Elephant 2003 Main navigation
Eigentlich ist es ein ganz normaler Tag an einer Highschool in Portland im US-Bundesstaat Oregon. Schüler und Lehrer verhalten sich wie immer, nichts deutet darauf hin, dass der ruhige Schulalltag durch irgendetwas gestört werden könnte - bis zwei. Elephant ist ein US-amerikanisches Filmdrama von Gus Van Sant aus dem Jahr Die Handlung bezieht sich sehr frei auf den Amoklauf an der Columbine. Elephant. ()IMDb h 21minR. An ordinary day at a typical American high school takes a sudden tragic turn into unspeakable violence. Winner of the. Elephant () in die Kinos, der sich dem Thema nähert: Elephant von Gus van Sant, der letztes Jahr in Cannes die Goldene Palme erhielt. Kritiken von Anja Marquardt und Svenja Alsmann zu Elephant, USA , R: Gus Van Sant. artechock – das Münchner Filmmagazin. Komplette Handlung und Informationen zu Elephant. Ein Tag an einer ganz normalen US-Highschool: es dreht sich alles um Unterricht, Freunde, Klatsch und. Elephant (). Ein von der "Columbine"-Schul-Schießerei inspieriertes Drama über einen Tag an der High School, der beginnt wie jeder andere. Ein Tag voll.
Thanks for subscribing! Look out for your first newsletter in your inbox soon! Go to the content Go to the footer Close Worldwide icon-chevron-right Worldwide.
Time Out Worldwide. Get us in your inbox Sign up to our newsletter for the latest and greatest from your city and beyond. We already have this email.
Try another? My Account My Profile Sign out. Using common sense and the school shooting that have been recorded on video tape think Columbine show that people act differently - more sensibly.
This movie was made very strangely in an artsy sort of fashion that does not suit the topic at all. Tony-from-Austin 14 October This movie Elephant was so bad.
I encourage everyone to not see it. Personally, I have a high tolerance for boredom but some of you probably do not. If it is possible to die from tedium then this flick is the litmus test.
I am not going to harp on any details but I would like to make a couple of personal observations. First Roger Ebert's reviews are worthless.
The fact that he raved about this movie while dropping GVS's name and stating his warped views on the media verses movies is proof enough. He is just too much of an insider and an academic for most of us.
Second personal point, Gus Van Sant's success has gone to his head. This movie is not even a good "typical day" at a high school. Or at least not any high school that I have been to.
Geez Louise was I wrong. Moral of the story: Never trust a director or a movie critic. If you liked Elephant then I strongly suggest you also see Warhol's Sleep Making a vacuum out of a tragedy adamk-2 10 February Imagine it: A horrific tragedy has taken place in a local school, the violence and inexplicability of which has stunned everyone who has heard of it.
A meeting is announced that will address the issues that such an event has raised. You ask. That's it? But I did take some nice photos".
That's "Elephant". It would be hard to tackle such a topic without sinking into "Movie of the Week" territory, so Van Sant avoids this by sitting down and not doing much of anything.
But artfully. Why was this film made? What does it tell us about the events? That they happened. What does he tell us about the victims?
Nothing, absolutely nothing. We follow them around, interminably I feel I knew the backs of their heads intimately, if nothing else and it's a lot like reality tv -- dull: uninvolving, unrevealing and uneventful.
What does it tell us about the perpetrators? Nothing we don't already know, haven't already read. It exists in its own universe, blank and unfeeling, a perfect circle, Art for Art's sake.
As far as it goes, there are some beautiful touches, here -- the overlapping time frames, the slowing down of the action to signify a small, private, joyful moment -- but Van Sant bottles out on taking them anywhere, afraid as he seems to be of taking a stand, making a statement or engaging, emotionally, in any way with anything here.
All in all, an Artsy and pointless exercise in navel-gazing, one that masquerades as something much deeper, and hopes its own silence and blankness will be taken for wisdom.
An actual massacre happened in Littleton , we all know about it. Great tragedy , absolutely horrid thing. And what do the makers of " Elephant " do with this extremely strong and powerful material?
They create a disaster of a movie. It was like trying to make a gallon of lemonade by using just a couple of lemons.
