What would you do?

WARNING! SPOILER ALERT!

What would you have done if you were one of the students inside that High School building in that scary situation? (if you’ve seen this film)

I would’ve just umm… man fuck i don’t know. Maybe attempt a RUSH punch or a RUSH kick!

Those were real people who died.

No, those were actors pretending to die.

Don’t be thick in front of me, Eli.

Gus would never accept a big paycheck to film real people dying.

Are you sure, Gringo? Here’s the picture that actually prooves it.

Seriously, what is it about Elephant that people find likable? Does one need to be a cinematographer to appreciate its ‘value?’ I don’t get it.

About which Elephant are we talking?

The short in the DC – the shooting festival. Not the GVS Elephant.

edit: sorry, I’m probably on the wrong thread – too many Elephants in the room.

Oh, I see. Well, I don’t want to influence anyone since it’s my match, but seriously I didn’t get it at all. I would appreciate someone explaining the point of that film.

no offense taken NOHEA. haha but anyway….

Now I’m confused… Which is the right one?

^haha…put them together and what do you have? Shooting an Elephant ~ G. Orwell :(

Such a strange DC match-up.

The topic is linked to the GVS elephant, so I’m gonna go with that.

Apursansar: The fact that there was no point was kind of the point. He didn’t say computer games are to blame, at least anymore than learning piano. He wasn’t saying parents are to blame, since the kid with an alcoholic dad wasn’t involved in the shooting. Since it’s based on Columbine, Van Sant made something that was as equally difficult to understand.

Beyond that, there’s just the way the movie makes you feel. If you’re watching thinking, “What is this shot about? What does that mean?” then you’re going to miss the meditative, musical side of things.

Sorry, I was talking about the short film which Nohea refered to. I definitely agree with you on Gus Van Sant´s film, but had more problems to understand Allan Clarke´s austere vision.

My choice of Elephant (the Alan Clarke one) seems to have divided people quite a bit. I think it is an amazing film and superior to Gus Van Sants’. I’m not sure why this film is objectionable to a number of people? At first I thought it might be its experimental form that was putting people off, but no everybody seem sto like Ten Skies which features a load of clouds floating around for hours! (I like that film by the way) Maybe it’s bleak nihilistic vision which offers no hope or redemption just does not connect with people in the same way as a spiritually meditative Ten Skies.

Ohh. Well, a lot of what I said still applies :)

Actually, the Wikipedia article on Elephant is pretty helpful, especially the quote from David Leland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_%281989_film%29

Here’s my own rough analysis:

With the use of tracking shots and the repetitious nature of the film, you start to get the sense that there’s something inevitable about the killings. The last one sticks in my mind as being especially long, with the characters on screen looking like they’re locked in a certain path. We feel that those involved, including the killers themselves, have been forced into their positions. Which they have, in a way, by believing they’re doing the best thing for the country, or by getting paid to do it, or whatever justification they want to give themselves.

The nature of the film itself, however, shows how wasteful, random and stupid the whole thing is. The justification for why people are being killed is never shown, so the murders can be seen as the horribly unnatural things they are. We never know who’s on whose side, or whether or not the killer was actually doing an honorable thing. To Clarke, it really doesn’t matter.

So on the one hand you’ve got the framing and shot movement of each individual scene, which gives us the characters’ limited perspective, then the film as a whole, which gives the audience a more reflective view of the war that’s going on.

It would be interesting to go through a violent movie where good guys kill all the bad guys, cut out all the moralizing and justification and simply show the deaths one after the other. That’s pretty much what Clarke is doing here.

I loved Alan Clake’s film cyclo…thanks for sharing.

Thank you Brand! It does seem like a love or loathe it film and I think the voting on it should be interesting. If people don’t like Elehant they shouldn’t be put off trying Alan Clarke’s other films such as Made In Britain or The Firm. In narrative form they are more cohesive and unlike Elephant feature strong acting performances from Tim Roth and Gary Oldman probably the best in and most powerful in both their careers. I don’t want to hijack someone’s thread as I think this was about the other Elephant ha ha.