"Elephant" is rich in authentic detail and vivid fracas. What it entirely misses, however, is any kind of attempt at explaining the reasons for Eric and Alex's killing spree. Van Sant illustrates, but he fails to illuminate. Asked about what kind of insights he gained from making the film, Van Sant said something about creating a "thought machine" rather than a film that provides solutions.
I'm not sure what a "thought machine" is, but I know sensationalism when I see it. "Elephant" has nothing whatsoever to add to the debate about violence in schools. When the movie starts, Eric and Alex have already decided on their course of action.
Anybody who is in possession of a functioning imagination and has read about Columbine, seen the TV images or security camera footage, will learn nothing from "Elephant." - Jugen Fauth
This stupid review pissed me off!
I also happen to think van sant is one of those few in the US film business whose 'personal' films, in substance and language, make me forget that I'm watching an 'american' fim.
p.s: This 'Culture' category is annoying when we already have a 'General Discussion'. What do you mean by 'General' and 'Culture'? Anything is cultural...
Interestingly "Elephant" was very well received here in Europe (Palm d'Or etc.), just because it didn't give any simple answers, only hinted at a lot of explanations. I don't dare to speculate if there is a cultural difference in how a piece of art is judged in America compared to Europe, but I recall some older discussions on Archinect where art was seen a bit like a rhebus that was supposed to be "decoded" and understood. Maybe this also explains why "Elephant" is supposed to learn us something, according to Jugen Fauth.
I found the movie fantastic, one of the highlights of last year, not only because of the magnificent camerawork and sound editing. But I'm also perplexed by Gus van Sant's uneven output: Gerry, My Own Private Idaho, Elephant, but also To Die For, Psycho and Good Will Hunting.
Yes, also his bizzare (and somewhat unresolved I feel) Uma Thurmon's thumb fronted Even Cowgirls Get the Blues...there are sympathies with Tim Burton (mutation, strangeness and 'otherness' as beauty) and Almadovaresque camp angst (or rather the angst of camp).
I quite disliked Good Will Hunting...and not because its meant to be commercial..I found it pathetic...milking Pathos for what its worth. It made me feel a little sick , maybe because it reminded me of a time I'd rather forget when I was an adolescent reading Hesse's The Prodigy , Thomas Mann's short stories of self-destructive offbeat characters 'bourgeois maque'..only those characters usually were killed off...or grew up to be old and bitter..then died.
But you could see ,in Good Will, van Sant's affection for 'otherness' as he represents genius (' a strange creature amongst us')...and that final moment of parting at the end is also consistent with his other work...an understated depiction that has this melancholic yet detached surrealism to it...
Anyways...The posted review is not just representative of what some , or many, expect of films that chronicle reality....i.e showing an attempt at EXPLAINING reality...'making sense of it all'...not only does it connote that in some way such a film should be an extension of the sanctioned discourse of cause-effect logic (why, when, how..) but it also uncovers, through its expectations and disappointments, a sort of national domestication of tragedy...
Moore is the true american hero/anti hero because his 'docu'-films are full blooded macho (yes..very alphamale, though he is not sexist in beliefs) orgasms of Truth Denied...he is as self-righteous as Bush...They are paperthin comic characters (you choose the hero/antihero), a polar reflection of each other. 'Elephant' disappoints the audience of theatrical brashness...it is an invisibly moody almost cold recluse, like a shy introvert gay teenager. The above-mentioned review unwittingly measures this film against a tradition of expression that is direct, hot blooded and knows no eccentricity.
What interests me is how tragedies like Columbine shooting and the September 11th have been rationalized within a form of , well trained.heeled and established ,usually also nationalist, positivism underlaying the reiview. And to divert from the principles of such a moral positivism is itself seen as sort of treason. In the review..van Sant's film is not just seen as a failure...but ,more quitely and subtley, as a traitor...for not celebrating the tragedies in the orthodox sanctioned manner. The reviewer doesnt see that van Sant's film is the product of a knowing intelligence that seeks to challenge those very principles behind the review...
I agree with all above. Van Sandt is less interested in exposing any singular causes of these events, and is willing to simply engage in the complexity of issues affecting an average american teenager. You could juxtapose this tactic with that of Catherine Hardwicke's "Thirteen", in which the entire film seems to be driven by a distant moralist gaze, rather than a social inquiry. Unlike Van Sant, she is actively seeking a ethical datum, off which she can render the countless influences within modern-day youth culture, as distinct and visible. Honestly, if my mother were to create a movie about the tribulations of teenage life, it would resemble "Thirteen".
Oddly enough, Fauth's good friend, Marcy Dermansky, gave "Thirteen" a glowing review.
Jul 9, 04 10:59 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Will the Real Columbine please stand up!