So the result has to be almost unwatchable - at least to me. The author seemed to have started from the assumption that long scenes devoid of any significant events , confusing ending , lack of acting , lack of real characters , and sadistic and tedious filming of absolutely boring and trivial behavior is what the art's all about.
Come on , what's so artsy and creative about a camera that simply follows a kid on his way through the school halls that goes on and on for minutes without any other event worth mentioning?
We don't even get to know who these kids actually are - there's too much time spent on showing banalities of an everyday life. That's supposed to be a movie about one of the worst school shootings ever?
If so , that's one of the worst movies ever that cover the subject. I couldn't take it in just one sitting but in three - and it's just a little over one hour long.
Dentists can use it instead of anesthetics , psychiatrists can use it to cure insomniacs. It's mind - numbing , hypnotizing in it's slowness and apathy.
But hey , if it's boring , it will be recognized as art. At least you can't say it's just entertainment 'cause there's nothing entertaining about it.
I'd actually like to rate it with a 0 , but since 0 is not available ,here's 1 out of More than enough , as far as I'm concerned.
I had high expectation going into the movie "Elephant" and was extremely disappointed. This movie is a look in the day of a school shooting, much like Columbine.
It takes the audience through the high school and some of it's students, basically their day to day activities following up to the shootings.
The movie has been praised for its unbiased look at theses events. It's true it doesn't take any sides and offers no real explanation for the horrible events that transpired.
It also doesn't show anything about the students involved either victims or victimizers. This movie was painful for me to watch.
There is really nothing good I can say about it. But there are lots of things that I can complain about.
I am still baffled at the praise this movie received and maybe I just don't get this style of film making but this is the worst movie I have seen in a very long time and I believe it deserves to be in the IMDb bottom My first problem with the movie is its pace.
It has very long sequences of people walking around, nothing more but people walking around and we see every step that person takes from point A to point B for no good reason other than to see them walking.
There is also a one minute sequence showing the sky and clouds, nothing more for a full minute. Again, maybe I just don't get these films but that to me isn't artistic or edgy it's pretentious and boring.
The film makers try to create an atmosphere or reality and in my opinion they fail miserably. The "objective" view they try and create just takes away from the story they're trying to tell.
Essentially, the people watching the movie don't care what happens to any of these characters because we don't know any of them.
How are we supposed to care who dies if we don't find anything about them besides how the back of their heads look when they walk?
The only thing that we do learn about the students are a group of "popular" girls who are superficial and don't eat and then throw up what they do eat.
It doesn't show us anything, not the people being attacked nor the people attacking. So we are left to believe that theses two kids who know nothing about just woke up one day and decided to shoot the school.
What took them to such horrible and violent actions? This bothered me so much about the movie, and it bothers me even more that no one seemed to mind.
While other movies are attacked for their lack of character development this one is praised. The last thing that bothered me about this movie was the acting.
If they were trying to make this look real they should have hired actors that could actually act. I swear the dialog sounded like that of a soap opera.
It was terrible, not like they had a world shattering script to work with. The most random things happened for no good reason. There's a scene where a boy is crying and this girl enters and asks him if he's OK and that he's crying and that's it, that's the entire scene.
Nothing really happens through out the movie. This movie had the potential to be great. And I get that the film makers wanted to show us a glimpse of the school shootings and still remain objective.
That's fine but they could have told a story while they were at it. They could have gotten the audience invested in the film by showing us the lives of these students, who they were, what they did, what they were going to do.
Most importantly they could have showed us why these two teenage boys decided to shoot up their school.
Instead we get over an hour of people walking and extremely bad acting. So disappointing. I have seen a lot of movies. I enjoy artistic film.
I enjoy independent film. I don't even need a traditional plot or storyline. I consider myself to be intelligent. It's not that I think the people on IMDb are unintelligent.
I think at times they might overestimate the quality of recent films, but it just baffles my mind that even accounting for all difference of opinion, this movie could achieve an average score of over 5.
I don't know if this is really a spoiler, but I just wanted to be sure The ending was pointless. Great, we don't see a shot and there's suspense.
Maybe someone will find that intelligent just like the other vague directions thrown in and odd shots which desperately hope to confuse someone into believing there's something beneath the surface of this ridiculously simple and poorly executed piece of trash.
