Nazi documentary once, had violent computer games on his hard drive, visited gun websites and had bits of wetted paper thrown at him in class. not much in the way of character development - seemed 'disturbed kid by numbers'. i didn't like the way his blonde friend just appeared without an introduction/background.

let's see. it was kind of character development by sketch. you're shown several singular events and left to infer the rest, which was fine with me. if you met someone casually and spent an hour with them, would you really know them any better than you do the people in the film? no, but you would get a sense of their character... demeanor i mean. anyway i think that was the point.

the violent video game thing seems obvious as a "oh, you're blaming this violent video game" thing but i think he's just throwing in the things that have been scapegoated and show that they're no big deal to the kids. the one plays the video game nonchalantly for a while. as for the nazi video... the point i think was to pay attention to what the kids are saying while they were watching it... they don't really know much about naziism, they likely just admire hitler because he's the anti-thesis of what you should be.

i have lots of niggles. what was the point of Benny? what the hell was the point in him being in the story? there were too many things like that. also, where people acted unrealistically IMO. the social studies class seemed far too calm for my liking when one of their classmates was shot dead right outside the door and was dragged inside, blood streaming behind him. why did the 'couple' at the end of the film not previously escape before going into the freezer. they were left alone from the camera for at least 10 minutes whilst everything was getting shot up, then when the camera did follow them they walked past 2 fire exits that i could see, along with dozens of windows. no, instead...let's get in the freezer. also re: the 'geeky girl' that didn't want to undress/wear shorts etc...everyone in her class was unbelievably attractive, i just don't think it was thought-through. i see the point they're trying to illustrate but they don't do it very well by having 95% beautiful girls then 5% (=ONE) awkward girl. why didn't john phone the police when he saw two kitted-up army dudes walking into his school?

well. ok. Benny. he's introduced as a hero idea. he's shown to be cool and calm, and you'd typically expect him to when he's sneaking up behind Eric to tackle him and take his gun and save the day. but he gets shot. that's what really happens. it's similar to a story of a kid at Columbine who tried something like that.

people have a problem with that "gay discussion room" scene too, yeah. they say, "why do they think it's fake! he's bleeding! they should be screaming!" well, if you imagine yourself in the situation, at least for me, at school, all of a sudden someone falls over like they were shot, and you have no idea what's going on, isn't your first reaction confusion, then when you realize what happened, shock? you don't start screaming. at least i don't see it that way. you don't run the hell out. they did what seemed right, thought quick and got out the window.

and i could throw out various explanations most of the other things, whether they seem likely or not.

[scouse_dave]

Originally posted by Irrelevant
well. ok. Benny. he's introduced as a hero idea. he's shown to be cool and calm, and you'd typically expect him to when he's sneaking up behind Eric to tackle him and take his gun and save the day. but he gets shot. that's what really happens. it's similar to a story of a kid at Columbine who tried something like that.

fair enough...but it wasn't that Benny was in a difficult situation and tried to be a hero. he sought out the difficult situation, then acted like a tard. just completely implausible.

...i take your point re: the 'gay discussion' class, maybe they would have acted in that way, it's hard to say having never experienced it myself.

there's no excuse for the couple still being in the school tho. that was simply ridiculous.

[sleeper]

about benny: i think hes one indication of what i think the theme of the film is. the randomness and senselessness of it. there is no great secret answer to why columbine happened or why such violence happens. heres benny. saving the day. nope, hes dead. people try to find answers, like irrelevant said, with video games or hitler or whatever, but why is never conclusive. the very last shot is indicative of this, where the gunman decides the fate of these two lives with eeny meeny miny mo.

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by scouse_dave
fair enough...but it wasn't that Benny was in a difficult situation and tried to be a hero. he sought out the difficult situation, then acted like a tard. just completely implausible.

well, someone was saying that he was based (like many things in the movie) on the guy at columbine, who while the whole thing was going on stayed in the building, tried to help the wounded, and wound up meeting up with the killers (on purpose? they pretty much stayed in two places once they got there) and getting shot trying to get the gun. so it's not that implausible, even if it's definitely not what you or i would do. i tried finding the specific story on the columbine guy, but all i can ever find in articles is that he is an allusion to a story from columbine.

[TiaraGurl]

all the boys were yummy

[jenniferkate]

Originally posted by scouse_dave
so, anyone...? Irrelevant? 13? Jenniferkate?

ha. i don't watch anything new.

[13]

Originally posted by scouse_dave
um, okay

Don't um, okay me. I was only giving you the opportunity to express yourself. Afterall you seemed so eager.

As for the film, I personally thought that it was a masterful exercise in production with an inventive roshomon-like structure. However that may be, it's hard to ignore the fact that it's fundamentally flawed story-wise, as you pointed out. It's noble of van sant to invite the audience into a slow, methodical investigation of the columbine tragedy, which was metaphorically represented in the movie by its continuous takes, but he's being too presumptuous in trying to offer answers when there are no answers to begin with. We can't assume that columbine was about homosexual outcasts, as gay director van sant would like to think, or that the problem could be typified by bulimic superficial girls and mindless jocks. Its impossible to find answers as to what had happened, and van sant should know better.

[Mariner]

Originally posted by TiaraGurl
all the boys were yummy

[Irrelevant]

new sig!

[Irrelevant]

i didn't have the heart to delete the Battle Royale quote though. i never use my sig anyway