POST 16: Elephant, a Gus Van Sant movie (2003)

1) What struck you most in the film?

I personally found the visual composition of this film brilliant. I like the way Gus Van Sant develops a minimalistic style throughout the film, because the idea of showing the moments that preceded a massacre in such a simple and neat way (instead of the chaos I thought I would find before I started watching this movie) is, in my opinion, innovative and bright. It struck me (I don't know how to say it in any other way) the lack of elements. I was struck by the predominence of silence, of calm, of easiness all along the movie. We are really thrown into  the very intimacy of each character. It's just another day. Nothing leads us to think something awful is really about to happen.



2) What also impressed you?

I'm impressed by the elasticity time acquires in this movie. Since it constantly introduces and follows new characters, you genuinely can't tell if the whole plot is taking place within the same day. That creates an overall impression of peace and routine, and it took me a long time to truly understand that the whole film was a recapitulation of the events that took place right before the massacre happened, from different perspectives (we even have that corridor scene that was filmed three times, each one of them from a different perspective (John's, Michelle's and Elia's).




3) Did you find anything more particularly upsetting?

There are a few things in this movie I indeed found particularly upsetting. The most important one might be the way teens are portrayed. I believe the way Gus Van Sant perceives teenagers (and therefore the way he transmits it trough this film) is strongly limited by societal stereotypes on what a youngster must look/think/act like. Since this movie allows us viewers to immerse into the daily routine of those who were brutally murdered, we often have access to their conversations. Whilst listening to them, I found it unbelievable how teenagers on this movie are shown as individuals with a striking lack of intellectual abilities. They only seem to talk about, well, "concert tickets", "who is dating who"...we find any possible stereotype of teen issues (some girl might as well be pregnant, a few other girls have an eating disorder because they want to look thin and pretty) but none of that is realistic. Just because the characters are arranged into very specifically categories (jocks, geeks and artsy) that doesn't make them any more stuck-to-reality and it doesn't helps us viewers to empathize with them: we don't feel close to them because, in our minds, they are not fully alive. Instead, they are walking cliches pretending to embody a whole generation.

4)What did you find very disturbing?

I am aware of the fact that this is a small detail that probably didn't shock anyone else among those who were viewing the film in class, but we don't see any type of evolution in the killers' behaviors.I mean,  we know how they bought their supply of weapons, how they were deeply unhappy during their daily routine but we can't truly understand how they went from "misunderstood teenagers" to "mass killers". By just watching the film, we can't know what crossed their minds when they decided to put an end to so many lives. We can't know what happened to their twisted thoughts that made that difference, we don't understand them.  Perhaps that's just what Gus Van Sant wanted to transmit; that it doesn't matter how much you observe an individual, how much time you spend with them, you can't know what's crossing their minds. There wasn't a turning point in Alex and Eric's behavior when they decided they were going to commit those crimes, simply because even if there would have been a visible difference in their attitude, nobody would have noticed. That's why, when watching the film, we feel like the shooters were born with the only purpose of accomplishing those murders. Maybe Gus Van Sant didn't give a clear answer to the question "why" because he couldn't figure out a satisfactory explanation for those crimes. He's just as passive as we are. The filmmaker just tries to narrate a tragedy, instead of justifying it.
I also believe the title itself illustrates this idea. "Elephant" refers to the english expression "elephant in a room", used to describe a situation in which there is a huge problem that might eventually become dangerous but that everyone decides to leave aside, to ignore.

5) What did you find most shocking?

We barely even focus on the two killers! That's pretty impressive I think. The director's choice was to portray the tragedy's circumstances in such a way that Alex and Eric are not even the main characters; because Elephant is not even their story. Is the story of everyone whose life was taken. It took me a long time to realize this; that the two most important people in this tragedy are shown as a disturbance in the storyline, since they are going to put an end to the stories (to the lives) of those who we have followed and whose intimacy we have shared since the very beginning of the film; those whose names were written in a white font with a black background every now and then in the middle of the screen. To sum it up, this is not a story about two murderers, but the story about those who were murdered.


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

We can witness several times how the two school shooters were being harassed by their schoolmates so, to some extent, the film suggests that the massacre that followed could have come as a consequence of the students' aggressive behavior towards the soon-to-become killers. It is also suggested (in a very subtle way, without any connotation) that the two murderers could have been going through some kind of sexual identity crisis. Nevertheless, that detail is shown as quite irrelevant and does not contribute whatsoever to the plot's development.

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

This is something I find particularly interesting and that, I think, makes this film a lot more realistic: the filmmaker insists a lot on the fact that these two teenagers were not monsters. One of them is even portrayed as a quite talented young man (he has musical skills) whilst the other one is simply a slacker. Anyways, they are not creatures made of pure evil. If we study carefully their behavior we can see in fact that they are never shown as anything but confused, self-loathing teenagers who seem to have lost control over their own lives and minds and want to take revenge over everyone surrounding them.

