Elephant

[echo_bravo]

When I found out this shitty artsy fartsy "film" won the Golden Palm at Cannes in 2003, I nearly shit myself.

I mean are you fucking serious? If I would of known that this idea would of won at Cannes, then I would of grabbed my video camera and started filming. I would cast the neigborhood punk teens and have them ad lib all their lines and then I would of rewarded them by buying them all a case of beer, while I move on to award shows and Hollywood red carpet premieres.

This movie is pretty much a poor man's Larry Clark film, but with much less nudity thankfully. Although I did have to sit uncomfortable while a young Jon Cusack and a young Eminem made out in the shower
"Yo I never kissed no body before" :rolleyes:
Dear God, so you kiss your friend. Hey whatever floats your boat.


Here is the summary of the movie:
10 minutes of one of the members of Hanson driving his drunk dad to school

10 minutes of kids playing football

10 minutes of pretty boy taking photos in the park

15 minutes of jock walking through the halls and getting his girfriend

15 minutes of pretty boy photographer walking through the halls and going into the darkroom to develope his film. HONESTLY, that is it. I was waiting anxiously for something to happen. Like his head being blown off or something cool, but NO. All you are subjected to is watching him walk from one end of the school to the other.

15 minutes of young Jon Cusack playing Beethoven while his butt buddy Eminem look-a-like is playing a violent video game on the computer...nice touch Gus!

Then we see the two watching old Nazi footage while they wait pleasantly for their gun delivery

Then the rest of the movie consists of the two douche bags shooting all their classmates.

End result....the longest 75 minutes of my life. This movie wasnt even an hour and a half yet felt like it was longer than The English Patient.

I got the film. I just didnt like it at all. I knew what Gus was trying to accomplish. He just wanted to film a normal day in high school and have the two kids come in and give no explanation why they did it just like the two at Columbine.

I cant believe that Gus Van Sant recieved high praise and awards for this utterly boring and meaningless film. All he did was recreate Columbine and put it on film.

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by echo_bravo

I got the film. I just didnt like it at all. I knew what Gus was trying to accomplish. He just wanted to film a normal day in high school and have the two kids come in and give no explanation why they did it just like the two at Columbine.

I've read that he offered no explanation since it's pretty impossible to know exactly why the Columbine guys did it. I guess it's understandable, but the movie bored me more than Kurosawa, so like you, I wasn't a fan of Elephant

[The Heart Collector]

Sorry guys, your opinion's wrong.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Sorry guys, your opinion's wrong.

Oh my God, yes. You are all anti-intellectual morons who need to take their Ritalin and go watch your soulless, explosions-filled blockbusters and let us enlightened individuals do the thinking. Sarcasm RULES! Jussajoke.

[quoth_the_raven]

Originally posted by echo_bravo

10 minutes of kids playing football


Me like football. Movie must be good.

Actually, this sounds like something I would want to watch, even if it was only once ;) I wouldn't mind checking out just to stop this sudden curious voice in the back of my head.

I really must see a doctor about those voices...

[JohnTheHenchman]

The only cool thing was the drunk father was played by the guy who played bush in That's My Bush!

[one_crow_sorrow]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Sorry guys, your opinion's wrong.

Sorry dude, but opinions can't really be wrong...

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by one_crow_sorrow
Sorry dude, but opinions can't really be wrong...

Dude, he was kidding, like me.

Or at least I'm 99% sure he was kidding.

[Grim H.]

You think that was bad, you sh ould see Zero Day. It's essentially an extremely poor man's Elephant. Just be thankful that's only in limited release...

[Slim]

Originally posted by echo_bravo
Although I did have to sit uncomfortable while a young Jon Cusack and a young Eminem made out in the shower
"Yo I never kissed no body before" :rolleyes:
Dear God, so you kiss your friend. Hey whatever floats your boat.

I just about busted a gut laughing at that part. Shit. Elephant is so damn gritty, original and deep! Oh, man. All those tracking shots, so meaningful!

With the Psycho remake and now Elephant, I really hope this guy gets shot or something.

[one_crow_sorrow]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Dude, he was kidding, like me.

Or at least I'm 99% sure he was kidding.

I know. I was retorting to the 1% that might not be kidding.

[APzombie]

Personally, I loved the film. Most film critics admit there is no character development, nor strcutured storyline, but thats not what the film wanted to tell.

I think its more educational than elightening, we are supposed to see that these killers were average kids. There was no explained motive and i think there is a shock factor to that which most peopel aren't used to.

[echo_bravo]

LOL Slim I know what you mean. The long pandering shots were torture.


APZombie, thats why this movie was so fucking frustrating. There was no storyline, no plot, no character developement, hardly any script and it FUCKING WON THE GOLDEN PALM at Cannes!

I could of made this film. Damn it why didnt I think about doing that?!

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by echo_bravo
I could of made this film. Damn it why didnt I think about doing that?!
Sorry echo, but I don't think you could have. I hear what you are saying though.

Everything about the cinematography in ELEPHANT is very precise. I found a lot of those long tracking shots haunting and I felt as though I knew that school well by the end, when the massacre breaks out.

I liked this film, but I do have some issues with it. It exists completely in ambiguity. Van Sant doesn't even attempt to explain the motives of the killers or the reason they go an a killing rampage. It's like he's throwing his arms up, saying "I don't know why shit like this happens." And after letting it sit a while, that assertion, to me, becomes like a statement in itself. And I find it to be fairly disturbing.

You make some excellent points. I think ELEPHANT is a film that can be admired not for what it attempts to say, but for what it avoids saying altogether. Van Sant has created a film with no real insights as the credits roll. Ambiguous as I said, but I think it works in a way.

[The Postmaster General]

Yo, echo! This movie looked like shit to me. I never even bothered watching it because when I saw the ad, I was like, 'Oh, it's award season again."

However, I do know that it is directed by Gus Van Sant, who totally rocks.

So I stopped reading here:

This movie is pretty much a poor man's Larry Clark film [/QUOTE]

Don't compare Gus Van Sant and Larry Clark ever again or I'll go fucking loco.

Haha. I'm just playing around. (looks around to see if anyone has my back)

[cstroman]

and it FUCKING WON THE GOLDEN PALM at Cannes!

If the last few years at Cannes has proved anything, it's that the awards are less about the quality of the film or filmmakers, but rewarding agendas the judges agreed with.

In the last couple of years you could film a half an hour of someone ranting about Bush or Gun Control or the Environment and you'd win the Palme d'Or.

Hell all you have to do is say "Fuck Bush"

Here's your Palm.

[fevers]

This was one of the worst films of last year.

I also didn't understand how people enjoyed watching very long shots of kids walking around and doing mundane tasks.

Van Sant was just trying to shock people and raise controversy about school shootings. When I think people were scared enough from seeing it on TV and even in their own schools, that we didn't need him to try and make an artsy attempt at the subject. This film just raises my hatred for Gus.

I mean... look at him, you know he's an asshole...

http://www.alanmercer.com/images/Gus%20Van%20Sant%2001.jpg
Hi, I made a remake of Psycho.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by fevers
This was one of the worst films of last year.

I also didn't understand how people enjoyed watching very long shots of kids walking around and doing mundane tasks.

Van Sant was just trying to shock people and raise controversy about school shootings. When I think people were scared enough from seeing it on TV and even in their own schools, that we didn't need him to try and make a artsy attempt at the subject. This film just raises my hatred for Gus.

I mean... look at him, you know he's an asshole...

http://www.alanmercer.com/images/Gus%20Van%20Sant%2001.jpg
Hi, I made a remake of Psycho.

You, sir, are a champion.

