Analysing ‘Elephant’ review by Chicago Sun Times (Roger Ebert)

By reading the first paragraph of this review, I could clearly tell that the language is not complex and can be aimed at any type of audience who is interested in seeing this movie. Roger Ebert starts his review by giving an insight about what to expect when watching ‘Elephant’, it also mentions the purpose of the movie: that it ‘refuses to supply reasons and assign cures, so that we can close the case and move on.’

They then contradict what a different reviewer has stated about the movie: ‘Variety's Todd McCarthy, who wrote after it won the Golden Palm at Cannes 2003 that it was "pointless at best and irresponsible at worst." I think its responsibility comes precisely in its refusal to provide a point.’ As he mentioned in the first paragraph, he carries on to emphasise on the fact that the movie doesn’t give a point to what happens and why it happens and because of this restriction, the movie actually has a very big bold statement to make: no matter what the reason was, a such disastrous event did happen and Van Sant wanted to show the audience in his own way of what occurred that day in Columbine.

Ebert then explains an event which they had been through after the columbine shootings. When asked by a reporter if films such as ‘Basketball Diaries’ influence these young students, Ebert replies, no. Television channels such as CNN, ‘glorify’ these killings and make the shooters famous, therefore, they are influencing these young teenagers into such things by also ‘explaining’ the reason, as a reason is almost impossible to comprehend. They then elaborate on that ‘Elephant’ is anti-violent in a way that it drains violence by showing the social context, reward and glamour. Therefore, they clearly doubt that ‘Elephant’ will influence anyone to carry out such an act.

Furthermore, he describes a specific scene in the movie: this is when a tall black boy is walking in the corridors and helping the injured. He is as kind of a hero during the chaos. However, he getting shot during in the middle of this makes us feel very saddened as this act goes against ‘all the conventional modes of movie behaviour and simply shows us sad, sudden death without purpose.’

Lastly, he describes the risk which Van Sant has taken by making this movie as it doesn’t have any stars and is made with a very small budget: however, as Van Sant has admitted, his success with ‘Good Will Hunting,’ is the reason why he made such production.

The review finishes with quotes out of the director’s mouth which clearly state that the ‘reason’ to this catastrophic event is left ambiguous and for the audience to decide: "I want the audience to make its own observations and draw its own conclusions."

Compared to the rolling stones review, this review is more simplistic and flowing in a very formal structure: the point which the reviewer is trying to make is quite clear and always emphasises on the fact that the movie is quite brilliantly effective as it’s so real and the reason to why everything happened is literally not known and the fact that it is based on a true story, is truly terrifying.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031107/REVIEWS/311070301