Xixax Film Forum

i saw a preview at AMERICAN SPLENDOR  this shit looks hot, kinda creepy lookin  my brother said it might be based at columbine but i dunno ? if it did thatd be hot and if it didnt someone needs to make a movie based at columbine, either on the day of the attack or pre/post im kinda trailing off here , shoulda saved that for the screenwriting board

The trailer does look good -- I liked the use of Moonlight Sonata, which I hear is the main score for the film itself as well. It's definitely based on Columbine. So is Zero Day, a no-budget indie which is getting a lot of acclaim and, I think, recently opened in NY and LA. I'm looking forward to seeing both of these films.

can anyone find a link to the trailer?

A friend caught it at Telluride and flipped for it.  He called me up and said "I know you and what your taste is-- this is gonna be one of your favorites this year."  I'm sold.  

*Apparently* the film is really accurate and honest about what High School life has degraded to these days.  Van Sant says that younger audiences are really digging it, older ones are a little freaked.

I'll be seeing it soon at the NYFF. Just tune in and you'll get my reaction.

I can't wait to see this.  It might be an alright movie season after all...

saw Zero Day last night at a test screening in nj. The movie is terrific, one of my favorites this year for sure, tho i doubt it'll get much play outside ny/la. Too bad, this film should be seen by all.

cant wait for elephant.

Quote from: Weak2ndAct
*Apparently* the film is really accurate and honest about what High School life has degraded to these days.

what, like pogs and shit like that?

Quote from: lamas

Quote from: Weak2ndAct
*Apparently* the film is really accurate and honest about what High School life has degraded to these days.

what, like pogs and shit like that?

Yes.  Welcome to the early 1990s.  But you forgot to mention slap bracelets.

so is it before or after the attack , it better be before , that would be a much more interesting movie

I think it's going to be great! along with dogville and lordoftherings, this one movie that I absolutely want to see this year

Trailer linkage?

Quote from: Pedro the WombatTrailer linkage?

closest thing I found....international but click the various clips on the left
http://www.commeaucinema.com/popupba/index.php?id=14179

http://www.apple.com/trailers/newline/elephant/

trailer in Quicktime

Thank you thank you thank you.

I can't wait.

wow that movie looks incredible.  When the two kids are walking in camo to the school i actually gasped......................................

yeah, it gave me chills

I've been obsessing over this trailer.  I haven't watched one like this since PDL....It's even overthrown Kill Bill.

Great trailer, i liked the scene when the boy and girl run away and down the hall out-of-focus the kid is walking past.

The poster is the best poster I've seen in a long time.

damn, that's freaky trailer, I would say one of the best. And I do believe -no I'm certain- that the music enhances that feeling in people. My sister told me once that people with suicidal tendencies should not listen to beethoven, otherwise they could snap.

Quote from: GhostboyThe poster is the best poster I've seen in a long time.

Poster linkage?

:shock: This trailer gave me the chills... similar to my reaction when I took a bite upon the new Burger King chicken baguette sandwich.

I did a Google image search for the poster, but it apparently isn't available yet. I saw it at the theater this morning. It's very stark and beautiful. The kind that works more as art than advertisement.

I love how he portraits the highschool. I got the feeling of shining-like corridors and the teenagers as wandering ghosts.


edit: found the poster, couldn't get a bigger one.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plume-noire.com%2Fgif%26co%2Fposter%2Felephant.gif&hash=d0ee54a6f914dc40eeb6940d6e37f3489bd8a61a)

That's not the one I saw.

Quote from: rustinglassI love how he portraits the highschool. I got the feeling of shining-like corridors and the teenagers as wandering ghosts.

On the Cannes website they have a link to a clip...there's a steadicam shot that totally reminded me of the Shining...it was smoooooooth.

Wow! I just watched the thing without any sound (broken speakers) and I'm still overwhelmed! This is really good to see, I can't wait. I mean, not just this being such a potentially great year for movies but also seeing Gus Van Sant get back into the groove. I haven't seen Gerry yet but I'll always respect it even if I do end up hating it. I mean, I've always loved his stuff...Drugstore Cowboy and My Own Private Idaho are two of my favorite movies and Good Will Hunting is really cool too. But between Private Idaho and Good Will Hunting, he kinda lost his touch (and then there's Finding Forrester, wtf was that?)...I am so happy to see him making movies again. This one definitely jumped up on my must see list, I might have waited for video if not for seeing such a great trailer.

Oh yea...there's definitely some Kubricky stuff in that trailer, from Van Sant's IMDB bio:

Favorite director is Stanley Kubrick

There are 6 teasers here along with some clips including the trailer:

http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2003/Elephant/trailer-page.html

Film Comment had an article on Elephant, and (i believe) an interview with Van Sant.......yes, i remember, they ask "why Psycho?"

I am actually really gonna make an effort to go see this...I am sorta a sucker for good movies about high school...I dunno why, maybe it's cause I have a gang of high school stories myself....but the idea of this movie (I am a ssuming it's about a shootin' type thing) hits kinda close, cause though it never happened, a went to a school where I could see it happenin'.  The perfect school in a town withdrawn from reality.  Sorta a touchy subject but I like the idea of Gus takin' aim at it....

release date?

I think it opens October 24th in limited release if I'm not mistaken.

I'll be seeing it at the denver international film fest (where my own short's playing, yay), and what's interesting is that Columbine is still very much the elephant around here, since me and many friends were too close to the events.  I knew people who attended Columbine, I was at a high school not fifteen minutes away from it when it occurred, and there were many people affected by this event, the national repercussions withstanding, and like 9/11, it's one of those things that I think is too early to objectify, or to showcase.  But I believe this is just for people who were affected.  Certainly a film about 9/11 today wouldn't be in the public's best interest.  I find it interesting Sant chose to do it now.

I saw it today. It's tremendously beautiful.

Quote from: GhostboyThat's not the one I saw.

shit. Anyway I found a slightly different one and bigger!

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cineart.be%2FImages%2FAffiches%2F674-1-b.jpg&hash=01abe78a7c9951daac2bbc399c62ff5a232066d6)

the poster i saw was a white background with an elephant outline with that picture of liv tyler kissing mac culkin in the center.

That's the one I saw, too.

And what is your new avatar from? The same place as Banky's, I imagine? Hot damn. I like it more than the UPS one.

I like the avatar as well. I just wanna know where they are getting these new britney pics from.

~rougerum

Quote from: GhostboyThat's the one I saw, too.

And what is your new avatar from? The same place as Banky's, I imagine? Hot damn. I like it more than the UPS one.

yeah, the same place, which should hit mag. racks shortly, if not already.

I need to see this...I need to pirate it so I can hold myself off til I buy it or something...I must see it!

Can someone post the poster that Ghostboy saw?

That poster is simply beautiful.  Man, I can't wait to see this movie.

I'm extremely interested in this film...but its hard to be living in central Illinois and want to see a film that isn't "Bad Boys II".  Both American Splendor and Lost in Translation didn't come within 60 miles of me.

until the poster is found somewhere on the net, use your imagination:

1.Go to the website: http://www.elephantmovie.com/
2. Imagine the elephant in red centered on a white background
3. Imagine the kissing pic boxed and centered inside the elephant
4. Enjoy the poster

fucking hell this movie looks beautiful.

next time i go up state, i'm catching this one, american splendor, bubba ho-tep, and lost in translation. those are the movies i've been getting a boner over this year.

Quote from: snaporazthose are the movies i've been getting a boner over this year.

then stay the hell outta my aisle.....

Woah...i was just reading up on the website and it seems it's shot in 1:33:1...wow... i wonder how theaters are gonna handle that.

Some of the teasers are really chilling. I got real chills on the one where the girls are in the bathroom and hear gunshots going off. This truly looks like a great piece of filmmaking.

Does music play during the teasers or is it all dialogue? My sound doesn't work. God, it looks beautiful though. I liked Good Will Hunting but I've been hoping for a Van Sant film that's as good as My Own Private Idaho and Drugstore Cowboy. Those are absolute classics. This one looks like it may be on that leavel. Maybe Gerry too.

Quote from: Pedro the WombatWoah...i was just reading up on the website and it seems it's shot in 1:33:1...wow... i wonder how theaters are gonna handle that.

well how did theaters do it way back when when all films were in 1:33:1?

I think the only music that plays in the teasers is Moonlight Sonata. I assume that the film will do the same thing.

Saw it last night and loved it.  All the steadicam work was incredible, and gave it a lot of great intensity.  I don't want to say anything else in case of spoilers, but people that complained it was irresponsible don't know what they're talking about.

Quote from: SydneyI think the only music that plays in the teasers is Moonlight Sonata. I assume that the film will do the same thing.

It starts of with fur elise but then at the end goes with the 2nd movement of moonlight sonata.

what a great fucking trailer.

Quote from: dufresnewhat a great fucking trailer.

It's even better in theaters...I get all misty eyed and my hair stands up...it's amazing.

that blond in the trailer reminds me of Spicoli.


hahaha

"This is histroy Class right.  I saw the globe in the window."

so why is this movie called Elephant?

i think i have an idea...

The only thing I can think of is the expression "the elephant in the room."  No clue, though.  Definitely an intriguing title.

That's why.

It's that, plus the old tale of the blind men feeling parts of an elephant and trying to describe the whole thing. The point is, they're trying to describe the entire object by just touching the tusk, per se. So there's so many factors to events like school shootings that to pick one motivation or one explanation is futile and naive in the scheme of the whole.

Like I said in my NYFF coverage, it's the best American film I've seen so far this year.

Los Angeles Times article:

Shooting without answers
Director Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant' examines -- but doesn't explain -- a Columbine-like shooting. He says the film is more like a poem than a detective story.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2003-10%2F9845334.jpg&hash=c7be91355e424a2f71066d7844f308d9ade50a0a)

Gus Van Sant has made acclaimed films about thieving junkies ("Drugstore Cowboy"), young male hustlers ("My Own Private Idaho") and one ice-cold, fame-seeking murderess ("To Die For"), but he knew that dramatizing a Columbine-like school shooting would cross a line with some filmgoers.

"An event like [Columbine] is so grotesque that the taste level of doing a dramatic piece on something like that is brought into question because of the way we think of drama itself," Van Sant says. "We think of it as entertainment, and I've never really thought of it as strictly entertainment."

The news media reported the 1999 Columbine attack in grisly detail and commentators rushed to assign blame. The shooters' faces adorned the cover of Time magazine. Last year's controversial Oscar-winning documentary, "Bowling for Columbine," even included surveillance footage of the shooting from inside the high school.

Van Sant says his new film, "Elephant," is "not so much a cry against journalistic practices, but if journalistic practices allow this, then why not dramatic practices?" The techniques, he notes, are often similar.

"Elephant" quietly observes, from multiple points of view, several students who cross paths in the hallways of a suburban American high school on a seemingly normal weekday that culminates in a massacre. It's a provocative film that resolutely refuses to preach, an approach that has frustrated and even angered some of its audience.

Never shy about being provocative, the jury at the Cannes Film Festival in May certainly wasn't put off; it awarded both the Palme d'Or and the best director prizes to "Elephant," a surprise to most festival handicappers in the wake of the film's mixed post-screening buzz and high-profile trashings by American critics. (The film opens in Los Angeles and New York on Friday.)

Van Sant, who was Oscar-nominated for directing the sleeper box-office hit "Good Will Hunting," has weathered bad reviews before, especially for "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" and his audacious but widely panned shot-by-shot color remake of "Psycho" in 1998. Following that with the mildly received "Finding Forrester," Van Sant seemingly solidified the transition from indie adventurousness to studio mainstream, which some early fans saw as selling out.

But then Van Sant switched gears again, leaping toward the avant-garde with the experimental (and little-seen) "Gerry," released this year, and now "Elephant," which was cast with real students; both films were low-budget and mostly improvised.

"I had been through lots of different styles of filmmaking," says the soft-spoken Van Sant, 51, sitting poolside at a trendy Beverly Hills hotel, huddled in a black corduroy "Psycho" crew jacket and nursing a bad cough. "I wanted to do anything that just didn't bespeak of a style that I thought was something that belonged in another century, a historic style, a style that had outgrown itself and became repetitive."

"Gus is the same to me from when we were doing the bigger films to this film," says "Elephant" producer Dany Wolf, who has worked with the director since "Psycho." "I know the films are different, but he's very true to his creative instincts, and I think he has come back to what he likes and prefers."

The art-school-educated Van Sant, whose other creative endeavors included painting, music, writing and photography, is working on another improvisational, experimental film to shoot next year. He's "getting to do what he wants, and I think what we're getting to see with 'Gerry' and with 'Elephant' is a very pure, unfiltered director's vision," Wolf says.

Originally, Van Sant conceived of "Elephant" as a relatively immediate response to Columbine, a TV movie to air the month after the attack that would be a psychological examination of two boys who commit a school shooting, whether the shooting was shown or not. He approached an executive he knew at the USA cable network but quickly found that the subject was too volatile; the executives of the broadcast networks were meeting that week with then-President Clinton about violence on television.

Van Sant later discussed the idea with Diane Keaton, with whom he shares an agent, and she suggested HBO. Colin Callender, president of HBO Films, was enthusiastic but interested not in a factual re-creation of Columbine but an approximation of the event, the way Alan Clarke's 1989 BBC film "Elephant" portrayed the futility of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland.

"We had been [pitched] in the early days certain Columbine movies that seemed to me to be slightly ambulance-chasing," Callender says. But "a filmmaker of Gus' stature, who had over the years so insightfully explored youth culture in different sorts of ways, the idea that he would take this on in an interesting and unusual way, frankly, defines the sort of film that we want to make."

Van Sant asked "Gummo" director Harmony Korine, who had told Van Sant that Clarke's "Elephant" was his favorite film, to write a script, but Korine became focused on other work and never finished a draft. So Van Sant turned to cult author J.T. LeRoy, whose novel "Sarah" Van Sant was adapting into a screenplay. LeRoy wrote a script titled "Tommy Gun" that connected fictional vignettes of high school students' lives — bullying, gym class, a classroom discussion of violence in schools — all witnessed by Tommy, a scrawny 14-year-old who carried a gun around school inside a book. At the end, whether Tommy would actually shoot anyone was left ambiguous.