Van Sant is a tool.

The Psycho remake was pointless and bland, and Gerry bored me until my eyes bled. It's two people walking in the desert for two hours, and nothing interesting or intriguing happens. I'd rather feed my balls to starving rabid rats than see it again.

[APzombie]

I agree his re-make was shit but even Tim Burton has a shitty re-make on his shoulders, that doesn't lean me to shadow his talent. Good Will Hunting was an amazing film.

I think not giving a reason to their massacre was a brilliant move. If he had put in a reason, and, lets say, the kids parents verbally abused the kid, then every person in the audience would leave saying "It's ok, there is hope, we just have to love our kids." Not leaving a reason gives the audience permision to make their own conclusion, thus expanding their participation in the movie, which isn't common in films, and I loved the experience. Though, I completely understand the arguement against it.

[ANavissi500]

I loved it - it was very beautifully shot and very tense until the shooting, when it became very unnerving for a long time after I went home.

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by cstroman
If the last few years at Cannes has proved anything, it's that the awards are less about the quality of the film or filmmakers, but rewarding agendas the judges agreed with.

In the last couple of years you could film a half an hour of someone ranting about Bush or Gun Control or the Environment and you'd win the Palme d'Or.

Hell all you have to do is say "Fuck Bush"

Here's your Palm.
The last few years? You mentioned only 1 movie (one you almost never stop talking about), which is hardly a fair indictment against all recent Palme D'Or winners

[cstroman]

I'm talking about Elephant from last year, and this year's "winner".

[Reigh Kaufman]

Elephant was fucking great and if you think you can do any better with light and space and atmosphere, then that puts you in a category of director somewhere near the top 50 currently working today.

So why haven't I seen any of your movies?

[El Bracamonti]

Personally, I loved the movie. There's something very fascinating about watching these kids go through what they think to be an average day at school. I also thought it was shot in a very beautiful fashion. All the classical music gave a very....emotional feeling to the movie. I also love the shifts in time, where you get to see what's happening at a given time from different characters in the movie. When I was watching it, I knew what I was watching, but I couldn't help but be enthralled by how the movie was made, and when I think about it, I really can't deny that this movie connected to me from the very begining.

[cstroman]

So why haven't I seen any of your movies? Cause I don't suck dick as well as Michael Moore and Gussy.;)

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Reigh Kaufman
Elephant was fucking great and if you think you can do any better with light and space and atmosphere....
'


Shit, if Reigh is in, I want to check it out.

Like I said, you can't sell Gus Van Sant short -- he's made some really good movies:

Drugstore Cowboy
To Die For
Good Will Hunting

Hell, I even liked his version of he unadaptable Cowgirls, and though I don't like the movie, many people swear by My Own Private Idaho.

Hell, even Bowie trusts him.

That being said, he lost my interest after Psycho, but I still won't take away what he's done.

If anything, he is mounds better than Larry Clark, whom I would say he comes closest to in regards to theme.

[Slim]

Originally posted by Reigh Kaufman
Elephant was fucking great and if you think you can do any better with light and space and atmosphere, then that puts you in a category of director somewhere near the top 50 currently working today.

So why haven't I seen any of your movies?

Is that sarcasm? I didn't know people still retorted so generically like that.

[badberry]

Just watched it the other night. This was one boring-ass movie. Some of the scenes were downright painful how they went on and on to no point. Why do we give a shit about half the stuff that goes on here?

What pissed me off the most was how it was supposed to be so 'realistic' yet the reactions of people as the massacre happens at the end are rediculous. Nobody seems overly concerned or panicked...what the fuck was the Benny kid's problem? The scene where the dude walks out of the classroom and gets shot felt so unnatural and wierd. Or blondie calmly walking around saying "oh hey, don't get in there" whilst looking for his dad. Bizarre. Its very obvious these kids aren't real actors.

The gay scene felt really tacky and almost comical. And how stereotypical were the shooters? Oh, we get picked on in school, we play violent video games, our parents don't care yadda yadda. Nothing new or insightful here....

I could go on, but in general it's just a pretty shitty movie. (4/10)

[echo_bravo]

badcherry, I completely agree.

I have no clue why the blonde kid (member of Hanson) couldnt mutter out "Hey! Dont go in there because a young John Cusack and Eminem are shooting the shit out of people!"

Instead of "uhhh ummm dont go in there sir"
Fuckin idiot


Reigh what are you talking about? Atmosphere? Believe me, I can come up with an equally boring movie, with equally boring atmosphere.

There was nothing exciting, thought provoking or challanging about Elephant

[The Postmaster General]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by echo_bravo
There was nothing exciting, thought provoking or challanging about Elephant



At yet we are able to post on and on about it.

Haha.


My only question is - do you all watch previews? I mean, this movie you are describing sounds EXCACTLY like the preview I saw. I would just think it was funny if you saw the preview and thought it looked shitty, but watched it anyway because it won awards. That's sort of rant worthy behavior, imo.

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by badberry
The gay scene felt really tacky and almost comical. And how stereotypical were the shooters? Oh, we get picked on in school, we play violent video games, our parents don't care yadda yadda. Nothing new or insightful here....

I could go on, but in general it's just a pretty shitty movie. (4/10)
When did it say that they were picked on, and that their parents didn't care? I don't remember Van Sant making either of those points. In one scene, the kid's mom makes them breakfast. And the video game may have been stereotypical, but the other kid was playing a Mozart sonata at the same time.

Originally posted by echo_bravo
I have no clue why the blonde kid (member of Hanson) couldnt mutter out "Hey! Dont go in there because a young John Cusack and Eminem are shooting the shit out of people!"

Instead of "uhhh ummm dont go in there sir"
Fuckin idiot
How would you respond in that situation? The way the actual massacre happened was totally different than I expected, too. There was no running and screaming. I found the disconnectedness of the way it happened chilling, more so thinking about it after. No one can say how they would respond if a fellow student in high school got gunned down next to you. It would be a state of shock, and I think that's what Van Sant was going for.

I completely understand people when they say this movie has nothing to say, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a point.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
If anything, he is mounds better than Larry Clark, whom I would say he comes closest to in regards to theme.

Aw, give Gus some credit. At least he ain't a kiddy pornographer disguising as a great artiste showing "shocking" stuff about teens.

[badberry]

Originally posted by gyro_44
When did it say that they were picked on, and that their parents didn't care? I don't remember Van Sant making either of those points. In one scene, the kid's mom makes them breakfast.


They clearly show the piano playing guy getting shit thrown at him in class. And when the blonde dude confronts the principal, he makes mention of him ignoring them when they were being picked on.

And yes the mom makes them breakfast, but both parents are implied to be unhappy and disinterested - the dad rushes off muttering something to his wife, and then the mom also leaves, sounding kind of pissed off. At least thats the undertone I got out of it.

[echo_bravo]

Yeah I noticed that too badcherry. Good observations.

Yes Bubbastrangelove we are posting a lot about this shitty movie but then again the Garfield thread is fairly long too. :D

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by badberry
They clearly show the piano playing guy getting shit thrown at him in class. And when the blonde dude confronts the principal, he makes mention of him ignoring them when they were being picked on.
You're right, I stand corrected on those points. Been several months since I have seen the movie.

[notchreturns]

Elephant struck a nerve with me.

It was just REAL.

It wasn't flashy, answering questions, offering answers, or toying with every little emotion of the viewer.

A day in the life of bored, everyday teens who ended their school day in tradegy, violence and confusion.

Happens all the time and Elephant showed it perfectly.

[badberry]

Thanks echo_bravo, but the name is badberry , not badcherry ...