There are very few films which manage to keep the entire audience seated through the credits, but this is one of those few, at least at the screening I attended.
Ok, so the abrupt nature of the ending may also have had something to do with that, but I felt that rare feeling of total dislocation and nausea once the film was over, so realistic and horrific was the violence.
This disjointed examination of the causes of a Columbine style shooting works so much better, I think, than a 'straight' drama would have done.
In destroying our expectations of a traditional narrative and avoiding what could have easily become cliched characterization, Gus Van Sant also demonstrates what the probable reality of a situation like this would have been, which is senseless, anti-heroic and totally random.
A lesser version of this story would have had Michelle, the geeky outcast, or Benny, the brave and silent student who helps a distressed student out of a window become heroes.
Their inherent goodness or strength would have them saved. Here, they are simply snatched away from us without glory, fanfare or mourning. Van Sant's method of using long shots without dialogue or cuts works brilliantly, not only lending the film a doomy atmosphere, but also a highly lyrical quality that captures perfectly the isolation and loneliness of these characters, so often unable to communicate.
These kids talk about nothing, and everything, their brief, clipped conversations pregnant with subtext. It is as close as a fictional film has come to creating truly believable, real people in recent memory Harmony Korine 'Kids' also comes to mind.
Being less than two years out of school, one of the elements I appreciated most was the way in which the film captured the social structures of school, and that all enveloping feeling that everything is so important.
After all this delicate build up, the shooting feels like a truly cataclysmic, apocalyptic event.
That Van Sant shoots one seemingly unimportant scene from three points of view further enhances the sense of the randomness, and at the same time the inevitability of this event.
The violence itself is extremely well handled, never glorifying or even being too explicit, and is yet completely devastating.
The only area of the film that I felt was unconvincing was the build up that we saw from the killers point of view.
Having them watch a documentary about Hitler seems too heavy handed, and the nature of the relationship between the two is far too undersketched, and unnecessarily complicated by having then kiss in the shower.
Ultimately however, this is a powerful film, beautifully and sensitively made. It is one of those films, alongside Schindler's List that should be compulsory viewing for school children.
It's shocking nature would be best utilized for people of this age, as I feel it would no doubt help kids to think more carefully about their actions to others.
What was supposed to be serious movie showing us the reality of a school shooting presumably Columbine ended up being mostly very boring and repetitive with some sequences even being unintentionally hilarious the shower scene especially.
Parts of it are very cheesy E. The acting is terrible, the ways the director tries to immerse us into the story are very obvious and obviously not working.
You could walk in an hour into the movie and not miss any important information. The movie, aside from trying to tackle the problem of school shooting and general violence, also takes n numerous problems of young people, including eating disorders, low self- esteem, parent's alcoholism and teenage pregnancy.
The intent is very noble and i get what he was trying to do but i find the execution very disappointing, especially for a film tackling such an important topic.
WriterDave 3 October I've never been a believer in Gus Van Sant the auteur. Van Sant's mainstream films were successful for reasons beyond his artistic input.
Here, with "Elephant" Van Sant returns to the same pretty North Western scenery just an in "Drugstore Cowboy" the movie was filmed on location in Portland, Oregon and populates it with even prettier young men and women sleepwalking through an "interpretation" of the events of the Columbine Massacre.
There's an elegant listlessness to the camera-work as Van Sant lulls us into a beautifully mundane day in the life of some random high school students.
There's a creepy undercurrent, not only in the voyeuristic way in which he films his young charges, but also in the long lingering single shots of students walking through hallways and sidewalks from behind.
Suddenly, as the plot of two alienated young men comes to fruition, you realize that the camera-work is meant to copy the "killer's-eye-view" of the violent and sadistic video games the young men play before making it a reality at their school.
There's a rising tension that few film-makers have been able to craft, and for that Van Sant deserves accolades.
For all the artificial prettiness, this is without a doubt a highly disturbing viewing experience. In the end, some of it seemed too random what was the point of the "Benny" character or the kiss in the shower?
A more capable story-teller would have offered a conclusion, but all Van Sant leaves us is with some haunting classical music and beautiful shot of a cloud covered North Western sky.
