Elephant
What impresses me is that van Sant not only has no answers, he suggests there are no answers.
The film is a big question. A poem, sure; a meditation, even, if you must, but above all, a question. How are we able to ignore what we know stares us in the face?
Is he right to ask the question? Do I have the right question? Wasn't it rather that he was asking whether the apparent lack of meaning in the shooters' actions is matched by the same lack in the lives of those they shoot? He is not saying they deserve to be shot. He's not saying anyone deserves anything. He makes absolutely no judgment. The good, the bad, the indifferent are all shot. He doesn't ask us to shed tears for them, to feel sorry, to miss them.
Is the way things are presented the only meaning they have? Is that the question he is asking? I'm not sure. Where you see things from different perspectives in Elephant, they do not have different meanings. They are just seen from a different angle, through different eyes, but rarely does anyone add anything to another's view.
When the three girls are in the canteen, the camera looks out of the window. We think we will see the shooters walking into the school. A few moments before the girls have seen John and commented on his playing with a dog. But they do not see the shooters. We think that's why they were looking out of the window, so that we would learn something.
There is no dramatic irony but one. We don't know anything that the characters don't know. Except one thing.
posted by Dr Zen @ 6:25 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home