flip of a coin

zero, c, and i went to see gus van sant’s elephant last night at the red vic.

so i’m not quite sure. some of the people we bumped into afterwards didn’t really like it at all, but i don’t know if i’m ready to make a verdict on it. there’s a strange formlessness to it, where a lot of it is following kids around a high school shortly before and during the time where two of them go on a shooting spree, much like columbine. maybe the problem is that we have been trained to expect some sort of linear storyline, and not just that, seeing as the time-shifting technique is more and more prevalent these days (memento, 21 grams, etc.), but we expect some sort of purpose or clear sense of “what does this movie try and tell us?” or “what point is this movie trying to make?”

maybe we’re too caught up in trying to figure out who’s the good guy or bad guy, or lay blame on someone, or even have some sort of resolution at the end, when sometimes there just isn’t any of that. for a lot of kids who got killed, whatever they were doing (which we witness as we follow them around school, flit in and out of their lives and their hopes/dreams/fears) doesn’t really matter at all with respect to whether they live or die that day. it’s almost about random chance, and no matter how noble or ignoble your intentions or life is, something else entirely can effect whether it will continue or not.

the new yorker sums it up pretty well, saying elephant “is not very satisfying, but it’s still something to see.” (note: the review contains a spoiler. bad new yorker!)

so there’s really no resolution in the movie. but i guess there’s not supposed to be any anyway.

it is what it is.

Posted at March 25, 2004 12:23 AM