"Safety is a big disguise that hides among the other lies" (Hüsker Dü, Divide and Conquer, Flip Your Wig, 1985).
Generally I don't go much into Gus Van Sant's stuff. I have only a vague recollection of "My Own Private Idaho" (1991). "Will Hunting" (1997) was highly overrated while "Psycho" (1998) was a waste of time and money. That said, "To Die For" (1994) had a staggering Nicole Kidman and some critics may have slated Van Sant's most recent effort "Last Days" (2005), it stands out as a palatable and even, valuable piece of work. "Elephant" (2003) which deservedly pocketed the Golden Palm at the Cannes festival in 2003 is perhaps the finest hour in all his career.
In 2002, Michael Moore, one of the most eloquent prototypes of the committed director had shot a documentary, "Bowling for Columbine" with a thorny and prickly topic since it dealt with the selling of guns in America and their consequences. Moore went beyond his subject to construe the problem of violence linked with guns in America. I read in a French newspaper pieces of information which sent shivers down my spine: at least 100 000 teenagers go to school with a gun and between 1997 and 1999, the USA knew a dozen of deadly slaughters in high schools. Van Sant's flick is a perfect illustration of both Moore's documentary and one of the major American plagues revolving around guns although "Columbine" is never explicitly mentioned in the film. It also offers a deeply pessimistic view of a vulnerable American youth.
Van Sant's film hits its stride from the first minutes. The introduction presents John who goes to his high school with his alcoholic father (acted by Timothy Bottoms who thirty years ago acted Johnny in Dalton Trumbo's excruciating "Johnny Got His Gun", 1971). The fact that John's father is alcoholic speaks volume about the delicate stance American youth finds herself. Then, as soon as John arrives in the high school, Van Sant's directing works wonders. The pace of the movie is haunting and hypnotic. To stay back and modesty are his formula keys. He opposes majestic travelings with static shots. The first device is favored for several functions: Van Sant's camera follows several high school students from behind them (a little like Stanley Kubrick follows his astronauts in certain sequences in "2001: a Space Odyssey", 1968 even if one can deem the comparison as far-fetched!) like a benevolent angel but also to make the audience share that impending tragedy waits around the corner. One could also argue that these travelings help to underscore how much these days are ordinary, humdrum, even empty. They also bestow a familiar place with a eerie side with these long corridors dimly lighted. As for static shots, they help to capture his young interprets' thoughts and how they feel in the high school. It's either blossoming like for Elias, keen on photography or either traumatic for Michelle: she nearly doesn't say a word but her silence speaks louder than words. Besides, dialogs don't have much importance, these high school students speak about all and nothing. Especially, senses express themselves. Then, to give more weight to the fact that each teenager has its own perception in this high school, Van Sant chose a bunch of teenagers he follows individually. It doesn't matter if we see a sequence again a couple of times, the standpoint is different according to the followed young person. Ultimately, Van Sant's directorial style has something aerial coupled with a documentary side which pervades a major part of the film.
But today, tragedy dangerously lurks. Alex and Eric go to the high school to shoot down several of their classmates. The murders are shot with a certain remoteness behind the killers' backs and in some moments, Van Sant prefers the off-camera illustrating Alfred "Hitch" Hitchcock's golden rule: "horror is more heinous when it's suggested". Facts are here, causes aren't. At this level, Van Sant only skims over them and raises the inklings about what may have urged the two boys to act. It can be social or academic problems. The first apparition of Alex places him in a chemistry lesson and he's a little apart from the other students whom some laugh at him. Alex, a scapegoat? Then, just before Eric kills one teacher, he says facts to him that give ideas about the relationship he may have with him. But also, their parents are often absent, they play violent video games, they watch a documentary about Nazism... Up to the viewer to try to decipher the slayers' motives.
Symbols are also Van Sant's forte: recurring images of a cloudy sky and when Michelle is killed, blood spreads on the books. Guns at my school, indeed.
More than acted, it's nearly lived by these non-professional actors whose roles fit them like a glove. Van Sant had fostered improvisation among them, it paid off well.
The depiction of a vulnerable American youth in prey to the major plagues of her country, especially violence linked with guns, the fearless "Elephant" is this and more. See it any costs!