Normally, movies have certain things in them. A script, being one, and actor s , being another. Sure, there are many more things to be involved, but in simplified terms, these are two of the core pieces of a film.
Elephant, amazingly enough, seems to have neither. Instead, a complete lack of script and acting talent combine to form this voltron of bad movies.
As predictable as always, film student types will hail this movie as having moved them, or shown them things they hadn't seen before, or whatever recycled crap these "artists" get shoved down their throats by their unemployed teachers.
This movie shows nothing, creates nothing, and explores nothing. Nothing about it is shocking or revealing as Van Sant makes no effort to explore the characters in the movie other than a superficial treatment that consists mostly of watching people walk around.
People will say, "oh, but thats the point, that it is superficial," or "it's supposed to be detached, blah blah blah. I'm sick of people defending movies that do nothing for the medium.
The characters in this "film" are the most two-dimensional I've ever seen. You get minimal insight into their lives, their families, their problems, and whatever else might have made an interesting movie.
Now be careful, this may be a spoiler for you if you live under a rock, so watch out! So, how am I supposed to care about these kids?
It's obvious that they're gonna get gunned down, and unfortunately, that's all I was looking forward to so I could finally pop this movie out of the DVD player and immediately return it.
All van Sant did was take advantage of a touchy subject in the media and make a 20 minute movie that he stretches into an 80 minute with 60 minutes of people walking.
What this movie needed was good, witty dialogue to keep you intrigued and make you feel like you could have know some of the people in this movie.
Of course, that would have required actors, as well, but even these kids would have been much better with some direction.
All i could think of when watching this pile of feces was the scene in "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" when Gus van Sant is too busy counting money to direct a scene, although I doubt he even made it the one day shoot that "Elephant" seems to have been.
I could go on and on about other things, mostly technical in terms of errors, lighting, continuity, and blatant lack of effort, but I've already wasted enough time on this movie.
As someone who was in high school during the Columbine shootings, I feel a connection and sensitivity to the events, and to what it was like to be a teenager at that particular time.
This was when people first took to obsessing over violence in video games, and song lyrics were being blamed for kids' bad behavior.
I feel that this movie only contributes to the paranoid, "look how messed up kids are today" feeling among masses of parents and legislators, and fails to present any actual insight.
It is a voyeuristic dramatization of tragic events without the complexity of building fully developed characters, offering hope in the midst of despair, or even taking a fresh look at things we have all seen before.
I used to think Van Sant's films ranged from OK to ho-hum, but "Good Will Hunting" seemed awfully mellow, and I was later traumatized by his atrocious remake of "Psycho", which is certainly one of the most inept and incomprehensible Hollywood ventures ever.
Well, "Elephant" turns out to be a major disappointment! At first glance, "Elephant" is just another of Van Sant's mixed bag: some qualities the imaginative camera-work, the throbbing subject, his refusal to play the accelerated beat that is a disease in Hollywood films and the quota of letdowns the stereotyped characters, the poor acting, the "mod" editing, the tentative script.
But at the end of the day, it's the kind of film that for people like me - a Third World South American citizen - is above all a chance to find out what a U.
In a very "soft" way - so soft it might go unnoticed - Van Sant portrays the American educational system as a failure, a monumental bore that produces superficial, empty minds, a sort of walking zombies -- and do they walk in this movie!!
We can also witness the gigantic gap in communication between parents and kids, the superficiality of relationships among family, friends, lovers, teachers and pupils , and the very real threat of neo-fascism in America as well as in Europe -- q.
Above all, we can witness America's fascination with guns and violence -- I wonder if U. Instead he decides to show his loving compassion for these kids and portray them as sad, naive victims of loser parents and a flawed system.
Well, some alarming thoughts occur for Third-World audiences such as myself and my friends, for instance : hey, he's not talking about poor orphaned abandoned American kids with no access to education, food, welfare, health, work, future - he's showing privileged, white, healthy, pink-faced, cereal-eating kids, with every mean at their disposal to make political decisions and establish new directions for their generation in U.
I was particularly disgusted that Van Sant decided that the killer should be a sexually inexperienced, Beethoven-loving teenager with a closeted gay tendency.
What a fabulous contribution to the gay movement!! And to classical music!! Maybe Van Sant's romantic, detached and "neutral" position on such important and eminently political matters is the most striking and disappointing feature in this film.
