Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Elephant

This is topic Elephant in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000654

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 09-27-2003, 12:40 PM:

If anyone has seen this please let me know what you thought. No spoilers please.
Thanks

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 11-05-2003, 11:42 PM:

Just saw this tonight. Not a bad film, but the ending leaves something to be desired, as well as a slight bit of confusion. That's as much as I can say without spoiling the end; however most of the film was based on Columbine, so you get the basic plot.

See my review of the theatre in the "you suck" thread.

Danny

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-06-2003, 08:10 PM:

I saw it at the Telluride Film Festival. I am still working out what I thought of it.

It was shot with 35mm in 1.37:1. Gus Van Zant says it can be shown in 1.85:1 but I think it will look strange. But what the hell, he made it. It was shot fo HBO.

Scott Hick's (American Cinema Supply) daughter is in the film and is the first girl to be shot. For a couple of weeks, she was earning more money that Scott.

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 11-21-2003, 08:39 AM:

I thought it was an interesting movie. The "non-actors" seemed very natural for the most part. Like Ian, I am still in the process of forming a complete opinion on the film. It is very intense at times and a bit disturbing. I really liked that it didn't try to overdramatize the events leading up to the climax of the story, the way a typical Hollywood or made for TV movie would.

It is increasingly rare to see a film presented in the 1.37 aspect ratio, but it was nice seeing the full frame used, rather than the 1.37 within 1.85 that we have seen in recent years.

Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 11-23-2003, 12:56 AM:

I saw this a few weeks ago. My first initial impression of the film was that it was horrible. I had not read anything about the film beforehand (the non actors and stuff.)

Now that I have had time to think, the film is like a slow ooze. It slowly just creeps into you the more you think about it. There are many things to like about it and some to dislike (the slow pacing would probably turn off a majority of people.) But if you are interested in it you should check it out.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 12-02-2003, 10:09 PM:

Well, I finally saw it today at the Angelika theater in Dallas.

It was good but could have been great.

I was disappointed that there was no real character development particularly in the two boys doing the shooting. I mean the worst it shows is him getting mashed potatoes (or someting) thrown at him, and this makes him want to kill everyone??

Most of the scenes dragged on without point and the story line was virtually non existent.

Overall I enjoyed it 2.5 of 5

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-03-2003, 12:50 PM:

quote:
It was shot with 35mm in 1.37:1.

American Cinematographer had an article on Elephant recently which included some thoughts by director Gus Van Sant and DP Harris Savides on why they shot the film in Academy format. The article included mention that the film was made primarily for TV and that the filmmakers preferred a full frame TV presentation because they felt "letterboxing is a faux movie presentation."

Kind of ironic then that Van Sant & Savides' previous two collaborations were scope productions (Gerry and Finding Forrester), and both appear on DVD in letterbox.

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 12-04-2003, 10:12 AM:

Chris Hipp said:

quote:
I was disappointed that there was no real character development particularly in the two boys doing the shooting. I mean the worst it shows is him getting mashed potatoes (or someting) thrown at him, and this makes him want to kill everyone??
Most of the scenes dragged on without point and the story line was virtually non existent.

I took that to be the point, and those factors are what made me appreciate the film. The film is not trying to justify or explain how or why things happened, but give the audience some perspective on what happened.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 12-04-2003, 02:50 PM:

Well, Just like Aldo said, this movie has to work its way into your head. I stil think they should have given us a little more insight into the two boys killing everyone, but I now think that it was a good thing to not explain any of the other characters. It was showing how they didnt really know any of the people they were killing, and that was conveyed to the audience.

also, at first I thought showing the same scenes from different points of view was dumb but I realize now why they did it.

Bumping up to 3.5 of 5

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-07-2003, 06:48 PM:

Loved it. Much better than I had expected. The style of direction fits the subject matter perfectly, with the long drawn-out shots, gratuitous Steadicam shots (which I usually hate, but works well here), etc. Then, again, I loved "Gerry" (Van Sant's previous film) and thought that "Good Will Hunting" was overrated.

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 01-16-2004, 08:48 PM:

We opened this film tonight, played it in academy, thank you. I witnessed something I havent seen in my six years or so in film. Everyone, with the exception of two, sat through until the curtains closed.

I watched it as well, and was quite impressed. The suspense was killing me (no pun intended).

Nicely done, 4 'outa 5 [Smile]

Josh

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-18-2004, 10:30 AM:

Yous have to be kidding. What a predictable, B O R I N G, stupid, POS film.

"My Own Private Idaho" is the only original thing Van Sant has done. Everything else is a variation of that film...but they never seem to hit the original mark.

>>> Phil

Posted by James Leon Rockett Jr (Member # 2140) on 01-21-2004, 05:04 PM:

It was an... interesting movie. I was with some friends at the time and we had a general "it sucked" consensus after viewing it. I really liked the cinematography, and didn't have a problem with the timing, but really, they could have done so much more with it.

(We also saw it at the Angelika in Dallas... go Angelika!)