Several ordinary high school students go through their daily routine as two others prepare for something more malevolent.Several ordinary high school students go through their daily routine as two others prepare for something more malevolent.Several ordinary high school students go through their daily routine as two others prepare for something more malevolent.
- Awards
- 8 wins & 13 nominations
Carrie Finn
- Carrie
- (as Carrie Finklea)
Ellis Williams
- GSA Teacher
- (as Ellis E. Williams)
Chantelle Chriestenson Nelson
- Noelle
- (as Chantelle Chriestenson)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThere are only about 88 shots in this film. More than half of them are in the last twenty minutes.
- GoofsAs Michelle is show pushing a trolley of books in the library over to a shelf just after the photographer walks in, you can see the yellow and white tape markings on the floor that indicate where she is supposed to stop the trolley and were she is to stand to stack the shelf.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Siskel & Ebert: The Best Films of 2003 (2004)
- SoundtracksPiano Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor, Op. 27 No. 2 'Moonlight' I. Adagio sostenuto
(1800-01)
Composed by Ludwig van Beethoven
Courtesy of FirstCom Music, Inc.
Featured review
I rarely walk out of a cinema in the middle of a film but `Elephant' was an exception. Endless shots of schoolchildren walking down corridors then talking to - or not talking to - friends, followed by endless shots of the same schoolchildren walking down the same corridor from a different angle finally became too much. Who were these people? What importance did any of this have? Why was I expected to care?
Some months later I found at least a part of the answer. I like to see films without knowing too much about them - I definitely don't want to know what happens in the last third. With `Elephant' I achieved this perfectly. I saw it in France (in English) four months before it opened in Britain so knew absolutely nothing about what it was leading up to, and I realise this may explain in part my overwhelming sense of tedium. My problem was perhaps best summed up later by a UK critic writing to the effect 'As we watch we know what is going to happen to these people. We have always known'. Well, no, actually, I didn't have a clue.
As I say I like to come to a film not knowing the outcome, and to be absorbed from the start into the characters' lives, to share their problems, their surprises, their jokes. `Elephant' does not remotely work on this level.
This would seem to suggest one of two possibilities. Firstly, that it is a poorly made film. The characterisation and plot do not of themselves carry you along, make you identify with people or start to care about what happens to them. It is take-it-or-leave it - disjointed, uninvolving.
Or secondly, it belongs to a class of film where it is expected that the audience have studied up on it beforehand, have listened to the director explaining the meaning, so that they know the outcome, are looking for the nuances, and are able to put the early scenes into an overall context. I suspect that quite a lot of the more critically-cherished art house repertoire actually requires this, but for me this is not the pleasure of going to the pictures. If you need to approach seeing a film in this way, count me out.
In fact, let's be honest, with `Elephant' just count me out anyway.
Some months later I found at least a part of the answer. I like to see films without knowing too much about them - I definitely don't want to know what happens in the last third. With `Elephant' I achieved this perfectly. I saw it in France (in English) four months before it opened in Britain so knew absolutely nothing about what it was leading up to, and I realise this may explain in part my overwhelming sense of tedium. My problem was perhaps best summed up later by a UK critic writing to the effect 'As we watch we know what is going to happen to these people. We have always known'. Well, no, actually, I didn't have a clue.
As I say I like to come to a film not knowing the outcome, and to be absorbed from the start into the characters' lives, to share their problems, their surprises, their jokes. `Elephant' does not remotely work on this level.
This would seem to suggest one of two possibilities. Firstly, that it is a poorly made film. The characterisation and plot do not of themselves carry you along, make you identify with people or start to care about what happens to them. It is take-it-or-leave it - disjointed, uninvolving.
Or secondly, it belongs to a class of film where it is expected that the audience have studied up on it beforehand, have listened to the director explaining the meaning, so that they know the outcome, are looking for the nuances, and are able to put the early scenes into an overall context. I suspect that quite a lot of the more critically-cherished art house repertoire actually requires this, but for me this is not the pleasure of going to the pictures. If you need to approach seeing a film in this way, count me out.
In fact, let's be honest, with `Elephant' just count me out anyway.
- How long is Elephant?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Fil
- Filming locations
- Whitaker Middle School, 5700 NE 39th Ave, Portland, Oregon, USA(since demolished)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $3,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $1,266,955
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $93,356
- Oct 26, 2003
- Gross worldwide
- $10,012,022
- Runtime1 hour 21 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content