An American Independent Cinema Case Study - Elephant (2003)

Ryan Lewis [email protected] www.razzlewis.com

1

aN aMERICAN iNDEPENDENT cINEMA cASE sTUDY - eLEPHANT (2003)

In this case study I will be looking at the 2003 Gus van Sant movie

‘Elephant’. I will be examining its position as a piece of American Independent

Cinema, seeking to analyse the text in relation to its formal features, socio-

historical context and industrial factors which concern it and also how it relates to

other movies that are considered to reside within this meta-genre.

Before I can attempt to do this however, it is important to establish what can

actually be considered to be American Independent Cinema. This is of particular

importance as the term Independent is something of a bone of contention amongst

scholars and critics with both a more literal and a more liberal definition being

proposed from different sources.

Somewhat more simply, the country of origin for a film is decided by the

International Federation of Film Archives using “the country of the principal offices

of the Production Company or individual by whom the moving image work was

made” (anon, 1999) and as a result, ‘Elephant’ is clearly American. Even taking

into account the nationality of the writer/director and the location of filming

(Oregon) ‘Elephant’ is undoubtedly an American movie.

As for defining the term “Independent Cinema”, it is less clear-cut. Greg

Merritt for example, in his book ‘Celluloid Mavericks: A History of American

Independent Film’ takes the former approach to defining the term, stating that an

independent film is ‘any motion picture financed and produced completely

autonomous of all studios, regardless of size’. (2000, p.xii)

This industry based definition would put ‘Elephant’ outside the sphere of

American Independent cinema as a result of its distribution network of the Time

Warner owned HBO Films and Fine Line Cinema, a subsidiary of New Line Cinema.

In fact, when the film was made, “all seven major studios… [had] independent

arms [and] only two really well-heeled independent production companies… still

stand alone”. (Holmlund and Wyatt, 2005, p.8) Studio involvement was certainly

increasing, almost to the point at which independent cinema by that definition was

hardly noticeable on the general audience’s radar.


2

Yet still, despite this growing studio influence, when commenting on the film

in 2008 Edgerton and Jones stated that ‘Elephant’ “would never have been made

in a studio system” (p. 296) strongly suggesting that these “independent arms” are

still considered to be makers of independent films, despite their links to the

studios. Surely then, if this is the case, disallowing the film on this basis would be

unfair.

As a result, for the purposes of this study, we are going to be considering

American Independent Cinema along the lines of a more liberal definition that

Merritt dismisses as ‘too slippery’, the “belief that independence is determined not

by financing but… by professing an alternative vision”, a idea that he concedes is

“widely held”. (2000, p.xii)

And it is primarily along these lines that I shall seek to establish that

‘Elephant’ is an example of American Independent Cinema, concentrating upon the

film’s form and context as well as touching upon the industrial factors that do still,

of course, play their part in the makeup of the film.

The changing cost of filmmaking as a result of digital technologies for

example had an effect upon the production of ‘Elephant’. Russell Evans noted that

“DV film is going to cost far less than its conventional analogue or celluloid

forerunner” (2006, p.72) and this obviously provides scope for new ways to use

funds that would have otherwise been tied up elsewhere.

In some cases independent filmmakers may use the money to enable their

film to have a more conventional Hollywood look, as opposed to having to thing

more creatively and laterally during the filmmaking process as has traditionally

been associated with independent cinema. Others would be more inclined to

make their decisions in this regard based upon that independent and more

experimental spirit, and that appears to be the case when it comes to ‘Elephant’.

The cinematographer on ‘Elephant’, Harris Savides, mentions how “the film

was shot in continuity… we could afford to do it… movies are not filmed in

continuity for one reason and that’s money, what other reason is there?” (Ballinger,

2004, p.180) This decision obviously impacted on the final text too, with numerous

critics commenting upon the “smooth style” (Hollands, 2005) of the film, something


3

that was probably made easier for the crew and cast of non-professional actors to

achieve by working in such a manner.