Just to be anal about it :p

[MacReady]

Why does everybody keep bashing/praising the film for not answering questions?! It so obviously does that (and in a lame, heavy-handed, "square" feel to it). Does anybody remember that game Young-John Cusack (clever nickname BTW) was playing on his computer? It a was one about shooting people, a type of game has in the past been blamed when a school massacre. I also got the feeling those douchebags were ignored by their parents, again something the media points the finger at (thank god Gus at least the decency not to insult our intelligents anymore by having them listen to Insane Clown Posey and Marilyn Manson). While I'm finally managing to get off the sidelines and joining folks like echo_bravo, fevers and Slim in the thorough shit-kicking of this film, I'll list some things that bothered me:

1. That scene where the girls puke in the bathroom stalls felt insincere, tacked-on, heavy handed (like nearly everything else in the film) and while I'm aware this sort of stuff happens in real life, it felt as if the film was taking a time out (from doing absolutely JACK SHIT no less) to shock and inform us that kids aren't all right in the head, despite the fact that puking out your lunch isn't exactly good news and the narrative dosen't seem to care, only to show off it's relevant.

2. The character are so unbelievably dumb, very poorly bad-acted, dull, stereoptypical, underdeveloped, uncharismatic and uninteresting that I almost rooted for their demise, if the characters killing them didn't suffer from what make these losers such a strong case for Darwinism (I know alot of people are going to think I'm a monster, but Ebert once said it's very difficult sympatising with idiots). I'll get to what makes them dumb in about, right now...

3. The school shooting itself. Never before have I heard and seen people react to a kid with a fucking gun shooting everybody like they just heard over the intercom that the cafeteria wasn't going to serve muffins for today. Holy fucking shit, the young John Cusack kills three people before folks start to scream (and only a few) and then start calmly precceds towards the exit. Now, I'll give Gus the benefit of the and go along that this film was made before the Columbine massacre, but I still don't see why a school janitor thinks there's nothing wrong with two kids walking around wearing camo-outfits and armed with firearms. Shouldn't he be at least suspicious as to why two kinds are dressed and equiped for hunting?

4. Bennie, a dude from the movie, has now joined my list of dumbest movie characters ever after this film. Let me explain: he's the guy walking down the hall after the massacre has been underway for about I'd estimate 10 minutes (I would of left a cartoon cut-out of me in the wall with speed I would of use to get the fuck outta there with all the warning this dumbshit got). I'll list all the things that were more than enough to tell him that all was not well in the school and he should get out (he's only 15 feet away from a safe exit when these show up for god sakes!):

A) There's a small fire on one of the lockers he passes and isn't too far away from. I don't know about you guys but in my high school fire is regarded as bad and when you hear a fire alarm (let alone see the fucking thing close-up) it would be in your best interests to get outta dodge.

B) I haven't seen the film in about a month but I remember hearing a gunshot in the specified scene, which only helps to litterate his massive stupidity.

C) I defintely remember this: he's sees other students running from something in a hall which is close to the soon-to-be ignored exit (which the other, slightly smarter children use).

D) To make this films and it's characters even dumber, he decides to INVESTIGATE the fucking thing. For Chrissakes, is this one big, giant special ed class high school?!

5. The ending. I won't give it away, but it goes along as being one of the lamest and poorest acted (anti-)climaxes I've ever witnessed. To me it just screamed that Gus simply didn't care about how the film turned out, and added the bathroom puking and shooting to make it look important. I felt the second half was just an unintentially emotionaly cold look at school shootings (which simply didn't work for me).

The best thing about the film is it's so fucking short (a quality I appeciate in most movies) but it's ultimately underminded by the fact that it's disturbingly dull and tedious. Still, if Gus is going to insult my I.Q., I'm greatful he was quick about it.

4/10 (it was higher, but I kept on thinking about it and realized I hated the movie more)

P.S. Let's just Mikey2Dope sees this thread and helps us rip the film to shreds.

[notchreturns]

Originally posted by MacReady
Does anybody remember that game Young-John Cusack (clever nickname BTW) was playing on his computer? It a was one about shooting people, a type of game has in the past been blamed when a school massacre.

Guess we're just on different sides of spectrum. You see it as blantantly blaming it or saying because they played it, it gave them the urge or pushed them over.

Well, who say's it didn't? Or did? No one. I play that game, more than half the board probably plays those games, but how many of us shoots up a school?


Originally posted by MacReady

I also got the feeling those douchebags were ignored by their parents, again something the media points the finger at

[/B]

That is your opinion, and could be many others as well, but it's something the viewer will never know and it's never put forth by Van Sant. They could be at work for all we know, it is mid-afternoon.

Originally posted by MacReady


1. That scene where the girls puke in the bathroom stalls felt insincere, tacked-on, heavy handed (like nearly everything else in the film) and while I'm aware this sort of stuff happens in real life, it felt as if the film was taking a time out (from doing absolutely JACK SHIT no less) to shock and inform us that kids aren't all right in the head, despite the fact that puking out your lunch isn't exactly good news and the narrative dosen't seem to care, only to show off it's relevant.

2. The character are so unbelievably dumb, very poorly bad-acted, dull, stereoptypical, underdeveloped, uncharismatic and uninteresting that I almost rooted for their demise, if the characters killing them didn't suffer from what make these losers such a strong case for Darwinism (I know alot of people are going to think I'm a monster, but Ebert once said it's very difficult sympatising with idiots). I'll get to what makes them dumb in about, right now...

3. The school shooting itself. Never before have I heard and seen people react to a kid with a fucking gun shooting everybody like they just heard over the intercom that the cafeteria wasn't going to serve muffins for today. Holy fucking shit, the young John Cusack kills three people before folks start to scream (and only a few) and then start calmly precceds towards the exit. Now, I'll give Gus the benefit of the and go along that this film was made before the Columbine massacre, but I still don't see why a school janitor thinks there's nothing wrong with two kids walking around wearing camo-outfits and armed with firearms. Shouldn't he be at least suspicious as to why two kinds are dressed and equiped for hunting?

4. Bennie, a dude from the movie, has now joined my list of dumbest movie characters ever after this film. Let me explain: he's the guy walking down the hall after the massacre has been underway for about I'd estimate 10 minutes (I would of left a cartoon cut-out of me in the wall with speed I would of use to get the fuck outta there with all the warning this dumbshit got). I'll list all the things that were more than enough to tell him that all was not well in the school and he should get out (he's only 15 feet away from a safe exit when these show up for god sakes!):

A) There's a small fire on one of the lockers he passes and isn't too far away from. I don't know about you guys but in my high school fire is regarded as bad and when you hear a fire alarm (let alone see the fucking thing close-up) it would be in your best interests to get outta dodge.

B) I haven't seen the film in about a month but I remember hearing a gunshot in the specified scene, which only helps to litterate his massive stupidity.

C) I defintely remember this: he's sees other students running from something in a hall which is close to the soon-to-be ignored exit (which the other, slightly smarter children use).

D) To make this films and it's characters even dumber, he decides to INVESTIGATE the fucking thing. For Chrissakes, is this one big, giant special ed class high school?!

5. The ending. I won't give it away, but it goes along as being one of the lamest and poorest acted (anti-)climaxes I've ever witnessed. To me it just screamed that Gus simply didn't care about how the film turned out, and added the bathroom puking and shooting to make it look important. I felt the second half was just an unintentially emotionaly cold look at school shootings (which simply didn't work for me).

[/B]

1. An attack on sterotypes. Popular girls, fit, prime, puking in the bathroom after lunch. Laughable, yes, but so are the teen years.

