Elephant, a Gus Van Sant movie (2003)

 Questions about Elephant, a Gus Van Sant movie(2003)

1) What struck you most in the film?

The fact that the shooting was a ramdom shooting is very impactful and struck me a lot. 

The two shooters have been shooting at people with no specific target and this is very hard to watch and to accept because it means that many innocent people died for no reasons. And this shows that at the time, shooting attack could happen to anyone at any time and nobody was prepared or could have anticipated because of the lack of security and prevention.

2) What also impressed you?

The rythm of the film impressed me a lot. Indeed, at the beginning, there were long scenes, so that the spectator could get to know the context and learn enough about the characters and their passions, relationships and personal problems. There is a very long scene  where we see Elyas, the photographer in a darkroom, because he is drying his photos. This scene helps the spectator to know more about Elyas' hobby and we understand that he is nice person, away from student problems. There is also a scene where the camera follows Michelle, the nerd, walking through the corridors and being mocked in the gym locker room. These two scenes are very important because it shows to the spectator that Michelle are Elyas have no reasons to die, but they will be killed at the beginnig of the shooting. Also, as the viewer knows more things about the two characters, emplifies the fact that their death is tragic and unfair.

3) Did you find anything more particularly upsetting?

I found the piling up of the scenes both disturbing and exciting. At the beginning of the film, it was a bit difficult for the viewer to understand the order of the scenes because  there were flashbacks, and most of the scenes were shown from different points of view. But progressively, the scenes completed each others and the spectator rediscovered the common thread that led him to understand the director's choice. It was very interesting to discover the story through the eyes of several characters, which proposed a different perception of the shooting for each student. There is a pivotal scene with Elyas, John and Michelle and this moment is very important because the scene announces the begining of the shcool attack and we see the scene from three differents points of view.

4) What did you find very disturbing?

I found the order in which people were killed very disturbing because the very fist two victims were Michelle, the nerd, the lonely girl; and Elyas, a nice boy and passioned by his hobby, photography. I couldn't imagine those two students would be the first people killed as there were living their lives without troubles and problems with others. On the contrary, Nathan, the jock, the popular boy who used to harass or to bully others students, was the last person to be killed by Alex, one of his former (old) victims. 

5) What was most shocking?

I think the most shocking thing was the ease and composure the killers had in shooting everyone they saw. Indeed, they had no experience with guns but during the shooting, the spectator gets the impression that both killers were comfortable with the weapons and they seem to be like in a game of guns, the same game Eric was playing. They gradually became obsessed with shooting and did not hesitate to kill anyone they came across on their way. In the last scene, Alex ends up killing Eric,his partner and there are many different interpretations of that murder, but the most likely is that the euphoria of the shooting has overwhelmed Alex and he couldn't resist, so he committed just one more murder out of all his victims.

6) What does the film  suggest about the two school shooters?

The film suggests that Alex and Eric are two young students, just like the others ant they don't have the features of shooters. They don't know about arms and they don't look like killers, bullies or animals. On the surface, they are very different: Alex is very sensitive and he is probably a bit unbalanced, he doesn't seem to be in his element in high school. Eric is a more integrated boy, he plays a "shott'em'up game and looks more confident. However, he is not listened to by the principal, and they could have some problems in their lives that bring them together, like for example the absence of their parents, the ease of obtaining firearms in the u.s, first-person shooter video games and their fascination with violence, nazism and fascism. The film wants to show that the two shooters have no real reasons to commit this massacre but at the end, they dit it and no one could stop them. 

7) What's more, what does the film director make clear about the two killers?

Gus Van Sant wants to make clear that the two killers have a certain sensitivity: Alex is a very good piano player, he has some artistic skills as we see a long scene where he plays "La lettre à Elise". Moreover, before the attack, they find themselves in the shower, and they confess that neither of them has ever kissed a girl. So they decided to kiss and this scene is in sharp contrast to the following scenes of violence. Here the director wants to show the viewer that these two boys have nothing more to lose, they know they are going to die and they want to enjoy their last moments. These two scenes really bring softness and allow the spectator to see their attack project in a different way.

8) What kind of approach to the school shooting itself did Gus Van Sant opt for?

Gus Van Sant didn't want to represent a revenge from the two killers. The fact that they killed everyone they saw without selection proves that there was no a list of people to kill and it was a massacre made of bad luck and coincidence. The director opted for an realistic appoach because the aim of Gus Van Sant was not to give an answer to the gesture of the two killers, but rather to open up avenues of reflection which can be as many factors in their act so that the spectator can see what he wants to see. Moreover, the fact that the camera follows from behind certain characters, announces the future death of those (Michelle, Elyas and Nathan) which shows that gus wanted to warn the spectator of the drama and the potential victims perceived by the movement of the camera, as targets. 

9) Moreover, what's the main consequence of the realistic treatment he uses? What about the 'poetic' touches he instills throughout the film?

The film opens with a long shot of the sky, filmed in acceleration where we observe the movements of the clouds. This shot is repeated on the night before the massacre just after , and then at the end of the film after the killing. At first the sky is clear, there are some clouds. But in the second scene, when we just saw Alex and Eric asleep, the sky quickly becomes full of dark clouds and turns into a thunderstorm. Finally, the last sequence, which closes the film, shows a heavy but peaceful sky. 
The film ends as it opened, but in the last sequence, the sky seems to open up to give way to the sun, it's the return of calm after the massacre, but this time, the voices of young people have disappeared. We can therefore speak of a forecasting sky since it serves as a reference point for the spectator, especially before the massacre: it is the calm before the storm and then the return to the calm. 
Also the melody played by Alex in his room is used throughout the film and we find this melody in many scenes, such as the one about the sky. This music can for example represent a form of danger and it shows that during all the film, the danger, therefore Alex, is everywhere and present at every moment. These two elements look very poetic to me. 

10) As a conclusion, what must we admit about the way in which the killing and the killers are perceived by the film viewers?

We must admit that before the scene of the massacre, the killers were not necessarily condemned by the spectator because we could have thought that the attack would be synonymous with revenge from Alex and Eric who were facing many difficulties in their high school: Eric was a student that the principal did not want to listen to, while Alex was being harassed. So there would have been some legitimacy in their attack, even though it was a totally horrible and unacceptable act. But when the attack starts and we realize that the two killers simply kill everyone (or almost everyone) without thinking and doubting, the vision we had of them changes and our perception of justice forces us to dislike or even to hate alex and eric. The killing is then seen as an unjust and absolutely terrible massacre.