Certain user reviews have been negative, citing a lack of motive for the crime--a high school shoot-up, the plot of the movie--and a lack of character development.
But these reviews have failed to look at this film as an art piece, not a movie in the traditional sense. The entire film is reminiscent of the work of the artist and art filmmaker, Andy Warhol, one of the most brilliant minds of this century.
True, there is a strong lack of character development; but perhaps there is something to be said and acknowledged about that. The entire film is meant to represent the idea that this type of tragedy can happen anywhere--note the lack of ever naming the high school, although a similarity to Columbine is present--and, essentially, the character (that is, the personalities) of the characters is irrelevant. How can it be, if such a tragedy can happen at any American high school? The motive for the crime is also relatively unimportant, but is established indirectly when we see the teasing and torment that Eric must suffer. We see it briefly, but it is there, and can serve to be a motive, if you absolutely must have one. But once again the motive is unimportant. When someone is shooting students at your school, you do not wonder why he is doing it; you are instead focused on him actually doing it, and rightly so.
But the film does not have a story, at least in any traditional sense. Because of this there is no need for motive, character development, or dialogue--yes, there is a strong lack of that as well. The film is meant to stand as an art piece; it must not be watched, but viewed. It needs to be taken as a whole, and taken to represent something. Not to be enjoyed as the "story" unfolds. Put simply, why the action is done is not important, but instead the fact that it was done.
Gus Van Sant's vision and idea of this comes to life in his long, overdrawn silences. The meaning is isolation. Where many movies would cut parts of a scene to save time and keep the action moving, Elephant keeps the cameras rolling. Van Sant never leaves his characters. When Eli walks away, most movies would cut once this fact was established. But Van Sant forces us to watch Eli walk all the way into the distance--until he is out of sight--before we move to the next scene. This film technique emphasizes the importance of every moment in time. And that too serves to support the film as an art piece, not a movie.
More support of this is the diversity of the victims. Screw stereotypes. Eric and Alex are not out to kill just the jocks, just the chauvanistic males, just the cheerleaders that rejected them. No. The victims range from the jock, the girlfriend, the Gay/Straight Alliance member, the fellow tormentee, to the art student. This is of most importance to the film. Indeed, this supports the idea that the film represents the fact that this tragedy can happen anywhere, to anyone. The killers can be anyone, the victims can be anyone. This is the point of the film; the reason for the art piece.
Gus Van Sant's film is artistically brilliant. It is realistic, but still as the movie progresses you can't help but hold your breath and feel a certain surrealism. But it is not for everyone; do not see it if you want a story, or if you approve of Hollywood sensationalizing. The shoot-up scenes are not action packed, nor or they suspenseful. They are real, and they are tragic. Despite how you felt about the jocks or the nerds at school, you can't help but feel a certain sympathy when both are shot dead; you wouldn't feel that way as much if Hollywood had developed the jock character as an arrogant jerk. You feel this way because you see the jock not as a jock, but as a human being. This is the purpose of the lack of character development; to make you see the players as humans, and nothing more.
See the movie if you want to feel the presence of art genius, but not if you want a great story or acting.
But these reviews have failed to look at this film as an art piece, not a movie in the traditional sense. The entire film is reminiscent of the work of the artist and art filmmaker, Andy Warhol, one of the most brilliant minds of this century.
True, there is a strong lack of character development; but perhaps there is something to be said and acknowledged about that. The entire film is meant to represent the idea that this type of tragedy can happen anywhere--note the lack of ever naming the high school, although a similarity to Columbine is present--and, essentially, the character (that is, the personalities) of the characters is irrelevant. How can it be, if such a tragedy can happen at any American high school? The motive for the crime is also relatively unimportant, but is established indirectly when we see the teasing and torment that Eric must suffer. We see it briefly, but it is there, and can serve to be a motive, if you absolutely must have one. But once again the motive is unimportant. When someone is shooting students at your school, you do not wonder why he is doing it; you are instead focused on him actually doing it, and rightly so.
But the film does not have a story, at least in any traditional sense. Because of this there is no need for motive, character development, or dialogue--yes, there is a strong lack of that as well. The film is meant to stand as an art piece; it must not be watched, but viewed. It needs to be taken as a whole, and taken to represent something. Not to be enjoyed as the "story" unfolds. Put simply, why the action is done is not important, but instead the fact that it was done.
Gus Van Sant's vision and idea of this comes to life in his long, overdrawn silences. The meaning is isolation. Where many movies would cut parts of a scene to save time and keep the action moving, Elephant keeps the cameras rolling. Van Sant never leaves his characters. When Eli walks away, most movies would cut once this fact was established. But Van Sant forces us to watch Eli walk all the way into the distance--until he is out of sight--before we move to the next scene. This film technique emphasizes the importance of every moment in time. And that too serves to support the film as an art piece, not a movie.
More support of this is the diversity of the victims. Screw stereotypes. Eric and Alex are not out to kill just the jocks, just the chauvanistic males, just the cheerleaders that rejected them. No. The victims range from the jock, the girlfriend, the Gay/Straight Alliance member, the fellow tormentee, to the art student. This is of most importance to the film. Indeed, this supports the idea that the film represents the fact that this tragedy can happen anywhere, to anyone. The killers can be anyone, the victims can be anyone. This is the point of the film; the reason for the art piece.
Gus Van Sant's film is artistically brilliant. It is realistic, but still as the movie progresses you can't help but hold your breath and feel a certain surrealism. But it is not for everyone; do not see it if you want a story, or if you approve of Hollywood sensationalizing. The shoot-up scenes are not action packed, nor or they suspenseful. They are real, and they are tragic. Despite how you felt about the jocks or the nerds at school, you can't help but feel a certain sympathy when both are shot dead; you wouldn't feel that way as much if Hollywood had developed the jock character as an arrogant jerk. You feel this way because you see the jock not as a jock, but as a human being. This is the purpose of the lack of character development; to make you see the players as humans, and nothing more.
See the movie if you want to feel the presence of art genius, but not if you want a great story or acting.
Tell Your Friends