2. The film is obviously told from the POV of a small group of characters, students. How do you see the people around you? I thought the acting was quite good, spot on, especially from kids with no training at all. Most people aren't charismatic or interesting and are quite dull, whether they like to believe it or not.

3. Personally, I'd be running for the exits, but everyone isn't me and they panic, freeze, hope they're dreaming. When I was in HS, the janitors we're exactly social or didn't even seem to caring. You'd be surprised with people.

4. Bennie... again, another attack on sterotypes, this time, on the hero. Coming to save the day, helping the girl out the window, the jock, big and strong, but unfortunately, we know what happens and it HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. People react differently... he could've saved the day, or ran, or not, his choice. People make that choice everyday.

5. The ending, yes... was anti-climatic, but the same can be said for the students who came across those troubled teens.

That's just my opinion, from the other side of the spectrum so to speak.

[echo_bravo]

MacReady, outstanding rant my friend!
I agree with everything. I totally forgot about the 3 cunts puking in the bathroom.
Beautiful work Gus! Not only did you touch on how violent the youth is today, but you also tocuhed on eating disorders too! Killed two birds with one stone baby!

(I can just picture the douche bag patting himself on the back for that one)

"I rule!" yells Gus Van Sant


And yes, if I would of made this artsy fartsy film I would at least changed some of the embarrassingly bad dialogue.

Like when young John Cusack is wandering around in the cafeteria with a notebook, a girl asks him very ditsy-like, "What are you doing?"

then he replies very slyly,"Its my plan....you'll see."

Oh great line right there Gus. It was very diabolical, yet sutle as well.

[Antonio]

A huge pretentious piece of ELEPHANT shit, more like it. Gus Van Sant has been on a downward spiral since that pointless PSYCHO remake, and proves with this piss-poor flick that he should retire gracefully and let the real filmmakers direct!

[MacReady]

echo_bravo: Thanks for the kind words!:cool:

notchreturns: You seem to be up-and-about ofr a discussion on the films mertis. Let's do so:

One of the few things we know about one of the shooters is that he plays violent video-games. You said that you and alot of people you know did likewise, but how many other folks in the movie are shown playing the video-game? I know this really isn't the most sufficent argument I can give, but how about another: like we both pointed out earlier, you play games like that, but how many are really you just shooting normal people who wonder around with a with looks like a 12-gauge (something that's not really out of the ordinary in certain house holds) instead of Duke Nukem ripoff with monsters from hell and a bazooka? To me it was deliberate on Gus to get the audience to make a connection between what they do in their spare times and their behavior at school (youn can retort this part of the discussion if you wish, but be forewarned, it seems to be heading in the "my opinion/your opinion" direction, where people simply say the other person's mind).

As for the rest of what you said, you seem to say people in high school aren't always interesting, which I agree with, however it hurts any film alot since you don't have anybody to really root and care for, doing stuff that bores us, than you have a recipe for cinematic disaters. This film seems to fall back purely on social commentary and realism, while commiting the biggest crime in movies: boring it's audience. It dosen't help that it's badly paced. Here's how I look back at the movie: two people talk and stuff I couldn't care less about, folks walk around, somebody pukes in the bathroom. Only one thing I just mentioned stood out, and since we remember it longer it makes the film seem heavy-handed. Would you feel the film could be even remotely special if they cut out the social relevant bits made it a high-school drama? It's real, and unique, but so is that movie Andy Warhol about a guy sleeping for about 6 hours. Neither one looks really entertaining IMO. Anyway I feel as if I'm turning this thread into a non-religious sermon. I'll stop now. If you have anything you want to ask, feel free to post. I'll just finish off by saying that I sensed this film was trying to aim high (social commentary) and low (realism) but just managed hit folks like me, Antonio and badberry right square in the balls.

[Annie Hall]

I loved Elephant. I can't quite verbalize why, but, it was beautiful and ugly and completely haunting. It wasn't so much about answering the question of why this shit happens...it simply surveyed it happening. Who it effects and when it effects them. It's not Van Sant squaking on and on about bad home-lives, socially debilitated, freaks who are controlled by the media and abusive/neglectful authority figures. In short, it was no "commentary".

In my humble opinion, it was merely a story being illustrated...normal kids...normal problems...normal day. Exactly like every school shooting that has happened, namely, Columbine. Teenagers experiencing boring to severe issues, a good day or a bad day, squabbling between friends, idiotic parents, all of the things that appear so important are blown away in a minute. Not so much searching for a "why" but a "how".

Great music, too.

[Briare Rabbit]

Dude. You forgot the ten minutes of the nerdy, ugly girl who the young Jon Cusak and the young Eminem shot first (of all people).

Fuck you Van Sant. Retire.

[Cronos]

i wouldnt have rented this had my friend not recommended it, i thought it was good, nicely shot, the lack of real plot or character development didnt really bother me as it seemed to me to be just a film about a couple of kids that get pushed too far by bullies etc

[Tayzlor]

I hate this film, as most do, but a lot of the arguments against the film make no sense to me.

A pretty popular argument is that the characters were unrealistic, dull, stereotypical when that's what teenagers are: they are usually what you imagine they are. I don't think I have any room to complain there. Briare_Rabbit or MacReady, in some other thread, commented that the dialogue sounded like an adult trying to write teenager. Actually, I think it sounds like teens trying to say what they think teens say (more annoying). No one can detract from the film if they hated the characters, but what was said and what was happening in the film is completely stereotypical and unoriginal.

As MacReady said nine months ago, the problem with this film is that it is just not interesting. Van Sant wants to make an artistic statement. Well, art shouldn't be boring. Challenging, of course. The statement through a lack of statement is there, but by that point who gives a damn? It just seems he is trying to hard to show supposed everyday normal events. When I tell this and other things to Elephant fans (over the net of course) they tell me the exact same thing happens in L'Avventura. Which is angering because Antonioni doesn't shoot reality without a narrative. He gives you stuff to work with, and it pays off.

Sorry if this post meanders around. I was originally going to point out that a lot of the comments against the film are unfair because Van Sant will admit that's what was supposed to be there but I eventually turned, through my hate of Elephant, out trying to explain why the films eats.

What really annoys me, is his use of the Mozart (?) song. Cheaply using for a "haunting" effect for his stereotypical characters (these teens were stereotypical). Van Sant isn't just showing them playing violent games and being misunderstood with a possible or maybe not relation to the shooting. He's implying that that's what led them to it. (some are arguing earlier in the thread that Van Sant's camera is observing, detached).

[CyclicNightmare]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Sorry guys, your opinion's wrong.
They are also dumb for having one in the first place.

[The Heart Collector]

I'd like to introduce you to my friend Mr. Not-Serious-Reply:


http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~pmeinick/peter.jpg
Hi there, CyclicNightmare. I am Mr. Not-Serious-Reply. I am a reply that, while seemingly deadpan and honest, is in fact not serious and should be taken lightly, because of its inner absurdity. Nice to meet you.

[someguy]

God damn, that guy's so ugly he could be Heart Collector

[BakeTheMooCow]

Yeah, it really did suck a lot of butt. The only good thing I remember were the shots of stormy skies, which were beautiful.

[Argonaut]

OMFG
thank you so much echo_bravo

Somebody wrote down, how I felt about this movie, but couldn´t put it into words.

[KTJ2004]

Yeah like almost everyone else, I really did not like this movie at all. Because there was no actual plot, it got really boring really quick. Who the hell wants to watch kids walk around a school all day? I realize WHY there were shots of kids' backs walking around a school, because it's suppose to be a "regular, ordinary" day and whatnot. But it's still lame. And I so knew that the nerdy girl was going to die first. So typical.