However, Van Sant, invigorated by the unorthodox methods he employed in making "Gerry," decided that if he were to make a film dealing with Columbine, he wanted to shoot without a screenplay, in black and white (although he ultimately opted to film "Elephant" in color) and with nonprofessional actors in Portland, Ore., where he lives.

"Things changed for Gus when he did 'Gerry,' " says Keaton, noting that he didn't want scripts anymore. (She executive-produced "Elephant" with partner Bill Robinson through their company, Blue Relief.) Van Sant was afraid to lay out his conditions to his producers and HBO, but LeRoy ran interference and Callender, to Van Sant's surprise, approved. Vestiges of LeRoy's script remain in "Elephant," and the author, who was kept involved in the film, is credited as an associate producer.

Callender says there wasn't a plan to whether "Elephant" would premiere on HBO or first be distributed theatrically, but a decision to do the latter was firmed at Cannes and "Elephant" is being released as part of HBO's distribution deal with Time Warner sibling Fine Line Features.

No easy answers

Inspired by LeRoy's script, Van Sant decided to expand his focus to the lives of the shooters' classmates and their problems. He also decided against offering any concrete psychological motivations for the shooting because, in the several years since Columbine, he realized many of the explanations given were insufficient.

"I think it would have just been a little passion play about two kids that get mixed up and have a death wish and attack their fellow students," he says. "I didn't think that that was going to help anything." Van Sant alludes in the film to a litany of possible influences on the shooters — bullying, video games, the Internet, access to guns, homosexuality, Hitler, Satan, parental absence, television — without committing to any of them. Instead, he wants the audience to review their own opinions about Columbine's causes.

"Elephant," Van Sant says, is more like a poem about Columbine than a detective story. The film's refraining from giving answers drew reprobation from American film critics in Cannes, especially those from L.A.

The scathing Variety review called "Elephant" "gross and exploitative" and "pointless at best and irresponsible at worst," while in this newspaper Kenneth Turan wrote that the Cannes jury had confused "artful vacuousness with genuine art." Van Sant says he isn't surprised by the critical reception since he was jettisoning theatrical conventions most moviegoers assume a film is supposed to have. "I think that [critics] have their viewpoints and their viewpoints are valid. Really, the film is meant to be looked at and commented on. It's not meant to be commented on particularly favorably."

"Elephant's" dialogue was mostly improvised by high schoolers who played themselves or characters close to themselves, with most using their real first names on screen; Van Sant wanted to place viewers "in this verisimilitude of high school," he says. (There were only three professional actors, including Timothy Bottoms, who were cast to play the adult roles.)

The film was shot on a $3.5-million budget over 20 days last November in a recently decommissioned high school in Portland, where an open casting call attracted thousands of students. Van Sant sat in on casting director Mali Finn's sessions, where she interviewed the teenagers about their real-life struggles.

"She'll find very quickly something that might be upsetting the person she's talking to," he says, "and those interviews tended to have lots of different things that we were making our film about."

Van Sant held improvisation sessions to find out which students could act and then wrote the story around the cast he selected, incorporating what he remembered reading and hearing about Columbine and other school shootings, as well as taking inspiration from his friends' and his own high school experiences.

Who would play them?

The difficult part was casting the shooters, Alex and Eric. "The kids that I cast claimed that they could easily imagine carrying through an attack on their fellow students. They hated school so much," Van Sant says.

"I think imagining it is a lot different than doing it. I think we all probably have moments where you say, 'I want to kill them.' But it's an imagination, it's not reality. And the difference between what really happened and the imagining it is where the gray area lies."

Clarke's "Elephant" was titled after the proverbial elephant in the living room, but when Van Sant decided to name his film after Clarke's, he thought the title referred to the Buddhist parable about a group of blind men who each touch a different part of an elephant, each concluding it's something different since none sees the whole. It was an apt metaphor for the way our society tends to look for a single answer to a problem, Van Sant says.

"I think in our country — and I'm one of them too — I always think that there's causes for things. In other cultures, they have words for somebody who runs amok; they just go crazy. And in our culture, we don't allow that.

"People don't just go crazy. There's a reason why. Which I'm not positive there actually [is] I don't see any of the reporting really aiming at these kids just snapped, because I guess it's too abstract. Because people don't understand what insanity is, so they push it aside and they say, 'Well, that doesn't exist because we don't understand it.' "

Van Sant pauses. "This is a lot different than the stuff I was talking about yesterday," he says, when he spoke to interviewers further about societal and peer pressures."There's so many different hypotheses."

Whatever answers he may have today, Van Sant says, "I might realize by the end of the month that it's actually off-base."

Finally, now everyone can be satisified knowing that they have finally seen the poster we had all been talking about some time ago.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviegoods.com%2FAssets%2Fproduct_images%2F1020%2F184984.1020.A.jpg&hash=783b0dd814c32004136bdacc509cd84edd72657d)

I like that one better.

Gus Van Sant and Diane Keaton will be coming on Charlie Rose tomorrow night!

When's tomorrow? Tuesday (the 21st)? Or did you make that post Sunday?



EDIT --- The guide says Meg fucking Ryan is on fucking tonight so I probably fucking missed it! FUCK!!!!!!! You have no motherfucking fucking clue how fucking pissed I am right now.

he's coming on this wednesday

That's a beautiful poster. I'm looking forward to this one.

Meg Ryan might be okay, now... let's wait till In the Cut. Couldn't be any worse than Holy Smoke.

what station / time does Charlie Rose come on/at?

PBS

check tvguide.com for time

am i wrong, or does pbs not air charlie rose anymore?

You're wrong.  Dead wrong.

My Elephant-sized coverage is up at:

http://movienavigator.org/elephant.htm

Okay.  So I just got back from the movie.  Short review: I loved it.  It was what I expected, but also not what I expected.  I thought the performances of all the kids were really great.  Wished we would have had more Timothy Bottoms, but that's okay, his moments were wonderful.  And suprisingly, not as violent as I was lead to believe.  But after the movie I was seriously bummed b/c one my projects is essentially a moot point now.  It's not a school-shooting movie per se, but some bad shit happens, and I can't count the number of sequences where I wrote "and we follow them down the hall as they walk," then they basically get into what the first half of the movie is  :cry: with all the vapid conversations and what not.  Van Sant said everything I was trying to say, but better, more succintly, and to the point.  It's a bizarre, horrifying experience to see a story you've lived w/ for many years suddenly appear on the screen in a similar form.  But better.  Oh well, the movie's still really great though.
P.S. LA audiences suck.  A lot of jaded people looking at their cellphones and blackberries during the steadicam shots and some people were actually *excited* during the shooting, as if they were watching Bad Boys 2.  I'm so depressed.

Best American fiction film I've seen this year.

Quote from: mutinycoBest American fiction film I've seen this year.

Yeah, pretty much agree, although it's a toss up for me whether I like this or Dogville more.  Those are my favorite 2 from the year.

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

Quote from: tremoloslothDoes 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.

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

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNickI saw this last night, and it sucked monkey nuts.

Is that good or bad?

Quote from: rustinglass

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNickI 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...

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick

Quote from: rustinglass

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNickI 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...

Quote from: Pedro the Wombat

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick

Quote from: rustinglass

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNickI 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.

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.

*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.

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.

Quote from: mutinycoIt 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.

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.

Quote from: mutinyco
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.

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.

Quote from: peteI 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.

Quote from: mutinycoWell, 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.

I haven't seen Elephant yet, but I do agree that there's a huge overemphasis on "identification" in the movies. I don't think it's a terribly valuable or gratifying aim in most cases, and they usually get it wrong anyway.

I think both Nick and Pete are misdirected. I saw it for a second time last night and it still held together. Having a unilateral POV is what's wrong with art and culture nowadays. As Kubrick felt, the most interesting thing about 20th Century art was its subjectivity, but in doing so, art had lost any sense of objectivity.

I not only think what Van Sant did was correct, but it was ballsy. A lot more ballsy than trying to augment the matrial to suit one argument. It's a lot scarier and more complicated to tell things how they are instead of how YOU see them. That's the point of the movie: the subject is too complex to be explained from one person's perspective.

And BBII is of course being told in a style that suits its jokester leads -- beautiful but shallow. You're meant to totally identify with them because they're the good guys -- even though they're 'bad boys'. That's how most films are. I'm not talking about subjectivity to the point where everything is specifically from that person's POV -- I'm talking about the tone of storytelling and they way a film is shot to mirror that character's world. In other words, filmmaking with a sharp foreground and zero background.

As for staying power at the BO, let me tell you of a few other other films that fell off immediately but have done quite well on video: Magnolia, Fight Club, Rushmore, Eyes Wide Shut, Punch Drunk love... It's not about the short-run. It's about the longrun. This film is going to be around for a while. Even if it takes a while to achieve its recognition.

disclaimer again, I have yet to see the film, so I'm just arguing against how the film's advertised and how the filmmakers (director, actors, and cinematographer...etc.) talked about how the film was shot.  I really don't think hiding behind multiple point of view is more ballsy than saying what one believes.  a situation can be multifaceted sure, it can be complex sure, not black or white sure--but to leave it as it is by saying "it's too complicated so you should find out what's the best for you" is not half as ballsy as "this is the situation and this is my opinion on the situation, and since I'm a filmmaker, an artist, this is my slice of The Truth."
post modernism died, for good reasons.

mutinyco, i get where you're coming from, but i guess i'm more into movies that have a point of view, and show some subjectivity, however subtle... even reality TV is able to have a certain point of view through editing.  I guess the reason i feel this way, is that i want film to be relatable to some degree... i see everything through my own perspective, and not through a floating bird's-eye view like in this movie, so i want my movies to have someone's perspective... that way I can relate... i felt totally detached and uninterested with Elephant.

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNickmutinyco, i get where you're coming from, but i guess i'm more into movies that have a point of view, and show some subjectivity, however subtle... even reality TV is able to have a certain point of view through editing.  I guess the reason i feel this way, is that i want film to be relatable to some degree... i see everything through my own perspective, and not through a floating bird's-eye view like in this movie, so i want my movies to have someone's perspective... that way I can relate... i felt totally detached and uninterested with Elephant.

I haven't seen Elephant (though I am eager to), but I strongly disagree with the need for "relatability." A friend and I have constant disagreements on this. He'll dismiss the movie because the characters weren't "likeable' (or sometimes even that they weren't "attractive," which is even more ludicrous! The attractiveness thing came up with Adaptation).

While I agree that anything utilizing a medium automatically becomes subjective, I think an emphasis on the more coolly observational is crucial now- and reality TV doesn't count! I'm talking about films like Kubrick's, Fassbinder's, Greenaway's, the exceptionally brilliant Safe, or, from the sounds of it, Elephant. We're so used to everything being telegraphed loudly and bluntly into our faces that a few steps back feels like this huge relief to me; allow some space in which the film and the audience can have a relationship of a little bit more enduring complexity. And those sorts of films stay with me longer; they can nag at you and haunt you more deeply. It's the difference between feeling superficially "involved" in something that you know isn't real, and feeling as if you've witnessed something. All it takes to "get into" those types of films- the ones that don't grab you by the collar and head-butt you- is an interest in the world, the way it works, and the people in it. Anna Karina says something akin to this in Vivre sa Vie: "You only have to take an interest."

look at Do the Right Thing; it was complex, had multiple points of view, didn't preach (or "telegraph messages"), but still had something to say.  

a film with a message isn't necessarily a propaganda film.  a film with nothing to say isn't necessarily deeper.

Quote from: godardianHe'll dismiss the movie because the characters weren't "likeable' (or sometimes even that they weren't "attractive," which is even more ludicrous! The attractiveness thing came up with Adaptation).

I don't really care for attractiveness or likeability... but I want to know SOMEONE's story from their point of view... its just a way of seeing things... you say tomato, i say tomoto -kinda thing, ya know?

Quote from: godardianAll it takes to "get into" those types of films- the ones that don't grab you by the collar and head-butt you- is an interest in the world, the way it works, and the people in it. Anna Karina says something akin to this in Vivre sa Vie: "You only have to take an interest."

But this movie totally took me out of itself... it called so much attention to itself, and was SO different, that i knew I was watching a movie the whole time... making me less interested... there was no belief to suspend, if you will... the only thing that could have been done to make this more self-aware, is if the director yelled "cut" and walked into frame during the climax...

AHHH!!! You just said it: the movie was so different (original?) that you had difficulty relating to it. That's exactly how a lot of people feel about Kubrick. That's why his movies get so much better with each viewing -- because you now know what to expect to a certain degree -- you're more atuned to the film's sensibility. Then you can start to see it for what it is.

It's my opinion, a film that's difficult to crack is more often the film I want to crack. The one that intrigues me. It's not explaining things upfront. It forces the viewer to participate. That why you're taken out of the moment on first viewings -- you're being forced to do a little work. Once you become used to it, though, the setting feels more real than another type of film.

As for the roving camera, I think it's beautiful like The Shining. By distancing the viewer slightly from the action, what it's doing is forcing the viewer to step into the scene, instead of forcing the scene onto the viewer. Here, the school is as much a character as anybody -- not unlike The Overlook Hotel.

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick

Quote from: godardianHe'll dismiss the movie because the characters weren't "likeable' (or sometimes even that they weren't "attractive," which is even more ludicrous! The attractiveness thing came up with Adaptation).

I don't really care for attractiveness or likeability... but I want to know SOMEONE's story from their point of view... its just a way of seeing things... you say tomato, i say tomoto -kinda thing, ya know?

Quote from: godardianAll it takes to "get into" those types of films- the ones that don't grab you by the collar and head-butt you- is an interest in the world, the way it works, and the people in it. Anna Karina says something akin to this in Vivre sa Vie: "You only have to take an interest."

But this movie totally took me out of itself... it called so much attention to itself, and was SO different, that i knew I was watching a movie the whole time... making me less interested... there was no belief to suspend, if you will... the only thing that could have been done to make this more self-aware, is if the director yelled "cut" and walked into frame during the climax...

...as he did in the last frames of To Die For, actually.  :lol:

It's nice to disagree on this topic with someone who has thoughts and is able to consider and articulate them, though...

Quote from: mutinycoThat's exactly how a lot of people feel about Kubrick.

Yeah, but Kubrick's movies have interesting character and complex senarios... things that Elephant has none of... the characters are boring, and the senario is, well, an old fashioned school... sure, the shooters could be construed as interesting characters, but they aren't... they seem just like normal kids... <SPOILERS: SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH TO NOT GET SPOILED> i felt the shower scene was totally random, and didn't add any complexity to the characters... so he's gay, or curious... does that make this whole thing more plausable?  Is it some kind of Shakespearean love-murder-suicide?

