Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I saw yesterday Elephant. The last Gus Van Zant movies.

He is one of my favorite directors and the movie is great in the way it aboards Columbine High massacre.

What do you think of it?

I love my threads. Nobody see these kind of movies. I am start thinking thatworld is a big X-man-Matrix-CaribbeanPirates-Spiderman-Hulk-Bond-etc...fantasy, without problems to solve.

I must do like Nazgulinthedark did when she came to KMC and start talking to myself.

"Panen et circensis" for all.

You know what, Corlindel ? Yesterday you started a thread about "Ken Park" and today one about "Elephant". Well, these are 2 moviess I've seen and about which I hesitated to launch threads....
(Isn't this fantastic ? )

Well I liked it, but I think it deserved a second view, in order t focus on the constuction of the film...
At some moments, I had difficulty staying really "in" the movie (my thoughts were elsewhere)...
But as I said it was great...Nicely done...and quite original...


PS: the real phrase is "panem et circenses"

You are right thanks. Its latin in a portuguese way

you guys are too funny!
i had a question what others movies hav Gus Van Zant done? i hav heard that name before.

Gus van Sant :
My Own Private Idaho (1991)
Good Will Hunting (1997)
Psycho (1998)
Finding Forrester (2000)

And other movies, less known but not the least ones

Corlindel where the hell can I see the movie? A friend of mine told me the trailler is reallly weird

"SANT" Thanks again JP

It is he second time someone call me "funny" in the same week ~

I must check up my personality. Maybe I am crossing a middle-age crisis

The fabulous drugstore cowboy with Matt Dilon

Great Great Movie It really shows you why and how the killing of Columbia were done and it was fun to play the red head kid

I've been waiting for this movie to come to video, since unfortunately there are no small, independant theaters around here that show these types of movies. Looks very interesting.

Yeh, I didnt see it either and really want too.

I just finished watching it. It was a very strong and eerie film. Though it doesn't answer any questions as to why events like this take place, it does show it as truthfully as possible. Great movie.

Gotta disagree with you both, the movie was majorly flawed, and tried a wee bit too hard to be gripping, even for an arthouse film.

1) They spent the majority of the film developing all the characters except for the 2 main characters. The characters that were developed where already self explanatory to anyone who attended High School, just by looking at them.

2) The plotting and cinematography was the exact same as Amorres Perros/21 Grams.

3) There was absolutely no catalyst described as to why these two kids went on a rampage. Maybe they took a few too many spitballs in physics class? Who knows.

4) What was with the random and amateur implications that the killers were gay? It confused their whole scheme of targeting preps and jocks, when they clearly took out (fellow) outcasts in people like the glasses wearing librarian co-ed. Outcasts taking out people just like them, letting others survive?

5) The lack of realism. I find it extremely hard to believe you can order an AK-47 off of the internet, much less have a major delivery service have a kid who is OBVIOUSLY under the age of 18 sign for it.

The school seemed pretty calm for being underseige with two gun weilding students, especially with the whole "firecracker" sequence. A little too nonchalant to make it come across as a real threat.

Nobody had the sense to sound a fire alarm? No yelling, no screaming? Like I said, it was far from "real".

6) It's a sad state of affairs when the supporting cast, in droves nonetheless, put on a better performance and delivered their lines with more conviction than the 2 major characters. The delivery by the Eminem lookalike to the downed teacher in the hallway seemed flat, even for a High Schooler, almost like he didn't even believe in his own cause.


Sorry, guys. I rented it because it's been recieving much acclaim, and I don't quite get what it was trying to achieve, and I feel as if I wasted my time, personally. Could have atleast thrown in a bowling session if they wanted to make any correlation to Columbine, because this movie seemed pretty distant from any "reenactment" of any sort.

I agree with alot of your points. The school was ridiculously calm during the event, but I believe that much of what we were seeing was after most of it had taken place and most of the kids had escaped. It doesn't show this, but it's more then likely.

The AK-47 part is dead on, but the kids in columbine got guns like that some how, ordering them online seems just as plausable as buying them from a store.

The gay thing was indeed a little strange, didn't get that part myself but I just ignored it. There was probably a reason for it, but I don't feel like analysing the film to figure it out.

I think that the targetting of everyone they saw was just to show that they didn't really care who they killed, they just wanted to hurt/kill as many people as possible, regaurdless of whether or not they were outcasts.

I think it was the purpose of the film not to answer the questions like "why" these events happen. The fact of the matter is that no one knows why they happen. I thought this was a very strong part of the film because, instead of the filmmaker giving us his opinion of why they happen, he just showed them happening and nothing more. Leaving it up to the viewer to decide for themselves. This was probably the most unique thing about the film.

