Talk:Elephant (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Goof? I don't think so ...

The mentioned goof pre-supposes that kids NEVER have access to their parents credit cards or that ALL US gunshops ALWAYS perform background checks. This does not stand to reason. This is IMO a dangerous and untrue statement: Just because fraud, murder, jaywalking and rape are against the law, doesn't mean they don't happen. And murder and rape don't have majority support amongst Americans, like gun use does. It is likely that a gun dealer thinks: I don't agree with these stupid background checks anyway, so I'm not gonna bother with performing them.--Brian Tjoe-Nij (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A "Goof?" section? It is not only un-encyclopedic, but it is clear to everyone what has occurred. Someone "pro-guns" (a crude description i realise) has registered their personal objections with the film, with the next entry clearly acting as a rebuttal. Regardless of the accuracy of both points, they should not appear on a site trying to deliver objective and encyclopedic knowledge. It is unnecessary and should be left on bulletin boards, blogs and sites elsewhere. Consider it removed. (Washboardplayer (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Elias Shot?

I recall that Elias was never actually shown being shot in the library, the male who is shot is wearing a shirt of a different color than Elias is. Could anyone with a copy of the movie handy verify? 68.60.48.196 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Origins' section, JT LeRoy isn't a real person

This is currently in the "origins" section of this page:

"Author JT LeRoy, a friend of Mr. Van Sant's, was among the writers, and is credited as associate producer for the film."

JT LeRoy is not a real person, but rather a psuedonym that author Laura Albert used for a series of books. Albert denied that there was no "JT LeRoy" until several newspapers investigated and found there was no such person. I am going to alter part of that quote to reflect this.

Um, first time ive even heard of this movie and although ive left the site knowing a great deal about why its called Elephant, and that there is a homosexual shower scene kiss, i only figured out its about a spree-killing at the bottom. Can someone write a breif synopsis about the film? Otherwise it seems like just random information. Cheers

Is it a good idea to show who dies in the movie in the article even though it has a spoiler warning? Someone spoke against showing who dies in the movie on my talk page... WhisperToMe 00:20, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I thought the argument made on your talk page (now in your archive) was a strong one. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:38, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The page points out that the title of the movie can be viewed as a reference to the Republican party. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but when I saw the film, I thought that John's father looked a lot like George W. Bush. Perhaps this is just a coincidence, but I couldn't help thinking that perhaps it was something of a parable -- how the film begins with a Bush lookalike, driving drunk, until his son forces him out and takes the wheel himself.

Is the fact JT LeRoy is gay an important fact? does it really matter?

The movie failed to deliver any message to the audience. The movie was simply shock-art. There was no character development; we don’t really learn why the kids go on a killing spree, and we gain nothing by viewing the film. The first fifty minutes were poorly shot scenes that simply followed characters as they silently walked through the school. We knew too little about the characters, and did not gain a lesson or an even a message. What good is a film that isn’t entertaining and that doesn’t deliver a message?

To answer above: Is there a reason why? The senselessness is half the point.

To reinforce the above answer 'The senselessness is half the point' I believe Van Sant has avoided all mainstream conventions to create a wonderful postmodern film. The point is - Why is there gun violence in schools, its creating a public/cultural fear. What Ele suggests is, that Alex and Eric are potential killers, no more so than the insecure Geek, John with his alcoholic father, Carrie who seems pregnant. As an audience we are disturbed by the lack of closure the text offers, its a game, random violence THAT JUST HAPPENS!!!!! and it pisses us all off. If thats not a message for its audience how about the negative representations of the 3 popular girls, (Belimic NOT COOL) in my books, they are just worms in our society of human time bombs....................WAITING To ExPlOdE...............BANG!

I added the POV template: the "Action Time" section especially needs work.--Skyraider 17:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I edited "Up-and-coming gay author JT LeRoy" to "Author JT LeRoy." He has two best-selling books and has been publsihed for over 5 years so the up and coming descriptor isn't accurate. Additionally, the term "gay" is irrelevant to the author's work and contribution to the film. Grilledcheese 20:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought that Elephant, brilliant as it is, was made haunting by the lack of character development, which brought a sense of confused detachment to the viewer. I found that throughout the film I was constantly reminded of The Colombine Massacre of 1999 committed by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, was this part of the inspiration to Gus Van Sant? Is the second shooter in Elephant (Eric) an homage to his Colombine namesake? Both fictional and non-fictional Eric's enjoyed violent videogames. Eric Harris was taunted daily for being gay, and it is suggested that the fictional film counterparts are gay in the scene where they shower together. Is this a coincidence?

