This message has been deleted.
-
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. -
-
knoxfan2008 — 12 years ago(December 31, 2013 02:17 AM)
Just because the guy is 'hideous' that means he is a strong character? This film was very one dimensional and had one-note characters. The message of this film was so derivative and hammered in to the point of annoyance, not to mention the melodrama and over-sentimentality "You are Romeo".
Holy Hell! You mean this person that is deemed unattractive is not ugly on the inside? HOW original and profound, too bad his personality is just so monotonous.
It's kinda amazing that Lynch could make a film this conventional -
Cyclo Rider — 11 years ago(July 31, 2014 08:12 PM)
It's kinda amazing how you missed the point of the film being from Dr. Treves' point of view. What Treves doesn't know, we don't know, and what Treves discovers, we discover. The film's messages are original and incredibly profound in context of the era in which the story takes place.
I created the following analogy based on your remarks:
To criticize this film is like criticizing a film on U.S. civil rights in the 1800's. You mean the life of a black is worth something? HOW original and profound. Too bad the personalities of the black slaves are just so monotonous.
This film and its characters are about as one-dimensional and one-note as the film, and characters in, Schindler's List. Plenty of depth and character development here. -
knoxfan2008 — 11 years ago(August 01, 2014 07:18 AM)
To criticize this film is like criticizing a film on U.S. civil rights in the 1800's. You mean the life of a black is worth something? HOW original and profound. Too bad the personalities of the black slaves are just so monotonous.
Honestly one of the most hilariously dumb things I've heard. So because a film is conventional and mediocre, that means I'm criticising the civil rights movement? GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!! Actually, you being racist by equating black people to heavily deformed people, I am baffled by how insane and offensive your idiotic comparison was.
The message of the film is the furthest thing from original, it is the first lesson we are taught as a kid, the 'ugly duckling' story. Every second kid's book is about the topic of the outsider who is special on the inside.
Also Schindler's List, whilst not being amazing, has a very 3-dimensional main character that goes through a huge arc, The elephant man just gets slightly more confident and that's it.
Again, a very stock, mediocre film that came from a potentially very interesting director. -
Cyclo Rider — 11 years ago(August 26, 2014 06:03 PM)
Honestly one of the most hilariously dumb things I've heard. So because a film is conventional and mediocre, that means I'm criticising the civil rights movement? GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!!
The film is a masterpiece and is rated as such everywhere. It's one of the best dramatic films ever made.
Actually, you being racist by equating black people to heavily deformed people, I am baffled by how insane and offensive your idiotic comparison was.
Logic FAIL. As expected, the simpleton missed the point and jumped to an erroneous conclusion. Historical (group) discrimination is a perfectly valid comparison. Jews and the physically deformed received similar treatment in Nazi Germany. That doesn't mean Jews are equivalent to heavily deformed people. Nor are blacks from the slavery era. Intelligent people understand this. Idiots like yourself do not. If you criticize the depiction of John Merrick in the film as one-dimensional (which it isn't), do you also criticize the depictions of persecuted Jews in Holocaust films and suffering blacks in slavery films?
The message of the film is the furthest thing from original, it is the first lesson we are taught as a kid, the 'ugly duckling' story. Every second kid's book is about the topic of the outsider who is special on the inside.
You missed the point again. The film takes place in the 1800's when such lessons of tolerance did not exist. As such, it's a period film depicting the values of the era in which the story takes place.
Also Schindler's List, whilst not being amazing, has a very 3-dimensional main character that goes through a huge arc, The elephant man just gets slightly more confident and that's it.
Invalid comparison. Schindler wasn't the suffering one in Schindler's List. The Jews were. So please compare the character arc of the suffering Jews to the character arc of the suffering John Merrick. Different, but John's arc is no less huge.
Again, a very stock, mediocre film that came from a potentially very interesting director.
No. David Lynch's The Elephant Man is a timeless masterpiece and the high point of Lynch's career. -
knoxfan2008 — 11 years ago(August 26, 2014 07:26 PM)
If you criticize the depiction of John Merrick in the film as one-dimensional (which it isn't), do you also criticize the depictions of persecuted Jews in Holocaust films and suffering blacks in slavery films?
No I don't, you FOOL! Merrick is ONE character who does not have much character he is only nice and forgiving. There is nothing three dimensional about him, just because he is deformed and struggles that doesn't make him a good character. Your statement is hilariously inept.
The film is a masterpiece and is rated as such everywhere. It's one of the best dramatic films ever made.
