Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" (IMDb listing) is set in a high school, but it is not named
Columbine. It's a story centered on average high school students who, one day
and without warning, commit acts of ultra-violence against their fellow
classmates, but they're not named Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. While
"Elephant" directly mirrors the events of the 1999 Colorado tragedy in a
fictional setting, the film isn't constructed to answer questions posed by
either itself, or the factual events it's based on. Bathed in an insincere,
"arty" glow; "Elephant" is a whopper of a misfire from the usually accountable
Van Sant.
The failure of "Elephant" wouldn't be nearly as grotesque had Van Sant not
already taken a lap around the cinema verite track with this past spring's,
"Gerry." The Matt Damon and Casey Affleck rumination on nature, survival, and
philosophy gave Van Sant a chance to work out some issues he had with modern
MTVesque filmmaking, and while it didn't capture my imagination, I respected his
vision for the arid drama. "Elephant" uses the exact same tools as "Gerry":
protracted, unbroken tracking shots capturing life inside the unnamed high
school as it happens, improvising actors that are given no direction outside of
their own marks, and a story that completely gets off on being both elusive and
debatable. Gus Van Sant has come to "Elephant" with the intention of simply
shining light on a particularly awful day at school. There is no effort to
understand the motives of the killers, the mind frame of the students, or the
reasoning behind the filmmaking. I've seen hundreds of movies that have failed
to make a point in the end, and that's been fine with me. But none in recent
memory have been so glaringly, spitefully obtuse as "Elephant." This isn't
filmmaking, just Van Sant masturbating cinematically with zero intent to examine
what he's developed. There are no answers to why events occur in
"Elephant." What's worse is that there aren't any questions either.
The picture would be an even bigger travesty if it weren't so affectionately
shot by cinematographer Harris Savides. Savides uses natural light to capture
the daily grind of high school, nurturing a promise that Van Sant might attain
the unthinkable and finally render high school properly in a major film. The
director has hired a cast of unknown, Calvin Klein-ready teenagers to portray
the students of the massacre (which is appropriately vivid), also lending the
film a prospect of authenticity. But these unprofessional kids are horrible
actors who occasionally look into the camera lens and shockingly appear
impassive and awkward during the film's climatic bloodbath. Van Sant assigns
each character a name, but fails to do anything else when it comes to a
characterization outside of that. Could the reasoning be to pursue a
thematically larger idea based on the arbitrariness of the impending massacre? I
say laziness and poor screenwriting. Watch Van Sant use bulimia and vapid
teenage girls here for comedic effect for further proof of lame content choices.
Van Sant also doesn't tax himself too hard in detailing the killers' background,
making the two bullied kids sensitive souls who play Beethoven on the piano, but
also enjoy Hitler documentaries and first-person-shooter video games. There is
also a last minute glimpse of homosexuality between the two boys that Van Sant
sets aside (cowardly, I might add) as "curiosity." Why doesn't he give them waxy
mustaches to twirl on top of that? Well, that would be making a point about the
two murderers. The last thing Van Sant wants to do in this movie is to be nailed
down to a singular and precise thought. Why, that would make "Elephant" an
actual film, wouldn't it?
At least the endless 5-minute walking takes and mind-numbing story in "Gerry"
led somewhere. "Elephant" is not nearly as neatly planned out. The end of the
film is as random as the opening, even with the dramatic foundation Van Sant
delicately lays out during the film's protracted trip to the big execution
climax. Van Sant ends the film right at the heart of an important scene. Thank
you, Gus. I guess I didn't want to know how the story ends. How's that for a big
middle finger?
I recognize the artistic exercise that Van Sant is trying to undertake with
"Elephant." I "get" the indifferent, observational camerawork and naturalist
casting choices. I wouldn't want "Elephant" to be the silly, movie-of-the-week
picture it might have been under a different filmmaker. But that's no excuse for
Gus Van Sant to put the audience through 80 minutes of something, and then have
it add up to absolutely nothing.
Filmfodder Grade: D-