This director has nothing on Kubrick... Kubrick has made some of the most amazing movies in history... i was able to be drawn into his films upon first viewing them... they have edge and character... its an insult that this hack (Van Sant) could be named in the same thread as Kubrick... a frickin insult!  :)

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick

Quote from: mutinycoThat's exactly how a lot of people feel about Kubrick.

Yeah, but Kubrick's movies have interesting character and complex senarios... things that Elephant has none of... the characters are boring, and the senario is, well, an old fashioned school... sure, the shooters could be construed as interesting characters, but they aren't... they seem just like normal kids... <SPOILERS: SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH TO NOT GET SPOILED> i felt the shower scene was totally random, and didn't add any complexity to the characters... so he's gay, or curious... does that make this whole thing more plausable?  Is it some kind of Shakespearean love-murder-suicide?

This director has nothing on Kubrick... Kubrick has made some of the most amazing movies in history... i was able to be drawn into his films upon first viewing them... they have edge and character... its an insult that this hack (Van Sant) could be named in the same thread as Kubrick... a frickin insult!  :)

SPOILERS PERHAPS EXTENDED:

Weren't the Columbine killers always being called gay as a putdown, though? Most things I've read make that connection with the shower scene...

Quote from: godardianSPOILERS PERHAPS EXTENDED:

Weren't the Columbine killers always being called gay as a putdown, though? Most things I've read make that connection with the shower scene...

They've called the Columbine killers lots of stuff... they've even said that they were listening to devil's music beforehand (Marilyn Manson, maybe? I don't remember)... anyways... they'll come up with any excuse to place the blame somewhere... whatever makes them sleep well at night...

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick

Quote from: godardianSPOILERS PERHAPS EXTENDED:

Weren't the Columbine killers always being called gay as a putdown, though? Most things I've read make that connection with the shower scene...

They've called the Columbine killers lots of stuff... they've even said that they were listening to devil's music beforehand (Marilyn Manson, maybe? I don't remember)... anyways... they'll come up with any excuse to place the blame somewhere... whatever makes them sleep well at night...

I meant by their classmates, though, before the massacre... Not as an excuse for what went down, obviously, but as relates to the verisimilitude of the shower scene...

Quote from: mutinyco

And BBII is of course being told in a style that suits its jokester leads -- beautiful but shallow. You're meant to totally identify with them because they're the good guys -- even though they're 'bad boys'. That's how most films are. I'm not talking about subjectivity to the point where everything is specifically from that person's POV -- I'm talking about the tone of storytelling and they way a film is shot to mirror that character's world. In other words, filmmaking with a sharp foreground and zero background.
.

Learn what the word subjectivity means and get back to me. we're talking about 2 different things here, rendering the debate lifeless.

goddammit Nick, HOW DARE you not know the meaning of the word "subjectivity"!  You party foul.  You misinformed, underedumacated, party foul.
You better learn the meaning of that word and get back to cowboy dude, 'cause I don't think it was very nice of you to use the word like that.  Jackass.

Quote from: petegoddammit Nick, HOW DARE you not know the meaning of the word "subjectivity"!  You party foul.  You misinformed, underedumacated, party foul.
You better learn the meaning of that word and get back to cowboy dude, 'cause I don't think it was very nice of you to use the word like that.  Jackass.

But what IS subjectivity?  The term subjectivity should be objective, but is something so objective really objective, or can it have some subjectivity and be open to interpretation.  This whole post seems very subjective to me...

Ok, Woody Allen and Diane Keaton did it so much better in Love and Death...

Yeah, I think we're at that point in this thread where both sides are totally entrenched and not budging, so it starts becoming repetitious. I would like to stress one thing: the kids aren't gay. In fact the camera goes out of its way to suggest otherwise. The night before the massacre there's an overhead shot panning from Eric to Alex as they're asleep. Note: They're both on different beds. They're NOT sleeping together. The kiss was about human connection. That's why one of them says just before the kiss that he's never kissed anybody before. It's not about kissing another male, but just to have had that experience before he dies.

And calm down about your comparisons between Kubrick and "this director". I would consider Gus Van Sant fairly well-established. He's been around for nearly 20 years as a feature director, making some great indies. He got his Oscar nom for Good Will Hunting, then did some Hollywood crap. Now he's back innovating. That said, Elephant was one of the only really innovative films I've seen all year.

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick

Quote from: petegoddammit Nick, HOW DARE you not know the meaning of the word "subjectivity"!  You party foul.  You misinformed, underedumacated, party foul.
You better learn the meaning of that word and get back to cowboy dude, 'cause I don't think it was very nice of you to use the word like that.  Jackass.

But what IS subjectivity?  The term subjectivity should be objective, but is something so objective really objective, or can it have some subjectivity and be open to interpretation.  This whole post seems very subjective to me...

Ok, Woody Allen and Diane Keaton did it so much better in Love and Death...

I was kidding Nick.  That was facetitiousness.

Quote from: pete

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick

Quote from: petegoddammit Nick, HOW DARE you not know the meaning of the word "subjectivity"!  You party foul.  You misinformed, underedumacated, party foul.
You better learn the meaning of that word and get back to cowboy dude, 'cause I don't think it was very nice of you to use the word like that.  Jackass.

But what IS subjectivity?  The term subjectivity should be objective, but is something so objective really objective, or can it have some subjectivity and be open to interpretation.  This whole post seems very subjective to me...

Ok, Woody Allen and Diane Keaton did it so much better in Love and Death...

I was kidding Nick.  That was facetitiousness.

Me too... but I was being sarcastic... :)...

Um, sorry to interrupt the movie discussion here... but I was wondering if anybody heard if/when this will play in Canada (particularily Alberta) or where I could check to find out.

And it seems the website is not working...

Quote from: mutinycoI would like to stress one thing: the kids aren't gay. In fact the camera goes out of its way to suggest otherwise. The night before the massacre there's an overhead shot panning from Eric to Alex as they're asleep. Note: They're both on different beds. They're NOT sleeping together. The kiss was about human connection.

I think the idea of a kiss being asexual and just about connection is a beautiful one.

But "stressing" that these kids are NOT gay... seems a little defensive to me. Not having seen the film, I can't really make any judgment, and it really doesn't matter to me if they are or they aren't, but you can absolutely be gay without ever having sex. Just because they're not having sex doesn't mean it's impossible that there's any attraction. So, unless you have a more concrete example than the one you cite... I think it's probably, like much else in the film from the sound of it, up for discussion and not a closed issue...?

About the kiss, I personally think it was to emphasize how alienated the two boys have become.  At that moment before the shooting, the kiss -- to me at least -- shows how they were all that mattered to each other.

Then again all the other theories I've heard and read are all true too (though I personally think the homosexuality route is too easy).  That's where the beauty of the film lies.  It doesn't judge, nor does it try to come to any conclusions about its characters' actions.  The film is an exploration of youth and ultimately, nothing can really be concluded about it.  

What Van Sant achieves with Elephant is pure art, even in its seemingly contrived moments (the girls throwing up... I personally thought it was Gus's way of attacking stereotypes about youth, throwing it in the midst of things as a juxtaposition to everything that preceded... the state of grace, tne unrecognizable representation of high school as compared to prior films, etc.  It also works as another way of showing how degraded youth has become in a very up front, almost tangible way.  But that's jut me...).  Elephant doesn't try to conclude or understand, but to empathize and to sympathize with its subject, whatever it might be for the audience member watching, the most obvious and seemingly universal being the themes of the dying beauty of youth and the degraded state of not just high school but America in itself (I might be overshooting it there but from what I've read, that's what people have come to think).  Whatever you take from this film is your own, and I think Gus Van Sant did such a brilliant job and making a movie that truly stirs up thought and emotion without telling you what they should be.  In that sense, I think Van Sant has created THE most successful art film in some time and it gets my vote for best film of the year for how refreshing its vision is and how frustratingly challenging it is.  I haven't come across a film as complex as Elephant in some time.  I basically stated the obvious above but I had to say something....

I also wanted to address the issues people have with Van Sant's supposed cowardice in approaching this film.  What more do you want from the film?  And how much braver and ambitious can you be than trusting your audience the way Van Sant does with his film?  Truth be told and I know all of you agree, people are dumb.  Van Sant easily could've made a much more violent, visceral film that preaches at the end and "opens peoples' eyes" like Bowling for Columbine did.  I enjoyed Bowling and did find it provocative, but not nearly as effective as Elephant.  The film doesn't need to override your sense and mind and get you onto the same wavelength by means of manipulation as Michael Moore does (I'm being unfair to Bowling but I'm trying to make a point...).  There's a subtely and many softly spoken messages throughout the film but ultimately Gus Van Sant and the film's makers all surrender their work and vision to you, never once trying to hammer its point across through your brain.  For that I appreciate Elephant to the utmost; it not once told me how to feel or what to think, but instead is objectively and powerful observational and deeply compassionate and humane, as it is brutal and unflinching.  

I'll hail Elephant as a masterpiece till the day I die.



let the mud-slinging begin...   :?

Quote from: samsongAbout the kiss, I personally think it was to emphasize how alienated the two boys have become.  At that moment before the shooting, the kiss -- to me at least -- shows how they were all that mattered to each other.

Then again all the other theories I've heard and read are all true too (though I personally think the homosexuality route is too easy).  

let the mud-slinging begin...   :?

The homosexuality route is almost always too easy when it comes to movies and TV... I mean, who's to say they're not attracted to girls... AND each other? Our culture (the "straight" parts and the "gay" parts) is simpleminded and hypocritical about the fluidity and complexity of sexuality, so I approve of anything that refuses to be divided into neat categories. I was just saying that the post I was responding to was so unnecessarily emphatic in its unequivocal refutation of any sexual component to the kiss, it was almost like, "Thou doth protest too much."

No mud here. I'd like to see more posts like yours.

Ebert gave "Elephant" 4 stars!

ELEPHANT / * * * *

By Roger Ebert

Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" is a record of a day at a high school like Columbine, on the day of a massacre much like the one that left 13 dead. It offers no explanation for the tragedy, no insights into the psyches of the killers, no theories about teenagers or society or guns or psychopathic behavior. It simply looks at the day as it unfolds, and that is a brave and radical act; it refuses to supply reasons and assign cures, so that we can close the case and move on.

Van Sant seems to believe there are no reasons for Columbine and no remedies to prevent senseless violence from happening again. Many viewers will leave this film as unsatisfied and angry as Variety's Todd McCarthy, who wrote after it won the Golden Palm at Cannes 2003 that it was "pointless at best and irresponsible at worst." I think its responsibility comes precisely in its refusal to provide a point.

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

Van Sant's "Elephant" is a violent movie in the sense that many innocent people are shot dead. But it isn't violent in the way it presents those deaths. There is no pumped-up style, no lingering, no release, no climax. Just implacable, poker-faced, flat, uninflected death. Truffaut said it was hard to make an anti-war film because war was exciting even if you were against it. Van Sant has made an anti-violence film by draining violence of energy, purpose, glamor, reward and social context. It just happens. I doubt that "Elephant" will ever inspire anyone to copy what they see on the screen. Much more than the insipid message movies shown in social studies classes, it might inspire useful discussion and soul-searching among high school students.

Van Sant simply follows a number of students and teachers as they arrive at the school and go about their daily routines. Some of them intersect with the killers, and many of those die. Others escape for no particular reason. The movie is told mostly in long tracking shots; by avoiding cuts between closeups and medium shots, Van Sant also avoids the film grammar that goes along with such cuts, and so his visual strategy doesn't load the dice or try to tell us anything. It simply watches.

At one point he follows a tall, confident African-American student in a very long tracking shot as he walks into the school and down the corridors, and all of our experience as filmgoers leads us to believe this action will have definitive consequences; the kid embodies all those movie heroes who walk into hostage situations and talk the bad guy out of his gun. But it doesn't happen like that, and Van Sant sidesteps all the conventional modes of movie behavior and simply shows us sad, sudden death without purpose.

*****

"I want the audience to make its own observations and draw its own conclusions," Van Sant told me at Cannes. "Who knows why those boys acted as they did?" He is honest enough to admit that he does not. Of course a movie about a tragedy that does not explain the tragedy -- that provides no personal of social "reasons" and offers no "solutions" -- is almost against the law in the American entertainment industry. When it comes to tragedy, Hollywood is in the catharsis business.

Van Sant would have found it difficult to find financing for any version of this story (Columbine isn't "commercial"), but to tell it on a small budget, without stars or a formula screenplay, is unthinkable. He found the freedom to make the film, he said, because of the success of his "Good Will Hunting," which gave him financial independence: "I came to realize since I had no need to make a lot of money, I should make films I find interesting, regardless of their outcome and audience."

Nice to know some people out there agree with me. After I saw it at the NYFF I wrote it was the best American film I'd seen all year. Yes, it is an art film gem. Like a cleansing hybrid between Kubrick's distance and Malick's naturalism.

Samsong's post up there is pretty swell, in all regards.

I thought the movie was brilliant, for all the reasons he mentioned. I also see a certain potential for finding it flawed, for the reasons Cowboy Kurtis illuminated -- the massacre could have been handled differently, and it may have been more effective. There was a very definite dread that built throughout the film as we saw the students go about their routines, caused simply by our knowledge of what was going to happen. But then it wouldn't have been the movie Van Sant wanted to make, and which he succeeded in making, which was a purely objective, almost (but not quite) arbitrary look at the tragedy.

One of his best moves was in not showing the chief assasin do away with himself. There would be some vindication for the audience if we got to see that, which WOULD be cheap. The film left me in a state of flux. For a second after leaving it, while walking to my car, I thought I was about to either burst into tears or puke.

The photography was stunning -- the shallow focus work was just amazing, and the 1:33:1 aspect ratio really helped add to the power of the visuals. As soon as I realized it was being projected that way, I moved to the very front row (which I highly recommend doing, if you haven't seen it yet, or if you're planning on seeing it again).

Nick said the characters weren't interesting to him, but I loved them. They were completely real and familiar to me. Especially the photographer fellow, who is just like a friend of mine. The three bulemic girls were wonderful too -- the way they went from being best friends to having a divisive arugment to being friends again within about three mintues was really great character work.