Most other films dealing with events like this try to give some sort of reasoning behind it. This movie just insinuates the basically "the kids aint right", and that's all anyone knows for sure.

i don't know if anyone answered the question about "the gay thing", but, i think the only way that ties into the whole film's premise, is that dialogue done by the teachers and students. I think, the dialogue revolved around that "it is difficult to figure out who is gay and who isn't". So, it was supose to be unexpected when you find out that the killers were gay. Huh! get it! That Gus Van Sant is a real trixter. Unless this particular aspect was based on something real, thats the only explanation one can conjure up.

yeah, and the whole aspect of the film NOT telling anyone why the two kids went of the rampage is creepier and just better than if the film had taken a long winded message telling us that these kids were picked on or that they saw too many violent movies. That would make this movie a peice of crap, and thankfully they didn't do that.

and plus, whoever said the filming of this movie was like 21 Grams is way off.
Yes. The layout of the movie is similiar to that, and as well Pulp Fiction, Memento, and Perros, but the cinematography is some of the weirdest i have seen in a pseudo-mainstream movie. It was very low-key, and wasn't really full of many camera techniques, just long cuts, and that is so cool and refreshing to see.

Well Cinemaddiction, once again I've got to intervene

- There is no gay thing ! yes, there is a scene, etc. but it absolutely doesn't imply that the killers are gay. It belongs to the same scheme as the scene in which they comment on (laugh at) the Nazi gathering. They are just totally lost (for I lack a better word at the moment) : they seem totally out of the high school world (it's likely to be the fact that they're both just no able to date any girl) and in the meantime this
shows that they is just no reason in there to do this bloodshed (at least to Van Sant's mind).

-21 grams was made in the same time as Elephant (even a bit after, I think)

- The aim of this film is not to be faithful to the real events...otherwise it would be a documentary. And we're lucky it's not. Cos otherwise Van Sant couldn't have given pieces of explanation for this tragedy in it.


PS: I'm sorry if this post is totally incomprehensible. I'm so tired I can't even make one good sentence in English tonight

ATD,

Well, your first paragraph didn't make any sense, no offense. There's no explanation for the kids kissing in the shower. Totally random.

Not having a catalyst for their actions contradicts everyones claims that says "it explains why kids do this". It was random, just like the people they killed when they totally abandoned their strategy as to whom they were going to kill.

I don't think I was off with my "21 Grams" plot device, either. Both it and Perros have approx. 3 different storylines unfolding at once, multipled by 2 or 3, depending on how many characters are in focus.
The cinematography was nothing special, just a wideshot of the character from the rear a la Anna in her Toyota in DOTD.

I don't think it's normal heterosexual behavior for guys join each other in a shower, they caress one another, and kiss? They relate to one another a little to well to be conveniently "detatched". In addition, if one were so detatched, mastering piano pieces like "Moonlight Sonata" would force me to believe that they are still somewhat cultured. I still think the homosexual implications are totally random.

While "21 Grams" was made in 2003, the cinematography was made unique in 2000, when "Amores Perros" debuted.

I felt as if the aim of the film was to be an honest depiction/re-enactment of how a regular school day turns sour, and it was horribly inaccurate and uncredible. You can cite my previous post for my reasons.

It was just a poor film, IMO, and I feel it gets alot of undue credit for things it totally failed to deliver on.

I watched this film last night but I think I'll have to reserve my opinions until a second viewing...

I have to be honest i feel the way it was put together was a tad tiresome and tedious. I found myself quite bored and uninterested at times due to the long tracking shots, and 2 minute shots of clouds

If you're not into 'artsy' films this ain't for you, and if you're not in the right mindset don't prepare to be wowed.

All in all I do like this film though I'm not too sure why. Perhaps it was the 'realism' brought to the film by using 'real' students for the main cast (there were only 3 proffessional actors) and no script, or maybe it was the questions it raised (though didn't answer).

Usually unresolved endings annoy the crap outta me but for some reason here I was satisfied.

On the whole GAY thing: I don't think the point Van Sant was trying to make was that these characters were gay but more to do with the fact that they know what's going to happen. If I remember correctly they say as he gets into the shower "We're gonna die today" "I've never kissed anyone before, have you?" ... it's not about them being gay, it's about them knowing that they're gonna die and expressing their sexuality in the only way possible... that's my take on it anyway

Well, I've come to understand the whole shower scene since my last post, and you've got it right. It just seemed a little..odd.

Yeah, Cinemaddiction, I agree with you on the shower scene though...it seemed kind of thrown in and sudden. Why make the killers gay? To show how mest up they were or what? I'm really not sure what I thought of this movie. I thought it was interesting at parts, and was kind of let down at others...but I guess it needs to be viewed as an art film...I need to see it again, because you know when you watch a movie with someone who doesn't like it...it really effects your view of what you thought of it.
And then there's the title? The point is?

Oops, that last post there was mine, but for some strange reason, it was posted under my brother's account which he only used once...Well, anyways, those were my comments.

yeah, I can't figure out the meaning of the title either

The title comes from two things.

1) There are a few pieces of elephant memorabilia in the blonde haired kids room. Maybe he liked elephants, who know?

2) An elephant never forgets. It makes sense that an otherwise reserved, yet troubled kid would remain quiet while he enduring physical and verbal abuse, he likely never forgot said abuse, subsequently eventually acting out on it.

Oh ok. I guess it fits its artsy style. I'm style not sure what I would rate it...Like I said, I need to see it again.

Actully, the title comes from the old saying "the problem's as easy to ignore as an elephant in the living room." Which means is a metaphor about the problem in teh film is to extreme to go ignored.

a dvd screener is online if you cant find a place to go see it, but it is a very good movie