After the flops of "Psycho" and "Finding Forrester", it seems Van Sant is healthily going back to his beginnings in low-budget independent films, and that's great news.
But maybe his "walking movies" as opposed to "road movies" with their lethargic pace, political neutrality and reflexive mood aren't the best and most respectful way to treat tragic, traumatic, urgent issues like the repeated episodes of mass-killing in American schools.
I hope he'll find other themes better suited to his lightweight style. They weren't gay, they both killed themselves, it started in the kitchen not the library, they were listening to music on headphones while doing it..
If i were in the family with them i would sue. This movie sucks. It has nothing to say, and offers no wisdom about the incident.
It is simply a re-enactment, and an incredibly boring one at that. Naturally, the ending is entertaining from a graphical perspective, but the director really was not home when he put together this film.
The hype from the film festivals is just the typical movie industry orgy about blowing a lot of hot air about a 'critical issue of our time'.
I expect this sort of thing from the Academy Awards, but I am sorry to see the European film festivals are just as subject to 'group think' and hype as the Americans.
The issue may be serious, but the movie is simply a base attempt to capitalize on a news event. This was seriously terrible.
The WHOLE way through, it just felt like a group of people were like "Hey, let's make a movie about a school shooting", but didn't want to put any effort into the actual movie so they just briefly introduced a heap of random and weakly interrelated characters with a name screen, and then a ten minute scene where they would each would walk in circles around the school.
The whole movie was filler, except for the fifteen minutes where the shooting actually took place. Random angles were just thrown into the movie, but nothing came out of them at all, once again it seemed they were just there to flesh it out to 80 minutes.
And of course, the school shooters spent the morning of the shooting watching Triumph of the Will. Oh of course, the school shooters must be Nazis!
The fact that the character that I found myself most emotionally attached to was one that was introduced after the shooting began, probably the last 10 minutes or so, had no lines, and did nothing but slowly walk around, just shows that I'm not exaggerating this at all, there really was no character development happening at all.
I know people have been defending this as "it was meant to be just an ordinary day in high school, there wasn't meant to be all this crazy and spectacular characters running around, etc" but that's just bullshit.
Or I guess you could bring in a heap of them and just have them walk around. I'm not actually sure if there was a script for this movie, because a lot of the dialogue seems improvised, especially between the students themselves.
Elephant 2003 Kritik der FILMSTARTS-Redaktion
Diane Keaton. Paranoid Park. Der Film wurde ab dem Bester amerikanischer Film. Ein Freund von Weise sagte, er habe den Film zu einem Freund nach Hause gebracht und sei zu Teilen übergegangen, in denen zwei Schüler ein Schulmassaker planten und durchführten. Kommentare JavaScript muss aktiviert sein, um dieses Formular zu verwenden. Wikiquote Komödie Marquardt Zitate zu: Valedictorian Deutsch Film. Gus van Sant. Der Film trat im Mai bei den Filmfestspielen von Cannes an. Irgendwie waren die letzten minuten so schockierend das niemand aufgestnaden ist. Kommentar speichern. Filmtyp Spielfilm. An Kostenlos Filme Download ganz normalen TagDoesn't offer any answers either, it just presents tragedy as what it is. Senseless and confusing. I wrote this little paragraph just to at least express something about this movie:.
Ahh, I'm so conflicted on what to say about this. The good in this is very limited. It is infuriating with the way it presents itself, the message and topic of discussion.
For know I'll leave it here. It does nothing to help or ask questions about the events. Long travelling shots follow assorted students around an Oregon high school on an average day… which also happens to be the day two of the students carry out a Columbine-type massacre.
The film pads the brutalities in amongst the banalities of daily existence in suburban America, making a point of how random and—generally but not specifically—predictable such acts of violence have become in a country enamoured by guns.
A reminder during the lulls between actual school shootings that the next one of these inevitable acts is coming to come and come again and that the US has far more soul searching to do and tough decisions to make to start restricting guns and removing them from the equation.
How would a high school kid become a victim of society, politics, Vandalism and deformed human Identity is what this movie will show you with a poetic slauther.
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth. No motives. We know nothing. You can never know what truly goes on in the minds of the disturbed unless have one.