"Elephant" is rich in authentic detail and vivid fracas. What it entirely misses, however, is any kind of attempt at explaining the reasons for Eric and Alex's killing spree. Van Sant illustrates, but he fails to illuminate. Asked about what kind of insights he gained from making the film, Van Sant said something about creating a "thought machine" rather than a film that provides solutions.
I'm not sure what a "thought machine" is, but I know sensationalism when I see it. "Elephant" has nothing whatsoever to add to the debate about violence in schools. When the movie starts, Eric and Alex have already decided on their course of action.
Anybody who is in possession of a functioning imagination and has read about Columbine, seen the TV images or security camera footage, will learn nothing from "Elephant." - Jugen Fauth
This stupid review pissed me off!
I also happen to think van sant is one of those few in the US film business whose 'personal' films, in substance and language, make me forget that I'm watching an 'american' fim.
p.s: This 'Culture' category is annoying when we already have a 'General Discussion'. What do you mean by 'General' and 'Culture'? Anything is cultural...
Interestingly "Elephant" was very well received here in Europe (Palm d'Or etc.), just because it didn't give any simple answers, only hinted at a lot of explanations. I don't dare to speculate if there is a cultural difference in how a piece of art is judged in America compared to Europe, but I recall some older discussions on Archinect where art was seen a bit like a rhebus that was supposed to be "decoded" and understood. Maybe this also explains why "Elephant" is supposed to learn us something, according to Jugen Fauth.
I found the movie fantastic, one of the highlights of last year, not only because of the magnificent camerawork and sound editing. But I'm also perplexed by Gus van Sant's uneven output: Gerry, My Own Private Idaho, Elephant, but also To Die For, Psycho and Good Will Hunting.
Yes, also his bizzare (and somewhat unresolved I feel) Uma Thurmon's thumb fronted Even Cowgirls Get the Blues...there are sympathies with Tim Burton (mutation, strangeness and 'otherness' as beauty) and Almadovaresque camp angst (or rather the angst of camp).
I quite disliked Good Will Hunting...and not because its meant to be commercial..I found it pathetic...milking Pathos for what its worth. It made me feel a little sick , maybe because it reminded me of a time I'd rather forget when I was an adolescent reading Hesse's The Prodigy , Thomas Mann's short stories of self-destructive offbeat characters 'bourgeois maque'..only those characters usually were killed off...or grew up to be old and bitter..then died.
But you could see ,in Good Will, van Sant's affection for 'otherness' as he represents genius (' a strange creature amongst us')...and that final moment of parting at the end is also consistent with his other work...an understated depiction that has this melancholic yet detached surrealism to it...
Anyways...The posted review is not just representative of what some , or many, expect of films that chronicle reality....i.e showing an attempt at EXPLAINING reality...'making sense of it all'...not only does it connote that in some way such a film should be an extension of the sanctioned discourse of cause-effect logic (why, when, how..) but it also uncovers, through its expectations and disappointments, a sort of national domestication of tragedy...
Moore is the true american hero/anti hero because his 'docu'-films are full blooded macho (yes..very alphamale, though he is not sexist in beliefs) orgasms of Truth Denied...he is as self-righteous as Bush...They are paperthin comic characters (you choose the hero/antihero), a polar reflection of each other. 'Elephant' disappoints the audience of theatrical brashness...it is an invisibly moody almost cold recluse, like a shy introvert gay teenager. The above-mentioned review unwittingly measures this film against a tradition of expression that is direct, hot blooded and knows no eccentricity.
I do not wish to participate in drawing a line that divides Europeans or Americans...I personally think thats distateful and too much of an easy cliché all by itself.
What interests me is how tragedies like Columbine shooting and the September 11th have been rationalized within a form of , well trained.heeled and established ,usually also nationalist, positivism underlaying the reiview. And to divert from the principles of such a moral positivism is itself seen as sort of treason. In the review..van Sant's film is not just seen as a failure...but ,more quitely and subtley, as a traitor...for not celebrating the tragedies in the orthodox sanctioned manner. The reviewer doesnt see that van Sant's film is the product of a knowing intelligence that seeks to challenge those very principles behind the review...
I agree with all above. Van Sandt is less interested in exposing any singular causes of these events, and is willing to simply engage in the complexity of issues affecting an average american teenager. You could juxtapose this tactic with that of Catherine Hardwicke's "Thirteen", in which the entire film seems to be driven by a distant moralist gaze, rather than a social inquiry. Unlike Van Sant, she is actively seeking a ethical datum, off which she can render the countless influences within modern-day youth culture, as distinct and visible. Honestly, if my mother were to create a movie about the tribulations of teenage life, it would resemble "Thirteen".
Oddly enough, Fauth's good friend, Marcy Dermansky, gave "Thirteen" a glowing review.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.