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by Antonio
A huge pretentious piece of ELEPHANT shit, more like it. Gus Van Sant has been on a downward spiral since that pointless PSYCHO remake, and proves with this piss-poor flick that he should retire gracefully and let the real filmmakers direct!

Actually, I'd beg to answer that he's been on a downward spiral ever since My Own Private Idaho.

But I haven't seen Drugstore Cowboy.

Oh I would like to say that yellow shirted stoner and nerdy girl did manage to bring some emotion and sympathy to their characters, when everyone else was dull and flat. Basically the only good thing about the movie were those two.

[Greenaway]

Originally posted by Antonio
A huge pretentious piece of ELEPHANT shit, more like it.

How do you do. I wonder how do you define 'pretentious'? And what makes this film pretentious? This is fascinating in my opinion because this word has become one of the trend words of this generation, pretty much in the same vein as 'artsy-fartsy' or other dogmatic terms. In most cases it has become obvious that most people would like to steer away from layered narrative, or the lack of it, as they say, which makes the film 'artsy-fartsy' or 'pretentious' if the goals are of visual nature, and especially if the narrative is visual.

In any case, the word 'pretentious' seems to be the heart of your argument, so could you possibly elaborate?

[Greenaway]

Originally posted by KTJ2004
Because there was no actual plot, it got really boring really quick.

Actual plot? Now tell me, if you please, what does that mean? And then again, it seems quite sad that most people really need their 'actual plot' to follow text so strictly. How about visual narrative? I've always found that the actual plot, as you say, is in the visual narrative of the film, which mimics quite heavily the camera of Christopher Doyle in Kar-Wai Wong's 'In the Mood For Love'. Have you seen this film? I wonder, you could get a lot more of Van Sant's efforts if you would see that one first, then revisit this.

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by Greenaway
How do you do. I wonder how do you define 'pretentious'? And what makes this film pretentious? This is fascinating in my opinion because this word has become one of the trend words of this generation, pretty much in the same vein as 'artsy-fartsy' or other dogmatic terms. In most cases it has become obvious that most people would like to steer away from layered narrative, or the lack of it, as they say, which makes the film 'artsy-fartsy' or 'pretentious' if the goals are of visual nature, and especially if the narrative is visual.

In any case, the word 'pretentious' seems to be the heart of your argument, so could you possibly elaborate?

I'm not Antoine, but it is true the movie is very pretentious, Webster's defines the word as something along the lines of self important, and thinking it's better than it really is, and that really sums up Elephant to a tee. It thinks it's an important film, it thinks it's daring and important and realistic, but it's not.

It's shit.

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by Greenaway
Actual plot? Now tell me, if you please, what does that mean? And then again, it seems quite sad that most people really need their 'actual plot' to follow text so strictly. How about visual narrative? I've always found that the actual plot, as you say, is in the visual narrative of the film, which mimics quite heavily the camera of Christopher Doyle in Kar-Wai Wong's 'In the Mood For Love'. Have you seen this film? I wonder, you could get a lot more of Van Sant's efforts if you would see that one first, then revisit this.

Comparing WKW with Van Sant is like comparing Hitler with Santa Clause.

Read: there is no comparison

[Greenaway]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
Comparing WKW with Van Sant is like comparing Hitler with Santa Clause.

Read: there is no comparison

Considering you feel the urge to reply to messages not appointed to you, I am waiting for a proper answer, not something like 'It's shit.'

Why are you so hostile? I tried to give a proper reply, and what you do is "stating" your opinion through these words of mimicry which in reality tell nothing of your opinion, nothing more than that you have some kind of a personal prejudice against Van Sant's work. What I ask of you is to give me a decent reply of why you think that way.

If you had read my post carefully, which I see from your reply that you did not, I was talking about Van Sant and Savides trying to do the same thing Wong and Doyle did in 'Fa yeung nin wa'. If you had read the post carefully, you would have noticed that I was indeed saying that they were trying to do something Wong and Doyle did in 'Fa yeung nin wa'. You said that I was comparing these film-makers. So where is the comparison in this statement other than that I was announcing what they were trying to do? in a way, it isn't even a proper comparison, because I have not really said how they succeeded in it. And in what way was I in favor of Van Sant and Savides, when I said that they were trying to do what Wong and Doyle did. Get the point? All I try to be is precise, and that is what I expect from other people reading and replying to my posts.

There is no need to be immature in your replies, because all I ask is that when you state your opinion that 'there is no comparison' with such wordplay, I expect you to go further and tell me why you think so. Without falling into the obvious trap of 'I-just-feel-like-it-and-look-how-fucked-up-was-Psycho' or 'it's-just-so-pretentious-just-look-at-those-pretentious-sequences-where-they-do-nothing-else-than-just-walk'. That, in my opinion, is immature, and to state opinions just by throwing them in all directions without any profundity or logic in them is rather trite.

And as for the "thinking to be important" part, what kind of analysis did you really perform to think that way, to get to that position? Have you got any kind of real opinion, a kind of a experience which led to this conclusion? And I would love to hear something a little more constructive than "I'm not Antoine, but it is true the movie is very pretentious, Webster's defines the word as something along the lines of self important, and thinking it's better than it really is, and that really sums up Elephant to a tee. It thinks it's an important film, it thinks it's daring and important and realistic, but it's not. It's shit." Because that really says nothing. It would say something when you would define why it's not important nor realistic, and why it's "shit", as you call it. I am not familiar with you from these boards at all, so we do not have the connection you share with most people here. Because of that, your statements seem, ironically, slightly pretentious to me. I am not trying to offend you, but a discussion made in a proper way is always a lot more constructive.

So you can use Webster, that's good for you. But if you really had understood the point of my question (which I find as obvious as one just can) is that many people use words by defining them in a slightly different manner. This is because of subjective perception -- in fact, we all do it. What I was interested in knowing was that how does this 'Antonio' describe 'pretentious' in his own words, without hiding behind an objective (if there ever was such a thing) definition like you did. We all have the ability to check these words from Webster or Dictionary.com, so you are only sounding pretentious yourself by pointing out things that are as clear as day. What is not as clear as day is the way this person, Antonio, uses this word. And I must say that your definition is no clearer either, as I already mentioned.

But do you have time to really think about WHY you think of Elephant that way? You obviously have this prejudice against Van Sant, and all I am asking is for a proper explanation why you feel that way. Is that too much to ask? I would really love to be a part of even a slightly constructive argument once in a while.

With best regards,
PG

[TheDeadWalk]

Greenaway 4 president

[bigred760]

I didn't love Elephant but I didn't hate it either; I respected it for what it tried to do - recreate the horror that was the Columbine school massacre. I don't think it was about stereotypes, anorexia, or playing violent video games. It was what appeared to be a regular day in the lives of a high school and its students when all of a sudden two kids brought in guns and started shooting everything in sight, without prejudice. I didn't have a problem with the acting, dialogue, or the ending.

I found the things leading up to the finale kind of interesting just because I knew what was going to happen, I just didn't know when - much like the students in the movie.

echo_bravo, you seem to have more of a problem with the fact that it was more of an art film, "artsy-fartsy" as you put it, and the fact that one of the characters looks like a member of Hanson: sue him, that's hardly his fault or the movie's. What the hell do the characters' appearances have to do with the actual film. "Young John Cusack?" Are you kidding? (I'll give you the Hanson look-alike, but I didn't think the kid looked much like Cusack, even when Cusack was a young kid.)

