Three questions spring to mind, elbowing madly to the front:
What was Gus Van Sant thinking? What happened to the guy who made Drugstore Cowboy and My Own Private Idaho, two of my alltime faves? And what was that jury in Cannes thinking?
I've got some theories on each, but let's plunge right into the issue at hand:
Elephant is a truly horrible film. One of the dullest--aggressively dullest--I've ever seen. An endless series of interminable tracking shots focused on nothing more than the backs of young boys' heads or sometimes the backs of their torsos as well. We follow a hot young guy across a field, up the stairs, down the hallway, into an office--two endless minutes, where absolutely nothing happens. It's "scene" after scene after scene like this, sometimes repeated from two or even three points of view, where nothing new is revealed the second and third times!
Indulgent? Beyond compare. To what end?
It all goes nowhere. It doesn't even try. Just an endless series of sequences where very little happens, with no narrative thread at all. He seems to be going for an ordinary day in the life of an ordinary high school. A little too ordinary.
It's like parking the car outside your local supermarket and sitting around for an hour watching people interact. A typical scene in a typical town which is boring as hell and completely unilluminating. You'd have a better chance seeing something interesting in your parking lot.
Then we get to the subject matter. If you're going to spend a year or more of your life exploring a national tragedy like Columbine, wouldn't it behoove you to spend a week or two researching what the hell actually happened? Or hire a freaking researcher? The film isn't that low budget.
On top of turning up artistically empty, it reinforces several of the central Columbine myths in the process, especially the central mythical motive of retribution to the jocks for supposedly endlessly picking on them.
Van Sant also seemed like he set out to create a film about Columbine, but never figured out anything to say. Or even explore. As we meet his fictional version killers, and learn virtually nothing about the lead-up, it occured to me that the most fertile territory for a filmmaker lies in exploring that year of endless scheming between the killers. What they hell went on in Eric's basement and his bedroom; how did they rev each other up and build on each others fantasies until it became real?
Van Sant makes only the most half-hearted attempt, with very little emotion expressed between them. What a lost opportunity.
SEMI--SPOILERS AHEAD (I'm now going to discuss the nature of the attack sequence in general terms):
It was striking how bland even the killing section of the film was. Seems odd both artistically and historically. I got to the school grounds around 12: 30 and the place was still in greater chaos than anything on this screen. And the extensive footage I've seen of the school during the rampage was pure pandemonium. In the film, people were running around, but somewhat half-heartedly. It didn't capture even a glimpse of the horror that was Columbine. By choice? What an odd choice.
FULL SPOILERS AHEAD:
And of all the myths to perpetuate, why, oh why, oh why why why would a gay filmmaker resurrect the nasty old discredited rumor that the killers were gay? Baffling.
(And in case you're wondering, the latter didn't have anything to do with my utter disdain for the film. It comes in the last few minutes, when I had long since grown so utterly bored that I had pulled out a paper and begun cataloging the myriad ways it was failing.)
Columbine Comments -- Open thread for readers.
This comment thread, begun in Oct 2003, is open to anything related to Columbine: about the Almanac, things you read elsewhere, questions about myths or rumors, current news on shooters or troubled youth . . . or anything else. I get email alerts on all comments now, so feel free to pose questions to me about Columbine, and I will do my best to answer.
Dutton (Penguin) in early 2009. 