Did anyone notice the nod to 'Gerry?' It was pretty hilarious. Speaking of which, this is a wonderful companion piece to that one. Van Sant has made two of my favorite films this year.

I'm putting this up on my stream-of-cultural-consciousness blog (http://trappings.blogspot.com/), but I thought I'd dupe it in this thread:

"It goes without saying that it's better than Finding Forrester, of course (I'm ashamed to admit I've not yet seen Gerry). It's a small film, and I mean that in the best sense of the word: It deals perceptively with the minutae, capturing the meandering fabric of everyday life, in addition to what Hannah Arendt called the 'banality of evil' (in the form of a Columbine-like shooting spree), which is the part of the film sure to be given the most attention. The camera work is beautiful, and it would be impossible to tell that the actors are non-professionals if that fact wasn't being announced from every street corner.

Up until the ending, it's just a point-by-point mapping of a day in the life of a high school, with its regular (suffering, each in their own way) kids trying to figure out who they are and going through some of the pain and some of the joy of that. It's the idea of this- the dignity of humanity, the petty but huge miseries of adolescence, the struggle to find an identity or cope with your disappointing family or be embarrassed about your pubescent body- being taken away that's truly devastating.

There's a metaphysical aspect to it all which, from the most superficial social-criticism point of judgment, might even seem inappropriate. There is no comfort here for anyone who's had events like the ones depicted rip a gash in their lives; there are no solutions on hand, only acute observation, and the film does exemplify what observational cinema can be at its finest.

Van Sant never tips his hand; there is no melodramatic bullying, no exaggerated poetic-license crystallization of teenage pain. We're left to decide for ourselves what might cause the kind of cold-bloodedviolence depicted, and to contemplate the vast and imperceptible sway of everyday, mundane life, which is something we don't usually feel the need to question... at least not until violence breaks its placid surface."

just came back from it.  the cinematography was beautiful.  the movie itself was gleefully ignorant, indulgent, and exploitative.

it was gleefully ignorant because, as the filmmakers said so many times in so many interviews in prestigious film journals, it does not offer any "answer" to a high school shooting.  It does not because the filmmakers didn't know the answers, and many critics started contending that nobody knew the answers, therefore Elephant was a great film because any answer would've done it injustice.  So instead the filmmakers decided to do the next best thing it seemed: nothing.
that's right, it was like Fred Wiseman's documentary "High School" with guns.  The difference is that Wiseman's directed a documentary.  He had real insights (not offered by himself, but by his subjects, which was organized by himself as the editor) into an actual high school.  It was one of the first American "direct cinema" pieces, it was an attempt to capture "truth."  Gus Van Sant had actors and fictional characters.

Which makes the film indulgent, because while a documentary of a REAL event, IF it strives real hard to stay unbiased, can afford to ask its viewers to "contemplate" on what was shown based on all the facts given--Elephant is imagined entirely by Van Sant and his improvising cast.  He really is just asking us to contemplate what he's thought up, written, choreographed, and edited, which HE CLAIMS to be fair and unbiased because the usual bag of cinematic tricks is not present for the cultural police within us to point out "hey, that's a shakesperian foreshadowing" or "hey, that's a leftist motif against homophobia!"

So essentially it's a film that says nothing and claims nothing with a spectacularly filmmed massacre in the end (but whoa, check it out, it's DIFFERENT--there's no blood squibs and the gunmen don't run slow motioned sideways with doves in the background!  This shit is ART yo!), which makes it, along with another recent fave Irreversible, an exploitation film.  It claims to be nothing, then asks the audience to contemplate on that supposed nothing, all the while building up tension via multiple POV (multiple POV?!  Like cubism?) and the payoff is a massacre shot with arthouse sensibilities.

But the film had to be this way.  It could only be ignorant because how can Gus Van Sant provide any insight into something he has no understanding of?  It had to be indulgent or how else can "nothing" last a feature film's length (or any length at all)?  And it HAD to be absolutely exploitative or otherwise how would it get funded in the first place and generate so much controversy/ publicity?

and I have no idea why the filmmakers were so afraid to contrive an emotional bond between the viewers and the characters, or to provide any understanding into the character's psyches.  it's not like a total lack of insight is the only way to stay "balanced" or "in perspective."  Look at two other controversial American films, Do the Right Thing and Dead Man Walking.  Both were fair in a way that characters and events were portrayed as multi-dimensional, lively, and very well laid-out.  In both films, the characters are displayed intimately, with their deepest joy and sorrow depicted on screen.  In Elephant, there are long and amazingly timed and choreographed tracking shots of familiar American high school archetypes, branded by how they look, and never fully realized.  this is not any type of avant-garde filmmaking, or some kind of breakthrough in film narrative; this is well-crafted laziness.

to its credit, Elephant does make the viewers think; people seem to be debating about not only the film, but columbine, once again.  But the debate, so far, sounds like the same exact debate brought up when everyone got his piece of the columbine info via Time Magazine and Newsweek.

Gus Van Sant's proved twice before already with Psycho In Color and Gerry that he can shoot whatever the hell he wants, and this whole Elephant success is only encouraging him.

finally saw this tonite.  it just opened here in philadelpiha.  (you know, you'd think we'd atleast get a few cool table scraps or something being like 2 hours from nyc, but apparently not.  this city blows).  i was looking forward to this movie a long time ago when i saw the trailer, which i found very haunting and really intriguing.  some things i liked about the movie...

-i liked that it just showed you what happens without trying to dramatize it.  had they tried to give you all the answers, it would've been very made-for-tv movie-ish. and i kept thinking during the film how that could have made it very terrible by trying to wrap everything up with a motive.  
-i liked how real the characters were. and how it really didnt seem like actors or any scripted fake hollywood movie.  it really felt really real. like, i graduated from hs 4 years ago, but watching this made me feel just like i was back there again.  the real faces and kids and i dunno, just everything was very accurate i thought to the way high school is.  not a dramatization making everything really unrealistic.

i didnt remember whether or not they showed the shooting, so most of hte movie i was thinking they werent going to show anything.  but then, that i would be disappointed with all the buildup.  i thought that some of the long behind the actor shots went on for a little too long, and the sweeping pan around the faces of the classroom was a little too much for me.  i didnt love this movie, but i still feel like everyone should see it.  it should be required viewing for freshmen in high school everywhere.  this, and the columbine sequence in bowling for columbine.  the ending was pretty horrifying.  it did give you a sense that you were there.  and it was senseless and random and horrible.  it wasnt a landmark for film or anything, but a pretty interesting re-telling of true events nonetheless.  i dont know that its something i want to watch again, or that it would work as well on dvd.  i think it would seem really slow if you werent in the theatre for a lot of those tracking shots, like 'shouldnt something be happening?', but being in the theatre, ill admit i wasnt bored.  but on dvd, i might be.

B-

I finally saw this as well.  Normally we get movies like this first or second week, but for whatever reason, this one took longer.  I've been avoiding this thread.

Now that Ive read it, I have to say that I disagree with at least one thing all of you had to say and agree with at least one thing most of you had to say.

I thought the film was great (not the best of the year, but still great).

One of my favorite scenes was with the nerdish girl (the one who wouldn't wear shorts, I forget her name already) where she's in the locker room and the other girls are making fun of her.  What I liked about it was the way it was done... through camera work and sound mixing... really, you can't tell that they're talking about her, you just assume they are... and so does she... this is what it's like to be unpopular in highschool... it doesn't matter who someone is making fun of, they may as well be talking about you.

I didn't really like the Benny scene... it seemed kind of gimicy.. like it was a set up that only works once... maybe he was intentionally breaking the "rules" he set in the film with the name titles, but I didn't think it was necessary.

oh yeah... It doesn't matter whether the two kids are gay or not, but assuming that they aren't is just like assuming that they are.

Quote from: RegularKarateI finally saw this as well.  Normally we get movies like this first or second week, but for whatever reason, this one took longer.  I've been avoiding this thread.

Now that Ive read it, I have to say that I disagree with at least one thing all of you had to say and agree with at least one thing most of you had to say.

I thought the film was great (not the best of the year, but still great).

One of my favorite scenes was with the nerdish girl (the one who wouldn't wear shorts, I forget her name already) where she's in the locker room and the other girls are making fun of her.  What I liked about it was the way it was done... through camera work and sound mixing... really, you can't tell that they're talking about her, you just assume they are... and so does she... this is what it's like to be unpopular in highschool... it doesn't matter who someone is making fun of, they may as well be talking about you.

I didn't really like the Benny scene... it seemed kind of gimicy.. like it was a set up that only works once... maybe he was intentionally breaking the "rules" he set in the film with the name titles, but I didn't think it was necessary.

oh yeah... It doesn't matter whether the two kids are gay or not, but assuming that they aren't is just like assuming that they are.

I think this is my favorite post about it so far... I, too thought the bit about the girl who wouldn't wear shorts was observant, poignant, and true. And you're right on about the gay thing. A kiss doesn't make someone gay, but it doesn't mean they're not, either. It's sort of beside the point. Not the kiss, but what it supposedly might "mean."

if a nerd girl who wouldn't wear shorts is observant and poignant then I guess every show on TGIF is observant and poignant.

So, um, I just saw Elephant. Camerawork great, sound design great, editing great (and I'm glad Van Sant took his credit there).

SPOILERS-----------------------------------------------

In keeping with my attempt to post the unfiltered truth about how I feel, here I go. This is not gonna be a very nice post. I don't wish to start any fights, but I feel this is the only way to respond to this film. So here goes...

I got incredible satisfaction from the last third of this movie. You have no idea. I guess this movie taught me a lot about myself, and I can't give you any other explanation except that it just felt good, like a release or something. When that nerdy girl got shot, I was so happy. But not near as happy as when the killer finally tracked the good looking couple down in the freezer. I had to know they got killed too, to really feel payed off. I'm sorry. This is probably the reverse effect Van Sant and Co wanted when people watched this film, but I just enjoyed the slaughter so much. It could have been that this high school was so very different than mine, that it just didn't have any personal effect on me in any negative way. Interestingly enough, the only thing I really cared about in a positive way was the fact that the dad didn't get hurt. So I dunno...

There were, however, three scenes where I "felt" Van Sant too much, they were a bit ham handed, and didn't work, but still didn't really detract from the film. They were: the class-in-a-circle gay talk, the three chicks throwing up at the same time, and the hitler movie. The last two were just way too on the nose for a movie this stark, and the first one just seemed put in there to satisfy a personal agenda of the director.

But anyway, the moral of the story is, I guess, that I'm a sick fucker who doesn't put much stock in human life. Or maybe we were supposed to be excited to follow the killers. Like I said, I dunno...

...a haunting, intriguing film. Probably my 4th favorite this year.

Quote from: peteif a nerd girl who wouldn't wear shorts is observant and poignant then I guess every show on TGIF is observant and poignant.

I never tire of quoting Andrew Sarris: "It's not WHAT, it's HOW." Besides, even on a cheesy, for-young-adults level, it would be more Judy Blume than TGIF...

Yeah, I'd have to say SoNowThen is pretty perceptive in realizing his interpretation of the film is rather sick and the opposite of what was intended... how can someone so religious (moreso than anyone else here, maybe) so consistently seem to be actively going against what their religion supposedly stands for? In my experience, many people turn to religion as a salve for their own misanthropy, but that doesn't seem to be working out too well for you, SoNowThen! :)  That's another thread, probably...

It's odd to me not to be able to feel you can relate to or have anything in common with people who aren't just like you or a high school that's really different from yours. Like, how specifically identical to your school would it have had to have been for you not to feel glad that genuinely innocent people were getting slaughtered in the halls?

Also, most metropolitan high schools have gay-straight alliances (which I think is much healthier and more productive than exclusively gay groups, though those were a sort of step back in the day). That was probably more observational and objective than the other things mentioned as subpar bits. He wanted to show that this wasn't a high school where people were outlandishly or openly persectued in some martyred, after-school special way. And the conversation they were having, like most other things the camera records in the film, was really everyday stuff to the point of being mundane, and not really indicative of any kind of agenda. That's exactly what people would be talking about in a group like that.

but throwing in that shorts bit IS how.  Trying to depict high school in a realistic manner is what.  Or if you wanna narrow it down, shooting it in super shallow depth of field is how.  The cinematography did good, but content-wise it not only portrayed high school in an almost caricature-like fashion, it also spiced it up by making killers' quirks according to Time and Newsweek.  It's Frederick Wiseman's high school with an arthouse shootout sequence in the end, but Wiseman's observations are 40 years old and throwing a bulemic twist on the good ol' insecure girl stereotype does not cut it.

Hmmm, yeah, I dunno, Godardian. Having a night to think about it, is suppose I could try to answer why I just didn't feel for anybody in the film except the dad and son. Dads and sons in movies are for me like puppy dogs, I don't wanna see anything bad happen to them. As to everyone else, well, again to be brutally honest, when Columbine happened, we sat in the lunch room of school that day (I was in grade 12, and the Taber shooting was just around the corner as well). And we had a long chat, not about how horrific it was, but about who might come and do it at our school. And sure enough, there were a bunch of kids sitting in the corner in trench coats, and I got all paranoid about them. I guess the point is, I'm so firmly entrenched in this day and age, that it doesn't surprise me a bit that someone would come to school and start shooting. I fucking hated coming to school. I hated teachers. And I saw a bunch of kids who were basically decent people, get bullied and abused by a bunch of fucks on a daily basis for no good reason other than pure cruelty. Now, this never happened to me, because I seem to make friends easily (when given the chance), but it always pissed me off when I saw a quiet, shy kid get singled out for no good reason. Now, if a kid was an agressive asshole and everyone hated him, I could care less, because he brought in on himself. Anyway, getting back to the thick of things, at the time, and to some extent I guess now, I just figured that if any shooters ever came to school, as long as the 50 or so people I liked, as well as the 3 teachers, got out okay, I couldn't care less who they gunned down. Because, if you think about it, folks could die in a car crash tomorrow, or from disease, or random murder -- if I was to get upset over every one of them, I'd be upset every waking second of my life. I'm very desensitized. I guess the circle-talk scene stood out for me because I can never remember doing that in high school, all we did was take a book, walk to class, sit in a desk, get bored out of our minds listening to teachers blather on, then get up and go to another room and do it all over again. But also, our high school didn't have a photo lab or anything like that either. But you do make a good point about what you said about the scene.