Your standards are insanely low then, cause I've seen more complex Disney films. There are plenty who view it as over-sentimental and one-dimensional
You missed the point again. The film takes place in the 1800's when such lessons of tolerance did not exist.
EVERY ugly duckling story takes place where intolerance exists, that's kinda the point! Just because it depicts values of the time, doesn't mean that it's automatically good or it transcends its' un-originality.
Invalid comparison. Schindler wasn't the suffering one in Schindler's List. The Jews were. So please compare the character arc of the suffering Jews to the character arc of the suffering John Merrick. Different, but John's arc is no less huge.
But Schindler's List was more ABOUT Schindler, so HE was the one with the arc. And the Jewish characters DID have character, but admittedly only a few had 3 dimensions, like Ralph Fiennes' Maid, and Ben Kingsley's character. Merrick was the main character and focus of the film, and he was STILL one-dimensional and plain. Also, I can't compare one dreadfully underwritten character with millions of real people's sufferings.
No. David Lynch's The Elephant Man is a timeless masterpiece and the high point of Lynch's career.
No, It's his sellout to a Hollywood Formula. It's by far his least provocative. Due to the fact he had barely anything to do with the screenplay. He could have been brave and challenged the viewer's, but he just made Merrick so bland and nice that it was impossible not to sympathise with him, cause he had no intelligent or challenging thoughts. -
imbluzclooby — 10 years ago(December 04, 2015 01:19 PM)
There's no convincing the OP how and why this is a great masterpiece. If he is completely unable to see the unfolding of a true story about human dignity impeccably brought to screen then he is probably lacking in feelings and pathos that the rest of us have. This movie teaches one of life's most important lessons, the kind of lesson we learn as children. Unfortunately, that Crucial lesson is forgotten with people of all age groups. We are often petty and superficial creatures.
I'm not going to bother to convince him, because it would be a waste of time.
There will always be provacatuer naysayers playing devil's advocate and he happens to be one of them. -
knoxfan2008 — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 06:18 PM)
If he is completely unable to see the unfolding of a true story about human dignity impeccably brought to screen then he is probably lacking in feelings and pathos that the rest of us have.
What a pathetic and sad excuse of a response to someone elses opinion. By your moronic logic, I could shoot a video of a puppy for 4 hours, and if you don't love it, I could tell everyone you hate puppies and have no human decency.
This movie teaches one of life's most important lesson's, the kind of lesson we learn as children.
Exactly, you yourself just showed that this film is childish and one-dimensional.
Unfortunately, that Crucial lesson is forgotten with people of all age groups. We are often petty and superficial creatures
So this makes the film good how? Please give me non-physical descriptions of Merrick besides words synonymous with "nice" or "pleasant". You can't, because he is a weak character.
I'm not going to bother to convince him, because it would be a waste of time.
Well after reading some of your hilarious IMDB reviews (your 'prisoners' one was particularly hilarious, where you dislike the film because the story and characters HAVE dimensions and challenged you) I'm convinced you shouldn't try to convince anyone of anything.
There will always be provacatuer naysayers playing devil's advocate and he happens to be one of them.
So your opinion on 'Prisoners' is invalid because you are in the minority? Nuh, you secretly LOVE 'prisoners', but you're just playing devil's advocate
Your response is so bafflingly dumb -
imbluzclooby — 10 years ago(December 06, 2015 05:24 PM)
Okay Mr. Knoxfan, it seems I struck a sensitive chord in your simplistic mind. So you are one of those basement dwellers who has nothing better to do than to stalk and research the comments of those superior to you.
Well, in response to your strangely biased and contemptuous diatribe, you manage to distort and pull every comment out of context. You even go as far as reviewing phrases and planting your wannabee and weak critiquing skills in the most immature and puerile form of censure by explaining normative responses from a movie as a divergence from sophistication. Sometimes the simplest lessons in humanity are those that are worth revisiting. Apparently, you are too socially retarded to understand that simple concept.
In reference to my "Prisoners" review that happened to acquire 106 out of 180 likes, is well above average and quite remarkable considering most fans of that repugnant film happened to read it. In comparison to your amateurish reviews that acquire 9 likes out of 23 votes is indicative of your poor critique and literary skills. Go figure.
And your assessment of my review of Prisoners doesn't in any way resemble my thoughts on it.
Every body else, please ignore this troll. He's upset, because John Merrick was able to acquire female attention and he can't.
Get a job. Get a life.