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

Every time I watch the scene depicting the school shooting itself, I feel like it doesn't belong to reality. As if the characters were living some kind of gloomy fantasy. At the very beginning, before the perpetrators actually started shooting people down, everything happens in slow-motion that makes the viewer feel somewhat untied from reality. We don't realize how dangerous this whole situation really is until one of the killers fires at Michelle. Then everything happens really quickly.
Once the massacre has truly begun, we follow each one of the characters the film has focused on. We witness how each one of them (excepted John) eventually find a horrible death. Through that method, Gus Van Sant wants us viewers to perceive the massacre as something personal: those are characters we know, we've taken a quick glance into their lives, and now they are dying right in front of us and there is nothing we can do to save them.

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

The main consequence is that the tragedy becomes a lot more striking and disturbing for the viewer. All along the film we feel everything is so quiet and peaceful...The symmetry and odd beauty of every frame immerses us in a world of stillness and ease. We are living the quiet routine of those teenagers, born and raised in a small town where nothing disturbing ever happens. Everything seems to move in a very poetic and harmonious way, that's why the film feels a bit slow every now and then. Gus Van Sant wants to make beauty out of reality.  That's why, when the shooting finally takes place, it becomes something so violent for the viewer that it's almost unbearable. Every trace of poise and serenity is brutally destroyed as the two murderers execute their carnage. It's like Gus Van Sant wanted to create something perfect and beautiful only to destroy it at the ending of the film. The message he conveys to the audience is that there might be something poetic in our everyday life, but there isn't in such thing as a tragedy. He cannot make it look beautiful and balanced. Because it wasn't.


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

Throughout the movie there is such an intimacy between the characters and the viewer that it feels like we are blending into their universe. We are even able to follow them physically during their long walks in the high school corridors. The lack of action we witness all along the film impregnates us viewers with a deep feeling of stillness and composure. Plus the fact that the events that preceded the massacre are shown in such an aesthetic and poetic way makes it hard for us to believe that the film is going to conclude with something as brutal as a carnage; even once we're familiarized with the two killers and the plans they have made. Killers themselves are also portrayed in a very human way: we can see them performing random acts (playing piano, playing video games, having breakfast...) so it's hard for us to perceive them as inhuman creatures; as monsters. When the killing happens, it puts an end to every trace of calm and easiness in the movie. There are some moments of the killing scene itself that might be considered poetic due to the slow motion or the music in the background (e.g: the scene that introduces Benny and follows him through the school corridors until he gets unexpectedly murdered). Nevertheless, the killing scene is an abrupt return to reality after what seemed a whole movie taking place in a universe of peace and routine.

POST 15: School shootings in the USA

On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold grabbed two assault riffles, broke into Columbine's High School in the tiny peaceful community of Littletown, Colorado, and mercilessly shot thirteen of their schoolmates. After that, the killers took their own lives. 





I) The information I find as most interesting in this site can be found here.
This section displays a list of "Those who were killed at Columbine High School", and it allows viewers not only to see pictures of the departed teenagers that were shot to death, but also to click on them and see a brief summary of their lives; lives that were brutally taken by Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris on April 20th, 1999. This specific section of the website allows us viewers to take a quick glance at what seemed to be the life of the average, middle-class youngsters living in the USA, whose only deathly mistake was to attend the wrong high-school, the wrong day. I feel this is somewhat more helpful when it comes to empathize with this tragedy. It becomes unnecesary to read the psychological profile of the perpetrators of these murders. My opinion is that Harris and Klebold were not special at all. They probably were mentally disturbed, as many others (the vestiges of their diaries prove it). There is a bunch of Dylan Klebolds and Eric Harris in every high school; the only difference is that those students mentally disturbed, that we are unknowingly surrounded by, are denied the access to fire weapons; so they are (to some extent) peaceful. There is no way to prove they wouldn't act differently if they had access to guns.
 If we want to keep Columbine High School in the back of our minds and hearts, and to do this in the proper way, it is essential to leave the murderers aside. All we can do now is look back and feel sorrowful for Cassie, Steve, Corey, Kelly, Matt, Daniel, Daniel, Rachel, Isaiah, John, Lauren, Kyle and Dave. Reading about them, about the way they used to live and everything they were forced to leave behind when their lives were unfairly taken, is an accurate way to keep them alive in our memory. And that's why I like so much this webpage.


II)

Pictures and names of deathly victims of Columbine's shootings

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the massacre

Map of School shootings in the USA

Supporters grieve at a candlelight vigil after a shooting at Reynolds High School in Troutdale

III)

A promotional poster of "Bowling for Columbine"

I declare myself fond of Michael Moore's films, although I consider him some kind of a hypocrite (I mean, he criticizes in every possible way American's social and governmental flaws although, due to the global repercussion and reputation his documental features have reached, he has become the kind of "American big fish" he complains so much about). Still, I find him delightfully cynical towards his own country and consider Bowling for Columbine a genuine masterpiece. In this documentary Moore explains USA massive school shootings as a consequence of the democratization of fire weapons in America, but he also gives many other reasons. It is a well-known fact that in America nowadays a person doesn't even need to be considered mentally stable to be able to get a gun or even an assault rifle, but... Did you even know that so happens in Canada? However, the rate of violent deaths due to fire guns in Canada is almost non-existent. But...Why? Truth to be told, USA citizens are taught to be scared from their most tender age. They are indoctrinated every time they turn the TV on or dare to read written press. The message is quite clear: the world is a dangerous place. Americans should be scared. Everyone wants to damage their "land of freedom". Thus, they MUST get a gun as quickly a possible (well, a regular assault rifle will do).