I think it's that when you have a purely improv film with non actors, all the ideas you had before going in that you sorta pre-plan, they always appear slightly forced on the story in a way that the spur of the moment stuff doesn't...

van sant on kcrw, interview, talking bout this movie.  here. (http://kcrw.com/cgi-bin/ram_wrap.cgi?/tt/tt031105Gus_van_Sant)

(real format)

Quote from: SoNowThenHmmm, yeah, I dunno, Godardian. Having a night to think about it, is suppose I could try to answer why I just didn't feel for anybody in the film except the dad and son. Dads and sons in movies are for me like puppy dogs, I don't wanna see anything bad happen to them. As to everyone else, well, again to be brutally honest, when Columbine happened, we sat in the lunch room of school that day (I was in grade 12, and the Taber shooting was just around the corner as well). And we had a long chat, not about how horrific it was, but about who might come and do it at our school. And sure enough, there were a bunch of kids sitting in the corner in trench coats, and I got all paranoid about them. I guess the point is, I'm so firmly entrenched in this day and age, that it doesn't surprise me a bit that someone would come to school and start shooting. I fucking hated coming to school. I hated teachers. And I saw a bunch of kids who were basically decent people, get bullied and abused by a bunch of fucks on a daily basis for no good reason other than pure cruelty. Now, this never happened to me, because I seem to make friends easily (when given the chance), but it always pissed me off when I saw a quiet, shy kid get singled out for no good reason. Now, if a kid was an agressive asshole and everyone hated him, I could care less, because he brought in on himself. Anyway, getting back to the thick of things, at the time, and to some extent I guess now, I just figured that if any shooters ever came to school, as long as the 50 or so people I liked, as well as the 3 teachers, got out okay, I couldn't care less who they gunned down. Because, if you think about it, folks could die in a car crash tomorrow, or from disease, or random murder -- if I was to get upset over every one of them, I'd be upset every waking second of my life. I'm very desensitized. I guess the circle-talk scene stood out for me because I can never remember doing that in high school, all we did was take a book, walk to class, sit in a desk, get bored out of our minds listening to teachers blather on, then get up and go to another room and do it all over again. But also, our high school didn't have a photo lab or anything like that either. But you do make a good point about what you said about the scene.

I think it's that when you have a purely improv film with non actors, all the ideas you had before going in that you sorta pre-plan, they always appear slightly forced on the story in a way that the spur of the moment stuff doesn't...

That actually puts it into a lot more perspective for me. I do understand how it could be gratifying to see something you view as an impersonal, apathetic, crushing institution be ground to a halt and have its own products backfire. I didn't see that in the movie myself, you understand- I think it held its cards much closer to its vest than that- but I can see much better where you're coming from now.

And I definitely understand trying to have perspective and not devaluing the huge daily losses of human life by over-romanticizing the loss of relatively privileged North American life. Still, because no one movie and no one human mind can possibly encompass and have empathy for everything in the world deserving of it, I think it's okay to empathize with the loss of life in the case of this movie. Or at least not feel gratified by it. It's not like van Sant is in sackloth and ashes over the death of Jonathan Brandis, or anything. :)

I'm probably willing to accept a lot more diversity in depictions of high-school life because my own high-school age experiences were very unusual and unlikely ever to be depicted in a movie, so it's easier for me to suspend my disbelief.

Quote from: petebut throwing in that shorts bit IS how.  Trying to depict high school in a realistic manner is what.  Or if you wanna narrow it down, shooting it in super shallow depth of field is how.  The cinematography did good, but content-wise it not only portrayed high school in an almost caricature-like fashion, it also spiced it up by making killers' quirks according to Time and Newsweek.  It's Frederick Wiseman's high school with an arthouse shootout sequence in the end, but Wiseman's observations are 40 years old and throwing a bulemic twist on the good ol' insecure girl stereotype does not cut it.

Yea.. I saw elephant two weeks ago.. and really couldn't think of what I could possibly say on this thread. Basically, while I was impressed (at first) at the shallow depth of field and single takes... it was like drinking a flat soda. And the soda kept coming.

And I agree with pete's statements.. speaking as a recent high school graduate (2002). The friend I went to see this with also had a negative feeling about this film... And, I say this.. all very reluctantly, because we both really wanted to love this movie. Didn't turn out that way.

The one thing I really liked about the movie was the beginning with the dad and son. I connected to those two characters and anticipated the arrival of the brother who would pick up the dad. Then, an hour and twenty minutes went by without seeing any of these people again and my connection was severed.. and the story and scenes dragged on from there.

Now 2nd day after seeing Elephant, and I can really see now what a brilliant film it was, and how provocative, and challenging, and brave in not taking any easy ways out. It would have been easy to show the killers as monsters, or to show some part of their society that could have been the "reason" they did what they did, but Van Sant didn't fall into that trap. They very fact that I had the reaction I did at the end basically shows how he allowed for almost any emotional viewpoint to come into play. That's responsible filmmaking. The results and reactions are sometimes scary and disturbing, but that's a fact of life.

Also, the more it sits in my head, I think my favorite scene is the one where the blonde killer has the principal on the floor, and basically tells him that if they don't kill him, there are hundereds of people out there just like them, and one of them eventually will. Chilling stuff, and intensely true.

wait, making the film claiming to be devoid of any point of view (which is impossible) by showing the killers as an analgram of mainstream media portrayal is now "responsible filmmaking"?  Gus Van Sant said nothing because he had nothing to say or add to the subject, and has no idea what it's like to be a teenager anymore, let alone any insight into what a massacre must be like.
So Kubrick's slanted portrayal/ idea of war is "irresponsible filmmaking" then?
It's kind of depressing that Do the Right Thing was praised because it contained so many points of view, and 14 years later, a movie is praised because it lacks any point of view (or claims to lack one anyways).

But that's comparing apples and oranges. Not having a point of view is as valid as having multiple points of view. It just depends on what the filmmaker is trying to get across.

I think Kubrick was fairly unsympathetic. I think Elephant very much relied on his sense of distance. He might've thought war was absurd or horrible, but he always observed it from a removed POV. It's not that Elephant is without a POV. The way it arrived at its objective stance is by being almost totally subjective -- it's just the multitude of subjectivity created a film without a single view point.

Well put.

Quote from: mutinycoI think Kubrick was fairly unsympathetic. I think Elephant very much relied on his sense of distance. He might've thought war was absurd or horrible, but he always observed it from a removed POV. It's not that Elephant is without a POV. The way it arrived at its objective stance is by being almost totally subjective -- it's just the multitude of subjectivity created a film without a single view point.

I think comparing kubrick movies to elephant, now that's apples and oranges.

kubrick always sides with the audience, in Dr. Strangelove he mercilessly mocks his caricature characters, they're punchlines, all add up to the final detached portrayal of world destruction.  elephant attempts to get into their heads, I mean everything is shot with extremely shallow depth of field, that doesn't seem like distance to me.
It woulda worked too, had Van Sant any idea of how high school students behave.

I think muty meant that by giving us pure subjectivity of ALL the main characters (through the shooting and sound mainly, as you mentioned), we get an all-encompassing objectivity so as to not really have the filmmaker side with one character or the other, but we get the same presentation for all...

Quote from: peteI mean everything is shot with extremely shallow depth of field, that doesn't seem like distance to me.

Good way to achieve a shallow depth of field is to get the camera set at a far distance and zoom in.

that's the camera's distance, zooming in until the subject fills the frame is called a "close up".

.... Kubrick did a lot of those   :)

...kubrick's mocked a lot of his subjects via those.

Quote from: petethat's the camera's distance, zooming in until the subject fills the frame is called a "close up".

Touche

Quote from: RegularKarateGood way to achieve a shallow depth of field is to get the camera set at a far distance and zoom in.

or making sure you are wide open...always....

let's not forget low light.

and slow lenses
and fast stocks

Yeah, but the main reason for low light is so you can shoot wide open (beavers)

...or to keep the electric bill down.

I just got back.  Pretty powerful stuff.  I really hope high school kids will watch this when it comes on DVD, because they sure ain't in the theater.

Anyway, I loved the Altman inspired scene in the school office.  Overlapping dialogue, moving camera from conversation to conversation...  Great stuff.

Mac (or anyone for that matter) if you ever find out the release date of Elephant on DVD please either post it here or PM it to me...

I have to see this movie...

Quote from: aClockworkWalrusMac (or anyone for that matter) if you ever find out the release date of Elephant on DVD please either post it here or PM it to me...

I have to see this movie...

Same here...disappointing not even having the option to see this play in theaters...

It's an HBO movie. So eventually it'll be on TV.

SoNowThen: It's fast lenses and fast stocks... They used Vision 500T on Elephant. Not your typical stock for a film like this.

yeah, I just meant slow lenses if you really wanted a shitty depth of field.



oh, I heard that the vision t stocks are only tungsten balanced, is that true? so then the 800t (with the converter filter for daylight) wouldn't be that fast for night shooting?? yet I thought that was the point of having the 800t -- great latitude for night shooting...

I thought vision 800 is currently the fatest stock around.
there was a scene in 21 grams, when benecio's character goes home for his birthday party, and the stock shifts from 500t to 800t in the same scene.

yeah, I too figured it was the fastest, but if it's only for tungsten light, then what's the point?

I don't get your question, SoNowThen.

Vision 800 T is the fastest, but all T stocks are Tungsten balanced (and the D stocks are daylight, of course).  It gives you more latitude for night scenes:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kodak.com%2Fglobal%2Fimages%2Fen%2Fmotion%2Fproducts%2Fnegative%2F5289Data1.jpg&hash=ab44c4be6df3b035af8eea9ee5fb59227f5c6b24)

Lens: 29 mm (zoom)
Filter: none
Aperture: T 3.5 (EI 800)
Incident Light Levels
(Tungsten 2930 K)
 Key = T 3.5 (25 fc)
 Fill = T 1.8 (5 fc)
 Backlight = T 2.5 (10 fc)

I just figured that if I ever have to shoot at a late magic hour outside, where I let it go for awhile and it's truly nearing dark, with only natural light, then I'd wanna use the fastest stock. Which would be 800t. But if I had to put a daylight conversion filter on the camera (or else it would be too blue), I'd have to rate it slower due to the loss of light from the filter, right?

Is there any 800D stock?

no 800 D that I'm aware of, but your conversion won't be too high because you're working in the later hour and have a lower color temp, so you're only gonna lose like 2/3 stop or so depending on the filter.

And you have a good amount of latitude to work with with the 800D... the #8 on that picture I posted is black at 4 and a 1/2 stops under and the #1 is blown out at 2 and a 1/2 stops over.

Maybe this should go in Tech Talk

Would you say that's an accurate skin tone represented?


What I really want is to just go out and shoot at night on the fly. Of course, street lights (where I live anyway) always end up looking shitty red colors. They need a streetlight-balanced stock  :) . But just imagine I was to go make a street documentary with no artificial lights. Besides super-fast lenses, what stocks would I need? Fuji, Kodak... also, isn't there a European stock called Agfa or something? I think Godard used a lot of that...

I'm not a real expert, but my experience (from what I've read and what I've shot) says Fuji is good for daylight exteriors and Kodak is better for everything else.

and if you're shooting at night, you're gonna need lights.

You don't need 800 stock. You can easily probably get away with what you'd need even with Vision 200 and high-speed lenses. It's just that higher stocks have higher contrast. The 320 is nice too.

Minority Report used 800 for the surgery scene just to give the picture more grain.

But even a natural film like Elephant, with lots of daylight, was Vision 500T.

PS-Tungsten is 3200k.

It's been talked about enough, so I'll just say that this movie really affected me. It's one of the best of the year. Period.

This might have already been discussed but was the film cropped for 1:33:1 when you guys saw it? It seemed as though it was shot with that intention, but it was obviously shot on film and I remember seeing a preview for it and I don't think it was cropped then.

If it was done purposefully, I have my theories for why, but I'm just curious.

It was shot and framed 1.33:1, yet I swear they (theatre) fucked it up when I saw it, and masked it (in projection??) for 1.85:1...

I saw it 1.33.  They shot it in that aspect ratio because they were convinced no one was going to watch it in the theaters.

I saw it 1.33:1 as well.. van sant said they shot it that way because they thought it would be more "majestic" and that it would seem like a high school educational video. The preview was cropped I believe... never saw it in theaters but online I saw two different versions, a 1.33:1 and another cropped to a wider ratio.

the october issue of american cinematographer had the DP saying it was because they didn't think anyone would watch it SO THERE.  nah I really don't care why it was 1.33.  it was a good article, they talked about those long and crazy shots and rehearsing for them and stuff.

Projection here was 1:33. It would be interesting to see it in the wrong aspect ratio, though. Kubrickian, chopping square to rectangle.

Title: Elephant
Released: 4th May 2004
SRP: $27.95

Further Details
HBO have sent over a few early details on the region one release of Elephant which stars Alex Frost, Eric Deulen, John Robinson and Elias McConnell. The disc will be available to own from the 4th May this year, and should set you back somewhere in the region of $27.95. The film will receive both anamorphic widescreen and full screen transfers as well as an English Dolby Digital 5.1 track. English and French mono tracks will also be included on the disc. Extra material will include a On the Set of Elephant: Rolling Through Time featurette as well as a HBO Films spot and the theatrical trailer. I'm afraid the artwork is currently unavailable, but we'll bring you that soon. Stay tuned for further information.

How can a film shot in 1.33:1 be given an anamorphic widescreen transfer???

The widescreen transfer is for those idiots that like "the black bars on the screen".

It's probably already been asked, but I'm not in the mood to flip through 12 pages to find it, or search, but can someone tell me why it's named 'Elephant'? I saw the movie and I saw no elephants!  :-D

Quote from: Chest RockwellIt's probably already been asked, but I'm not in the mood to flip through 12 pages to find it, or search, but can someone tell me why it's named 'Elephant'? I saw the movie and I saw no elephants!  :-D

supposedly van sant got the word from a buddhist [?] proverb about two blind men who touch different parts of a statue of an elephant. one man thinks it's one thing, the other thinks it's something else. this is a reference to society's reasonings on school shootings - some people think it's about violence in the media and whatnot, others think it's about the lack of family/community values, et cetera, like everyone's searching for one answer to be a "solution".

i think. i just heard that.

it's a reference to this film  (http://imdb.com/title/tt0097270)

Both explanations make some sense.

