Okay folks, I’ll clue people in with a small review first, then I’ll ask questions about it.
Elephant, directed by Mr. Good Will Hunting, is a slow, quiet and sutble film about a typical day full of typical kids at a typical high school in typical Oregon. Life is normal, spare a few ups and downs that make life interesting – then it all goes Suck.
— Eric & Alex take the fate of their schoolmates and some guns, mix ’em together and , poof, Columbine. The film is shot very “matter-of-fact” like – as if the camera is just another student – or a static window that you are fortunate enough to peek through. As far as cinematography goes, it’s very similar to Gus Van Sant’s “Gerry” that you didn’t see last year. – Lots of scenes were held for a long time after dialogue finished before cutting to the next scene and other takes were simply very long: ie, running a number of minutes as we follow a student down the hallway and into classrooms – Some would find it “boring” – I found that it really gave a “typical – drawn out – nothing” day. I wished that the “static” shots were done more than they were – it really gave a solid sense that you were “spying” in on their day — people would dwindle in and out of the shot without the camera moving to follow – fascinating stuff.
I’m not too sure how I felt about the film as a whole – maybe I’ve seen too much of Hollywood, but I didn’t feel absolute archaic panic as I thought I would — everything maintained a “subtle disturbance” – as if somewhere, far away, there was something horribly wrong within the deep reaches of the universe.
Okay – Have some questions for those who have seen it:
***There are Spoilers written below this, so skip this chunk if you plan on seeing it**************** No really.
– How about this panic? Was it done well?.. Is it just me?
– Why did he make Eric and Alex gay? – Was he making a statement regarding the movie’s earlier conversation about what they “look” like? I’m not commenting on their being gay, but I don’t know why the movie was examining violence in today’s youth culture and then suddenly commented on homosexuality. Was it just for “character purposes”? The scene to me just stood out from the rest of the film as “not fitting quite right” – it was never hinted at or touched on again.
– On a lighter note, what was that game with the horrible graphics he was playing?
– Any theories on why he shot his own buddy?
***************************************************************************End Of Spoilers.****
Either way, it’s a very interesting film — although it certainly won’t blow wind up everyone’s skirt. I’m trying to decide if I loved it or if I’ll never watch it again.
Slow, trite, boring, dumb as the fact the students really do not go to class. is there a structure to this school.
not a lot of reality here.
they should have added a ‘wah won wan wah’ to replace the parental voice.
bad timelining too.
GEESH!
My memories about it aren’t as fresh as everyone elses, i guess. I saw the movie last summer, told everyone about it, and i’m trying to find it ever since. It is done extremely well. Throughout the whole movie you get the feeling that something’s about to happen, something’s supposed to happen, you can feel it hanging in the air, even though that monotony is brought to screen really well-and then it happens. It’s shocking. It’s outrageuos. I love it.
But i don’t think Alex and Eric kissing is a comment on homosexuality. It’s something that kinda makes you think about who they are, and why they’re doing that whole thing, and that’s the same reason why he shoots his own buddy. It’s supposed to shock, therefore making you think about it.
The shower scene (though short) seemed as if it was an outpouring of loneliness and fear. Alex and Eric knew perfectly well that they would be dying that very day, at a very young age. They also seemed to know about all that they would be missing out on. They most likely knew that, if they were to go on to live a long and properous life, that they would be able to enjoy all the wonderful things (such as affection) in life. Since they knew that they wouldn’t have that change, perhaps they just wanted a taste of it.
… My two cents.
*spoilers in this post*
eric and alex aren’t actually gay. they are desperatley lonely and sad and are in need of any kind of affection. they admit that they’ve never been kissed and then kiss eachother. its heartbreaking if you think about it. that scene may have something to do with alex killing eric in the end. i havent really came to a conclusion on that
The boys actually weren’t gay- the dialogue is hard to hear in the shower scene, but what they actually say is- “Have you ever been kissed?”
“Have you?”
It makes it a bit more understandable that way. :)
Hmm..
that’s some solid ideas. Okay…
– I did notice that Gus Van Sant had certain kids “picked off” and yet had certain others survive. Why certain ones, I don’t know. That guy in the group, for example – does GVS think that his ignorance is a punishment fitting death? I know some would. In fact, if I recall nearly EVERY person that had some sort of “opinion” about ANYONE else, seemed to get “off-ed”. Or are all these deaths just one big random act all laid out before me in attempts to get me to sit here and think?==== Maybe………..
