7. ElephantThe second part of what some people have referred to as Gus Van Sant's 'Death Trilogy,' between Gerry and Last Days. I think it's more accurate to think of these films as the 'Following People Around with a Camera Trilogy'. In Gerry, we follow two guys as they get lost in the desert, and in Last Days we follow a guy as he stumbles around in his garden muttering to himself. Although Gerry was pretty cool, Elephant is the pick of the trilogy because stuff actually happens. To be more precise, run-of-the-mill stuff happens, and then bad stuff happens. The run-of-the-mill stuff is believable and amusing, the bad stuff is harrowing and, well, just bad. All of this is done with that peculiar over-the-shoulder camera work, which seems to simultaneously draw you in and distance you from the action. It's as if the close filming and naturalistic dialogue make you feel as if you're kind of there, but then because none of the shots are from a first person perspective you're kind of not. Does that make any sense? Probably not. Anyway, it makes for an unusual and clinical atmosphere, where you can see the horrors unfold in a really clear-eyed and chilling way. It's a great film this one, but probably not one to watch with the grandkids.
I'd say it's been a pretty good list so far. But I can't stand this one. I was just too irritated by the portrayal of the killers. It seemed incredibly clichéd and superficial. One of them had the Anarchy symbol stitched to his bag...to me that summed-up the use of stereotype to convey what we needed to know about *the* main characters. Although teenage killers aren't necessarily deep, I assume there is something individual/interesting about them and that the job of this sort of film is to investigate it, rather than to present us with a lazy allusion to received ideas. Even worse, the unexplained suggestion of homosexuality in the killers, together with the reference to anarchism, seemed to betray a somewhat regrettable right-wing ideology to me. Good kids are straight and patriotic; gay/anarchistic kids are degenerate and potentially dangerous. It really let the film down.
ReplyDeleteThe earlier parts of the film, where the other characters were the focus, were much better though. I agree with the points about filming technique too. The way it was shot did a very effective job of evoking the complacent, harmless banality of the teens’ world and then its sudden, terrifying destruction.
Hi David, great to see that you've been checking out the blog. Obviously I disagree with you, what with this being my 7th favourite film of the decade and all. It's interesting that you think of the characterisations as 'superficial.' To be fair, the killers' characters were left pretty blank, as far as explication of their thoughts and motivations. But I didn't see this as a flaw. For me the root cause of the events was the kids' isolation, or at least what they perceived as isolation. But, this is only a personal observation, and I think that the film is careful not to define the characters too sharply, in order to allow for this kind of personal interpretation; after all it would be hopelessly simplistic to argue that this kind of event can have a single 'cause.' It's definitely a film about questions rather than answers, and one that invites viewers to make up their own minds about the killers. Understandably, some might see this approach as a bit of a cop out, in that it suggests a film that is essentially empty and lacking in anything to say.
ReplyDeleteTo an extent I felt that a lot of the things that you saw as cliched (the anarchy symbol, and I assume that you would view the violent video games and the interest in guns in the same way) were red herrings. I don't think that they were intended to be indicators of the kids' capacity for evil, rather they were quite unimportant manifestations of their isolation (although the interest in guns would obviously come to have a practical significance.) But, again, maybe that's just me reading something into a film that opponents would call empty. I could accept the argument that this film says nothing, but I firmly disagree that it suggests that these guys are evil because they're alternative. It's too ambiguous for that.
I agree that the homosexual scene was unexplained, and pretty daft. If anything I saw it as another example of their separateness from others, but it didn't add much to the film. However, the writer and director is gay, so I find it hard to believe that there is a right-wing, anti-homosexual agenda there.
Thanks for posting such a thoughtful comment David, I've really enjoyed trying to think of a response that at least sounds semi-intelligent. Hope you and the family are doing well.
Brian