This message has been deleted.
-
valletta33 — 16 years ago(June 23, 2009 01:51 PM)
Hi
I always thought the film copied Werner Herzogs The Enigma of Kasper Hauser alot. I didn't like the fact that John Merik was treated like a hideous come on, like for example: The Hunchback of Notradam. The truth was that the elephant man liked living as a side show attraction because he liked earning money. I don't think his character or situation was anything like how the film portrayed. I would of imagined it was more the upper and middle classes who mistreated him rather then the working classes opposite to what the film showed. In reality it was the working classes who took care of him, and to whom he was most happy with. -
registers-944-48791 — 11 years ago(February 01, 2015 04:48 PM)
The idea debated here is that
Ok, he liked to be exposed, but wasn't it just because he was paid for it? I mean, I doubt he felt funny out of it.
He used that hood after all. Would it be because he'd only let people see him if they'd pay?
Would he like after all to be seen as a freak by people? -
liquidsouther — 14 years ago(October 27, 2011 01:30 PM)
"But then again, I found little in 2001: A Space Oddyssy, a film so many have lauded as magnificent. Your thoughts back? "
I totaly agree with that romefan123. I also found very little in 2001, and while it is considered as Kubrick's masterpiece, I will always prefer others of his movies like A Clockwork Orange or The Shining. I understand 2001's impact on popular and especially sci-fi culture, but it never really impressed me. I found it quite boring and an intellectual and spiritual fail. -
sebster1001 — 16 years ago(August 09, 2009 09:22 AM)
I think this movie is really beautiful too and I don't really agree with the OP. I think you are onto something TweakOutReality when you say that Lynch wanted us to see Merrick as just another character in the film, so definitely no POVs. I also think that Hopkins' character was supposed to sort of represent us as the audience. He felt sympathy for Merrick, but after a while got second thoughts that maybe he was no better than Bytes, like we, the audience, have to ask ourselves if we watch Merrick as the freak we symphatizes with or if we watch him as TweakOutReality said "any other character in the film" and respects him like a human being. We see the events sort of through the Hopkins character and a few times in this movie we get a kind of Merrick-perspective, and those very Lynchian scenes are horrible to watch, this is through the eyes of Merrick, his POV. For example when he is exposed to a mirror for the first time. I think this is why Treves isn't really a dynamic character, because of how he represents us, the audience. That the character of Merrick doesn't evolve as the OP claims, i have to disagree with. For example when he stands up for himself for the first time ever in the subway station and when he feels like he is being love fo the first time and gets the confidence to speak.
-
onepotato2 — 16 years ago(August 14, 2009 01:07 AM)
The movie is a holding pattern from start to finish with breaks for smarmy sentiment and beatings. Very low dramatic goals, and structurally very weak.
These are the raves you get when audiences think that 'feelings' are more important than anything else. -
iRoman_1337 — 16 years ago(September 02, 2009 11:59 PM)
I felt the camera work was done in a retro/traditional fashion that distanced us (the audience) from the screen ("the stage"). Traditional in sense and execution.
That being said, I believe this is one of the most powerful films that has been made and that I have seen. A true accomplishment blah, blah, blah and all that jazz.
It set out to tell the story of the Elephant Man and
it passed with flying colors.
"and I looked up, to the vast expanse and majesty of the Cosmos, and was humbled." -
Miura88 — 15 years ago(May 23, 2010 03:43 AM)
I thought it was OK, the black + white cinematography was really good, the slow buildup until the reveal of the Elephant Man was nicely pulled off, and I quite liked the acting. Lynch tried to make a mainstream film and fuse it with his offbeat symbolism but it doesn't fully work, The Elephant Man himself is just an object of pity, the upper class society all welcome him with open arms and the lower classes treat him like crap. The two scenes that really irked me were the clichd "I'm not an animal" speech at the train station and the scene where all the tramps trash his room just because "ooh he's weird". The guy who played John Merrick did well but beneath all that makeup I think a lot of actors could have done the same job as him. Overall I much prefer Truffaut's "The Wild Child" and Herzog's "Enigma Of Kasper Hauser" over this one, they just have more things to say than this one.