Quote from: peteit's a reference to this film  (http://imdb.com/title/tt0097270)

It is, but this film was a reference to this

Quote from: snaporazsupposedly van sant got the word from a buddhist [?] proverb about two blind men who touch different parts of a statue of an elephant. one man thinks it's one thing, the other thinks it's something else. this is a reference to society's reasonings on school shootings - some people think it's about violence in the media and whatnot, others think it's about the lack of family/community values, et cetera, like everyone's searching for one answer to be a "solution".

i think. i just heard that.

whoa it's like our two explanations just shook hands with one another and said "hey how's it going."
but about the fable--it IS from India, but it's a Hindu fable.

Quite the columbinesploitation...

I went in the theatre expecting some great work, and left feeling disappointment.

This movie really could be done in about 30 minutes, but was drawn out to an hour and a half.

The films' execution left something to be desired.

Quote from: 82This movie really could be done in about 30 minutes, but was drawn out to an hour and a half.

You could say that about almost any Coen movie, too. Style often drags the movie out further, but who's crying? Style is arguably the most important feature in a film, though I don't necessarily agree.

Quote from: IP FreelyYou could say that about almost any Coen movie, too.

only if you're a fan of not understanding anything because of ridiculous plot compression. theriothly. Fargo, Blood Simple, Lebowski, Hudsucker, Miller's, extchterah. how could these be any shorter? e'splain.

well, you COULD said that about any coen bros movie but you'd be wrong.

Quote from: petewell, you COULD said that about any coen bros movie but you'd be wrong.

it just so happens that what you just said can be applied to Elephant.  My opinion, of course.

Quote from: Pedro the WombatThe widescreen transfer is for those idiots that like "the black bars on the screen".

I still don't understand it. I can understand how they pan and scan films shot in 2.35:1, to 3:4, but not the other way... how do they do it? stretch the image?

GAHHHHH Stop being morons.. either research it or something..

Anamorphic widescreen doesn't mean it is WIDESCREEN.. its a feature of a dvd.. Just like a anamorphic lens squeezes the image onto the film.. there is a squeeze that is happening on the dvd as well.  It is a higher resolution transfer that happens during the telecine stage.

Anamorphic is.

Widescreen is widescreen, something different. Something can be called an Anamorphic transfer, but doesn't need the Widescreen tacked on there...

Cos it AIN'T!!!

Quote from: SoNowThenAnamorphic is.

Widescreen is widescreen, something different. Something can be called an Anamorphic transfer, but doesn't need the Widescreen tacked on there...

Cos it AIN'T!!!

NGAH!  It's the standard.  They don't have a "Anamorphic Transfer" seal.. ONLY "Anamorphic Widescreen"

Are you sure?


I'm not, so I'll end up taking your word for it. But whenever people talk about old Criterion dvds they'd like to see with proper transfers, they always say just plain old "anamorphic"...

so they just released it here.

i don't think i've ever been so enthralled by a movie's sound. it does the job usually covered by editing, cos there are no cutaways here. sound is the new CGI, and this was a slap in the face to me about how sonically brilliant a film could be.

i definitely wish it would get more recognition. what happened to school shootings anyway? was that just a fad? u know what i'm talking about, there was a period several years ago when that was the big craze. now i don't hear about them at all.

I think the novelty has worn off.... ?

I agree with you completely Pubrick, there's no moment in the movie where you can just get up and leave (which i was contemplating because i REALLY had to pee). although the movie was brilliant, i thought they could have had a better ending. i also really like how the movie is mostly shot with steadicam, that added effect and also the use of the Bethoven songs (in the trailer and in the movie).

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB0001EFUFK.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=220e871cf3ae115d42ec1755c60c957332a77d82)

i just preordered.....very excited. anyone know if there's commentary?

As long as this thread is being brought back from the depths...


I found elephant to be a terribly disappointing film.  Granted the suspense it generated was amazing and most of the steadicam shots were cool, I just don't think Van Sant did a great job with anything else.  I didn't find the film worthwhile.  I felt disconnected and bored throughout a lot of it, and it presented nothing even close to a normal day at school.  Also all the weird homo-eroticism and the nazi films and shootemup videogames i found to be very unnecessary.

yes, but did you read the rest of this thread?

I didn't think so

uh....yea i did?

Quote from: Chest RockwellIt's probably already been asked, but I'm not in the mood to flip through 12 pages to find it, or search, but can someone tell me why it's named 'Elephant'? I saw the movie and I saw no elephants!  :-D

There is at least one Elephant I noticed in the film. Just watched it on dvd. (There is a full screen and widescreen option, 12 minute making of and full trailor.). Anyhow, in the scene where the killer is playing Moonlight Sonata and the camera does a 360 degree  pan around the room, there is a sketch of an elephant. I don't know if it means anything but I noticed it.

I was really expecting a lot out of this because of what I read on here. I thought it was well done and the camera work was great. The only problem I saw with the film was that it cheated in the sense that there was only superficial reasoning supplied . By that I mean that it seems as those Van Sant did try to point out a few possible factors in the murders. Like the crap being thrown at the kid, or the video shootup game, or the easy accesibility to mail-order guns (I thought you could only get brides that way  :wink: ). I think actually it would have been better to if he had omitted the names and left the audience completely unaware of who these kids were.

Quote from: Tictacbkuh....yea i did?

um... are you asking me if you did?  

If I had to guess, I'd say "no".  Because all your issues with the film are discussed throughout the rest of this thread and if you had, I would think you would have more to think about or comment on.

But, maybe you did read it and just forgot (it's a lot to read, I understand)

Chest, here's the reason why it's called Elephant:

There's an old fable that relates the story of three blind men standing around an elephant.  They each feel a different part of the elephant (i.e. the trunk, the leg, the tusk, etc.) and each come up with a different name for what they've felt.  These school shootings can be viewed in much the same way: because there are so many reasons for why it happened and so many different viewpoints of the tragedy, we're all basically blind men grasping for an answer as to why the killing took place.

I hope that made sense.

if ur still unsure, Chest, be sure to read the other 4 times it's been explained in this thread.

from the Rolling Stone review:
"The title, borrowed from Alan Clarke's 1989 BBC film about violence in Northern Ireland, refers to something metaphorically huge that we all see and we all choose to ignore."

Well they're wrong; many of us saw Van Sant say it himself when he was on Charlie Rose not to mention several print interviews or printerviews as the kids say

Just watched this last night. Great movie! Very disturbing, cold and empty...but I admired it's reasons for all those things.

jesus christ, don't bother actually looking up the other pages or anything, this is the explanation for u lazy fucks..

these are from page 4..

Quote from: dufresneso why is this movie called Elephant?
i think i have an idea...

Quote from: OnomatopitaThe only thing I can think of is the expression "the elephant in the room."  No clue, though.  Definitely an intriguing title.

Quote from: SalThat's why.

Quote from: mutinycoIt's that, plus the old tale of the blind men feeling parts of an elephant and trying to describe the whole thing. The point is, they're trying to describe the entire object by just touching the tusk, per se. So there's so many factors to events like school shootings that to pick one motivation or one explanation is futile and naive in the scheme of the whole.

page 5..

Quote from: MacGuffinLos Angeles Times article:

Shooting without answers
Director Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant' examines -- but doesn't explain -- a Columbine-like shooting. He says the film is more like a poem than a detective story.

Van Sant asked "Gummo" director Harmony Korine, who had told Van Sant that [Alan] Clarke's "Elephant" was his favorite film, to write a script, but Korine became focused on other work and never finished a draft.

Clarke's "Elephant" was titled after the proverbial elephant in the living room, but when Van Sant decided to name his film after Clarke's, he thought the title referred to the Buddhist parable about a group of blind men who each touch a different part of an elephant, each concluding it's something different since none sees the whole. It was an apt metaphor for the way our society tends to look for a single answer to a problem, Van Sant says.

go there to read the whole thing if u really give a shit.

spoilerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs


i liked-

the sound, the score/music, the 'gerry' videogame, the long tracking shots of following the kids around(espicailly the guy in red hoody), the derunk dad, the cinematography in general, the way this film feels like 'gerry' and a new direction gus is going through, the way high schoolers interact and talk was captureed well, benny s scenario, the self-puking trio, the opening title sequence,  and lastly the (for the dramatic 'shock') the nerd girl exodus....very unerving in the best way...click!...boom!!!.... :shock: .......... :( ....p.o.w.e.r.f.u.l........


i didn t like-

the generic white trash eminem wannabe character...(the other guy was totally convincing)..........

Quote from: NEON MERCURY

the generic white trash eminem wannabe character...(the other guy was totally convincing)..........

which? the sidekick? if so, agreed.

Quote from: El Duderino

Quote from: NEON MERCURY

the generic white trash eminem wannabe character...(the other guy was totally convincing)..........

which? the sidekick? if so, agreed.

...the kid who doesn t play the piano..

Quote from: NEON MERCURY

Quote from: El Duderino

Quote from: NEON MERCURY

the generic white trash eminem wannabe character...(the other guy was totally convincing)..........

which? the sidekick? if so, agreed.

...the kid who doesn t play the piano..

the sidekick

Well, no offense P, but no, I obviously did not read the earlier posts. I personally don't like to go through ever single page, so I just read the first page and the last page when I'm joining a thread, unless it's really interesting or unless the last page is continuing a certain topic of note from an earlier page. Otherwise, I'm probably not going to see it.

"That's why it's called a quip, not a slooooooowp."

Watching it on DVD, it still holds up. Still the best film of last year.

Quote from: mutinycoWatching it on DVD, it still holds up. Still the best film of last year.

Phew, good. I was worried for a second.

What had you worried? I wrote it multiple times on MovieNavigator.

I was actually worried too. But not anymore.

By the way, excellent movie, probably the most important of last year, maybe the best.

We should all modify our lists (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=141057#141057).

No revision necessary...

http://movienavigator.org/2003take.htm
http://movienavigator.org/day7.htm

That's twice tonight that you plugged your site. Was this pre-planned? Just wondering..

Yes, everything I do is preplanned. In fact, I knew you were going to ask if it were preplanned. The site is a ghost, anyhow, so it's not like I'm trying to build a new audience. But self-promotion never hurts.  :shock:

i just finished watching it and noticed that in the classroom scene when they're talking about how to spot a gay person, a lot of the people look in the camera. that is all.

The scene is about how you can't tell who someone is by their appearance. Notice one kid who looks straight-up like he'll be one of the killers. But isn't.

Elephant felt like a Kubrick film, with its endless tracking shots of characters walking down corridors.  It was as if Kubrick had directed Carrie.

The film shows the thin line between geniuses and psychopaths.  The main killer plays Beethoven on the piano and quotes Shakespeare, and has artistic talent (when he's hit with the spitball, he is drawing something on a sketchpad).

BIG NASTY SPOILERS

The best moment of the movie is when the photographer photographs them as they enter the library. I think I cried. The second best is probably the bolemic bathroom moment.

I watched this again last night.

It would've easily been my favorite movie of last year if it would have not included the classroom circle-discussion and the 3 girls puking. I realized how very much I hate those scenes. But GVS took a lot of crazy chances, some worked out, some didn't, but they're totally forgivable given the product as a whole.

I just love Love LOVE the pacing. This is one movie I'd give almost anything to see all the uncut footage, just to see how he went about (minimally-approaching-nonexistently) "covering" scenes.

Nothing was pre-planned. They figured it out each day on the set.

I figured that, but I mean: what do his trim bins look like?

It's just that it was so minimal, yet never once got in-your-face stylized, like a Tarkovsky scene, where the coverage is scant. I love that too, but for this movie it needed a form that was minimal while still keeping it's little toe in the shallow end of natural. The framing and the editing... damn...!!

But I guess it also comes back to what P said before, letting the sound take over as a driving force.

*SPOILERS*

probably the scene that took me by surprise was when they enter the library (yes, that was great camerawork) when Elias takes their picture and then they shoot the girl. that right there, i literally jumped in my seat. this movie has some sequences that are scarier that Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

SoNowThen, what's your beef with the classrom circle discussion and the 3 girls puking scenes? that shit really goes on and i think GVS wanted to show that.

oh, and that documentary on the DVD sucks.

quasi-spoilerr..maybe..



but after watching this a few more times..i think my favorite moment..would be when the geeky chic walks into the gym...mainly it s the gym  ..it looks phucking beautiul....i guess i can relate b/c  at my high school i would walk across empty gyms also.and when i saw that it evoked somethign out of me............oh well....

Quote from: El Duderino
SoNowThen, what's your beef with the classrom circle discussion and the 3 girls puking scenes? that shit really goes on and i think GVS wanted to show that.

I think I may have touched on it before, but here goes:

those are the only two scenes where I feel like the director totally took over and bashed us over the fucking head. The rest of the movie felt like a mosaic and a group contribution, whereas whith those two scenes something broke for me in the magic. The discussion I think because of two things, one, maybe school changed in the 5 years since I've been out, but we never pushed the desks aside and had a circle talk like a fuggin AA group. Also, I found it odd that all the viewpoints of the kids were strikingly similar, no one argued or anything. Not my experience when discussing topics in class. As for the puking, I dunno, it was such a cheap shot in the worst possible way, what did it tell me about the girls that I didn't get from the marvellous previous scene in the lunchroom? To have all three do it at the same time seemed like screwball comedy, imo.

These are very minor things though. I really do love this flick. Like I said, he went for broke with every single moment, so it's only natural that some just don't work for me.

Quote from: SoNowThen

These are very minor things though. I really do love this flick. Like I said, he went for broke with every single moment, so it's only natural that some just don't work for me.

understood

Both of you have Harvey Keitel in your avatars.

we know

At least it's not a shot from his mid-90s nude phase in every movie...

Quote from: mutinycoAt least it's not a shot from his mid-90s nude phase in every movie...

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gaysitez.com%2Fcelebrity%2Fharvey_keitel%2Fharveykeitel001.jpg&hash=fcda3d6ed53db5bf2ba231258754f2ee3fa7baa0)

go ahead and delete this post, I couldn't resist though.

I can't see the image... :oops:

It's from a site called "gaysitez" so why do you still care?

Quote from: CinephileIt's from a site called "gaysitez" so why do you still care?

haha, it is.  I just google image searched it.

Somehow, the word "google" should never be used in conjunction with Harvey Keitel being naked...

I just watched this one.

