Elephant

Gus Van Sant ist schlau. Er hat gewusst, was und wie er verfilmen soll, damit er für Aufsehen und eine Diskussion sorgt. Aus der Filmemacher-Sicht hat er nichts Neues präsentiert, als Autor hat er sich nicht geäußert. Trotzdem bewerte ich dieses Werk mit vier Sternen. Weil mir sein Film das Blut in den Adern gefrieren ließ. (11.07.2003)

Formally, there is nothing original about it, Tarantino's fragmented and non-linear narrative has been done many times before. Van Sant lulls the viewers at the beginning, only to grab them firmly by the throat. Nevertheless, the shots of the students walking and doing various activities were a bit too long for my taste and had no narrative value. Van Sant does not solve anything, does not explain anything, does not look for the causes of the horrible act, only shows the events of that day in an almost documentary style. This film is very cold and I wonder whether that’s the right approach. And I can't stop at the massacre scene itself. I appreciate that Van Sant avoided a cheap display of naturalistic moments of violence, but in my opinion he didn't pull it off directorially. There is hardly any shouting, the students are just running back and forth. One of the witnesses, a black man named Benny, walks into a classroom where a student is lying shot and a girl is standing next to him as if nothing is wrong, hands folded, no tears, no emotion, no shock. Benny walks her to the window and she comes out of it completely calmly, then Benny picks himself up and goes to get blown away. Is this how people behave in tense moments of crisis when their lives are on the line? No way! PS: The scene that gave me the biggest chill was when the postman arrives with a package containing a working machine gun and hands it over to the underage kids to sign for. America and its loose gun laws really suck. (31.08.2004)

Raw filmmaking that fulfils its purpose to a tee – well, almost. The stylistic minimalism and emotional detachment work brilliantly until the expected conclusion, where the viewer becomes a witness of a shocking decline of the human spirit and gratuitous violence, which, due to the characters' lack of emotional response, does not resonate as much as it should. Otherwise, it’s certainly an original and stimulating piece of work, surpassing even Villeneuve's better-known Polytechnic in its interesting time construction, the believability of most of the characters and its clear vision. (28.09.2018)

If Gus Van Sant had put more effort into delineating the characters and delving deeper into the atmosphere in the school and the fates of the individual protagonists in the final confrontation, it could have been a good and, above all, emotionally powerful film. However, the director is almost autistic in his method of portrayal, looking at the ant hill as a bug that accidentally wanders into the maze of his corridors. As for why the massacre happened, we can only speculate and deduce from hints that it was bullying. The creator then maximally complicated the audience's connection to the victims by revealing only the minimum about them. Overall impression: 45%. (17.04.2010)

Gus van Sant’s a pro. I certainly can’t deny that he showed certain director qualities in this movie. The impersonal and precise analysis of a school atmosphere was perfect. The impersonality is so raw and emotionless that it’s hard to view this movie from any other angle. But it all stands and falls with the end that is brutal, even given the expectations. But it doesn’t tell you anything about anyone at that school, it just shows what happened there in a dull manner. But why? That’s what Michael Moore’s documentary is for. (04.09.2018)