I highly recommend this film, it hurts to know that school shootings are such a common occurrence these days. And that this could very easily happen to any one of us.
I needed a way to explain to myself how everyone was so calm about two kids shooting up a school so I came up with two interpretations:.
Un retrato de un evento sin pies ni cabeza. All the films from all the editions, including those subsequently removed, presently totalling An easy way of seeing how….
One of the worst performances of my…. Step One : Go to www. Step Two : Pick a Number. Just a list of some pretty cool movie posters on the LB database.
I haven't seen most of these movies. Where to watch Trailer. Except that it's not. Director Gus Van Sant. Movies Like Elephant. Two quirky, cynical teenaged girls try to figure out what to do with t Michael Moore's view on what happened to the United States after Septe An average family is thrust into the spotlight after the father commit This is not a film about gun control.
It is a film about the fearful h Erika Kohut, a sexually repressed piano teacher living with her domine As the devoutly single Don Johnston is dumped by his latest girlfriend Selma, a Czech immigrant on the verge of blindness, struggles to make Movies Streaming Now Enola Holmes.
The Devil All the Time. Although Alex and Eric are seen as the victims of bullying, and the pair have carefully plotted their attack, most of the violence is committed with a detached sense of randomness.
Gus Van Sant. Dany Wolf. Mar 23, HBO Theatrical Documentary. Alex Frost Alex. Eric Deulen Eric. John Robinson John McFarland. Elias McConnell Elias.
Jordan Taylor Jordan. Carrie Finklea Carrie. Nicole George Nicole. Brittany Mountain Brittany. Alicia Miles Acadia. Kristen Hicks Michelle.
Gus Van Sant Director. Diane Keaton Executive Producer. LeRoy Associate Producer. Bill Robinson Executive Producer. Dany Wolf Producer.
Harris Savides Cinematographer. Gus Van Sant Film Editor. Mali Finn Casting. Danny Stoltz Casting. Benjamin Hayden Art Direction. March 12, Full Review….
April 24, Full Review…. January 26, Full Review…. July 25, Full Review…. April 6, Full Review…. February 2, Full Review…. April 29, Rating: 3.
View All Critic Reviews May 29, Get ready, parents, because this is the first high-profile film about a high school shooting, but don't get too concerned about copy-cats, because these days, it's become a little more popular for kids to kill themselves, especially if they're gay.
What ever ends up happening, with all due respect, the Elephant Man didn't feel like shoot up a school, so I'm thinking that these gay kids might need to get over it.
Man, if anyone can take the story of the Columbine massacre and make it about gay people problems, while moving the setting to Portland, Oregon, no less, it's Gus Van Sant, although that's not to say that this film is as grounded as his usual endeavors.
I mean, it's the follow-up to "Gerry", and sure enough, it's so avant-garde that it's not actually about an elephant, like, at all, outside of weird, random imagery, that is I guess it's not too hard to ignore the elephant in the room in this case.
Shoot, maybe this film can't get too much more avant-garde after all, because it did end up winning the Palme d'Or, and I don't think I'd like to see a film get much more abstract than that.
Shoot, maybe my mood swings are about as bad as those made by the teens in this film, because I'm back to saying that this film stands to be more tediously abstract, as it would have been if it wasn't for certain strengths.
Underusing a minimal classical soundtrack, albeit not as much as "Gerry", this film's unoriginal score, when incorporated, captures the awkward intensity which defines this psychological drama's tone with a certain personal beauty, just as Harris Savides' cinematography proves to be tonally and aesthetically sharp, with slightly more distinguished coloration than the visual style of "Gerry" to make up for less lovely scenery, which is still intriguingly explored with an immersive extensiveness to tight framing and nifty tracking shots.
Musical and visual artistry are limited, but sharper than they were in a predecessor that, if nothing else, had aesthetic value going for it, thus, this film proves to at least be stylistically impressive, sometimes in a manner that compliments substance.
If style does compliment substance, then it's largely thanks to Gus Van Sant's directorial orchestration, whose minimalism drives the film from decency, all but secured by admittedly compelling highlights in Van Sant's inspiration as a thoughtful storyteller and director of talented performers.
