Elephant (2003)

Has anyone caught this one yet?
What did you guys think?
I just stepped out of the theater and honestly, I thought it was such a fantastic movie... I'd definitely recommend giving it a watch if you get the chance!

By the way, does anyone happen to know if the actors in this were actually professionals or just amateurs playing parts?

I have it sitting right there on my Blu-ray collection at home. To be honest, I haven't a clue what it's actually like, because I started watching it and drifted off to sleep after just ten minutes... Truth be told, I was running a fever at the time... but somehow, I just don't feel particularly drawn to give it another shot. Still, you think it's actually any good, don't you?

Did you fall asleep on me????😲 😲
I mean, seriously?
I guess it’s true that all the takes were super long, but still......

The temperature... I suppose...

Man, I am absolutely loving Elephant. It’s just so hypnotic and deeply poetic, you know?
And honestly, this isn't some movie you sit on your couch at home for; you really need to hit up a theater with a killer sound system so you can actually hear every single footstep echoing through the room.
I also just don't get how someone who directed stuff like Drugstore Cowboy, or even My Own Private Idaho, could turn around and make something as totally different as Good Will Hunting. Like, seriously, I’m just baffled by how that works.

Yeah, I’m right there with you on that one...

The movie is absolutely fantastic! I actually caught it on DirecTV recently, and now I’m just counting down the days until it hits theaters here in Chicago... It seems like every director eventually hits a slump and ends up making those "off" films. For instance, I’ve always been a huge fan of Tim Burton, but even so, I still think Planet of the Apes was total garbage.

I really enjoyed this movie. There’s just something about how Tim Burton handled it—wait, no, let me rephrase—there's something about what Gus van Sant did with this project. He could have taken this story in so many different directions, but he chose this path. To me, the way the plot feels "fragmented" actually works in its favor; it proves that the violence isn't just there for shock value or to give the audience some cheap thrill. It’s not gratuitous, and honestly, that’s why the film holds up so well.

Someone mentioned earlier whether the actors were actual pros or just random people. From what I’ve read, van Sant actually held auditions at that same high school in Oregon, and over a thousand students showed up—most of them had never even been in front of a camera before. There was this one interview with John (the blonde guy), where he mentioned he basically landed the role by walking out of the line, approaching van Sant, and just venting to him about how much everything sucked at that school and stuff like that. Apparently, van Sant loved that kind of raw energy. And well, look how that turned out—he got the part.

And one more thing... in this film, everyone is essentially playing themselves.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting everyone in the movie is just playing themselves? They kept their own names for the sake of the production, sure, but they aren't actually portraying themselves—the whole story is just loosely based on the Columbine High School massacre.
I mean... if that were true, how would the killers be playing themselves? 😁 😉
Personally, I absolutely love that sense of suspense and pure anxiety that van Sant creates using those long, drawn-out takes. It’s like... you're just sitting there in your chair, fidgeting, feeling like you're walking on pins and needles waiting for something to happen... and the shot just keeps going and going...
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Or even that moment when that Black guy starts his protagonist walk... and you're sitting there thinking, "Okay, here comes the dialogue, or some big action sequence, or something..." and then nothing. Nish, he just gets killed... while the entire shot is framed as if we're about to witness some massive plot twist in the movie. Honestly, it was just fantastic...

That’s exactly what I was getting at—though I think I phrased it poorly the first time. They kept their own names, technically. But at the end of the day, it's all just "fiction," right? The characters aren't necessarily tied to actual real-world events.

*Spoilers*
Once again, I have to agree—that scene with the Black man is probably the one that sticks in your throat the most. It set me up so perfectly for this massive "shock twist" when suddenly... nothing. Just dead cold. And literally dead.
Also, we really should talk about those three girls in the cafeteria and their whole little world. Those few minutes of their scenes are probably some of the best captured teenage moments on the big screen we've seen in a long time.
Or that moment when John starts crying. And then that girl walks up to him.
Acadia: 'What's wrong?'
John: 'Nothing'
Acadia: 'Are you crying?'
John: 'Yeah.'
Acadia: 'Is something bad?'
John: 'I don't know'
Acadia: gives him a kiss on the cheek... 'I'll see you later.'
It was just perfectly captured.

Now, this is actually quite fascinating... if I really sit here and chew on it for a second, perhaps dissecting this film through debate is even more compelling than just sitting there watching it. There’s almost no traditional dramatic plot to speak of—hardly any character development or clear motivations—because everything, and I mean absolutely everything, is subservient to that one singular act, presented through this fragmented, non-linear structure told via various teenagers.
The shots are incredibly long, drawn out, almost sluggish; the camera literally stalks behind the students, drifting through those sterile, hollow hallways. The atmosphere is utterly cold and bleak... all underscored by this incredible sound design where every single movement feels amplified into a deafening roar...

