by pinback » Mon May 09, 2022 6:34 am
If Gus Van Sant's 2003 "Elephant" wasn't uplifting enough for you, try Alan Clarke's 1989 short film of the same name which was definitely an inspiration for Van Sant's meditation on Columbine.
The earlier Elephant has no plot, and no known actors, and other than three short, throwaway lines, no dialogue. It is structured as 18 short vignettes of random murders with no pretext, no context, and no explanation. That's it. There is a rhythm to it. Every scene starts with someone walking (or stopping a car to get out and walk), and either being shot to death, or shooting someone to death. The camera then lingers on the victim for uncomfortably long, and then onto the next scene.
Examples:
- A car parks outside a Shell station. The driver gets out, walks into the shop, shoots the cashier, then gets back in the car and drives away. Boom, there's a scene.
- Two guys walking on a path. They pass another guy. Moments later, one of the two drops to the ground, having been shot by the guy they passed. The other guy runs away. Boom, next scene.
If you want to make a drinking game out of it, try to guess if the guy we see walking is the one who is going to kill someone, or get killed, in the next two minutes.
The film is ostensibly a commentary on "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland at the time, when sectarian violence made random killings like this a daily reality for those living there. Is it to show how desensitized you can get to horrific acts like this if you see enough of them? (Indeed, by the end, you may find your shock and horror receding, while you just start trying to guess how the scene is going to play out.) Is it just a tone poem to evoke what living in these times was like?
Better (and worse) writers than I have analyzed it this way and that. The movie defies a conclusion to this discussion. It is whatever you think it is.
Enjoy:
If Gus Van Sant's 2003 "Elephant" wasn't uplifting enough for you, try Alan Clarke's 1989 short film of the same name which was definitely an inspiration for Van Sant's meditation on Columbine.
The earlier Elephant has no plot, and no known actors, and other than three short, throwaway lines, no dialogue. It is structured as 18 short vignettes of random murders with no pretext, no context, and no explanation. That's it. There is a rhythm to it. Every scene starts with someone walking (or stopping a car to get out and walk), and either being shot to death, or shooting someone to death. The camera then lingers on the victim for uncomfortably long, and then onto the next scene.
Examples:
- A car parks outside a Shell station. The driver gets out, walks into the shop, shoots the cashier, then gets back in the car and drives away. Boom, there's a scene.
- Two guys walking on a path. They pass another guy. Moments later, one of the two drops to the ground, having been shot by the guy they passed. The other guy runs away. Boom, next scene.
If you want to make a drinking game out of it, try to guess if the guy we see walking is the one who is going to kill someone, or get killed, in the next two minutes.
The film is ostensibly a commentary on "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland at the time, when sectarian violence made random killings like this a daily reality for those living there. Is it to show how desensitized you can get to horrific acts like this if you see enough of them? (Indeed, by the end, you may find your shock and horror receding, while you just start trying to guess how the scene is going to play out.) Is it just a tone poem to evoke what living in these times was like?
Better (and worse) writers than I have analyzed it this way and that. The movie defies a conclusion to this discussion. It is whatever you think it is.
Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoqnphLAEpg