This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Pablo Trapero's film tells a tough tale set in the slums of South America; but for much of its length, with its focus on community organisation and the struggle of workers to get paid, it resembles less 'City of God' than a Ken Loach movie, and it's not necessarily the worse for that. What is lacks, however, which Loach's movies do not, is a sense of perspective beyond those of those who try to help the slum's inhabitants: we see the story through the eyes of two priests, and a social worker, but not of the slum dwellers themselves. Indeed, the film (which is very watchable) could have been longer: a female gangland boss seems a potentially interesting character, but she only gets one scene, while the question of who is screwing the workers (and whether allies of the Church might actually be involved) is raised by not answered. It's a nice small movie; but one that contains a bigger picture that is never fully shown.

'White Elephant' begins with a prologue about how Julian brings a younger priest Nicolas back to Buenos Aires. It also begins with Julian undergoing a scan, reminiscent of Kurosawa's 'Ikiru', a film about one man trying to make a small difference in the face of death. Both priests begin the film suffering in different ways. One physically from a terminal illness, only known to us the viewer (dramatic irony), and perhaps brought on by overwork/stress; the other, spiritually, from a guilt-ridden conscience after surviving a massacre which left his congregation dead.Two priests with different approaches: Julian is a latter-day St Francis of Assisi, a man who has given up his wealthy background to work in the slums and who tries to make a difference by battling political bureaucracy (inefficiency & indifference) & the hierarchy of his own church authorities, who appear more interested in 'talk' than action. Nicolas works on the front line, mediating between warring gangsters & working alongside his secular counterpart, a social worker, Luciana, with a mutual attraction developing between them.The 'White Elephant' of the film's title is a huge unfinished hospital, now occupied by drug addicts, and which acts as a metaphor for the stunted development of the slum as a whole- and the failure of a new smaller development (the workers go on strike after not being paid) emphasises the continued failure by the next generation of politicians to address these issues. As one reviewer put it well, it is as if the slum has also been 'forgotten' by God, too. And the people of the slum finally reach breaking point after yet more bureaucratic inefficiency leads them to taking matters into their own hands (to finish the development for themselves) and a confrontation with the authorities.The film adopts a visceral approach, more an edgy, fast-paced social drama than an examination of faith in, say, the poetic manner of Bresson. It contains a number of plots, such as the relationship between the two priests fighting crime, poverty and despair (including their own), a love story, the attempt to help a young delinquent as well as a social critique. Perhaps this is one of the flaws of the film. It contains too many plots and tries to cover so many issues, making it feel disjointed.For a film about priests, it didn't have many moments of 'transcendence', but it seemed, to me, to be more about what a priest/church should be in the 21st century & a damaged world.Instead, the film-maker, Trapero, imaginatively uses imagery to make biblical allusions. Candles/lights shining in darkness/at night, recall John 1:5 (The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it); Nicolas' journey into a gangster's compound is literally 'a walk into the valley of the shadow of death'; and the young addict/delinquent, Monito, is 'a prodigal son'/lost sheep, sent to the church's 'farm' in an effort to lure him away from bad influences. The figure of Mary, Mother of Grace, to whom the priests pray for succour, has a dark counterpoint in a woman who is in charge of a rival neighbourhood gang.I actually think the film shows what the Catholic Church must do if it is remain relevant in the 21st century. That it must socially engage with those most in need & reminded me of a recent BBC4 programme on 'The Salvation Army', where pastoral work was described as 'the church outside four walls'. The Church cannot survive in seclusion (Nicolas is banished to a monastery at the end of the film), but must take sides (of the poor) and be socially engaged if it is to remain relevant. And, after all, did Christ not consort with the poor & the marginalised?Regarding the background to the film, it's interesting that the Catholic Church has since elected its first Latin American, and specifically Argentine, Pope who has a reputation for supporting the poor.The emphasis is less on 'sin', but on 'faith', as Nicolas utters during a service in the church, a faith based less on judging people and more on maintaining one's faith & hope in the darkness. This contrasts with the more cynical, bitter Cruz, a support worker who despairs at the pointlessness of it all (a plot twist reveals the truth about his 'exit').This is encapsulated in the behaviour of Nicolas himself. Who/what is a good man in a flawed world? Is a priest who swears, drinks, smokes & has sexual desires, a good man? Then, the answer is an overwhelming 'Yes'. The film does not judge its protagonist but rather shows Nicolas as a man who tries to do good, presenting a modern take on Christian (Catholic) values such as the issue of celibate priests. His relationship with Luciana is not purely sexual, but about a mutually supportive relationship based on love (a marriage in all but name).Gradually, Nicolas realises why Julian brought him to Buenos Aires. He experiences faith & doubt. Can he live up to the faith shown in him and live up to his responsibilities? As Luciana says: 'Leave? It's easier.'The ending was perhaps melodramatic as Julian tries to help Monito escape from the police, though Julian becomes a very modern martyr, reminiscent of the real-life figure of Fr Carlos Mugica, who worked in the slum and whose murder has never been solved.The film featured strong performances from all of the lead characters, Ricardo Darin as Julian, Martina Gusman as Luciana and it was interesting to see Jeremie Renier (The Child/Dardenne brothers), mature as an actor. I didn't recognise him from that earlier film.

The perfect portray of human hypocrisy. I guess the actual message in this movie is that nothing really ends, nor the struggle for a better life or the evil that keeps people from getting a better life.Some other reviewer stated this kind of story had already been told... Well has it?. Not this one in particular, I think the characters are quite real. Both main characters and extras have done a wonderful job keeping it real, nothing i have seen in Argentinian films for a while.The shots are beautiful and seem to capture very well the actual landscape of the "villas". Music on the other hand doesn't live up to the most dramatic moments in the film, and personally I think it could have been improved.To sum up "Elefante blanco" is definitely a movie to be watched, and mostly a message to be heard.

Really disappointed me with a very weak argument, it seems that the film tries to portray only what we already know what happens in the villages. Images repetitive, almost exaggerated, about the inhuman conditions in which many people live in our country, make a documentary film class. Yes, it is impeccable filming, excellent cinematography, setting, and a way to shoot that turn the viewer into another resident of that place. Not so the music I think is another weak point because, beyond the issue of Pity Alvarez with which opens and closes the film, music that is heard is really bad.But the film fails because it fails to catch a solid script and with characters that are created in such a way to get in your skin. Darin always right but off other papers, it sticks Renier with authority about his character but the most important protagonist of the film seems to be the rain, constant, unbearable, identified as another of the many shrines that these people must suffer, suggests almost as God forgot that part of the world. In short, a movie not to miss, but it is far from being among the best of Trapero, of Darin, of the year of our cinema.