Yeah, it was powerful, but that's because its an explicit dramatization of a very real event that is still pretty raw in our consciousness and continues to have a very powerful effect on all of us. I really dont know what compelled Van Sant to make this seeing as he basically pulled the script from real-life accounts and had nothing to say that we didnt already know. That whole This-Is-Beyond-Our-Understanding bit is a bullshit cop-out.

I sort of felt a bit dirty after watching this, its' pretty much exploitation. It should go right to the top of the Columbine-exploitation heap already stacked about a mile high by the media, politicians, talk show hosts, and Micheal Moore, among others.

And the acting was absolutely HORRID.

I don't think it's saying "this is beyond our understanding."  Who said that?

Quote from: The Disco KidI just watched this one.

Yeah, it was powerful, but that's because its an explicit dramatization of a very real event that is still pretty raw in our consciousness and continues to have a very powerful effect on all of us. I really dont know what compelled Van Sant to make this seeing as he basically pulled the script from real-life accounts and had nothing to say that we didnt already know. That whole This-Is-Beyond-Our-Understanding bit is a bullshit cop-out.

I sort of felt a bit dirty after watching this, its' pretty much exploitation. It should go right to the top of the Columbine-exploitation heap already stacked about a mile high by the media, politicians, talk show hosts, and Micheal Moore, among others.

And the acting was absolutely HORRID.

I thought the acting was fine, considering he didn't use real actors.  :roll:

QuoteI thought the acting was fine, considering he didn't use real actors.

Oh, they weren't REAL actors? They must've been fake ones then? Regardless, they had to be some sort of actors because they certainly weren't really shooting and being shot to death by high powered assault weapons. Yes, they most definitely were actors and, yes,  they most definitely were lousy.

What you said is sort of like saying, 'I thought the acting sucked, but it was great considering they were really sucky actors'.

I think the acting in Elephant was great -- the teenagers that Van Sant used all played within their range.  Nobody gave a melodramatic speech, there were no operatic hystrionics.  Everything felt like found behavior, not staged behavior.

Bresson and Italian neo-realistism directors made use of non-actors, who can lend more reality to a film if they are used properly.  Van Sant is working in that tradition.

Quote from: soixanteBresson and Italian neo-realistism directors made use of non-actors, who can lend more reality to a film if they are used properly.  Van Sant is working in that tradition.

And the Germans before them, in the 20s, 30s, etc.

There's nothing pretentious or revolutionary about the acting in this movie... it was just the right choice.

And it's especially impressive in the really long shots... it's not like they're cutting together from multiple takes and smoothly editing conversations for tone and pacing. I never thought for one second that they weren't professional actors.

^

Yeah, agreed. It gained its power from the fact that it seemed we were spying on everyday kids in an (at first) everyday situation. The casting of these particular kids is akin to using hand-held video to show immediacy, except that in this case imo the former worked much better than the latter would have.

Plus it helps that he picked two kids that expressed interest in actually wanting to shoot classmates, and it showed in their faces. I don't really think you could "act" that.

Did I miss something? What was wrong with the actors?

Quote from: CinephileDid I miss something? What was wrong with the actors?

they were too brilliant.

especially the dorky chick.

She wasn't acting.

To what a few people mentioned about the long tracking shots, and going way back to PTA saying PBH walked "like a motherfucker"... there's something about good presence that lends to a really unique and interesting-on-screen walk.

The popular guy's stride outside and through the hallways.

Benny's glide.

The dorky girl's hunched back, awkward-as-hell gallup.

Really, can you act those? There just so damn telling, in every possible good way. It's one of those things I've always hated, when I do a short, and you tell someone to walk from one end of the room to the other and maybe take their coat off, 1 out of every three actors does something with it, the other 2 are just so boring to watch, you hafta cut. But see, you could hold the nice long shot if you had someone with the interesting walk of the above mentioned people.

Quote from: SoNowThenthere's something about good presence that lends to a really unique and interesting-on-screen walk.

The popular guy's stride outside and through the hallways.

Benny's glide.

The dorky girl's hunched back, awkward-as-hell gallup.

Really, can you act those?

And while we're on the topic, how about Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy.. man, that walk he did.. really, can you act that?!

While that was massively over the top, it still worked for me. It was one of the few things in Midnight Cowboy that did...

i thought the acting was good. elias reminds me too much of myself.

Quote from: CinephileAnd while we're on the topic, how about Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy.. man, that walk he did.. really, can you act that?!

And how about Robin Williams and Nathan Lane John-Wayne-walking in The Birdcage?

Quote from: SoNowThenTo what a few people mentioned about the long tracking shots, and going way back to PTA saying PBH walked "like a motherfucker"... there's something about good presence that lends to a really unique and interesting-on-screen walk.

The popular guy's stride outside and through the hallways.

Benny's glide.

The dorky girl's hunched back, awkward-as-hell gallup.

Really, can you act those? There just so damn telling, in every possible good way. It's one of those things I've always hated, when I do a short, and you tell someone to walk from one end of the room to the other and maybe take their coat off, 1 out of every three actors does something with it, the other 2 are just so boring to watch, you hafta cut. But see, you could hold the nice long shot if you had someone with the interesting walk of the above mentioned people.

That reminds me of De Sica and how he casted the leads in Bicycle Thieves by the way they walked.

after watching this movie i just feel like crying or something but i can't. i don't know. it struck a chord while still leaving me completely hollow and i can't put my finger on whether or not i liked it.i do think it's amazing that there is hardly any speaking and the characters are so well defined. you know who they're all about. pffffhaaaaaawringwringwring. ok. i've said my bit. continue with your discussion.

I've been reading through reviews of the movie, and all the negative ones say only one thing... It's pointless!...

Which made me realize that Elephant could be one of the most potent recent films to battle commercial simplification and sensationalization.

And this part of Ebert's review struck me:

Truffaut said it was hard to make an anti-war film because war was exciting even if you were against it. Van Sant has made an anti-violence film by draining violence of energy, purpose, glamor, reward and social context.

There's one other thing: moral context.

Quote from: mutinycoThere's one other thing: moral context.

Absolutely, and that's why this movie feels so... large.

Is this as close as we can get to objectivity?

Elephant is one of the most laughable descendents of the art of Antonioni that I've come across. Sure, the intention is there to provide the same moral outlook that refuses to simplify like American films, but Van Sant does simplify in his moral objectifications of people who go to High School today and for me, shows how far removed he is from the current life of the American high school student and how easy it is to apply stereotypes taken from newspapers and slab it on the screen.

The best part of Michelangelo Antonioni's films is that his vantage point of his characters felt so close and personal that, on top of his well thought out art, he was conveying experiences of life he not only personally felt once, but was maybe going through at the time. In the commentary for L'Avventura by Antonioni expert Gene Youngblood, he said Antonioni's worst moments came when he started making films that were more and more foreign to him, from Blow Up, a British film and finally, Zabriskie Point, an American film, (that also had many writers) he was relying too much on moments that instead of conveying the profoundly personal touch known for his characters, had too many scenes that stood out to symbolize larger things and the context of his unique closeness removed.

The same problem exists in Elephant. For much of the film, the film closely follows these kids but then makes the mistake to add many superficial characterizations within it them from the social girls vomiting in a bathroom to the kids who kill everyone being symbolized in scenes of getting picked on and the outside girl just shown in the context of her uncomfortability in the girls locker room. The point is that these aren't true, they usually are, but that they do little to show the depth of their personality and identity. With the variety of students profiled, it felt like Van Sant was going for the broad focus and just skimming the surface of the identity of the students that did little to get past everyone's else likely assumptions of who they are.

I actually took the offense of this film kind of personal. When I was in high school, a friend of mine went to prison just in his junior year for beating someone to death with a baseball bat. I kept wondering how Van Sant would have portrayed him in this film and with the film in mind, likely through a few scenes of trouble at home and the lack of focus that brought him. The shame is that this kid was actually really pleasant and had so many attributes and flaws that crossed over onto the problems of many others that those who knew him never blamed it on one thing. They didn't blame any thing about him for doing that. They just knew he was so much more than the little everyone expected of his troubled home and anger difficulty. Of course, in Van Sants overall perspective, he wouldn't just blame that situation. He doesn't come to neat conclusions in Elephant, but he does have the problem of superficially portraying his characters that comes with the worst of American films. Blah to this film and the idea it is insightful into anything.

Two things:

Taking fewer characters in greater detail and personal feelings would have shifted the focus from the story to the "character piece". That wouldn't have suited this movie at all. In fact, THAT would have been offensive.

Also, you can't get upset about the "superficial stereotypes", because every high school is made up of them. There's the Ugly Loner Girl, the Artsy Guy, the Jock With The Hot Girlfriend, etc. Face it, you can't make a high school movie without embracing this.

Quote from: SoNowThenTwo things:

Taking fewer characters in greater detail and personal feelings would have shifted the focus from the story to the "character piece". That wouldn't have suited this movie at all. In fact, THAT would have been offensive.

It wouldn't have to at all. It would have to just get away from the obvious characterization to sum up crowds of people. These characterizations, to answer your second point, I find to be stale and lame anyways. The film could have easily been about more characters without trying to make the obvious, bland points.

How can something be stale if it has occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur?

Also, I think the group (rather than an extremely individual approach) representation is one of the main things that contributed to that important objectivity JB was talking about.

Quote from: SoNowThen

Also, you can't get upset about the "superficial stereotypes", because every high school is made up of them. There's the Ugly Loner Girl, the Artsy Guy, the Jock With The Hot Girlfriend, etc. Face it, you can't make a high school movie without embracing this.

My highschool doesn't have a group of socialite girls who throw up together in the bathroom, nor does it have a quiet ugly loner girl, nor does it have a Jock/Hot girlfriend couple.  It does have some artsy people, but not one artsy guy.

Quote from: Tictacbk

Quote from: SoNowThen

Also, you can't get upset about the "superficial stereotypes", because every high school is made up of them. There's the Ugly Loner Girl, the Artsy Guy, the Jock With The Hot Girlfriend, etc. Face it, you can't make a high school movie without embracing this.

My highschool doesn't have a group of socialite girls who throw up together in the bathroom, nor does it have a quiet ugly loner girl, nor does it have a Jock/Hot girlfriend couple.  It does have some artsy people, but not one artsy guy.

not only did my highschool have this -- my junior high had it as well.

Quote from: SoNowThenTwo things:

Taking fewer characters in greater detail and personal feelings would have shifted the focus from the story to the "character piece". That wouldn't have suited this movie at all. In fact, THAT would have been offensive.

Also, you can't get upset about the "superficial stereotypes", because every high school is made up of them. There's the Ugly Loner Girl, the Artsy Guy, the Jock With The Hot Girlfriend, etc. Face it, you can't make a high school movie without embracing this.

I agree.  High School is a stereotype.  Most people haven't figured out who they are yet so they just become a set of conventions.  I didn't figure out the truth until after High School.

Quote from: SoNowThenAlso, you can't get upset about the "superficial stereotypes", because every high school is made up of them. There's the Ugly Loner Girl, the Artsy Guy, the Jock With The Hot Girlfriend, etc. Face it, you can't make a high school movie without embracing this.

Sure, all schools contain sterotypes, but in Elephant, the characters were nothing but sterotypes. However, this was obviously an artistic decision on the part of Gus Van Sant.

Quote from: Tictacbk

Quote from: SoNowThen

Also, you can't get upset about the "superficial stereotypes", because every high school is made up of them. There's the Ugly Loner Girl, the Artsy Guy, the Jock With The Hot Girlfriend, etc. Face it, you can't make a high school movie without embracing this.

My highschool doesn't have a group of socialite girls who throw up together in the bathroom, nor does it have a quiet ugly loner girl, nor does it have a Jock/Hot girlfriend couple.  It does have some artsy people, but not one artsy guy.

charter school?

Quote from: El Duderino

Quote from: Tictacbk

Quote from: SoNowThen

Also, you can't get upset about the "superficial stereotypes", because every high school is made up of them. There's the Ugly Loner Girl, the Artsy Guy, the Jock With The Hot Girlfriend, etc. Face it, you can't make a high school movie without embracing this.

My highschool doesn't have a group of socialite girls who throw up together in the bathroom, nor does it have a quiet ugly loner girl, nor does it have a Jock/Hot girlfriend couple.  It does have some artsy people, but not one artsy guy.

charter school?

Nah Suburban white kid public school.

So what you're saying is, there's nobody worth killing at your school?

Quote from: SoNowThenHow can something be stale if it has occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur?

Also, I think the group (rather than an extremely individual approach) representation is one of the main things that contributed to that important objectivity JB was talking about.

For the first sentence, you talk like this film spoke the grand truth of the subject. It did not. My rejection of the film has nothing to do with the validity of these situations happening, but how non interesting I find the objecification of it. Schools have stereotypes in cliques, yea, but its also true once you dig deeper, things are not just that. In movies, they are just like that.

With the objectivity, I understand that point of view but I find little great art being shown in what was presented here. Its not that I'm arguing against the point of view of an entire group of high school students, but pandering to the most obvious ideas of how high school students are.

GT, amen brother.

I disagree. I do think kids are stereotypes. And from my experience in suburbia, most kids' experiences are so narrow that (until they go off to college, say) they really do come off as automotons. People create a very narrow set of ideas and expectations for themselves -- and quite often live up to other's perceptions because it's easier than trying to be something more. They might be different outside of school, but in school there's usually a pretty strict social structure where people predominantly play their roles.

Another thing, and this is more specific to Elephant -- the bulk of the movie takes place within like a 10 minute period. Not only that, but these kids ARE at school. We're given a narrow range of time to explore their lives. And also, these weren't actors playing scripted roles, it was improvised. Auditions were held and most of the kids wound up playing essentially themselves. Did you even notice that 95% used their REAL names?

Quote from: mutinycoSo what you're saying is, there's nobody worth killing at your school?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Quote from: Tictacbk

Quote from: El Duderino

Quote from: Tictacbk

Quote from: SoNowThen

Also, you can't get upset about the "superficial stereotypes", because every high school is made up of them. There's the Ugly Loner Girl, the Artsy Guy, the Jock With The Hot Girlfriend, etc. Face it, you can't make a high school movie without embracing this.

My highschool doesn't have a group of socialite girls who throw up together in the bathroom, nor does it have a quiet ugly loner girl, nor does it have a Jock/Hot girlfriend couple.  It does have some artsy people, but not one artsy guy.

charter school?

Nah Suburban white kid public school.