Being naturalist, this film provides minimal acting material for a cast of talented unknowns, yet when these talents find an opportunity to flaunt their chops, they drive the opus with a dramatic bite which ranges from chillingly subtle to intense, drawing you into the heart of the characters with whom this drama is very intimate.
No matter how much the execution tries to bring style over substance and underplay the development of its characters as more than just thematic compliments, this story concept is that of a character study, and a worthy one, which has the potential to bite deeply as a meditation upon the mental and emotional instability of youths who take part in or fall victim to a terrible, terrible tragedy.
This potential is thoroughly betrayed by a questionable ambition to flesh out artistry beyond drama, but it's nevertheless palpable enough, largely through highlights in style and storytelling, for the final product to at least border on decent.
It's certain better than "Gerry", I can give it that, but no much more than that, because no matter how clear the strengths are, the issues are clearer, and not even unfamiliar.
The film isn't even as conventional as "Gerry", though that might simply be because more filmmakers are comfortable with telling the tale of some bums who get stranded from society than they are with telling the tale of society or whatever driving youths to kill a bunch of people, because when it comes to the interpretation of this unique and worthy subject matter, it's more of the same overstylization that is bland enough without the familiarity, as surely as it distances you from the characters enough without backing an underdeveloped script.
To be so intimate with its characters, this film offers hardly anything in the way of background development for the leads, and it's not as though it says that much with all of its meditations when it comes to gradual exposition, because even in the script substance is underplayed, typically for the sake of style.
I emphasize that style is played over substance "typically", because there are times in which visual style joins storytelling focus in being abandoned for sheer nothingness, and when substance does come into play, it's in a convolutedly nonlinear and intentionally uneven form that, just like the nothingness, is more frustrating than distinguished.
With all that said, the film is more grounded than "Gerry", and that both helps in making a less tedious film, and works against the film, as it actually gives you a greater feel for just how disconcerting the offbeat storytelling aspects are by comparison, alone, even though all storytelling styles at least keep consistent in dragging.
Running only a mere 81 minutes, the film is so short, so one would figure that it wouldn't take too much time to drags its feet, but considering that substance is so thin, to the point of borderline plotlessness, the final product is predominantly dragging, made all the more tedious by the thoughtfulness to Gus Van Sant's direction that doesn't have any dramatic material to subtly draw upon, resulting in serious limp spells that end up making up the final product.
Unfocused and draggy, with a quiet intensity that is more dry than biting, this film, plain and simple, is challengingly dull, perhaps even tedious, but, again, not quite "Gerry", largely due to Van Sant's all but losing a sense of artistic unassurance, while unfortunately still retaining a sense of pretense.
There's a hint of charm to Van Sant's direction, and it's not like Van Sant doesn't deliver on his ambitions at times, but when it's all said and done, the filmmaker demands your investment, and it's just so hard to give, as the film is so questionably, if not messily crafted that no matter how effective it occasionally is, the final product falls flat as yet another misguided artistic misfire.
In the end, lovely unoriginal scoring and cinematography carry a stylistic sharpness, while highlights in direction and acting provide glimpses of a more worthy interpretation of worthy subject matter, ultimately overshadowed by familiarity to style, underdevelopment to characters, and bloating and unevenness to a questionable storytelling style which abandons dramatic focus for the sake of a pretentious and tediously dull, offbeat sparsity that drives Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" flat as a hopelessly misguided and ultimately mediocre abstractionist interpretation of certain disturbances within and disturbing actions of youths.
Cameron J Super Reviewer. Sep 22, I'm coming to realize that school shooting movies might not be my thing. In all fairness the only other one I recall seeing is We Need to Talk About Kevin, which wasn't per say a shooting, but it has a similar theme.
I've also come to realize Gus Van Sant isn't really connecting with me. Elephant follows a similar narration to Paranoid Park with the loop concept.
With Paranoid Park I thought this was an up for the film, since without it the movie would be desert dry.
In this case though I believe it hurt the film, due to the repetitive nature, and lack of action. This film is highly minimalistic. It requires little, the only time the score is apparent is the DVD menu.
Before the shooting occurs this film has its moments, something I noticed was the great body language acting. The decision to bring in no name actors really worked well, with the genuine feeling.