‘Elephant’ is not a film which is solely entrenched within contemporary

independent cinema either, it also has similarities to an older type of independent

cinema, that of the exploitation film. In a similar way to how “exploitation movies

were able to piggyback on topical stories in the news” (Schafer, 1999, p.114) much

of the talk about ‘Elephant’ to be found in reviews and in magazines referred to its

original concept being based upon “the wave of public school shootings during the

late 1990s, particularly the one at Columbine High School” (p.56, Dancyger &

Rush, 2007). This undoubtedly served to raise the profile of the film, and its

subject matter generated more media coverage and word of mouth than a film of

its size would probably have garnered.

It was not marketed quite so brashly as the 1970’s exploitation films and nor

was the film claiming to contain any graphic scenes, but given the subject matter

of the text, it is probable that some of the audience were expecting something

along those lines purely through implication. Here then, in true exploitation and

independent tradition, the film managed to utilise the alternative promotion

methods (through word of mouth and topical relevance) to make up for its

advertising budget.

As Yannis Tzioumakis explains, “the topicality… guarantees them a certain

amount of publicity (non-paid advertising)” and such methods “attract maximum

public awareness for the lowest possible amount of expenditure” (2006, p.140),

making up for an advertising budget that would otherwise be dwarfed by that of

major pictures.

When looking at film form, Geoff King highlights two main ways in which

independent films often distinguish themselves from the more mainstream texts

that are found. One-way is through “the use of more complex, stylized,

expressive, showy or self-conscious forms” whilst the other is “in making greater

claims to verisimilitude/realism”. (2005, p.10) There is little doubt that Gus Van

Sant purports to achieve the latter with ‘Elephant’ and he is relatively successful in

doing so. One reviewer goes so far as to say that “viewers may believe this is a

documentary and not a fictional film” (Kramer, 2006, p. 193)


4

This level of verisimilitude was achieved by using a combination of

techniques that serve to draw the viewer into the diegesis and make it appear to

be very current and real. The aforementioned use of non-professional actors for

instance lends the film an authenticity that may not be quite so apparent if

professionals were used. Using the local students, familiar already with the area

and routines, allows for the idea of the film being set on the “ordinary high school

day” the film’s strap line suggests to really come through.

This realism leaves the film to, particularly in the first act, spend time

focusing on very little by way of action. Instead, the film “move(s) slowly and

linger(s)… and this process memorialises the banal and apparently insignificant”

(P.King, 2005, p.85) thanks to what is described as a “loose script”. (Scott, 2005)

This allows for a great deal of freedom to be conveyed within the text, and

heightens the realism due to the lack of immediate tension and dynamism to

propel the narrative forward at pace. Instead we a presented with a level of action

more similar to what the audience could call a typical day than is the norm, and as

a result the film becomes very easy to buy into.

The number of scenes where we were tracking students down corridors or

seeing them in a relative state of isolation (alone in a room, etc) made for a very

sparse amount of dialogue within the text at times. What dialogue there was, like

the script, was improvised heavily based around the actors’ real lives. This lack of

speech works to develop the sense of foreboding and an element of dramatic irony

as the audience know what is to come later on.

Patricia Leavy also notes that it “serves to highlight particular sounds”

(2007, p.172-3) from the “mundane” such as a squeaky book cart in the library,

through to “the striking sound of a bullet hitting a gun chamber” which is a signal

for the shooters’ spree to begin as used later when repeated. This contrast of

quiet and sudden louder noises shattering the silence unexpectedly is a typical

staple of the horror genre, which ‘Elephant’ does contain a few elements of

thematically too (high school, terror).

