The point Keith was making, and I agree with, is that his experimental films are pure Rorshach. They tell us more about ourselves than any narrative details. Some will watch Elephant and find his exploitation of stereotypes repulsive while others will think he is showing possible motives for the violence. The film splits its audience into the two camps which already exist. This is not a failure of the film but its success.
I think we understood Keith's point, and I'm not sure what I think of it, myself. I just purchased the DVD, so I probably will watch it again soon and chime in on this. But, again, I think that Melvil's (check spelling... got it) is outside of what Keith is speaking of. It is not disgust at the point of what GVS is supposed to be making, but disgust that there is no point at all. This response tells Melvil nothing about himself-- except his blindness at being unable to see what a fantastic film this is. If he had been angry at GVS at a message or a moral lapse, then it would support Keith's interpretation. But for M to say "it's poor film making" is to say there IS no moral point, there is nothing to make a point from. And then, if GVS is intending to stir an artistic reaction to the film, he failed in Melvil's case.