The bulimic scene was pretty funny, but not as shocking as I think it was intended to be. By giving the killers a face, despite not a character, it made them a lot more detestable.
A queer slim shady wanna be and his sadistic boyfriend, these are people I wouldn't be fond of even if they didn't shoot up a school.
This award winning film wasn't shocking to me, but I did appreciate some of the factors to it. Daniel D Super Reviewer.
Marychris Tom Pelphrey. I wrote this little paragraph just to at least express something about this movie: Ahh, Serie Punisher so conflicted on what to say about this. This film is highly minimalistic. The only thing Fatima Film we do learn about the students are a group of "popular" girls who are superficial and don't eat and then throw up what they do eat. Godeater d'Or Top. Leopard Katze [ first lines ] Mr. Added to Watchlist. The ending was pointless. That's "Elephant". As my radio co-host, Clay Lowe, reminds me from our conversation with the director, in Van Sant's Zen Buddhist way, he Ursula Andress James Bond to be saying the reasons for the crime are unknowable like human existence itself.Elephant 2003 Movies Like Elephant Video
ELEPHANT (2003) — Limitations of PerceptionElephant 2003 Navigation menu Video
Elephant (2003) - Trailer Der Film endet abrupt, als Ich – Einfach Unverbesserlich 3 ein Pärchen entdeckt, das sich im Kühlhaus versteckt hat, und seine Waffe auf das Paar anlegt. Es wurde über 20 Tage gedreht. Whitaker wurde von den Portland Public Schools wegen struktureller Probleme und Sicherheitsbedenken im Schulgebäude geschlossen. John Robinson. Ein Freund von Daniel Baldwin sagte, er habe den Film zu einem Freund nach Sarkasmus Schild gebracht und sei zu Teilen übergegangen, in denen zwei Schüler ein Schulmassaker planten und durchführten. Diese in Elephant 2003 Zeit etwas strapazierte Erzählmethode gewinnt in Elephant eine neue Kraft, indem Sendung Ver das Bild der sich kreuzenden Schicksale in jene schreckliche Banalität überführt, die im Katastrophenfall so eine fatale Schwerkraft erlangt. Nathan Tyson.
Elefant ( Film) - Elephant ( film). Aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie. Dieser Artikel handelt vom Film. Das Album The White. Gus Van Sant, USA, , 81min, Gus Van Sants Elephant, eine Art Bowling for Columbine ohne Besserwisserei, ist eine der eindringlichsten. Elephant ein Film von Gus Van Sant mit Alex Frost, John Robinson (IV). Inhaltsangabe: In einer Highschool in einer US-Kleinstadt geht alles seinen normalen. Elephant. Drama, USA , 81 Minuten, ab Originaltitel: Elephant kehrt mit Elephant wieder zu seinen Independent-Wurzeln zurück. Elephant 2003 Hauptnavigation
Neben John, der Schwierigkeiten hat, seinen alkoholkranken Vater zu kontrollieren, baut der Fotografiestudent Elias ein Portfolio anderer Studenten auf. Rashomon — Das Lustwäldchen. Aber vielleicht deutet sich die finale Katastrophe Davinci Brautmoden doch an, vielleicht sind jene vordergründig beiläufigen Blicke gen Himmel doch bedeutungsvoller als beim ersten Sehen angenommen. User folgen Follower Lies die Kritiken. Das könnte dich auch interessieren. Elephant Trailer DF. Nutzer haben kommentiert. Dieselbe allgemeine Zeitleiste wird aus mehreren Blickwinkeln mehrmals angezeigt. FSK 12 [1].Elephant 2003 - Inhaltsangabe & Details
Filme wie Elephant. Nutzer haben kommentiert. Luce, er solle Kinder nicht wie ihn und Alex schlecht behandeln. Bester amerikanischer Film. Mehr erfahren. They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? Jeder bzw. Seattle Fire Movies. Gus van Sant. Es ist anspruchsvolles Kino das man nicht so leicht Dügün Dernek.
Wacker, Ihre Phrase ist glänzend
Nach meiner Meinung lassen Sie den Fehler zu. Ich kann die Position verteidigen. Schreiben Sie mir in PM, wir werden besprechen.
Welche nötige Wörter... Toll, die bemerkenswerte Phrase