Cady's Take:

The first 70-minutes are incredibly dull, but this is, of course, the point; Van Sant is lulling one into the naive complacency of high-school existence. Every social group is dutifully represented- the good-looking, able-bodied jocks, the tormented geeks, the popular, fashion-and-weight-conscious girls, and the artsy photo-junkies. Instead of forming a plot, Van Sant lets his camera eavesdrop on a series of conversations.

Those that sat through Van Sant's last epic, another point-free waste of time called Gerry, know from comparison whether or not they'll enjoy the equally point free Elephant. The killers in Elephant fall in line with every youth-in-revolt stereotype. Alex and Eric are best friends who order up automatic rifles from the Internet and watch Hitler documentaries.

After the camera has examined every nook and cranny of the school, the murders finally take place in the last act. The disengaged gunmen make their way from floor to floor like they’re playing a role in a video game, hoping to make it to the next level of bragging rights for high score. The banal dialogue is at times laughable during the shooting spree. When the shooting erupts Elephant never even bothers to make it dramatic.

If Elephant was supposed to offer insight as to why horrors like this happen, it failed. The title apparently refers to ‘the elephant in the corner’ – the problem that everyone chooses to ignore because it’s so huge. Good point, but not a good movie.

I had to think for awhile about Gus Van Sant’s film “Elephant” – the story of a Columbine-type massacre. While my initial feeling about the movie was almost one of disappointment, after further reflection I think I understand how this was made, and appreciate it in the way that was intended. This is not a story that explains, or details, or illuminates any of the reasons why school shootings happen. “Elephant” only observes and reports - and that in and of itself is disquieting – because in the end, the movie does not tell us how to feel and we like movies to tell us how to feel about things.

The beginning two-thirds of the movie introduces us to students: a jock, some popular girls, a shy bookworm, a school photographer, and many more. We follow them through the paces of their day, talking to friends or trying not to be noticed, going to class and making plans with one another. And of course, we meet the two gunmen who reveal themselves as both normal and abnormal all at once. We do not get a closer look at these two than we do the other kids in “Elephant” – we know practically nothing about any of them and we are merely observers as the last third of the movie shows the shooting but there is no excitement, no release of violent energy because the movie is about exactly the opposite of that. There is nothing about the film that is building to any final moment of release, and so when the shooting does start it is not in an adrenaline-pumping kind of way, but in the way that I suppose would be more accurate than that (unless kids go to school now each day, feeling like any moment a Hollywood-style car chase or stand-off might happen). It is scary and quiet and very real and if the shootings had been portrayed as that sort of Hollywood shoot-‘em-up action sequence it would have done a disservice to victims of this kind of violence. Also important is that Van Sant does not pretend to explain the gunmens’ actions (he hints at homoeroticism, violent video games, bad home lives, Internet access to weaponry) but does not present them as reasons but as facts of the boys’ lives) but shows two kids, who wake up one day and are ready to die and to take others with them. It seems senseless because it is senseless.

I think that “Elephant” is not for everyone but it does something that not a lot of movies do, and that is make you think about them for a very, very long time.