Generally I don't go much into Gus Van Sant's stuff. I have only a vague recollection of "My Own Private Idaho" (1991). "Will Hunting" (1997) was highly overrated while "Psycho" (1998) was a waste of time and money. That said, "To Die For" (1994) had a staggering Nicole Kidman and some critics may have slated Van Sant's most recent effort "Last Days" (2005), it stands out as a palatable and even, valuable piece of work. "Elephant" (2003) which deservedly pocketed the Golden Palm at the Cannes festival in 2003 is perhaps the finest hour in all his career.
In 2002, Michael Moore, one of the most eloquent prototypes of the committed director had shot a documentary, "Bowling for Columbine" with a thorny and prickly topic since it dealt with the selling of guns in America and their consequences. Moore went beyond his subject to construe the problem of violence linked with guns in America. I read in a French newspaper pieces of information which sent shivers down my spine: at least 100 000 teenagers go to school with a gun and between 1997 and 1999, the USA knew a dozen of deadly slaughters in high schools. Van Sant's flick is a perfect illustration of both Moore's documentary and one of the major American plagues revolving around guns although "Columbine" is never explicitly mentioned in the film. It also offers a deeply pessimistic view of a vulnerable American youth.
Van Sant's film hits its stride from the first minutes. The introduction presents John who goes to his high school with his alcoholic father (acted by Timothy Bottoms who thirty years ago acted Johnny in Dalton Trumbo's excruciating "Johnny Got His Gun", 1971). The fact that John's father is alcoholic speaks volume about the delicate stance American youth finds herself. Then, as soon as John arrives in the high school, Van Sant's directing works wonders. The pace of the movie is haunting and hypnotic. To stay back and modesty are his formula keys. He opposes majestic travelings with static shots. The first device is favored for several functions: Van Sant's camera follows several high school students from behind them (a little like Stanley Kubrick follows his astronauts in certain sequences in "2001: a Space Odyssey", 1968 even if one can deem the comparison as far-fetched!) like a benevolent angel but also to make the audience share that impending tragedy waits around the corner. One could also argue that these travelings help to underscore how much these days are ordinary, humdrum, even empty. They also bestow a familiar place with a eerie side with these long corridors dimly lighted. As for static shots, they help to capture his young interprets' thoughts and how they feel in the high school. It's either blossoming like for Elias, keen on photography or either traumatic for Michelle: she nearly doesn't say a word but her silence speaks louder than words. Besides, dialogs don't have much importance, these high school students speak about all and nothing. Especially, senses express themselves. Then, to give more weight to the fact that each teenager has its own perception in this high school, Van Sant chose a bunch of teenagers he follows individually. It doesn't matter if we see a sequence again a couple of times, the standpoint is different according to the followed young person. Ultimately, Van Sant's directorial style has something aerial coupled with a documentary side which pervades a major part of the film.
But today, tragedy dangerously lurks. Alex and Eric go to the high school to shoot down several of their classmates. The murders are shot with a certain remoteness behind the killers' backs and in some moments, Van Sant prefers the off-camera illustrating Alfred "Hitch" Hitchcock's golden rule: "horror is more heinous when it's suggested". Facts are here, causes aren't. At this level, Van Sant only skims over them and raises the inklings about what may have urged the two boys to act. It can be social or academic problems. The first apparition of Alex places him in a chemistry lesson and he's a little apart from the other students whom some laugh at him. Alex, a scapegoat? Then, just before Eric kills one teacher, he says facts to him that give ideas about the relationship he may have with him. But also, their parents are often absent, they play violent video games, they watch a documentary about Nazism... Up to the viewer to try to decipher the slayers' motives.
Symbols are also Van Sant's forte: recurring images of a cloudy sky and when Michelle is killed, blood spreads on the books. Guns at my school, indeed.
More than acted, it's nearly lived by these non-professional actors whose roles fit them like a glove. Van Sant had fostered improvisation among them, it paid off well.
The depiction of a vulnerable American youth in prey to the major plagues of her country, especially violence linked with guns, the fearless "Elephant" is this and more. See it any costs!