It seems van Sant is playing quite skillfully with the stereotypes often used to depict these kinds of tragedies, essentially laying out his own philosophical stance on human nature: the roots of violence are vastly more complex than the shallow versions we see portrayed today. Society, the system, the family unit—they all conspire to manufacture these walking "time bombs," and it's really just a matter of waiting for someone to finally "explode." As long as we keep hiding the truth, how can we ever expect anything to change?

Such a weird movie... just another entry in this recent "new wave" we've been seeing lately—a handful of really distinct, standout films that all seem to share this specific way of capturing reality and a similar vibe towards it.

In my opinion, this film isn't even trying to win you over, grab your attention, or push some grand idea; it feels more like we're finally seeing a perfect alignment between the subject matter and the director. Like, the filmmaker isn't forced to lecture us or broadcast their moral compass in some obvious, likable way. We’re getting more of this raw, photographic depiction of life—no preaching, no pointing fingers at what’s "important," just showing things as they are. And usually, that reality is way less flashy or dramatic than the stuff most movies try to force down our throats.

I can't say I was totally mesmerized... it lacks that "juice" you find in most other movies about this topic, the kind that are easier to swallow and actually make sense. But hey, maybe it's time we all got vaccinated against constantly hunting for those tired old tropes.

Real life is much closer to what these newer films are showing us; there aren't these massive plot twists right when you expect them, none of that pathetic dialogue we've been conditioned to expect, no director stepping in to tell us how to feel, and definitely none of that cinematic orgasm we've been trained to crave for instant gratification.

This movie just shows things as they are, and honestly... that's a pretty tough pill to swallow.

Elephant is the kind of movie where Gus basically leaves everything up to you. The story follows a handful of students on the day two of them commit a horrific crime, shooting an unspecified number of their classmates and teachers. Gus doesn't try to explain the motive, he doesn't push some grand moral message, and he avoids playing with heavy symbolism... He just presents the events like a documentary and lets the audience deal with the fallout. It’s not even entirely clear why the film is titled Elephant, other than the fact that when the camera pans around one of the shooters' rooms, you catch a glimpse of a drawing of an elephant. You don't see the causes, nor do you see the aftermath of the crime... you can only speculate about what led up to this tragedy (was it bullying at school, an obsession with guns, a deep detachment from reality, the influence of violent FPS games on their PCs, some past trauma inflicted upon them, or something else entirely?). There is no real answer. Honestly, it might be impossible to find a single, complete explanation for the questions the film forces on you. What has to happen for two seemingly normal kids to carry out a massacre like that?
The film opens and closes with shots of the sky and clouds... It’s a brilliant piece of work that clocks in at under 90 minutes. At first glance, it feels sterile, but that's just the stylistic choice used to depict such a terrifying crime without any unnecessary interference. For this, GVS used actual high schoolers instead of teen stars, which really helps depersonalize the whole thing. There aren't really protagonists or supporting characters; there are just those who survive the day and those who are killed in that Denver high school.

Aside from Lilya 4-ever, this is the first major film I've seen in theaters this year (9/10)

👍

Since I don't want to go on another rant about Elephant, I'll just copy and paste this old piece of mine—it’s basically an anti-review of the film.

