Review of Elephant (2003) by Jun C — 30 Jun 2010

More of a sequence of events than a real film, Elephant is a surprising dark mark on the record of an otherwise greatly talented director. Known as the genius behind Good Will Hunting and more recently Milk, Van Sant channels the haunting 1998 Columbine massacre in Elephant, which is advertised as a very realist portrayal of a tragic high school shooting. I'll warn you now, there are spoilers ahead.

As I said, this film can't really count as a film. We aren't given a formal introduction to the story or its characters. They show up on screen at different times without much coherence, making things somewhat hard to follow. Then there is the non-linear storyline featuring the same scenes being seen through the eyes of multiple characters, which only exacerbates this problem, because at best, the revelation that the scene is the same as an earlier one through different eyes is only revealed near the end each time, and that greatly distorts the perception of what is going on.

Now, I know that Van Sant is no idiot. Crafted as a filmmaker, I'm sure that his full intention was to have Elephant play out the way it did. But that doesn't qualify it for a Palme d'Or (the Best Picture award at Cannes), and certainly not Best Direction as well. Elephant is like a documentary without narration. And that formula can work, if your goal is to only show moving images without a clear story. That isn't what happens here.

I realize that Van Sant is gay, and like many other gay filmmakers, is keen on showing the film world a view that strays from the norm, as many of his mainstream films feature homosexual relationships. As does this one, but it is completely out of place. In the films' final moments, the two shooters' embrace in the shower together. I feel that Van Sant only added this as a last minute plot point to try and further the marginilization of the two shooters, adding to their motive. Yet, this conflicts with their comments that they are going to "have fun" doing what they are going to do. Also, Van Sant makes it visible that Alex and Eric are not popular kids at the school, featuring a scene where Alex is hit by a spitball in class. This leads the viewer to assume that bullying is a primary motivation for their actions, but their apparent excitement over their plans and fascination with weapons and violence also suggests that they are psychopaths.

The character John, who is the best candidate for protagonist of the film, is apparently friends with Alex, sees the two shooters enter the building with ominous duffel bags and full camo attire. In a direct reference to the actual Columbine shootings, they tell John to get as far away from the school as possible. John is obviously concerned with what he sees, so in line with the films' realist format, he finds the nearest authority he can to alert them of potential danger, right? Wrong. With the conviction of a sleepy wanderer, he warns incoming students to stay away from the school. after the massacre is underway, John sees his father outside of the school and explains what is taking place, and reacts rather calmly to the fact that he narrowly avoided a horrifying death.

All in all, I don't fault Gus Van Sant for wanting to make this movie. But with a subject as serious as this and a talent like Van Sant at the front, this movie fails to impress on many levels and in the end is an unlikeable and forgettable experience that feels remote and unrealistic.