...on Mars?

Quote from: mutinycoI disagree. I do think kids are stereotypes. And from my experience in suburbia, most kids' experiences are so narrow that (until they go off to college, say) they really do come off as automotons. People create a very narrow set of ideas and expectations for themselves -- and quite often live up to other's perceptions because it's easier than trying to be something more. They might be different outside of school, but in school there's usually a pretty strict social structure where people predominantly play their roles.

There is partial truth to the stereotypes. See, I was in a unique situation. I went from very popular jock to outcast loner very quickly (dropped all involvement in sports) and experienced two completely type of friends in that regards and yea, cliques were everywhere, but I realized that with all the cliques of people, no one really was that different from each other and the lines of their "identity" were so much deeper than the obvious first assumptions. To get the identity of people in high school is to start with the stereotypes that are true and dig deeper to see how blurred those lines really are and actually do little to define people at high school. Individuality does exist. But, of course, this discussion feels ill fated in actually getting anywhere. We really can't discuss points here all that much.

Quote from: mutinycoAnother thing, and this is more specific to Elephant -- the bulk of the movie takes place within like a 10 minute period. Not only that, but these kids ARE at school. We're given a narrow range of time to explore their lives. And also, these weren't actors playing scripted roles, it was improvised. Auditions were held and most of the kids wound up playing essentially themselves.

Then why couldn't Van Sant have just dropped the cheesy characterizations that hole everyone up into stereotypes? Why couldn't he have focused on the interaction of random students instead of what seems a very precise selection he likely felt gave the most diversity? It would have freed up a lot of the criticism I have that the story is performing superficial stereotyping of the identity of students and we would have scenes certain students moren in the light of who there were for that time, instead of giving over reaching symbolism that couldn't be more conventional.

Quote from: mutinycoDid you even notice that 95% used their REAL names?

Good for them.

Because it's a movie, not a documentary.

GT just got SeRvEd!

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsputnik.mdr.de%2Fchannels%2Fblack%2Fharlem%2F200323%2Fb2k.jpg&hash=5be0e3f7efba8716481be305c34a85c18184ba9d)

It was only a matter of time before that became the new Owned.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pimpswithgrenades.com%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fpwned.gif&hash=dc91ad42a294778ebf48cb20aba43a8c37b74f02)

I really do agree with what GT has said about the characters, but I still think it's an excellent film.

heh, good stuff guys.




























(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autodrome-cannes.com%2Flambo_bull_yellow.gif&hash=b636eeef4a6827ddf4ea349e10382cb9f53c703e)

Did anyone here feel that the scene where the 2 killers-to-be get into the shower was more like a ritual than a gay thing?

foray

Quote from: forayDid anyone here feel that the scene where the 2 killers-to-be get into the shower was more like a ritual than a gay thing?

foray

i dont know but that scene really caught me off guard at kinda fucked with my head

I think it was just a ploy to get you to think about why they did it. Did they do it cause they were gay? Cause they played video games? A number of things were shown for the reason they could have done it. They may not have been gay though, maybe just confused high school kids. Like the college freshman who experiments with her politically active roommate cause it feels right.

Elephant exceeded my expecations (which were high) with the silences and pauses.  It's a risk to put breaks in movies like this as many people I know considered it boring.  But if you become engaged and watch their lives, it's very interesting.

At first, I hated the ending.  I wanted resolution, but I think that's the point.  It's just something that happened, no moral included.  How do you get a moral out of such an event?

The ending just made it that much more heartbreaking. As a decent human being you want to see the last killer standing get caught and justice served. We don't get that and I think that added a dimension to the film that made it almost unforgetable.

Quote from: StefenI think it was just a ploy to get you to think about why they did it. Did they do it cause they were gay? Cause they played video games? A number of things were shown for the reason they could have done it. They may not have been gay though, maybe just confused high school kids. Like the college freshman who experiments with her politically active roommate cause it feels right.

SPOILER:

That scene struck me because it didn't seem gay. They weren't in love, clearly. The way they touched each other wasn't exactly lustful or anything. It was so empty and flat. Not to mention, one of them shot the other. It also didn't feel like they were experimenting, even tho one of them says "I've never been in the shower with another guy before" (can't remember exact quote). Maybe it was a preparation thing for what they were gonna do, I dunno. I'm just confused about that one scene.

The title of the earlier Elephant movie came from a writer who said that living in the Troubles, Ireland was like having an elephant in the room.

foray

The scene was about connection. He says, "I've never kissed anybody before." 2 losers about to go on a rampage that'll end their lives and they needed a moment of human connection.

Cool, that makes a lil' more sense, thanks.

foray

I can finally read this thread, and just did.

So what are your thoughts on the thread?

Quote from: SleuthSo what are your thoughts on the thread?

It was like reading the minutes from a student council meeting.

dude you read minutes from student council meetings?  SQUUUARE.

Just saw this movie.  Scared the crap outta me.  I had to pause to take a breather a few times just within the first hour, in which nothing happened.

... suddenly Senior year in high school doesn't look so hot...

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fnac.pt%2Fimages%2Fcatalogo%2FdvdVhs%2Fxl%2F5606699506066.jpg&hash=f483e0a4977b66e1d56056a7d1150e1cc21f93d4)
I got the R2 dvd, it has the original Alan Clarke film and it's fucking awesome, plus a comparison betwen both "elephants" by some french critic.

I really really encourage people to see Alan Clarke's elephant, it's unlike anything I've ever seen.

At last, at last, at last!!!!!!!
Elephant came to Peru yipee!!!!!!!!!!!
and it's definitely the best movie i've watched this year, a WONDERFUL movie what proves that the essence of cinema is not dead!!! how powerful is the image god!
really i'm in love with this movie... MARVELOUS!

Quote from: rustinglass
I got the R2 dvd

Is that the french R2? Cause the English one has nothing and is 4:3, godammit.

Quote from: ®edlum

Quote from: rustinglass
I got the R2 dvd

Is that the french R2? Cause the English one has nothing and is 4:3, godammit.

No, it's the  Portuguese edition, but the french edition has all I've got plus 6 more trailers, and two more extra features.

the film is in 16:9, which is very confusing because I believe it was shot in 4:3

Does anybody know what camera this is? (from the DVD documentary)

(https://xixax.com/files/jb/elephantdoc01.jpg)

(https://xixax.com/files/jb/elephantdoc02.jpg)

Looks like one of those little handheld one-chips like the Canon ZR10 or whatever it was called, with a 35mm lens mount attached to the front (plus the lens, which is probably worth at least six times the amount of the camera).

Arri adapter with a Zeiss...

I found this in the Elephant message boards on IMDB.


MY SCHOOL SHOOTING

"I'm gonna get a 14 inch Custom made Pump-Action Shotgun, a custom made 1 and a half footb 20 MM CAR, about 30 4 inch Pipebombs strapped around my waist, and a cut out back-pack. In the back-[ack will be a small propane bomb, the second back-pack I have will contain some ammo and food. I will also have a duffel bag, containing the Carbine.
I will also have a protective vest, the protective vest, shotgun, and pipebombs will be hidden under a jacket(they will all be by my torso) during Lunch, I will place the Propane bomb in the cafeteria, pretending its one of my friends backpacks(the fabric seperrating each compartment will be cut- out, so the propane bomb will fit.) As soon as the propane bomb explodes, I will cover one of the exits to the cafeteria, 2 others will cover all other exits ( there are only 3 exits to the cafeteria) and fire with a drum magezine from our Carbines. after killing most of the people in the cafeteria, we will go up the second pair of north entrance stairs, and get to either side of the library, covering each exit. Then we will move into the library and kill whom we which.
After words, 2 of my companions will move to the bottom floor, throwing pipe bombs in every other room they come by, as I and another companion cover the library. Then we will vice varsa, only me and my other companion will do the top floor, Afterwords we will cut off peoples faces shoot at the police, take the faces back, pretend we're victims and escape."


That's pretty f*cked up...

I'm glad this thread was updated. Looking back, I'm very happy with my stance on the film though I think I could have been clearer at times. I wonder if JB would admit that my dissent to the film goes beyond me saying its "pointless" as he said every critic of the film only did. But, I'd also like to reply [again] to the initial criticism of my own review.

Quote from: SoNowThenTwo things:

Taking fewer characters in greater detail and personal feelings would have shifted the focus from the story to the "character piece". That wouldn't have suited this movie at all. In fact, THAT would have been offensive.

It wouldn't have been just a character piece at all. As all the best dramas do, to really delve into the life of one character is the best way to reveal life about everyone in that situation. As my situation in High School taught me, the problems of one truly are the problems of everyone. The details just may be a little different. This film is a mere focus of the difference of details between everyone.

Thats the genius of Antonioni. His films of the early 60s were so personal and close to the subjects that he dug at truths that were not truthful to just the characters, but truthful to all of us. Most critics say as he started making films in Britain and the United States, he began to explore Hollywood storylines more and settled with his art. His objectification was still there, but yet there never was the same depth of truth.

Quote from: SoNowThenAlso, you can't get upset about the "superficial stereotypes", because every high school is made up of them. There's the Ugly Loner Girl, the Artsy Guy, the Jock With The Hot Girlfriend, etc. Face it, you can't make a high school movie without embracing this.

There's one thing to learn from feminist literature: even though society tells us of a great divide between men and women, there truthfully is more difference between women and other women then there are between men and women. Thats a stereotype a lot of people believe in and I honestly believe the generalizations of high school cliques in being true dividers of who people are are also just stereotypes that have little truth to them. Isn't everyone's problem in high school finding acceptance with friends and finally finding out who they are? People think this is just the problem of the under priveleged in high school, but Jocks and cheer leaders aren't born to status, but forged. Underneath it all everyone had very similiar problems.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThere's one thing to learn from feminist literature: even though society tells us of a great divide between men and women, there truthfully is more difference between women and other women then there are between men and women. Thats a stereotype a lot of people believe in and I honestly believe the generalizations of high school cliques in being true dividers of who people are are also just stereotypes that have little truth to them. Isn't everyone's problem in high school finding acceptance with friends and finally finding out who they are? People think this is just the problem of the under priveleged in high school, but Jocks and cheer leaders aren't born to status, but forged. Underneath it all everyone had very similiar problems.

i agree, it's insecurity, the universal reason why people gravitate toward each other and put boundaries on how they want to be perceived (i.e. fashion, taste, political and social views... etc).  i think it also has to do with where you live.  i grew up in a small city of about 200, 000 people (and i don't know if that's a factor, please give me insight on where you guys grew up) and the high schools i went to there wasn't as much of a dividing line.  sure we had jocks and goths and skaters and punks and all the other cliques but it wasn't so segregated.  in the school's smoking section you'd see all these people smoking and talking to each other, even with the teachers.  at that time whenever i'd see a film that depicted high school life it would show these different cliques as very segregational to each other (like varsity blues, can't buy me love, breakfast club etc.).   i always thought that was a stupid movie stereotype, but then i talked to people who lived in bigger cities like Toronto, Dallas, and Austin and they told me stories of stuff i only thought existed in these films.

when i moved to a bigger city later in life, i understood what they were talking about, it did seem like people needed to hide behind their clique and not look outside the box.  now i'm not saying this was the case with everyone, but the tendency seemed to be a little more in the hollywood fashion.

in the area of being physically attractive, it's the hard truth that good-looking people get away with more, even with the high school example set out by elephant.  if you're good-looking (and not a total douchebag or social leaper) you would get the opposite sex attracted to you.  and if you're "ugly" there is a bigger chance that you would be a loner.

if you think i'm horribly wrong write back and tell me what you think.  like i said, this has just been my experience.


-sl-

I'm jumping to an old topic and also seemingly ignoring an old reply (look above) but in light of recent conversations, I'm making a small comment on this film. It isn't to look I am above small glib comments and am rubbing my thoughts in. That may be the impression but I really got curious to restate my opinion. I think I dug at some new ideas.

But, to indulge myself...I believe Van Sant with Elephant was making a film that indulged in realism and had little thought behind it. The achievement of Elephant is that he gives a massacre a clinical tone I'd never seen before in movies. The problem is that his process to achieve this is so obvious. Robert Bresson, in the 50s, played with strict realism in detailing the bare facts, like in A Man Escaped. It's just as he developed, he started to mix his stories to include greater thought and ideas. The allegory in Au Hasard Balthazar would fit that description.

Van Sant, operating on the barest and grimmest vision, offers a straightforward Bresson throw back that captures the filmmaker at the beginning of his greatness and his ideas. There is no mystery to the filmmaking of Elephant. It is obvious what he does to achieve his effect. He achieves his tone quite easily and because of the implication of Columbine at the time, makes the effect of the ending work much better. United 93 had a similar shocking nature with 9/11, but had detailed filmmaking that was more of a compliment to the story. Paul Greengrass was also improving from the poor and disjointed filmmaking in Bourne Supremacy.

Van Sant is just continuing his superficial art cinema. His remake of Psycho was based on the idea that colorizing the original would yeild new sensations. That idea should have stayed in the classroom. Elephant is the "cinematic" vision of a Columbine esque massacre realized. It would have been a bigger deal in the 1960s. Now it does little but grab at old ideas of purity in cinema that were vogue only for a time.

I remember liking the film when I saw it, but I really agree with what you're saying, especially about how self-conscious and obvious it feels.  I thought the overall tone of the film was excellent, but once again, the means to achieve this tone are overbearing in their intentions.  (did that make sense?)

holy fuck, how come nobody agreed with me when I said the same thing like 40 years ago.

As a collective, we're more skeptical of things you say.

i'm really behind on this one, but finally saw it (using a free rental promotion by my local video store).

nothing eloquent to add or anything, but for whatever reason this film is really sticking with me. i've already watched it twice and will watch it a third time finally hearing the 5.1 soundtrack. it's hard to believe that Van Sant originally envisioned this in black and white because i love the colors in the film. the Kubrick influence is pretty telling with the first shot sans titles, it reminds me of The Shining titles with the car being filmed from behind from helicopter.

of course seeing this, i have been reading up on Columbine. i had forgotten just how demented these guys were. to even think of multiple timed bombings in the fashion they did is just insane.

my biggest wonder is how much longer the end scene went beyond the final cut to end the film - if there were two shots for the victims and then a suicide shot? i guess leaving it open implies that violence will never go away, but i would like to hear Van Sant's ideas on why he cut there if they are available anywhere.