Marie got her ass kicked in "Au Hasard Balthazar" -
lschwartz106 — 15 years ago(May 23, 2010 04:18 PM)
True.It is an overrated film and there is little character development and nuance to the relationships. I believe that many accolades were tossed to the film because it was a novelty in many respects: black and white cinematograhy, an illustration of the bleakness of 19th century Victorian London, a tour-de-force performance by an eccentric actor. But remember my friend, this film is a product of Paramount. If you want an interesting story regarding the inner-lives of the dramatist personae, read the same titular stage play by Bernard Pomerance.
-
uberalice — 15 years ago(June 29, 2010 05:18 PM)
I think that most of you are missing a key detail here. This was, for the most part, a fact based film. Joseph Merrick (why they named him John in the movie I will never know) really did exist. We know that much of what was in the film really happened from Merrick's own writings. Another large input of information came from Teeve's notes. The concept of detachment was a professional one, in the medical field, not the product of Hopkin's acting, or Lynch's directing. These things happened. Merrick was a beautiful soul in a deformed body, for which he was ridiculed. True that he may have enjoyed making money from his circus days, but he hated his treatment and could see no other alternative to survive. Just because one enjoys the ends does not mean they enjoy the means.
-
marcigabrielle — 15 years ago(July 29, 2010 01:44 PM)
Lynch is creating that distance on purpose.
What he wants to show us is that "compassion" is never a clean feeling, there is always something attached to it, be it the arrogance of wanting to feel better than other people, be it the cruelty of wanting to keep someone dependant on us.
"Compassion" is a sham. We can never truly overcome the barrier separating us from other people.
Space For Sale. -
Win-14 — 15 years ago(February 09, 2011 11:22 PM)
I agree that the film isn't shot in a way that is moving.
I feel it's more the content of the film, and now how it was shot or edited, that makes it a moving one for me. Anthony Hopkins' character was so emotionally distant- and I never felt a connection with him. For me, it was all about Merrick.
What made it so emotionally moving for me was his situation- and how he had such a depth of warmth and emotion in him. Moments where he got to look at photos of the Doctor's family, where he spoke of being treated with kindness for the first time and became emotionally overwrought- those were very touching for me. John Hurt did a very good job in his performance- his pain, tenderness, and goodwill shone through the makeup, and rather boring camera work. Knowing that a man like this existed and seeing it acted out was what made it moving to me.
It's a stilted film, really, and could have been much greater than it was- but I think seeing a man suffer so terribly, but still have so much love in his heart, as cheesy as it sounds, is what makes it a film worth seeing. Especially knowing that, historical inaccuracies aside, he did exist, and that he was known as being every bit that kind, makes it a film that is special to me. I come from this film thinking about how I wish that everyone could have half as much appreciation for the small things in life. I wish they had gotten more into what his daily struggles were- they very much glossed over them.
That was probably the biggest failure of this film, they glossed over thigns that could have been more thoroughly explored. It is not a very well constructed film, it lacks any real plot ot character development- so i understand why you don't like it- but for me, I just am moved by Merrick's plight, and how he has such a lovely soul. -
degree7 — 14 years ago(January 30, 2012 12:52 AM)
Anthony Hopkins' character was so emotionally distant- and I never felt a connection with him.
Whaaat?! It might just have been me, but Anthony Hopkins was DYNAMITE in this role, as the kind doctor. It was his performance here that almost typcasted him and garnered him the casting choice of being Hannibal Lecter 10 years later.
I was thoroughly impressed with Hopkin's performance, so much so that I was disappointed in how the film veered away from his character in the second half. I also found the second half of the film to be weaker than the first.
My chief complaint with the film is definitely in line with yours, John Merrick was not explored enough as a character, I wanted to know more of his past, as well as how he coped with this condition. A missed opportunity.
I said I never had much use for one.never said I didn't know how to use it.