There are certain events in life that social grief and moral conscience dictate should probably never make it to the cinema screen. But, as anybody who has seen the trailer for Deny Arcand's Les Invasions Barbares, with its quick shot of the second plane impacting into the World Trade Centres towers, will tell you, such depiction is inevitable at some point down the line. Another major wound on American society that has never really healed is the spat of school-shootings that tortured the mid to late 1990s. Michael Moore's successful but flawed docu-film Bowling for Columbine does not really count in the progress of cinema casting its eye on such events. It is a piece of politically charged pseudo-filmmaking self-promotion disguised as an altruistic crusade to tackle America's ills. It does not attempt to use the versatile medium of cinema to portray such events. Gus van Sant's latest, Elephant, does.
Elephant, if we leave aside the controversy and outcry over its subject matter, is filmmaking of the highest quality from a talented innovator, crucially working outside of Hollywood. Originally it was filmed for HBO television but the transfer to the cinema screen is so seamless and appropriate that one feels Van Sant must surely have written it with the cinema in mind.
The film looks at a fictional shooting in an unnamed high school in Portland, Oregon. It is inspired by, but not based upon, Columbine and such other tragedies. The composition of scenes is brilliantly thought-out and perfectly executed, breaking up one story into several components and interlinking them at various points a style most reminiscent of Amores Perros' structure. As a result, the real-world' clock of the main part of the film is only ten or fifteen minutes, whilst the film proper takes 81 to play out and tie-up all the stories. This is not flashy self-indulgence on the part of an `aren't I clever' director. Here, Van Sant ups the ante on his peers. We know the two gun-wielding students are in the school, as we see them enter early in the film, but we are never sure if we are in the present, or playing catch up in one of the interlinking scenes. This gives Elephant an unbelievable tension, added to by his brilliant use of silence. Cinematically it is the oldest suspense trick in the book we see the killer come in, the victim doesn't, and now we are hanging on the edge of our seats waiting for the cupboard door to fly open. Van Sant takes this old technique, without losing sight of the issue or losing the suspense, and spins it out for the majority of the film. The interpretation that this represents America at large the killers are there, we know it, but we don't know when they will next burst out is a plausible reading.
When the violence does erupt it is brutal but not voyeuristic. Van Sant does not shy from the reality of gun violence but he does not exploit it either. Much of the controversy over this film comes not from our reaction to excesses of gore or torture, but rather because the subject has not been dealt with on such a graphic level since Edward Furlong was blown-away in American History X (Tony Kaye, 1998). The more negative comments largely come as a knee-jerk reaction to the issue of school gun violence in the media, rather than as a direct reaction to the violence in Elephant itself.
However, you could argue that Elephant loses points for failing to commit to detailed social comment on the issues that underlie the story of the film. Here we have to kids killing indiscriminately why? Van Sant provides us with limited insight about the provocation for such violence, and in one scene combines images of Nazism, internet gunshops and violent video-games. It is too little background and comes across as a little obvious and forced, lacking in any substance. As a result critics could argue that van Sant doesn't care about the issues, and so this film IS exploitation, being nothing more than gratuitous description.
But, I rather think that is the whole point; van Sant does not set about on a Michael Moore-esque crusade of evangelising his thoughts on the social decline that leads to such acts. Rather he presents us, quickly and without much depth, with the simple and everyday melting-pot of violence in society. That he chooses to do this with the most obvious examples is a masterstroke. The film therefore is not so much a `how could this happen?!', but more a `look how easy this is, why doesn't it happen more often?!'.
Van Sant's smooth camera distances us from any real involvement, we are merely observers to the crime, and the uneasy parting shot of a father tentatively not-quite-embracing his son is a further implication that little comfort can be offered after these events. The parent cannot protect the child, and the filmmaker cannot protect the viewer. There is no place for a Spielberg like happy ending here. It is this that makes van Sant's film so powerful and unnerving. He does not try to penetrate society to offer closure or understanding, for that is not his job. He is not a politician, and he knows it. He simply tells the story like it is, albeit in a slightly stylised way.