I don't know much about you or your taste in movies, but I think the movie did what it intended - it tried to give an account of what happened in real life at Columbine. To me, it seems you would've prefered a more Hollywood-esque version of it, a la Pearl Harbor, Titanic or maybe even Armageddon where more humor and special effects were introduced. That's just my impression of your postings on this rant.

I compare this movie to Schindler's List a lot because, to me, it tried to educate people as to what monstrosities and horrors occurred during a certain period in time.
I have a hard time watching both these movies just because I know that the events onscreen happened in real life and I don't want to imagine it.

I applaud Gus Van Sant for making this movie, but I probably won't watch it again. Hell, it won the Palm D'Or, so somebody thought it was pretty good.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by fevers

I mean... look at him, you know he's an asshole...

http://www.alanmercer.com/images/Gus%20Van%20Sant%2001.jpg
Hi, I made a remake of Psycho.


Please don't tell me you're not saying that by looking at the guy you think he's an asshole?? Tell me you're kidding.

[echo_bravo]

Bigred, you just compared Elephant to Schindlers List....there goes your arguement.
By the way, I fucking hate Pearl Harbor and wasnt wanting or expecting Elephant to be like that. Elephant was a PRETENTIOUS piece of shit. Yes I said PRETENTIOUS. This film thinks its important but actually not at all.

I consider Schindler's LIst one of the greatest films ever made and to compare Elephant to that kinda destroys your arguement.

I wasnt pissed that the kid looked like a Hanson or that one kid looked liked a young Cusack. I couldnt remember their names nor do I care to look them up, so I just gave them nicknames.

[echo_bravo]

OH come on bigred, what kind of person remakes PSYCHO?! Umm yeah Gus did. He is a fuckin asshole for doing it.

[bigred760]

I only compared it to Schindler's List because they're both hard to watch because of how graphic they are. Schindler's List is, obviously, much better. Elephant is far from perfect, but I admire what it tried to do. Schindler's List is, in my humble opinion, perfect/flawless/one of the best pictures ever made.

And Gus van Sant remaking Psycho, although blasphemous, has nothing to do with him making Elephant.

I don't know the guy, so calling him an asshole for making a movie, remake or not, and by his picture is just plain retarded. I mean, the guy also made Good Will Hunting, which is a kick ass movie; also Finding Forrester which wasn't all that bad.

[Briare Rabbit]

Good Will Hunting is cheesy and predictable.

[someguy]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
Good Will Hunting is cheesy and predictable.

Intriguing post of the century

I liked Elephant(8/10) a lot, mainly because I have the exact same types of school days(minus the shootings :)). I didn't like them putting in reasons for it either, although they included the most popular ones(gay, bullied, video games and interests into nazis and all that).

But I have to ask, did any of the two guys states exactly why they were shooting up the school? They never did. Sure you saw them playing the video games which I interpreted as reasons but they were also there to distract the viewer from coming up with an exact reason why they did this. I don't know, I just liked the new twist of not explaining why or how and just showing it. That's really what happened on the day of Columbine, it just happened and nobody knew why(until later on in time).

[Briare Rabbit]

Heh. Well, I was rushing off to work when I made that post, and there was meant to be a little more thought to it.

Maybe some crap about the movie being like a crappy Dead Poets Society (a movie that is crappy enough alone). Or something.

And someguy, I hope this post sounds civil enough for you, but I believe Van Sant really had no comment on what it meant, and that answering questions wasn't his point (what was?).

[ilovemovies]

Can't comment about Elephant but Good Will Hunting, Finding Forrester and To Die For are all great movies.

Gerry looked intriguing to me as well.

[someguy]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
Heh. Well, I was rushing off to work when I made that post, and there was meant to be a little more thought to it.

Maybe some crap about the movie being like a crappy Dead Poets Society (a movie that is crappy enough alone). Or something.

And someguy, I hope this post sounds civil enough for you, but I believe Van Sant really had no comment on what it meant, and that answering questions wasn't his point (what was?).

I was just playing around with that, it was a funny reply to what that person said.

i know he didn't want any answers and i liked that(intriguing sentence of the century ;))

[Greenaway]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
Can't comment about Elephant but Good Will Hunting, Finding Forrester and To Die For are all great movies.

Gerry looked intriguing to me as well.

I would recommend Gerry very swiftly. It's an exquisite film. And it uses a lot of Arvo Pärt's music (Spiegel im Spiegel and Für Alina) in building up the structure, so at least I have always found it immensely fascinating and rewatchable. But I could say that I'm in the minority here, at least on these boards. That is, if one finds Elephant boring, I wouldn't go and recommend Gerry in the first instance. But it combines two things very dear to me, the aforementioned Pärt and the Hungarian film-maker Béla Tarr, who Van Sant has been referencing he began making films.

How do you feel about Last Days, Van Sant's new film premiering at this year's Cannes? Looks and sounds promising to me.

[Greenaway]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
Heh. Well, I was rushing off to work when I made that post, and there was meant to be a little more thought to it.

Maybe some crap about the movie being like a crappy Dead Poets Society (a movie that is crappy enough alone). Or something.

And someguy, I hope this post sounds civil enough for you, but I believe Van Sant really had no comment on what it meant, and that answering questions wasn't his point (what was?).

So is there any patience from your part to continue our conversation?

[Backstabba]

I saw elephant ( and mean creek) today, and...Im kinda...split between hating it. and liking it. There were boring scenes, some horrible acting, bad dialoge, EXTREMELY IDIOTIC characters (*SPOILERS* For example, one guy walks RIGHT up to the shooter... A boy is shot, and a group of students and a teacher are talking about how he's been shot, but they speak like NOTHINGS HAPPENED! NO scared voice! They're casually speaking. And When the guy and girl were stuck in the freezer...The guy has a gun about 1 foot away from your face, your a athlete, try to grab the gun! You know that if you don't try, YOUR GONNA DIE ANYWAY!)....

.....Yes...this movie had it's bad parts...But, it had some decent direction, good music, I actually thought the "John Cusack" look-a-like had good screen presence (Spelling?) (Sue me, he had good screen presence). And the shooting was horrifying.....yes...horrifying...

....Im kinda aiming towards a 5,6, or 7 out of 10.

[AwesomeJ33]

Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, All That Jazz, Missing, The Mission, Sex, Lies & Videotape, Wild At Heart, Barton Fink, The Piano, Pulp Fiction, Dancer in the Dark & The Pianist all won the Palm D'Or.

Yeah, Elephant and all the above mentioned are really lame.

Lots of tracking shots, Eminem showering and kissing his piano playing lover and cunts puking in the bathroom, blah blah blah blah.

You youngsters stick to your Ashton Kutcher and Lindsay Lohan movies. I'll watch one of the 15 best directors working today anyday of the week.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by AwesomeJ33
Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, All That Jazz, Missing, The Mission, Sex, Lies & Videotape, Wild At Heart, Barton Fink, The Piano, Pulp Fiction, Dancer in the Dark & The Pianist all won the Palm D'Or.

Yeah, Elephant and all the above mentioned are really lame.

Lots of tracking shots, Eminem showering and kissing his piano playing lover and cunts puking in the bathroom, blah blah blah blah.

You youngsters stick to your Ashton Kutcher and Lindsay Lohan movies. I'll watch one of the 15 best directors working today anyday of the week.


What a terrible arguement.

I fucking hated Elephant that by the end of the day it hadn't accomplished nothing with a seriously brain dead script that provided nothing I didn't already know. Most of the titles you mentioned winning the title I thought were good to great.