The narrative structure of the film however is not quite so sparse as the

dialogue; in fact it is a very interesting and innovative example therefore fulfilling


5

the belief that “independent cinema expects films that possess a certain level of

novelty”. (Berra, 2008, p.201)

The way the first hour of the film is structured uses a downplayed, multi-

strand narrative to show the audience fifteen minutes in the school prior to the

shootings from the perspective of a few characters around the school, none of

whom are explored in significant depth but each of whom are given enough time to

convey a little about themselves and their personalities. We are however able to

ascertain that this is a typical school day, and enough common teen character

stereotypes are explored to allow almost everyone in the audience someone to

relate to.

Interestingly though, this leaves the film somewhat ambiguous as to whom

exactly is an important character and who the shooter may be. The narrative

reveals this in an equally intriguing manner, by moving to act two in what can be

described as an “abstractly thematic” (Dancyger and Rush, 2007, p.55) way; the

audience’s question is answered but by introducing both new characters and a

new time period, therefore further disrupting the audience impressions of what to

expect in the story. As Bassett says of the narrative “it is complex and non-

linear… mutable and innovative”, (2007, p.184) and therefore by nature a thought

provoking piece.

It is not just through the narrative structure that ‘Elephant’ can jolt the

audience and be a difficult text to read. The slow pace and length of time spent

lingering the grounds of the school, seemingly just soaking up the atmosphere as

people drift in and out of frame and following tracking shots creates what Nicholas

Rhombes calls and “illusion of objectivity” (Rhombes, 2005, p.52) where the

audience take on the role of a slightly distanced observer.

Couple this with the composition of some shots, such as those in the

shooters house through a door from a distance back, and again the fact the

camera spends a lot of time following the backs of heads and it can be seen to

create a huge a sense of detachment for a mainstream audience used to plenty of

dialogue and action.

By constructing the film in this way though the director managed to ensure

the film “sidestepped melodrama and sensationalism” (Scott, 2005) diffusing


6

somewhat the inevitable criticism and claims of exploitation by presenting the story

in a downplayed and tempered manner.

It is almost certain then that Van Sant, who is equally comfortable making

mainstream cinema, chose to tell this narrative in the way he envisaged best and

therefore chose to make an independent movie. As Edgerton and Jones said, a

movie like ‘Elephant’ would otherwise “never have been made”, and such a film

done in a more mainstream style would have courted significantly more

controversy on the grounds of bad taste and exploitation.

The entire film is instead left very open to interpretation but nowhere more

so than at the end of the picture where Carrie and Nathan, a couple of the popular

students whom we have become familiar with, are cornered by Alex who proceeds

to play eenie-miney-mo to decide who to shoot. Before we see who is picked, and

whether they alone or both are shot, the image cuts away to the sky leaving the

viewer with one more final enigma to ponder over rather than an expected ending.

As Savides himself says of the thinking behind the film, “there was to be no

explanation and no resolution. We weren’t going to slap anybody’s hand or

preach. The audience was to take what they wanted from the film and interpret it

the way they felt” (Ballinger, 2004, p.180)

According to Abraham Maslow “the need to know is a burning drive”

(Wilson, 1966, p.78) within our psychology as human beings, so by choosing to

keep the film so detached, objective and ambiguous can make the film

uncomfortable viewing for some audience members.

As Caroline Bassett notes, “clearly the narrative structure of ‘Elephant’ does

not set out to soothe or reassure” (Bassett, 2007, p.184) and it is certainly

something far removed from the standard three-act structure found within

mainstream cinema. There are no real conflicts set up early in the film, there is no

happy, obvious resolution and the motivations of characters are not exposited and

clear-cut. This provides an example of “alternative vision” from the filmmakers,

establishing the independent nature of the text.

In conclusion, I believe there can be little doubt that ‘Elephant’ is indeed an

example of American Independent Cinema. Undoubtedly there are parts within the

text where it can be said to demonstrate characteristics of more populist and


7

mainstream cinema. There are no overt examples of “showy” or “self-conscious”

(G.King, 2005, p.10) cinematic style, shots are composed and framed in a familiar

manner for the most part and we are exposed to certain characters enough to

develop an empathy with them, despite the distance.