This is what makes Elephant so powerful, and this is why it is so much more than Bowling for Columbine.
With only a $3million budget, a cast of first time actors and little more than fifteen minutes of real-time' story, van Sant has taken a subject that Hollywood would never dare touch, and has come away with a brilliant film. Even if you criticise its obviousness and take away some credit, this is still essential viewing. Catch it while you can.
4/5
Elephant, if we leave aside the controversy and outcry over its subject matter, is filmmaking of the highest quality from a talented innovator, crucially working outside of Hollywood. Originally it was filmed for HBO television but the transfer to the cinema screen is so seamless and appropriate that one feels Van Sant must surely have written it with the cinema in mind.
The film looks at a fictional shooting in an unnamed high school in Portland, Oregon. It is inspired by, but not based upon, Columbine and such other tragedies. The composition of scenes is brilliantly thought-out and perfectly executed, breaking up one story into several components and interlinking them at various points a style most reminiscent of Amores Perros' structure. As a result, the real-world' clock of the main part of the film is only ten or fifteen minutes, whilst the film proper takes 81 to play out and tie-up all the stories. This is not flashy self-indulgence on the part of an `aren't I clever' director. Here, Van Sant ups the ante on his peers. We know the two gun-wielding students are in the school, as we see them enter early in the film, but we are never sure if we are in the present, or playing catch up in one of the interlinking scenes. This gives Elephant an unbelievable tension, added to by his brilliant use of silence. Cinematically it is the oldest suspense trick in the book we see the killer come in, the victim doesn't, and now we are hanging on the edge of our seats waiting for the cupboard door to fly open. Van Sant takes this old technique, without losing sight of the issue or losing the suspense, and spins it out for the majority of the film. The interpretation that this represents America at large the killers are there, we know it, but we don't know when they will next burst out is a plausible reading.
When the violence does erupt it is brutal but not voyeuristic. Van Sant does not shy from the reality of gun violence but he does not exploit it either. Much of the controversy over this film comes not from our reaction to excesses of gore or torture, but rather because the subject has not been dealt with on such a graphic level since Edward Furlong was blown-away in American History X (Tony Kaye, 1998). The more negative comments largely come as a knee-jerk reaction to the issue of school gun violence in the media, rather than as a direct reaction to the violence in Elephant itself.
However, you could argue that Elephant loses points for failing to commit to detailed social comment on the issues that underlie the story of the film. Here we have to kids killing indiscriminately why? Van Sant provides us with limited insight about the provocation for such violence, and in one scene combines images of Nazism, internet gunshops and violent video-games. It is too little background and comes across as a little obvious and forced, lacking in any substance. As a result critics could argue that van Sant doesn't care about the issues, and so this film IS exploitation, being nothing more than gratuitous description.
But, I rather think that is the whole point; van Sant does not set about on a Michael Moore-esque crusade of evangelising his thoughts on the social decline that leads to such acts. Rather he presents us, quickly and without much depth, with the simple and everyday melting-pot of violence in society. That he chooses to do this with the most obvious examples is a masterstroke. The film therefore is not so much a `how could this happen?!', but more a `look how easy this is, why doesn't it happen more often?!'.
Van Sant's smooth camera distances us from any real involvement, we are merely observers to the crime, and the uneasy parting shot of a father tentatively not-quite-embracing his son is a further implication that little comfort can be offered after these events. The parent cannot protect the child, and the filmmaker cannot protect the viewer. There is no place for a Spielberg like happy ending here. It is this that makes van Sant's film so powerful and unnerving. He does not try to penetrate society to offer closure or understanding, for that is not his job. He is not a politician, and he knows it. He simply tells the story like it is, albeit in a slightly stylised way.
This is what makes Elephant so powerful, and this is why it is so much more than Bowling for Columbine.
With only a $3million budget, a cast of first time actors and little more than fifteen minutes of real-time' story, van Sant has taken a subject that Hollywood would never dare touch, and has come away with a brilliant film. Even if you criticise its obviousness and take away some credit, this is still essential viewing. Catch it while you can.
4/5