As we breakdown the conventional methods of filmmaking and start to consider staying true to form, I reflect on the films that may have already set out to achieve this.

In 2004, Gus Van Sant directed Elephant, a controversial film inspired by the mass shootings at Columbine High School, Colorado in April 1999. The Columbine Massacre preceded 9/11 and culturally was (and still remains) a devastating blow to the American people and the affects of their country’s gun laws.

Elephant depicts the insignificant, mundane daily routine of several young adolescents at high school as an impending tragedy awaits them. The film attempts to make sense of a senseless act and achieves this by denying the viewer conventional film elements.

Gus Van Sant omits a traditional three-act structure, a plot that unravels, our expected character development, formal dialogue and the usual visual cues in cinematography. Instead he pursues a voyeuristic, abstract approach with a non-liner structure.

The film is divided into 8 sections, each representing a slice of a teens’ life. You trace their movements and observe their interconnectedness, angst, loneliness, clichés and tired routines. However the abstract approach originates through the use of time-looping. As each teen’s chapter begins the clock resets and we see the same day unfold through another teen’s perspective. It almost feels like Gus Van Sant is trying to pause and rewind the day, attempting to avoid the cruel fate that awaits them all. The film’s use of multiple perspectives shows us the similarities in the youth and how the disconnected become gravely connected. In traditional cinema multiple perspectives in a film would usually provide a new insight into the events or the plot of the film and so the time-looping provides a clear example of Gus Van Sant flipping these traditional forms

. 

Another unconventional approach is the director’s attempt to convey realism. Although a fictional representation of the Columbine shootings, Van Sant doesn’t shy from portraying the reality of how senseless, unmotivated and random the shootings were. His actors are non-professional actors who in fact play themselves and use their own names. The performers improvised their ambiguous dialogue further blending reality and fiction. However, the main technique, and definitely not conventional, is the regular use of long takes. We feel a sense of ‘real time’ due to the sparse number of cuts and lengthy, candid takes. The film was shot on 35mm in a real high school using little to no lighting set ups and the picture painted looks authentic. Each protagonist is respectfully observed at a distance and the audience passively witnesses their lives. Obscure composition filled with empty space dominates over the standard rule of thirds or balance.

In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, Van Sant addressed the film’s casualness towards violence. “Modern-day cinema takes the form of a sermon,” he said. “You don’t get to think, you only get to receive information. This film is not a sermon. The point of the film is not being delivered to you from the voice of the filmmaker. Hopefully, there are as many interpretations as there are viewers.”

It feels like Gus Van Sant has done everything possible to remove himself (and Hollywood) from this film in order to deliver a chillingly realistic but fictional tale.