Popular. Trending. Spotlight. Traffic.
The words don't matter; what's important is that Elephant has ignited the passion of the Cannes Film Festival, unexpectedly becoming this year's first breakout hit.
An official score of 2.1 out of 5 in the festival's journal? Not even passing?
No problem.
In fact, the low score beca the spark that ignited further discussion.
How should we view the official score? Agree or disagree? Was it too high or too low? What's the proper rating for Elephant?
Everyone had an opinion, and they couldn't wait to share, discuss, and connect—literally, everyone.
If you were in Cannes and hadn't watched Elephant by the third day of its premiere, you'd be left out of any conversation happening on the streets.
Actually, not just in Cannes.
Around the world, internet users closely following the festival began their own discussions. From there, the conversation exploded beyond the film buffs, pulling in people who normally didn't care about Cannes. The interesting phenonon was that many of these people weren't in Cannes and hadn't seen Elephant, yet they confidently expressed strong opinions.
Clear love or hate.
Of course, there were many supporters, waving flags for director Anson. But there were even more critics, dismissing him with the sa condescending tones heard from Hollywood the previous year, mocking him for being a re "vase" (eye candy) and expressing disdain.
"I don't like it."
"It's probably just another attention-grabbing piece."
"The spot in the competition must have been rigged."
"Trying to add prestige but ended up a joke."
"A pretty face shouldn't embarrass themselves among real filmmakers."
The chatter was loud and constant.
The low score in the official festival journal beca the trolls' strongest evidence: "See? Even the official journal said so. Anson, pack it up and go to bed."
Despite knowing nothing, people confidently made grand claims. Forget using a feather as an arrow, they were brandishing imaginary arrows with conviction.
Yet, this scene was astonishing.
It was still 2003. The European Big Three film festivals were only beginning to explore online promotion and hadn't even fully started. They still relied heavily on traditional dia. This ant that film festival news often had a delay; the general public had to wait for journalists to write and publish their reports to catch up on the festival's happenings.
Additionally, journalists weren't using social dia to post real-ti updates. News was summarized by the day, and the audience engagent was lower.
Most of the ti, most audiences only caught up on festival news after the closing ceremony and awards.
In general, during this period, the Big Three festivals in Europe had limited discussion, attention, and popularity. Most people still saw them as "high-brow, niche art festivals." Trapped by this stereotype, they weren't interested and didn't participate in the discussions.
Elephant broke that barrier.
It crashed onto the scene, sparking controversy and pushing the Cannes Film Festival into the everyday lives of the general public, drawing massive attention and debate.
Undoubtedly, this was the first ti—even Cannes itself didn't foresee this, nor did it know how to respond in ti to leverage the montum for promotion.
But the buzz was already insane.
Then, film critic Roger Ebert's review was released. Ebert, one of the top critics in the industry, was also highly influential in Europe, and his review caused a sensation.
First, a perfect score. Roger gave Elephant a perfect score—was he serious?
Second, Roger ntioned the film's stance, stating that it deliberately didn't offer reasons or solutions, which he saw as clever. However, many critics hated this aspect, believing that films should present at least one perspective or solution. So, what was Roger thinking?
The conversation was already intense and crazy. Now, Roger added fuel to the fire, and Cannes exploded.
Roger, however, remained calm—beyond calm, even satisfied.
That afternoon, soone in line to watch a movie asked him, "God, what were you thinking?"
Roger smiled broadly, "This is exactly what I wanted."
"A powder keg? You want Cannes to beco a powder keg?"
Roger replied, "Haha, no, I want discussion. Like Gus [Van Sant], I want to see discussion."
Later, Roger made his stance clear.
In facing issues like school violence and gun control, there had already been discussions over the past two years, but none seed to spark broader attention.
Sure, Elephant could explore reasons or solutions, but no matter what Gus Van Sant presented, he wouldn't be able to convince the critics. Instead, he might drown in a sea of similar works. Gus chose another way: to show a fragnt of the issue, and abruptly cut it off without backstory or resolution, igniting debate.
He made people truly aware of the elephant in the room.
That, Roger believed, was the film's greatest value.
The controversies only proved that different people saw different ssages in the film—not just the movie itself, but the issues it presented. The festival journal score and the online debate both demonstrated that Gus Van Sant had achieved an incredible artistic creation.
Roger remained convinced that Gus had crafted a masterpiece. "Honestly, have you ever seen this level of heated discussion?"
The answer was simple.
Whether people liked it or not, Roger's review had sent shockwaves through Cannes, pulling even more people into the conversation.
Thus, Elephant beca this year's first hit at Cannes, and perhaps the first film in the festival's history to break down barriers of ti and space, drawing in people from all over the world. It marked a turning point that even Cannes itself hadn't anticipated.
The buzz was growing and still climbing.
And then—
The second dia day for the Elephant crew blew up again.
The day before, the crew had endured over 15 hours of relentless interviews. They thought they might get a break, but on the second day, the dia sward them again, with no end in sight to the line of reporters waiting.
The only consolation was that, after the baptism of the first day, the small crew had quickly gotten into the groove. The work proceeded smoothly, with interviews moving faster and more efficiently.
But still—
Even with the increased efficiency, the interviews lasted until 11:30 p.m., marking the second consecutive day of back-to-back, high-pressure work for 15 straight hours.
User Comments
0 comments from readers