As for me being a "youngster" that may be true, but I've seen about 17 Akira Kurosawa movies, at least a dozen Fellini and Bergman movies, nearly 10 Pasolini and close to 20 Hitchcock movies, I've seen all but about 10 films on the IMDb top 250 and I can't say I care for Kutcher and Lohan movies, so quit your "I'm a bigger film buff" tactic because it ain't gonna work on me. I watch nearly 14 movies each week. You're just going to haved to use a thoughtful and intelligent argument if you want me to discuss this film with you.

[AwesomeJ33]

Doesn't account for the whole "this movie is shit" arguement you guys are making.

You didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't good.

And me being a bigger film buff? Uhh, that came from where? You can list all the movies you and all your too cool for school friends have seen, doesn't make a bit of difference to me. Go nuts and watch foreign films from 50 years ago if that's your thing.

What does bother me is that just because something doesn't appeal to you makes it shit mentality you younger folk have. Maybe because you're still in High School you don't see the masterstroke of his pacing. How he explores a rather tedious normal day in high school america, where people do take long walks with their girlfriends and do nothing and have nothing to offer but their existence in high school. And how the parents don't care, aren't aware enough to realize their kids are building an arsenal in there own homes under their own noses. How alienation and the mundane existence of the small fish in a big fishbowl syndrome causes such detachment that video games blur with reality and in fact becomes reality. And this "I don't understand why that kid just walks up tp the shooter", well people do unusual things in unusual circumstances, and unless you've been in that situation, how do you even know what you would do?

I haven't seen this in a while, it isn't in my top 100, nor will it ever be. But it was a good, uniquely filmed, deliberately paced film that won the Palm at Cannes.

Nuff said.

[Backstabba]

I didn't like the movie.....so...that means I don't like good movies? your saying that I just "Didn't understand it"?

I didn't say the movie was bad, I just questioned some of the acting (which was horrible, you have to admit it), the actions of the students during the shooting, etc. "You not liking it doesn't mean it wasn't good", well, I didn't say I hated it, but if I don't like a movie, then that means it's not good in MY opinion...

.....Yes, they are called "Opinions". You don't need to love someones opinion, but you shouldn't tell someone that they are wrong.

....And what? Im a youngster, and that means im only in love with ashton kutcher and lindsay lohan movies?

....I hated Confessions of a teenage Drama queen, if you think im a guy who likes "Those" movies. I didn't like "Cheaper By the Dozen", I REFUSED to see "Alot like love"....If a month ago, you offered me a chance to see "XXX : state of the Union" Or "Downfall", I'd have picked Downfall....you know...NOT ALL PEOPLE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE HATE INDEPENDENT AND B&W MOVIES!

..................I still think elephant was poorly acted and written. And that's a "youngsters" opinion, and im not changing it.

[someguy]

a movie's quality is never fact, it's an opinion

[happy_killmore]

I personally really enjoyed this film...but Golden Palm at Cannes...fuck that. I also didn't like the fact that since it is so "artsy-fartsy" when it came out here in Blockbuster, they wanted over 30 bucks for it and we're not talking no special edition, just the regular one.

To end, I liked it, I didn't like the hype it got. Thank you

[AwesomeJ33]

I hated Confessions of a teenage Drama queen, if you think im a guy who likes "Those" movies. I didn't like "Cheaper By the Dozen",

The fact that you acknowledge these movies are in existence, let alone have seen them.................

Defense rests their case your honor.

[AwesomeJ33]

I didn't say the movie was bad, I just questioned some of the acting (which was horrible, you have to admit it)

Ummm maybe because he was going for an authentic feel and pretty much hired novices and actual high school kids.

Maybe it would have been better with the cast of "You got Served"

[Lazy Boy]

Hating ELEPHANT does not automatically make someone a huge fan of YOU GOT SERVED. Both could be equally crappy in someone's eyes.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by AwesomeJ33
The fact that you acknowledge these movies are in existence, let alone have seen them.................

Defense rests their case your honor.

That makes even less sense than the last argument you used.

Why is acknowledging the existense of shitty films along with seeing them automatically show somebody likes them? Hell, our own Adam J. Hakarari has more garbage than he's changed clothed and he still gives them *1/2 to zero stars.

I mentioned all those old european movies because you seemed to say that those who don't like Elephant are obviously not very cultured in movies, I was trying to show that it didn't work that way. Shit, Briare Rabbit's as cultured as am (if not more so) and he's younger than me. This was lifeless piece of trash that didn't have anything good to say and wasn't worthy of it's subject matter.

[Backstabba]

Originally posted by AwesomeJ33
Ummm maybe because he was going for an authentic feel and pretty much hired novices and actual high school kids.

Maybe it would have been better with the cast of "You got Served"


Well, if they wanted a man from new york, to play a man from new york...And he did a horrible job at acting all together...would you be defending him like the actors in elephant?

...and not a personal attack on you...BUT I HATE PEOPLE LIKE THIS...You like one movie that makes over 200mil, or liked a non-independent film, then you MUST HAVE A BAD TASTE IN MOVIES...

....I don't wanna get banned for this... ;)

[AwesomeJ33]

because you seemed to say

You're confusing what I "seemed to say" and what I actually said.

And I'm not making anything personal either, on the contrary, all I did was say that the winner of the Golden Palm, obviously can't be as bad as you are all making it to be. Awards shows tend to give somewhat "good movies" their top prizes.

A huge pretentious piece of ELEPHANT shit

I fucking hated Elephant that by the end of the day it hadn't accomplished nothing with a seriously brain dead script

Yeah, it really did suck a lot of butt

Fuck you Van Sant. Retire

These post are acceptable I take it, and when someone tries to defend the movie they're wrong.

Okaaaaaayyyy

[MacReady]

Originally posted by AwesomeJ33
These post are acceptable I take it, and when someone tries to defend the movie they're wrong.

Okaaaaaayyyy

No, one of the things you did to defend the movie was by abasing it's attackers and making them seem uneducated. This caused backlash. Others defended the merits of the film and while that caused discussion and debate it was more calm. That's the difference.

[AwesomeJ33]

Ummm, no AGAIN.

.No, one of the things you did to defend the movie was by abasing it's attackers and making them seem uneducated

They don't need my help to seem uneducated.

I see I'm in the minority here, If you reread the posts, I took to task the
"I don't like it, this movie sucks" attitude. People in here seem to have problems differentiating the two. I have no problem that you don't like the movie, as long as you come up with points to validate the problems with the film. Petentious how? Instead I get to argue whether Gus Van Sant looks like an asshole so his movie sucks? Or Psycho this and Psycho that. Yeah Psycho was weak and uncalled for, but that has to do with Elephant in what way? I don't gush over this movie, claiming it this and that, I liked it, thought it was good and had something to say about the absurdity of some of the posts in dealing with why they don't like it.

Elephant won a prestigious movie award, obviously it doesn't SUCK.
You not liking it, does not make it a bad movie. My opinion is no better than anyone else's, well maybe the people who have seen Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen or Guess Who?

That makes even less sense than the last argument you used.

I'm not arguing, making a statement.

[AwesomeJ33]

4/4 review

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."

[AwesomeJ33]

I could put 20 more 4 star reviews up here, but regardless of what people who get paid to review movies think, Gus Van Sant looks like an asshole.

[Backstabba]

Originally posted by AwesomeJ33
My opinion is no better than anyone else's, well maybe the people who have seen Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen or Guess Who?


You say your not caloing the people who didn't like elephant un-educated, but your saying someone who saw a bad movie's opinion DOESN'T MATTER? that YOUR opinion MUST be better than (Mine) because I actually saw Confessions of a teenage Drama Queen or Guess who?

I had to bring my cousin to confession's of a teenage drama queen, your saying im stupid for seeing it?