 Guns are not even shown as a right, but as a duty. It is borderline stupid, indeed, but that's the way they are taught to think.

Owning weapons is the only way Americans have to feel safe, once government and the media has made them believe that everything they are surrounded by (especially immigrants, let's say it upfront) is trying to hurt them in some way. They crave that false feeling of protection, Michael Moore explains. American people are, to put it in a nutshell, ignorant and fearful, and often manipulated by pro-weapon societies such as the NRA, National Rifle Association, one of USA's most powerful lobbies. 

ALSO: American Horror Story, Murder House. There is a part of this TV show that is loosely inspired on Columbine's High School Massacre. I believe a series about ghosts living in a haunted house might not be the best reference when it comes to illustrate school shootings, but I found this part unexpectedly accurate regarding what those situations must be like.

(as I was unable to find through Blogger's Youtube searcher, here's the video's URL: https://youtu.be/AZ2OlQ56qrU ) 

IV) When it comes to explaining high-schools' massacres, we often blame perpetrator's lack of self confidence, his/her psychological disabilities, or even the fact that they come from broken homes (which is often the case). Nevertheless, I vehemently disagree with those statements. Many teenagers come from broken homes, have an identity crisis or are cruelly-bullied because, who knows, their sexual identity, financial status or something. However, that doesn't make them forcefully able to grab a gun, go to school and start shooting their teachers and classmates just "because", only for the sake of killing. I consider mental illness as an attribute of these shootings, and not the main reason kids are becoming murderers. I believe we are missing the point. Sorry if I got a bit carried away, but I really wanted to make this clear. 

Alfred University's website shows an article about this specific topic, in which many students were asked about what they considered to be school shooting's main cause. Eighty-seven percent of them blame it on a strong feeling of revenge, as school shootings' perpetrators want to take revenge on those who bullied them (once again, if they wanted to take revenge over a minority, what would possibly push them to kill such a large amount of people?!)  This website shows a few other reasons I believe might be a bit closer to the point, such as the fact that those kids do not value life or have witnessed many forms of violence (which might hypothetically lead them to some kind of normalization of death). As we witness in the documentary Bowling For Columbine, people also often associate carnage perpetrators' crimes with the fact that they MIGHT have listened to music that allegedly preaches violence (such as Marilyn Manson's).   Still, I admit such music and/or movies might lead youngsters to some kind of normalization of violence and death, which would make it easier for them to grab a gun and pull the trigger.

We also blame mass school shootings on the fact that nowadays in the USA it becomes astonishingly easier for a teenager to get a firegun than to buy alcohol or cigarettes. That is why many policies from the Democrat political party are based on the promise of guns' restrictions that will make the whole process of buying a gun a lot more selective and long standing. This was one of Obama's campaign most vehement points. Still, without the Congress' agreement, guns' restriction will not be possible. (And as the US Congress is strongly manipulated by pressure groups ("lobbies"), guns' restriction is considered a bit of an utopian ideal.) 

Personal Opinion (once more):

I believe that as long as people feel comfortable by justifying school shootings with such lame reasons as 

-"The kids were bullied at school and craved revenge."

-"They were mental. "

-"They suffered from violence at home."

Well, as long as we are not able to find anything better, things are not going to change. We feel totally 'okay' with giving these reasons, because it makes us feel safe. It makes us feel like nobody near us is likely to commit such terrible acts. It also makes us believe we are not in danger as long as we are not surrounded by bullied, unstable, mental people raised in broken homes and (please read the following ironically), since we are completely able to spot them, there is no reason for us to be scared. I sustain we are wrong. 

A kid able to carry out a school shooting might come from a wealthy, stable family, or not. They might be bright pupils with outstanding grades, or not. They might have anger issues or simply a total disrespect for life mixed with some kind of crippling boredom, which isn't necessarily associated to schizophrenia, bipolarity, depression or any other concrete mental disorder.  Just as some cruelly-bullyied teens are unable to accomplish any kind of violence. If we want things to change for good, our policies must aim a much larger part of the population, and not only teenagers we consider who are likely to commit a crime. Because if we base policies on our preconceived stereotypes on what a violent teenager should look like... Well, basically we're all doomed. 

Also, of course, if USA would stop spreading weapons across the country (making it much harder for anyone to sneak a gun into a school and start shooting people),  that would be a really good place to start.

To sum up, I believe White America is quite sick.