elephant

[Sleuth]

Does the whole film lead up to the shooting?  Or does it deal with both before and after

[Weak2ndAct]

Does the whole film lead up to the shooting?  Or does it deal with both before and after

First question: yes and no.  We are given hints of it and sort-of teases, b/c the movie has a fractured time structure-- seeing certain moments from different perspectives at different times-- but yes, the craziness breaks out at the end.

Second question: I hesitate to answer this as to not spoil, but no, we don't get to see the aftermath.

[TheVoiceOfNick]

I saw this last night, and it sucked monkey nuts.

[rustinglass]

I saw this last night, and it sucked monkey nuts.

Is that good or bad?

[TheVoiceOfNick]

I saw this last night, and it sucked monkey nuts.

Is that good or bad?

Hahaha... that's definetly bad... the movie went no where, and the shots were very self-aware and self-absorbed... the director obviously didn't get enough attention in his childhood...

[Pedro]

I saw this last night, and it sucked monkey nuts.

Is that good or bad?

the shots were very self-aware and self-absorbed.

what's wrong about being aware of coolness...are you saying that it's bad when directors know what they're doing looks good?  what about PTA movies?  those shots seem to be aware of themselves...

but really i probably shouldn't be talking...i haven't seem the full film yet...

[TheVoiceOfNick]

I saw this last night, and it sucked monkey nuts.

Is that good or bad?

the shots were very self-aware and self-absorbed.

what's wrong about being aware of coolness...are you saying that it's bad when directors know what they're doing looks good?  what about PTA movies?  those shots seem to be aware of themselves...

but really i probably shouldn't be talking...i haven't seem the full film yet...

At least PTA's shots are interesting and keep you in the film... these shots are SO self aware that they actually take you out of the film... and i'm guessing the director wanted to do the exact opposite... he wants us to be voyeurs... people looking in on this event that's happening... but to me it does the complete opposite.

[mutinyco]

I suppose that's your loss you didn't get it. For me, it was easily the best American narrative film I've seen this year. Won't be for everyone. And that's a good thing.

[cowboykurtis]

*possible spoilers*
i was disapointed. thought the "climax" was poorly executed, almost to the point of being irresponsible. did not feel it properly depicted the horror that most likely took place -- there was nothing that resonated at the end. i feel part of it has to do with the progression of the editing. i feel if you're goign to make a film about a true event, with no agenda, no "angle"; you should do just that -- i think one of the problems may have been the scenes that followed the actual "killers". it might have been more effective if we were completely focused on the world of the victims. there was an inherent sense of dread seeing these students roam around the hallway. we already knew what was coming; the suspense was brooding. but i felt the way it was cut elimintated the suspense adn sense of dread, we knew exactly when it was coming -- which in effect takes us out of the victims shoes and puts us in the predators. i think it was the wrong direction to take.

[mutinyco]

It was correct. It wasn't being told from anybody's POV. I don't think Van Sant intended to create suspense or any mood -- so much as oncoming dread. But he basically wanted to simply show things quite matter of fact as they might occur. I don't think his detached approach was that different than Kubrick's.

If you read my interviews with Van Sant and DP Harris Savides, they talk a bit about their approach. I think they've created a pretty original and poetic film. I think people are expecting traditional filmmaking -- and they're doing everything possible to avoid that. I think, again like Kubrick, people are going to see it with one expectation and when met with something different, they aren't able to necessarily 'get it.' It'll take another viewing or so.

[cowboykurtis]

It was correct. .

what does that mean? theres nothing to be correct about. and if you dont feel that the shooting was told from the predators point of view, you are the one who is NOT correct. there are specific shots looking straight down the gun barrel as they shoot people in the back. i feel the predators were impowered. we were very rarely with the victims. i do not feel in any way there was a detached nuetral position. it was far from that. you comment that "us people" were expecting a traditional film. traditional films are told from nuetral detached perspectives. i feel lthis was told very intimately from character to character. i also disagree with your kubrick comparison, but that a whole different debate.

[mutinyco]

Well, what does it mean when you say it was incorrect? I think the film was equally focused on the killers and victims. What about Benny, for instance? You think he's going to be a hero, but then he turns out not to be. That said, I don't see why it needed to focus more on the victims than the predators. I think the predators were ultimately more interesting.

One other thing -- most films ARE UNEQUIVOCALLY NOT TOLD FROM NEUTRAL POSITIONS. Most films are VERY SUBJECTIVE. Most films try to make you identify with your main character to the point of distortion.

[cowboykurtis]

One other thing -- most films ARE UNEQUIVOCALLY NOT TOLD FROM NEUTRAL POSITIONS. Most films are VERY SUBJECTIVE. Most films try to make you identify with your main character to the point of distortion.

i dont know what you consider MOST films. id say big studio features. if you think bad boys II is told in a very subjective perspective, you are mistaken again -- maybe  GIGLI fits into that description for you. you just really get intot the head of ben affleck -- it so distorted.

[pete]

I think this whole "does not attempt to answer questions nor give insights into the event but simply to let the viewers decide for themselves" angle, or the no-angle angle, is now dated and corny, and a little cowardly.

[TheVoiceOfNick]

I think this whole "does not attempt to answer questions nor give insights into the event but simply to let the viewers decide for themselves" angle, or the no-angle angle, is now dated and corny, and a little cowardly.

I completely agree... what does Van Sant think, we're going to side with the shooters?  Have some balls, dude!  Make a concrete point of view and stick with it... that doesn't mean that the point of view has to be blatant... it can be very subtle, but have one!  No one gives a shit what you're talking about and showing if you don't give an angle... no wonder this shitty movie will be in an out of the art houses in no time flat... i see it gaining no momentum because people simply don't care... forget the shots and the directing, and the bad actors (who were, i guess, trying to play themselves?... the main characters' names were their real life names)... try telling us something rather than just showing us a neutral standpoint... what a wussey coward.