This is just reflective I believe of the blurring of the line between independent

and mainstream movies that has been brought about by the growth and purchase

of independent studios. That, coupled with the fact that mainstream cinematic

techniques can now be used with more ease, has meant that independent cinema

has had to evolve.

It may have resulted in films more immediately recognisable and accessible

to mainstream audiences, yet the lack of cause and effect narrative, sparse use of

dialogue and long duration shots are all things that indicate there was an

“alternative vision” to the mainstream Hollywood style in the film.

So ‘Elephant’ appears to fall somewhere in between the mainstream and art

cinema and, to quote Geoff King, “independent… is a space that exists between

the more familiar-conventional mainstream and the more radical departures of the

avant-garde or the underground”. (2005, p.10) In conclusion then, ‘Elephant’ is

indeed an example of American Independent Cinema, despite its ties to

conglomerate studio funding and distribution.


8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anon. (1999). Choice of Original Release Title in Country of Origin as Main Entry.

Available: http://www.itsmarc.com/crs/arch0898.htm. Last accessed 11 Nov 2009.

Ballinger, Alexander (2004). New Cinematographers. London: Laurence King

Publishing.

Bassett, Caroline (2007). The Arc and the Machine: Narrative and the New Media.

Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Berra, John (2008). Declarations of Independence: American Cinema and the

Partiality of Independent Production. Bristol: Intellect Books.

Bradshaw, Peter. (2004). Guardian Film Reviews. Available:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,1134158,

00.html. Last accessed 11 Nov 2009.

Dancyger, Ken and Rush, Jeff (2007). Alternative Scriptwriting: Successfully

Breaking the Rules. Oxford: Focal Press.

Edelstein, David. (2003). Gus Van Sant Deconstructs Columbine In Elephant.

Available: http://www.slate.com/id/2090284/. Last accessed 11 Nov 2009.

Edgerton, Gary Richard and Jones, Jeffrey P. (2008). The Essential HBO Reader.

Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.

Elephant (2003) [Film] Directed by: Gus Van Sant [DVD] HBO Films.

Evans, Russell (2006). Practical DV Filmmaking. Oxford: Focal Press.


9

Hollands, David (2005). Elephant.

http://efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=8236&reviewer=355&printer=1

Holmlund, Chris and Wyatt, Justin (2005). Contemporary American Independent

Film: From the Margins to the Mainstream. London: Routeledge.

King, Geoff (2005). American Independent Cinema. London: I.B. Tauris.

King, Geoff (2006). Following in the Steps: Gus Van Sant's Gerry and Elephant in

the American Independent Field of Cultural Production.

Avaliable: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/3668/1/fulltext.pdf. Last

accessed 11 Nov 2009.

King, Peter (2005). The Common Place: The Ordinary Experience of Housing.

Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.

Kramer, Gary M. (2006). Independent Queer Cinema: Reviews and Interviews.

London: Routeledge.

Leavy, Patricia (2007). Iconic Events: Media, Politics and Power In Retelling History.

Lexington: Lexington Books.

Merritt, Greg (2000). Celluloid Mavericks: The History of American Independent

Film. New York City: Thunder's Mouth Press.

Mitchell, Elvis – NY Times Film Review -

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=980CEED6163FF933A25753C1A965

9C8B63

Rombes, Nicholas (2005). New Punk Cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press.


10

Schaefer, Eric (1999). “Bold! Daring! Shocking! True!": A History of Exploitation

Films, 1919-1959. Durham: Duke University Press.

Scott, Neera. (2005). Sublime Anarchy in Gus Van Sant's Elephant. Senses of

Cinema. Issue 36.

Tzioumakis, Yannis (2006). American Independent Cinema: An Introduction.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Wilson, Colin (1966). Introduction to the New Existentialism. London: Hutchinson.

Documents

An American Independent Cinema Case Study - Elephant (2003)