A human bond to Elephant
October 2, 2011
dig1taldiva
Gus Van Sant’s Elephant is, understandably, a polarizing film not specifically for its content, but largely due to its production. The production, for me, is what garnered my sense of interactivity – this film inserts you, unapologetically, into the monotonous grind that is a suburban high school day. Immediately, I noticed the production quality of the film; its tracking shots and long takes of the student you are paired with for that segment mirrors a home video quality in which you interact without the glossy editing or the powerful score playing out in the background. Elephant barely offers the expected production quality of modern day films which struck me instantly and gave me the ‘fly on the wall’ feeling while viewing the movie – there is no safe guard between me and the film, a wall has not been built to separate me from the beautiful movie stars and high production value – I am a student at this Oregon high school with these nonprofessional actors (most of whom didn’t even change their name for the film). Bassett argues in “’Just because’ stories: on Elephant” that the interactivity of the film is presented in cultural format, a medium of everyday life which is similar to the trend of reality television – one that offers identification and involvement (168-9).
The identification and involvement do not come simply or directly though a strong character development in the film which attaches the viewer to a character(s), but rather (especially in my case) from the connectedness of humanity and the ability a person has to realize the greater picture at hand. Yes, Van Sant does not offer much more than a character’s name and that particular, surface perspective for segments of the film; however, it is the known impending horror that will befall these students that binds you with them regardless of having a connection to them based on an expected, complex character development. The shifting perspectives, repetition and loops which Van Sant utilizes, fuel the interactivity we have with the students whose fate we are privy to. We play the waiting game with them, yet we have the gift of foretelling the future. As Bassett states, “It is clear from the start that these lives are at risk, that these intertwined lives are about to be ripped apart, and some of them ripped to pieces. Since the audience knows that some of these characters will not come through, the repeated trajectories, and insistent returns to the same points of intersection begin to take on a certain cruelty” (181).
My voyeuristic experience with Elephant left me certain that this film was interactive but not in the standard fashion. We know the outcome and are given different pathways to view the event, yet the answer is not clear cut and instead of offering a few different conclusions (like Memento), only bigger questions emerge from the smoke. Van Sant inserts his viewers in the corridors and cafeteria and promotes a human connectedness we all seem to find in large-scale tragedies. Everyone wants to feel connected somehow in the wake of close to home terror, and as Bassett explains, “Elephant at least engages with that desire for ‘real’ connection that is seen in…disasters…where each of us reaches for our link to the tale, to make it our tale” (185). This interconnectedness people seem to project during tragedy is a driving force in the interactivity of Van Sant’s Elephant.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
3 Comments Add your own
Leave a comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to comments via RSS Feed
dig1taldiva 
1.
lapo0034 |
October 3, 2011 at 12:31 AM
I like your account of Bassett in this film in relation to reality TV. With its unrecognizable student actors and low production value, Elephant tries to portray an ‘as real as possible’ narrative. It is interesting to look at narrative, something that Bassett and many others she cites in her article as integral to how we make meaning in our lives, in a documentary-like (giving us the aspect of reality) form. I also think it is interesting to think about how this film is close to or taps into reality, but ends up characterized by Bassett as avant garde– pushing the boundaries of how we concieve of/interact with ‘the real.’ This is perhaps why reality TV is so popular and easy to interact with, while Elephant pushes us, though setting us in the ‘as real as possible’ world, pushes us further into a new/different interactive landscape that might help us uncover additional planes/spaces of ‘the real’ that otherwise mask themselves to us.
2.
Brianna |
October 3, 2011 at 1:03 AM
I really like the point you make about the film’s interactivity stemming from the idea that the audience already has the “larger picture” in mind. We already know the outcome, so we’re told we should invest in these characters. I wonder how sympathy plays into it, though. Janastasia left an interesting comment on Sarah La.’s blog about how these characters are all rather stereotypical, and I think that’s an interesting contrast to your argument. It has me wondering whether or not we’re supposed to sympathize with any/all of these characters, and if so, which ones. I felt more connected to John and and Eli than Nathan and Carrie for instance, but I wonder if that was just a personal interpretation, if Van Sant purposely inserted some more sympathetic characters, or if sympathy even matters. We know some of these kids are going to die; does this hinder our attachment to them or strengthen it? Either way, the focus on the “larger picture” has a huge influence on how these questions are addressed (for me, at least). I definitely have more to think about before class.
3.
Lisa |
October 3, 2011 at 1:05 PM
I like how you interpreted the ways that the film is interactive. The way you address that the students are sort of–I don’t want to say stereotypes, but I guess stereotypes–of particular types of high school students, made me think about the characters in general in a different way. I think you’re correct in asserting that knowing that they’re going to most likely reach an awful ending does in a way, bind them more to you as a viewer. The fact that they are sort of ‘stereotypes’ of students also helps to enhance the feeling that this begins on just a normal day–it could happen anywhere for any reason.