At the start of the review, Travers is clearly detailing the events which occur in the movie; he distinctively states the climax of the movie: which is the very disturbing shooting scene at the end of the movie. He also states that the movie is based on true events that occurred in Columbine high school. He also touches upon the meaning of the title which is quite useful as ‘Elephant’ does sound quite equivocal. However, as he stated, if we try to implicate this title to the events that happen in the movie: it is something that’s metaphorically huge, seen and always there, but we choose to ignore it.
He continues to state the teenagers/students in the movie. This is important as the students are represented in a typical behaviour and attitude that is expected of them: violent, ruthless and quite reckless. However, the representation of the characters are not elaborated on further as the events are based on a real life situation and this movie has kept its realism and shown the characters in the way that the audience would have expected to see.
The review then elaborates on a detailed description of a scene with some of the characters that are in the film. He describes this specific scene in quite great detail. From reading the review, I could clearly tell that Travers has been deeply affected by the movie and does describe these very specific details such as the ‘clueless principal’ due to him looking beyond the lines and trying to comprehend what Van Sant has created.
The review’s language is not complicated and can be aimed at any type of audience who might be interested in watching the movie. However, reading the first line: ‘won top film and directing prizes at the 2003 Cannes film festival’ clearly states that the movie is an art house film and therefore, is aimed at an older and upper class audience.
Travers also uses many rhetorical questions in his review. This is quite useful as rhetorical questions affects the reader, and makes us think of the point the person is trying to make. Furthermore, Travers is trying to make quite useful remarks with his rhetorical questions: ‘Did they wonder why parents, teachers and peers never noticed what made these two boys outsiders in the first place?’ This sentence actually sums up the whole movie: it is clearly talking about the big ‘elephant’ that’s always there, but is always chosen to be ignored by us. Travers also uses other literary techniques such as alliteration: ‘unique and unforgettable.’ Just seeing those two words is enough for the reader in my opinion.
He also briefly touches upon the camera movements: ‘In Elephant, the camera pokes around, catching snippets of talk, observing the beauty of one young face and the desolation of another.’ From this sentence, we could clearly guess the variety of shots and the atmosphere that’s going to be seen in the movie Travers also complements on the cinematography used in ‘Elephant.’. He describes the cinematography by Harris Savides to being ‘brilliant. ‘Again, this emphasises on the many and effective shots that are present in the movie. He carries on to talking about the mise-en-scene such as the setting and dialogue/sound that’s used in the movie such as diegetic sounds (dialogues of characters). The props used such as the weapons used by the main characters also are listed in this detailed review also the setting of the movie; ‘a high school in Portland, Oregon.’
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/elephant-20031024
No comments:
Post a Comment