Elephant

Depending on your point of view, this movie could have been boring or brilliant. For me, it was brilliant and disturbing. I get upset every time I see the interviews with the teens from columbine that day and want to cry every time i see the video's in the library. I didn't watch the entire film, i mostly listened to it. But that parts that I did watch were boring at first, then when I looked at it dramatically, they were amazing. even the simplist movements. I loved the style that the director filmed it visually and the time sequences.

I agree with the user that said that it showed how hopeless the children were. It shows the power of anyone with a motive and a gun. It's frightening to me. I'm in school right now and a bit scared. Anyone could be walking around with guns on them ready to shoot the school. If you've seen one of the Michael moore documentaries with the kid that has many guns hidden in his clothing, then you know how many weapons one can carry.

This movie opened my eyes though I wish it hadn't. It's frightening what can go on at any moment.

Imagine it: A horrific tragedy has taken place in a local school, the violence and inexplicability of which has stunned everyone who has heard of it. A meeting is announced that will address the issues that such an event has raised. At the meeting, the main speaker takes the floor, stares at his audience for a few long seconds, then shrugs his shoulders and mumbles "S**t happens". What? You ask. That's it? "Well," he says, "you can't expect me to provide YOU with the answers. But I did take some nice photos".

That's "Elephant".

It would be hard to tackle such a topic without sinking into "Movie of the Week" territory, so Van Sant avoids this by sitting down and not doing much of anything. But artfully.

Why was this film made? What does it tell us about the events? That they happened. What does he tell us about the victims? Nothing, absolutely nothing. We follow them around, interminably (I feel I knew the backs of their heads intimately, if nothing else) and it's a lot like reality tv -- dull: uninvolving, unrevealing and uneventful. What does it tell us about the perpetrators? Nothing we don't already know, haven't already read. Insights? None. It exists in its own universe, blank and unfeeling, a perfect circle, Art for Art's sake.

As far as it goes, there are some beautiful touches, here -- the overlapping time frames, the slowing down of the action to signify a small, private, joyful moment -- but Van Sant bottles out on taking them anywhere, afraid as he seems to be of taking a stand, making a statement or engaging, emotionally, in any way with anything here.

All in all, an Artsy and pointless exercise in navel-gazing, one that masquerades as something much deeper, and hopes its own silence and blankness will be taken for wisdom.

My opinions regarding 'Elephant' are somehow mixed. Okay, so I knew beforehand that the film was going to be about a shootout in a school. So that may have influenced my opinion but on the other hand if I did not know this, would I have sat through the entire movie? I ask this because the first hour drags. The cinematography is good and at times the viewer feels like a stalker or a fellow student observer. 'Elephant' takes place during the day of the shoot and the director gives us a glimpse of the lives of some of the teenagers but none of them were particularly interesting and Van Sant has adhered to using clichés such as portraying the 'nerd', the 'loser', the 'popular one', the 'bulemic girls' etc. Some questions I want to ask: Is it really that easy to get hold of such a high profile weapon, that too, delivered at your own doorstep? Van Sant doesn't directly give the motivation behind the student who decides to massacre the students although he does hint bullying and teasing as a possible motive. The shooters had to be repressed homosexuals? Why was it necessary to show them as homosexuals? I think many have liked it for the shock in the final thirty minutes but what I would have rather liked to see was a story about what causes young teenagers to take drastic action or what was going through the minds of students when this happened (which is what I thought 'Elephant' was going to be about). I like 'Gus Van Sant' as a director but in my humble opinion 'Elephant' is far from his best work. However, after seeing the film, it did get me thinking of the real life incidents that happened and the innocent lives that were lost. So, it would be wrong of me to say that 'Elephant' was a complete waste. It's not horrendous. It just could have easily been far better.

It's been over five years now but we still try to understand why Columbine happened. As exploration of the tragic and shocking event, poetic, poignant, and sadly under-seen "Elephant" has no equals. The film did not have a lot of press, and my local video store had only one copy sitting on the bottom shelf.

There could be different reasons for the title: it could've came from the old saw about the elephant in the room no one notices, or from the legend of four blind men who only could feel one part of the animal and described the whole as a part; or it could've come from the fact the elephants have a good memory and remember all insults.

The film shows several kids who just spend a typical day in a typical suburban American High school that ends up in a massacre. "Elephant" asks questions: What was it like to be there that day? Who could've seen it coming? What does it mean to be an American teenager and live in the world where it happens? For many of the film's characters those questions will never be answered.

"Elephant" is painfully honest and sincere about the complexities of teenage life - the time when one tries to achieve impossible - to be unique and to fit with the crowd.

I think "Elephant" is the best film about teenagers since - well, the only one that comes to my mind is "Welcome to the Dollhouse" (1995) by Todd Solondz.

I think it is one of the best anti - violence films ever.

This movie is a fictional story, but it is essentially a retelling of the Columbine High massacre. It only spans maybe an hour in time, but it coves the points of view of a lot of people, from victims to bystanders to the murderers themselves.

It's a particularly important piece because of its storytelling style. Van Sant has the camera follow one character at a time, on the day of the murders, and lets the story tell itself. It is about as neutral as one can get, really. Van Sant doesn't use foreshadowing, he doesn't frame any character up as a particular archetype, he doesn't play ominous music, and the dialogue is about as inane and high school-ish as you can get, very realistic actually. There are no jokes, and relatively few scenes designed for maximum shock effect. That's the whole point: the situation was a normal high school day, and the very events, regardless of how you paint them, should be as shocking as anything. All the while you're asking yourself, "How can this possibly lead to a massacre? These are all normal kids," which faithfully recreates the tone of morning leading up the unexpected real life events.

If you're looking for a conventional movie with a clear beginning, middle, end, good and bad guys, glorified heroism and demonized violence, you won't like this movie, it's not a made for TV special, it's closer to an art film.

Some people have expressed anger at the movie, accusing it of some sort of liberal Michael Moore anti-2nd amendment sympathies or heavy handed preaching. Having seen it I can't possibly understand what they're talking about. My suspicion is that they're seeing what they want to see. And that leads me to wonder just what a good movie about Columbine would look like, in their opinions. To me, this is it.