Of course there was no character development, that was part of the point of the film. It was just a depiction of several people one hour or so before the shootings. How much character development can you have in an hour? The message of the film is, I think:

"There's a huge problem in this society which is never talked about (the elephant in the room), especially not by the Elphant, the Republican party."

It's often true that not even those who commit crimes can say why they did it. Why should Gus Van Sant package up a simple solution to the complex motive(s) of the killers? Have we become trapped within "sitcom" mentality that insists on stories tied up in a nice neat bow? I appreciated Van Sant allowing me to reflect on the interactions between American societial values, School violence and sheer chance without forcing his own values and views. Jim Jacobs 10:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, first time ive even heard of this movie and although ive left the site knowing a great deal about why its called Elephant, and that there is a homosexual shower scene kiss, i only figured out its about a spree-killing at the bottom. Can someone write a breif synopsis about the film? Otherwise it seems like just random information. Cheers 12:33, 10 May 2006

[edit] What is the plot?

It seems someone accidentilly left the plot out of the synopsis?

Can someone tell us the story of the film? The description doesnt even mention killings!


Third party here asking for a plot description, even a paraphrased plot description from the back of the box?


That is by far the worst "synopsis" of a plot I have ever read on Wikipedia. I'm very disappointed, seeing as the movie itself is actually very good though possibly controversial, and I would really like it to be cleared up and, well... actually made into a synopsis. 80.47.227.198 14:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I worked on it and it's a little better now. I haven't seen the movie in a while, so if someone else could expand that section it would be appreciated. Propound 09:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film criticism

To me a whole lot of this article reads like film criticism and not an encyclopedic article, with lots of comments which seem to be straight from the editors, not quotes from published crtics or other outside sources. "B-level" is kind; lots of things stand needing to be cited from their source or else removed. Rlquall 13:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced article template added. Propound 09:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Benny character's "heroism"

From the article: "Benny - Kind and fearless student who rescues Acadia by helping her jump out of a window, and who attempts to stop Eric." - I believe this is a very stark misreading of the movie. The Benny character rightly gives Acadia a hand, but she would have been able to climb out of the window herself. Then he goes off to find Eric in a zombiesque way. He does NOT try to stop Eric, rather he walks up to him in the same zombie-like way and gets shot.

Elephant is not a movie about bravery in the face of danger. I believe such a reading of the film to be misleading and taking the focus away from the film's main target: a genuinly narsissistic society where all the adults fail to act as authorities and where no one is really connected to anyone else.

The idea of heroism in this context is extremely remote. There are no heroes in Elephant. --84.208.194.186 12:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you should have changed it. Lach Graham 13:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's trivially easy to classify Benny's behavior as heroism. Your detailed OR synopsis includes a long explanation which overinterpretates the facts and seems to try to refute the obvious. Although the film is documentary like and doesn't contain stereotypical heroes, how Benny acted is by the standard dictionary definition heroism. Aaron Bowen 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

At the post-production screening, Van Sant gave all three of the explanations for the title reported in this article. In addition, at the press-conference in Cannes, he said the identification with the policies of the Republican party was intentional. (The symbol of the Republican party is an elephant.) I don't know how to provide verification of this; there's a video of the Cannes press conference somewhere, but I don't know if he ever repeated in another context what he said at the screening. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Without looking, I rather assumed the title was an allusion to the phrase elephant in the room.--SeizureDog 18:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In Europe, all the major French, English and German reviews give that indeed as the explanation of the title, yes.

[edit] Trivia section...

...was removed due to copyright violation from IMDb. →EdGl 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Deulen

Please stop redirecting Eric Deulen here.Zigzig20s 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] based on actual events

"This is the second movie in Gus Van Sant's Death Trilogy - the first is Gerry and the third Last Days; all three are based on actual events. Elephant takes place in the fictional Watt High School, in Portland, Oregon, and chronicles the events surrounding a fictional school shooting, based in part on the 1999 Columbine High School Massacre. The end of the film stresses the "similarities to actual events are purely coincidental" disclaimer."

If we are going to point out the disclaimer about the movies similarities to actaul events being purely coincidental then we cant go and say that it is based on actual events in the same paragraph.202.4.74.65 15:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We can safely assume that Van Sants disclaimer is ironic, so ..... --Brian Tjoe-Nij (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German

How is this a German language film? Crushti (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)