#2 Title: Life on Canvas subtitle: American reality

Well, that's it then... the Festival hits are over. I guess there isn't a more depressing question I could ask without trying to offer an answer myself. I don't want to be one of those "everything is getting better" types, but honestly, the local interpretation of this festival has always left me feeling pretty miserable. Still, I suppose you have to give the organizers some credit since they held events at the local jazz club this time around. Sure, the lineup was exactly the same, but at least the crowd was slightly more sophisticated—nobody was spitting on you in the neck.
It all started with Gus van Sant’s *Elephant*. When you go to see a Golden Palm winner, I guess you arrive with certain positive biases, right? But nobody expected *That*. And "That" isn't an elephant, nor is it really a movie. It’s just a story about American teenagers who: Walk. Well, most of the plot relies on the protagonist walk. You spend the whole time looking at their backs, or maybe their chests. A few of them actually have a couple of lines—not that they reveal any life truths, or even quasi-life truths, I suppose. The director skillfully weaves this into a story about a group of individuals, giving us different perspectives on the same events, probably because he wanted to give the film a deeper tone. He’s likely aware that psychological nuance is his thing. As for the individuals: there's the blond boy with the alcoholic father—I think his name is John, though I wasn't really trying to memorize names—who, heaven forbid, suffers because of it. Then there's the athlete, who is presumably handsome and spends his time outside of sports with some pale brunette (though it's not exactly vividly depicted). The school's ugly duckling is the third creature the director gives us: she wears big glasses, has unshaven armpits, and wears long socks in gym class instead of the model-esque outfits the other girls wear—basically Carrie if you stripped away the telekinesis and added black hair. Then there's the photographer, whose existence is barely clear, and the Gay kid. Yeah, just some kid everyone bullies, who is actually quite creative, which we gather from his room full of drawings and a piano where he plays "for Eliza." (Oh boy, the director makes you listen to the whole thing; I guess nobody has ever heard it before?!) Only much later, the Creative one and his friend—whom you find out is actually his partner after a shower scene—order weapons online, storm the school in military gear, and start shooting everyone. But even then, the director doesn't actually depict the massacre, which—personally speaking—would have bumped the rating up by at least two stars. Instead, he leaves you with some blood splatter that's honestly boring, before returning to a shot of the sky and clouds, which is how he began his... his... whatever!
And when it all finally wraps up, leaving you hunched over and exhausted as you stumble out of the local art gallery—with absolutely zero cash left for the three liters of cheap whiskey needed to wash away the pretentious nonsense they’ve been shoving down your throat for the last hour—you're left asking: What was the poet actually trying to say? Or better yet, did they even mean anything at all? Maybe it's just that certain individuals are so misunderstood by the mainstream that they simply can't survive, eventually leading to a total breakdown under the pressure—which, in this case, resulted in a literal shooting. I suppose I reached that conclusion after hours of staring into space, wondering: What exactly did I miss tonight? If that's the case, I guess the director deserves an A for reinventing the concept of unoriginality: the story isn't just cliché, it’s completely unbelievable in this day and age.
It’s honestly offensive how this all plays out in the States. I mean, if an American takes a sip of a milkshake and immediately starts reaching for a gun, what does that say about our generation—where the father, his father, and even his great-grandfather are all part of the cycle? Where are the Fathers and the Fathers before them, held accountable by their Sons and the Holy Spirit?
Amen.

p.s.
The movie is titled "Elephant" because of that kids' game "Spot the Elephant!" Here, we're looking at a massive issue that everyone just happens to overlook—which, I guess, is actually the only clever thing about the whole film.
p.p.s.
I guess I’d suggest Gus stick to more benign stuff, like Good Will Hunting & Fading Forester.

Betty Wright64 said:By the way, does anyone happen to know if the actors in this film are professionals or just amateurs?

They aren't pros... they basically just put out a classified ad and people showed up to act...

It looks like I’m running a little late to the party again, which is honestly becoming a bit of a habit for me, but after reading that massive comment above, I simply felt compelled to weigh in (though I am quite surprised there hasn't been more discussion on this yet).

Now, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't go so far as to call this my absolute favorite film of all time; it's definitely a slow burn where very little actually happens on screen, but those final ten minutes when those two burst into the high school? Truly chilling.

I have to respectfully disagree with the idea that the movie is being pretentious. The director actually mentioned that he intentionally leaned into those classic American high school stereotypes—you know, the star athlete, the artsy kid, the overachiever, and so on—because his goal wasn't to dive deep into the "why" behind the massacre or to show off flashy, sensationalized violence. He really just wanted to capture those few tense hours leading up to the tragedy, and if you ask me, he executed that vision beautifully.

True, the movie isn't being pretentious. But it’s definitely suffering from something else. It lacks any actual ambition... just zero ideas once the initial concept wears off. At its core, a film is supposed to dance on that line with conceptual art. Like, "here's an ashtray on a table, that's art, deal with it." If I had to sum this thing up in one word? Pointless.
(Still, most of the shots look great. You can tell Saint isn't just some hack technician. The music and especially the sound design are top-tier too, really helps set the mood.

I honestly found it so refreshing how the movie avoided any kind of heavy-handed moralizing or constant "explaining" to the audience.
If entire legions of self-appointed moralists, sociologists, and psychologists haven't been able to wrap their heads around why those kids in Columbine did what they did, then why on earth would one small, independent director think he could provide all the answers?

I really don't get the people calling this film pretentious; it feels like they don't actually grasp what that word even means.
If I actually had a critique to offer—which, for the record, I don't—it would probably be that the film leans a little too much into narcissism.

I also wanted to jump in and correct a mistake in Supplicant's quote: those kids aren't gay.

This is my favorite Gus van Sant film. Stylistically, it reminds me quite a bit of Béla Tarr, who uses those long takes and sequences to capture the almost ritualistic nature of violence...

Aside from a somewhat silly ending that feels more suited to a standard action flick, the film is superb—truly one of the best releases this year.