Movie Review

Elephant

Gus Van Sant?s new film, Elephant, is a hard film to judge; it is full of style and is poetically told, and yet Sant (who wrote and directed) doesn?t necessarily make any bold statements regarding his subject matter.

The audience gets to take a front row view of the matters that unfold, but through a rather emotionally detached perspective, the viewer never truly bonds with the characters. This technique apparently aims to be part of the film?s potential impact, but I didn?t come out of the experience knowing anything extra about teenagers and violence ? but perhaps that is also part of Van Sant?s point.

Elephant, a Columbine-like retelling, follows a tragic incident that takes place at an innocent high school in Portland, Oregon. The entire film follows multiple groups of students as they go about their daily routines, with stories eventually intervening.

There is a level of curiosity that resonates throughout Elephant?s running time, and part of that curiosity is trying to figure out what exactly is going on, and what everything means. And by the time everything is matched up, the viewer can easily feel impressed, at least from a filmmaking point of view; Van Sant has taken what could?ve been a fairly straightforward story, and has mixed the pieces up, adding intrigue.

You may not know what is coming next, and that is part of the feature?s force. The audience has to observe, always wondering if something is about to occur; and in that sense the viewer is almost like the students of whom we are watching ? had they known that ?something? would happen. The key difference between the audience?s point of view and the students? perspective is that most of us will know the story in a nutshell, and we are waiting for those plot points to unfold. The key act of waiting for it to unfold happens to be a powerful element of suspense.

Using non-actors for the most part, Gus Van Sant hoped to depict high school matters as realistically as possible, and the results (while controversial) are precisely that; walking through the halls, it feels like we?re right there with the students even if we don?t know them all too tell. And as I was watching Elephant, it became very clear that Sant is a fan of experimental storytelling. It?s not like I wasn?t aware of that while viewing his little known film, Gerry (with Casey Affleck and Matt Damon), but he even brings back some of that style here in Elephant.

Most of the feature revolves around long, uninterrupted cinematography shots, with moments here and there that are supported by a piano score. The camera follows characters along their walking paths, and even when you may question if Sant will go through with something (is he really going to show the character walk that entire distance?), Sant performs that maneuver. The tactic may at first appear redundant (and boring to some), but looking back at all the tricks afterwards, those devices can support the tone for those who get involved.

However, Elephant is more commercial than Gerry (A-), despite that Elephant is still very much an art-house effort. Few people saw (and will ever see or make it through) Gerry, and even fewer will appreciate that project. Elephant is likely to pick up buzz with its controversial story, and more moviegoers will likely be able to make it through its 80 minute running time versus the almost two hour sitting time of nearly nothingness in Gerry (though I found it to be very profound and artistic). Gerry had walkouts at film festivals, but I can?t really imagine people walking out of Elephant; the suspense that lingers throughout can keep any viewer curiously anticipating the unknown.

What will possibly frustrate some moviegoers who walk into Elephant is that the film doesn?t present clear answers ? it ponders questions, and it ponders questions without literally asking them. The entire project is an opportunity for the viewer to pay attention to the details and have a discussion afterwards about what the film didn?t explain. Gus Van Sant doesn?t present solutions, but rather a problem, and even the problem itself can come from a vague root, and it is that vague root that will lead to discussion.

I came out of the movie having had a fairly intense experience, with the effort of trying to make sense of everything having been a part of the event. I had contemplated the film?s overall impact afterwards, as I wasn?t entirely certain how much I liked it, but I knew that I quite admired the attempt itself. There was a point in the film where I had wondered if Elephant would reach the heights of Gerry, but in the long run, I did not experience the same blown away sensation.

This is a film where the viewer can claim that the detachment factor (from the characters) is a crucial flaw among the story, killing the entire experience. But once post-discussion gets into way, the discussion regarding those factors can almost be like the nature of the story where an official answer cannot be achieved ? that is part of Elephant?s after effect.

While I am still not quite sure about the extent of which I liked the film, I can say that I probably will not forget it anytime soon; and I?m even curious to what a second viewing could do toward my position, now having knowledge of what happens. And when a film can stay in your mind with such force, you know the project is nevertheless remarkable, even if it may not cross boundaries.

Lee's Grade: B
Ranked #40 of 132 between American Wedding (#39) and The Hunted (#41) for 2003 movies.

A	0.4%
B	30.0%
C	61.7%
D	8.0%
F	0.0%