Film, like any artistic medium, can be a true work of art, or a velvet painting of a bleeding Jesus. `Elephant' is definitely in the former category, a true work of the filmmaker's art, although maybe a disappointment to the average movie-goer who, drawn by the hope of violence and wanting the cheap velvet, will be turned off by the lack of an easily understood narrative story and clear heroes and villains. This is not a movie that can be forgotten as easily as the empty popcorn container that is dropped to the theater's floor.
Regarding the allusion to the blind men and the elephant, what is Van Sant's subject in this film that is being seen by and from different points of view? Teenagers? High school? American society? Education? Violence? Columbine? It is possible that he means all of these, and more, and even, maybe, things he hadn't even thought of. After all, while there were some conscious intentions utilized in the making of this film, there also was a mixing up of various elements to discover what would ultimately be produced by genuine dynamic.
I once heard a National Geographic photographer say he didn't have to go looking for a story to photograph, he only had to stand in one place and the stories would arise around him. This is true of Van Sant's film. He wanted, I suppose, to do a film about Columbine, but ended up throwing out whatever his original plan was and letting whatever arose among the points of view, ideas, and stories of certain teenagers become the basis for the film-he stood in one place and let the story arise around him.
Much can be credited to Mali Finn, the casting director. Beyond the astonishingly beautiful cinematography by Harris Savides, the creative elements in the film were the individuals cast right out of high school to portray the students. Each one is so beautiful and expressive and seemed to represent a stereotype of student while at the same time being unique individuals caught in a moment among infinite dimensions of time. The camera does not allow you to dismiss them as a `type,' but real live people you gaze nearly inside of as they go about their daily business.
One thing that struck me about the individuals in this film was how ready for real productive life these kids were, yet they were imprisoned within the walls and the petty rules of an institution that was no longer relevant. For example, a boy doing a big thing by being responsible enough to take over the driving from his drunken father is punished for the very small thing of being `tardy.'
These people are obviously chomping on the bit at the starting gate, and yet they are warehoused in this useless holding pattern. Is there really any wonder that when one student understands that he has the power to make up a `plan' that can make him the master of his realm, that he goes for it without remorse or conscience, as if the life he is forced to live is merely an extension of the artificial video game world. When the energetic, creative impulses of life are put on hold for four more years in pursuit of a temporary reality that is all a game of artifice, then the rules of life may become confused with game-playing rules.
Elephants, the largest animals on land, have a highly-ordered social structure and an almost subliminal way of communicating, are affectionate and compassionate, and while strong, can be seen as lumbering and awkward. Elephants are exploited, such as an elephant being made to spin around on one leg on top of a barrel in a circus. Elephants are an endangered species, in demand for the value of their ivory that is cut off by poachers with chainsaws and otherwise left to die a cruel death. One may want to consider what the `ivory tusks' are of teenagers that society is cutting off and exploiting as marketable in unseen worlds beyond (metaphorically analyze the time-line from the golden blond boy to the depleted state of his drunken father).
Maybe the overriding atmosphere of Gus Van Sant's film is this idea that something is endangered, something powerful, highly-evolved socially, deeply communicative, open-hearted and wants to belong, wants a productive place in the world and needs useful guidance in that direction, not given useless and meaningless tasks to perform, and is therefore something appealing, precious, and ought to be saved, and yet is currently only being exploited by some kind of diabolical system.
The film came to a sudden end, but this was not a complete story, it was an extraction, a core, a biopsy. The end of the film was merely the edge of where the sample was cut. Like an oncologist, it is up to the viewer to intuit a broader meaning from the sample taken. Here, too, is another elephant in the room that nobody wants to recognize--we're all endangered, and there will be an ending to our life, and when it comes, it will be instant, thoughtless, and heartless, and only to our own unique point of view, elephantine in significance.
Regarding the allusion to the blind men and the elephant, what is Van Sant's subject in this film that is being seen by and from different points of view? Teenagers? High school? American society? Education? Violence? Columbine? It is possible that he means all of these, and more, and even, maybe, things he hadn't even thought of. After all, while there were some conscious intentions utilized in the making of this film, there also was a mixing up of various elements to discover what would ultimately be produced by genuine dynamic.
I once heard a National Geographic photographer say he didn't have to go looking for a story to photograph, he only had to stand in one place and the stories would arise around him. This is true of Van Sant's film. He wanted, I suppose, to do a film about Columbine, but ended up throwing out whatever his original plan was and letting whatever arose among the points of view, ideas, and stories of certain teenagers become the basis for the film-he stood in one place and let the story arise around him.
Much can be credited to Mali Finn, the casting director. Beyond the astonishingly beautiful cinematography by Harris Savides, the creative elements in the film were the individuals cast right out of high school to portray the students. Each one is so beautiful and expressive and seemed to represent a stereotype of student while at the same time being unique individuals caught in a moment among infinite dimensions of time. The camera does not allow you to dismiss them as a `type,' but real live people you gaze nearly inside of as they go about their daily business.
One thing that struck me about the individuals in this film was how ready for real productive life these kids were, yet they were imprisoned within the walls and the petty rules of an institution that was no longer relevant. For example, a boy doing a big thing by being responsible enough to take over the driving from his drunken father is punished for the very small thing of being `tardy.'
These people are obviously chomping on the bit at the starting gate, and yet they are warehoused in this useless holding pattern. Is there really any wonder that when one student understands that he has the power to make up a `plan' that can make him the master of his realm, that he goes for it without remorse or conscience, as if the life he is forced to live is merely an extension of the artificial video game world. When the energetic, creative impulses of life are put on hold for four more years in pursuit of a temporary reality that is all a game of artifice, then the rules of life may become confused with game-playing rules.
Elephants, the largest animals on land, have a highly-ordered social structure and an almost subliminal way of communicating, are affectionate and compassionate, and while strong, can be seen as lumbering and awkward. Elephants are exploited, such as an elephant being made to spin around on one leg on top of a barrel in a circus. Elephants are an endangered species, in demand for the value of their ivory that is cut off by poachers with chainsaws and otherwise left to die a cruel death. One may want to consider what the `ivory tusks' are of teenagers that society is cutting off and exploiting as marketable in unseen worlds beyond (metaphorically analyze the time-line from the golden blond boy to the depleted state of his drunken father).
Maybe the overriding atmosphere of Gus Van Sant's film is this idea that something is endangered, something powerful, highly-evolved socially, deeply communicative, open-hearted and wants to belong, wants a productive place in the world and needs useful guidance in that direction, not given useless and meaningless tasks to perform, and is therefore something appealing, precious, and ought to be saved, and yet is currently only being exploited by some kind of diabolical system.
The film came to a sudden end, but this was not a complete story, it was an extraction, a core, a biopsy. The end of the film was merely the edge of where the sample was cut. Like an oncologist, it is up to the viewer to intuit a broader meaning from the sample taken. Here, too, is another elephant in the room that nobody wants to recognize--we're all endangered, and there will be an ending to our life, and when it comes, it will be instant, thoughtless, and heartless, and only to our own unique point of view, elephantine in significance.