Perhaps I was looking to linearly at the film. If something wasn’t relating directly to the violence of the guy’s behavior, I was confused as to why I was seeing it. – And since I didn’t really see how being gay would have any affect on their day-to-day social interactive behavior, (like playing video games, playing music, chatting in the halls, hanging out with a best friend) I got somewhat confused. Although yes, I’m not deaf as to realize how being gay would alter a teen’s social standpoint in highschool – cuz there’s always gonna be the king-don jerk somewhere..
So in a way, you could say the film was saying “anyone can look like anything and still be something else”. Which would be a tricky blanket-sweep statement to try and cover. Why he also choose homosexuality to cover would be interesting to know – maybe it’s just a hot topic? who knows.
I’m still a little confused as to why he shot his buddy when he did. — I guess that could fit into the “he didn’t LOOK like the type that would do that” category, but this is killing your best friend we’re talking about. Maybe GVS deemed it unnecessary to tell the audience every single intimate detail of teh guy’s plans – which would make sense. I dunno. Be really didn’t look like he was expecting it though.
Enough thinking. I must pee.
As for the gay thing-
They kept talking about what a gay person “looked like,” and if you could tell. I think that was a big point in the movie- What does a gay kid look like? What does a killer look like? A Victim?
And then think about it. Did the two boys look like killers? Not really. (Alex looks exactly liek a friend of mine, who by the way, never killed anybody.) But when you think about it, *any* of the kids they followed that day could have been a killer. The blonde kid? The girl with the glasses? So, what does a killer look like? It looks like anybody. Like he said to the principle, “There are more of us out there.” Anybody could be a killer.
It goes back to the title, which is actually from a story about two blind men who examine an elephant. Touch its ear, an elephant must be like a fan. Touch its tusk, an elephant must be like a spear. If you can’t see the whole picture, you think the whole picture only consists of the part you can see.
SO, my theory is that, hey, they didn’t look gay, they didn’t look like killers. Nobody does, you can’t tell. I don’t know if that makes sense, but, I tried. :)
All the above questions are valid after watching this film. Many questions were raised and not many were ever settled. The long drawn out shots did add to the “normalcy” of the film, and I found it amazing what was going on in the background of every shot. Kids were acting as they do everyday at every highschool in the country. What I enjoyed most about the film was the way in which the attack scenes were captured. Van Sant opted for an extremely subtle depiction of a shoot up at a high school. There were no load explosives or heavy special effects used. Anyone who did not enjoy the movie at all, must examine their tendencies behind exploiting huge budget films where the world is at risk and everything can be blown up. In the true spirit of Van Sant we see a perfect slice of human living. As for the homosexual aspect of the film…I would have to say that it was included due to the earlier discussion held in the classroom on what a gay person looks like. And correct me if I am wrong (I have only seen the movie once), but everyone from the classroom escaped except for the one kid who thought homosexuality was all about pink hair and rainbows. I could be looking to much into the subtext of the movie, but that may provide some answers for some people. Anyways, Elephant is definitely a movie worth seeing as long as you go in with your head in the right place. You are not going to see celebrity faces or possible Oscar nominations (not because the acting wasn’t good, but because the Academy does not herald small budget films anymore,but you will see some beautiful cinematography and scenes that everyone will be able to relate to.
It was a great production.People were so nice and had alot of energy that they brought to the set. I hope that everyone who reads this goes see Elephant 1 of the best movies you will see all year. It sticks to your mind and won’t let you go.
RomanPOstrovsky
http://WWW.Geocities.com/RomanPOstrovsky/
[email protected]
Posted by RomanPOstrovsky/The Red Head Kid/Elephant at December 14, 2003
It was Great playing the Red Head kid in Elephant.
Played By RomanPOstrovsky Thanks to Gus and Everyone Else for making Elephant Such a Big Hit.
Thanks Roman P Ostrovsky
http://WWW.Geocities.com/RomanPOstrovsky/
I Love You Guys All