Yes, I saw Guess who, and I ENJOYED IT, but your opinion is better than mine, because I have a quilty pleasure?

There are MANY movies people dislike that critics love, and movies critics hate that regular people love. I think incredables was overrated (Yes, I said it), Shark Tale was a unfunny "comedy" which I barley enjoyed (Note: If I was the stupid teen you are trying to identify me as, why wouldn't I have loved shark tale and the incredables for they're pretty colors?)

Your saying something, denying it, saying it again, and changing the subject. I enjoy joblo.com because if you like a movie like "Alexander" or even love it, your not bombarded with "Your a stupid teen!" and "Your opinion sucks!"....But there are some exceptions (You)

....Im getting personal here, and I apoligize, but, it really pisses me off when someone acts the way you are right now....

[echo_bravo]

Hot damn!! I started this rant almost a year ago and it just wont die! I love it!


Hey AwesomeJ33, dude Elephant is beyond pretentious crap. Want an example? There are 10 minute segments of these stupid kids doing things like walking to class, developing film, picking up their girlfriend, walking to the lockeroom etc etc etc.

If that isnt pretentious then I dont know what is.

By the way the Golden Palm award doesnt mean shit to me and it seems like it doesnt mean shit to alot here either.

[The Heart Collector]

That's the WORST example of 'pretentious' I've ever seen.

[Misanthrope]

Originally posted by AwesomeJ33
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

What should be against the law is someone trying to sell a film by saying how it goes against Hollywood and the American entretainment industry. Its really not hard to do at all and nothing to pride oneself about or even comment about it. Doing indie for the sake of indie is as moronic as doing action for the sake of action: He's as unoriginal as the people he is trying to attack.

[AwesomeJ33]

The basis of my statement, is that I find it hard that the same people slandering this movie, which, albeit is not near a perfect film by any means, can come right back and say they like movies like the ones mentioned above. While not running around preaching the merits of Elephant, I thought it too be pretty interesting. All the claims of long scenes with nothing happening, and bad acting from novices, I do believe that that was the point. And while not attacking fellow posters, I do find it hard to believe that the same people crying foul over this experimental thought provoking film, sit there and claim to enjoy Ashton Kutcher movies. It brings to mind an eloquent soliloquy brought to you by Jules Winfield when comparing touching a womens foot and licking the holiest of holies. "It ain't the same ballpark, it ain't the same league, hell it ain't even the same sport" Now this is not a personal attack. If there were no audience for Ashton Kutcher, and Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan, they wouldn't be making movies and money. But to attack the guy who made Drugstore Cowboy, To Die For, Good Will Hunting, Finding Forrester because he looks like an asshole or had a misstep with his stupid shot for shot Hitchcock remake? And in the next breathe claim that Guess Who? was good, sheeeeittttt not even same sport my friend.

[Backstabba]

Originally posted by AwesomeJ33
And in the next breathe claim that Guess Who? was good, sheeeeittttt not even same sport my friend.

What do you have against Guess who? What did "guess who" do to you?

Im just pissed off because your acting like you think your superiour to some people, for stupid reasons.

[echo_bravo]

NO Heart Collector there are worse examples. Its okay though man, if you find watching kids walking through hallways exciting then more power to you. :)

[Lazy Boy]

You'd really hate Gerry, then.

[echo_bravo]

Thats what I hear. I have heard Gerry is even more about all that crap.

But hey, if someone digs that kind of movie thats cool with me. I like some god awful movies so I have my faults as well.

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
That's the WORST example of 'pretentious' I've ever seen.

Not really. It's actually quite good. It's self important. It's trying to say something. It's pretension, filmified.

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by AwesomeJ33
Ummm maybe because he was going for an authentic feel and pretty much hired novices and actual high school kids.

And this does... ? What? What does it do? It certainly didn't add to the film. I go to a high school everyday, and the kids, sure as Hakari sees Duff, don't act a thing like that. They don't act unnatural and uneasy, especially in a place where they are supposed to be comfortable, and natural. They don't act like that. Hiring actual high school kids isn't "getting a feel for it", it's being cheap. Hiring decent kid actors and using real high school kids as extras would be the smart way to go, and would've probably made a more satisfying film. As it stands, Elephant is crap.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
You'd really hate Gerry, then.

Gerry was horrible even whilst fast-forwarding at the speed of 50 on my DVD player.

[Lazy Boy]

Gerry was a great one-time for me. It had a hypnotic effect that was only good the first time I saw it, and now I can't even watch it without my eyes getting heavy.

[st3v3n]

ok. sorry for bringing this thread back to live, but i agree with echo. this movie freaking sucks!

i usually like movies where the character's stories intertwine (i.e. Crash [2004]), and thats the reason i rented this. but sheesh, did this blow. i do like "artsy" films, and i make some movies myself in my class, but i hated this one. it was too boring for me. for one, the long walking shots had no purpose. don't give me the "real" bs, they were outright dull and ridiculous. i'd rather him add more cuts to it than have a scene one long one. it would make it more interesting. the characters were sooooo dull. i couldn't care less if one died or not. John (the blonde kid) was pretty boring, and his whole "dont go in there"...yeah i didnt buy it. im sorry, just a worthless movie. the young eminem character, definately a bad actor. everything he said sounded forced. 2/10.

/rant


btw, on IMDB, it says most of the dialogue was improvised, and most of the people weren't actors. hmmm couldnt tell :rolleyes:

[Brando @$$ Fat]

ELEPHANT is one of those "message" movies that gets so dependent on its message that it doesn't really succeed in its plot, its acting, or its credibility. It's not a bad movie, but it's certainly an artsy-fartsy movie.

[Adornado]

I agree with the people who think Elephant sucked. I found it to be a monotonous exercise in "Oooh look at me I'm daring and original" filmmaking that Van Sant seems to specialize in.

[MacReady]

Holy shit this thread is thougher than Terri Schiavo!

[Tayzlor]

It's been awhile since I've seen Elephant (4/10), but ever since I enjoyed Gerry perhaps I ought to give it a go.

What I remember Elephant as was an experiment. And I still find it funny that people take points off for the film for the plot and characters. It doesn't come down to "pretentious" (because the movie isn't) or artsy-fartsy but rather whether you liked what he was doing ot not. Van Sant wanted to show how death has no meaning and how there are no logical explanations for what humans do, and he reckoned that the best way to show that was my simply showing the events. And to me it felt like watching the security tapes (sans sound) of kids doing their homework. Of course it wasn't supposed to be entertaining, but damnit, if you expect me to watch your movie...you must give me something to hinge on! There was no real beauty in the film, just a bunch of kids walking, there was a point, but who wants to see some punk-kids walking!

His Gerry, those was, like someone else said, hypnotic and really just beautiful (the inclusion of music did help).

[William Rosario]

Someone very intelligent said one time:

"The worst thing ever happen to cinema is the music video"

Nobody has patience with movies. I sense people who hated Elephant, love Spielberg. The ones who love it, hate movies with subtitles.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by William Rosario
Someone very intelligent said one time:

"The worst thing ever happen to cinema is the music video"

Nobody has patience with movies. I sense people who hated Elephant, love Spielberg. The ones who love it, hate movies with subtitles.

Would you knock it off with your typical film snob rhetoric?

Many people here have seen many films you've never even heard of. I've seen dozens of films by Kurosawa, Fellini and Bergman. I've seen movies from around the world. Hell, I'm half-way throught watching a Chinese one now. So quit assuming that everybody who disagrees with your opinions obviously lacks intellect.

[Adornado]

Has anyone who's hated Elephant seen Zero Day? Is it better or worse?