This message has been deleted.
-
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. -
InherentlyYours — 9 years ago(May 27, 2016 12:03 AM)
'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.'
The above, after reading through many posts (those with plain-wording), is somewhat close what to Roger Ebert had to say. For example, Merrick had a surgical operation just so he could speak, yet is reciting Shakespeare so meticulously .
Ebert's main point, valid or not: is that "courage" involves a degree of choice. The noble-portrayed Merrick was tolerating his place in life, but it did not take courage, as such. (except for the sideshow, perhaps). Someone references a film on the board which Ebert also did in his review about a man with polio who strongly resented being lauded as courageous for the same reason. And the possibility that Merrick committing suicide at 27, being relevant to Ebert's claim
It's just his insight, I'm not saying he's right or wrong -
Yucahaor — 13 years ago(April 21, 2012 02:01 AM)
I found the whole camera work very cold
That was the point. John Merrick felt a disconnect from his world like you felt a disconnect from the character. He was living in a cold hard world that wouldn't accept him for who he was. -
degree7 — 13 years ago(May 19, 2012 11:23 AM)
Coming back to this thread, I would like to add that the problem with Merrick's character and lack of emotional connection would be due to the obscene amounts of makeup and prosthetics that cover up the character. We never really identify or connect with him because of the distant camera work as well as the costume clogging up any visual cues that could help the viewer relate to him.
A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.- Roger Ebert
-
Skoony — 13 years ago(February 11, 2013 05:45 AM)
I do sort of agree with you. I think my main gripe with this film is that it seems so "old". I know it portrays "ages ago", but the cutting and editing does not make it very exciting. It reminds me of theatre at times, and there were many sudden "fade to black" moments. Surely films could be more exciting than that in the 80s. I know they could!
-
changedname — 13 years ago(March 05, 2013 01:00 AM)
Of course, films could be more exciting that that in the 30s or 40s (King Kong, Gone With The Wind etc.) I don't know what it is but this film is good but boring, and as was stated it's very hard to care about the main character. It's not the viewer's fault they're not caring, it's the direction and it's more than that, it's everything, everything in it exudes mediocrity. I have no clue what it's doing so high up in the rankings.
-
bungleman — 13 years ago(March 14, 2013 04:19 PM)
I'll quote John Hurt, the man who played John Merrick and not some critic, "If you sit through the Elephant Man and do not get emotional during the filmyou're probably someone I wouldn't want to know".
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.