What's so great about Gus Van Sant's Elephant?

Tools    





I'm perplexed that this film won the Palme d'Or at the 2003 Cannes Film Festival. In fact, I don't think it should have even been nominated.

It's not an awful film, but its not particularly good either. What stands out most to me is the acting. The acting is atrocious, and I'm not exaggerating here, it really feels like something out of a student film. There is a particular scene during the shooting scene, where the shooter is pointing his gun and taunting two students who are off-screen...I think the intent here was that the student's pleas for mercy would be uncomfortably considering that we can only hear them but not see them, and yet those two actors sound monotone and emotionless. The result of this awful acting is that it ends up becoming laughable and pulls you straight out of the film.

Is there something I'm missing here? Aside from the lousy performances, the film is an uncomfortable watch, but that's mainly because of the subject matter...it doesn't necessarily say anything or stand out in any regard.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I didn't have a problem with anything with the acting from what I remember. What threw me off with the movie, are the long takes of students doing nothing but walking for such long takes. I didn't understand why he did that. I do find it interesting that he chose to shoot the movie in 4:3 though, since hardly any directors choose to shoot in that anymore.



Elephant is, understandably, a very acquired taste and it's not going to work for everyone, but I love it. This movie is unique from most other true story films, because of how simple it seems at first glance. It offers no insight into the mental state of the shooters, no clear answers as to what the motives of the shooters were, and no schmaltziness which any other director would've included. It simply has the viewer act as an observer as you watch the day unfold. The majority of the film before the final act consists of following several students throughout the school in multiple slow, drawn out long takes. Van Sant's decision to include these long takes helps to establish you as an observer as it seems like you're following right behind them as they go about their day. There's a lot of sculpting in time involved which is immediately felt, for better or for worse depending on what the tastes of the person watching it are. This style won't gel with everyone, but I found it to be really compelling, and I think the effect would be lost if it were shot in a conventional manner with traditional pacing. Also, to go off on a bit of a tangent and to give me an excuse to analyze more, I've seen several critics and audience members puzzle over the meaning of the shower scene. In fact, I saw one person say that Van Sant was trying to pass the shooting off as a closeted gay rampage. However, I don't think Van Sant was saying that any homophobic angle was the direct cause to their violence. My interpretation on that scene and the scene of Eric playing a violent videogame was to reference the "The LGBTQ community is violent" and the "Violent media causes real violence" arguments. While he didn't specifically say that any of those aspects (or the fact that Alex got bullied in school) is what caused the shooting, I think he was simply saying that while you can make guesses as to what the cause was, there's no way to know for sure what caused it. As for the acting, it didn't really bother me, but I'm not one who particularly pays much attention to acting. I typically only notice shockingly good and shockingly bad acting. I'd say the acting in this film was in my spectrum of "Good enough, so I'm not going to criticize it".



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I also feel that movie the movie should have spent more time with the shooters, cause a lot of the victims just aren't that interesting. We have three teenage girls who are not only all coincidentally bulimic but they all happen to throw up their food at exactly the same time. I just didn't buy that, and maybe the writer needed to do a some more research there, unless I'm wrong.



I also feel that movie the movie should have spent more time with the shooters, cause a lot of the victims just aren't that interesting. We have three teenage girls who are not only all coincidentally bulimic but they all happen to throw up their food at exactly the same time. I just didn't buy that, and maybe the writer needed to do a some more research there, unless I'm wrong.
It's been at least a year since I've seen it, so I don't remember too much concerning the characterizations of the victims, but I do remember that the film was fairly slight on that front. Normally, I'd take issue with that, but in this case, I was so taken in by the feel that I didn't seem to mind. However, I do recall a few characterizations amongst a few of the students such as with Michelle and John. I'd have to watch the film again to be able to describe them better, but there is a bit in there. Not that much, but again, I feel like the feel is mostly at the forefront of the film. Overall, the film is not going to work for everyone, but it worked for me.