This message has been deleted.
-
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. -
knoxfan2008 — 10 years ago(December 07, 2015 06:54 PM)
This is genuinely one of the funniest comments I've ever read, also, I've written like a few reviews that actually challenge people, yet you've written SO MUCH yet you call me a basement dweller? Wow, the irony is totally lost on you..
Also, you are trying waaaaay too hard mate, we get it, IMDB is the only place you can feel good about yourself or go on a tantrum about how prisoners is Evil or how the Elephant Man is complex (SERIOUSLY! HAHAHAHAHAHA) -
imbluzclooby — 10 years ago(December 06, 2015 05:32 PM)
It's kinda amazing that Lynch could make a film this conventional
Kinda amazing?? That's poor English. Is that the most profound statement you can come up with?
Can you explain how this movie is conventional? There's much to be said about this movie, but I don't see how it's conventional in any way, especially from a Hollywood standpoint.
If you are going to make such a lame statement who have to be able to draw a comparison to films which are conventional and unconventional to back it up.
As I stated earlier, there isn't any point in trying to convince the thickheaded outsider. -
knoxfan2008 — 10 years ago(December 07, 2015 07:05 PM)
Kinda amazing?? That's poor English. Is that the most profound statement you can come up with?
YAWN It's the internet kiddo, we get it, you can't think of an intelligent response so you go to the lowest form of retort, cheers for showing that I'm, winning. (I've left a few grammatical errors in so you can have something to lean on after you read my brutally effective retorts to your insecure ramblings)
Can you explain how this movie is conventional? There's much to be said about this movie, but I don't see how it's conventional in any way, especially from a Hollywood standpoint.
Everything about this films story is one dimensional, Merrick is a bland character who's only good qualities is that he is 'nice', he has no conflicting emotions, he never becomes angry or acts out in a way that challenges the viewer's sympathy for him. The ugly duckling story is one of the most over-done cliches of all time, it's a simplistic story we were all told as children, then they made a film with the exact same moral. The film even has the "People fear what they don't understand" which may be the single most over-used line in cinematic history. However, the film is beautifully shot which saves it from being crap, the set design and make-up effects are top notch, even if all the characters are made of cardboard.
As I stated earlier, there isn't any point in trying to convince the thickheaded outsider.
Yet you wrote two comments back at me? Hmmmm looks like you're lying mate. Also, I perfectly proved why this film is not challenging, one-dimensional and derivative. It's so sad that people are easily manipulated by mediocre films like this.. -
Bard_Battalion — 10 years ago(December 12, 2015 05:39 AM)
I did not feel any of his torture, and the camera work did not help in creating a sentiment of compassion towards the character.
The mans situation is enough to make one feel compassion. There is no need for dynamic camera movement.
As for the character of John Merrick, the character goes through the same obstacle (not being accepted in society) from minute 1 to the minute 110 (where he gets his standing ovation) - with practically no evolution
He goes from not rebelling against his jailer to shouting "I am not an animal". A total 180. -
Sewaat — 9 years ago(July 19, 2016 10:22 PM)
You asked for us to elaborate on why we love the film, so I will tell you as simply as I can.
Of David Lynch's work, this is probably the most approachable of his films because it focuses around one of mankind's most universal battles: to accept those who are different. And in turn, be accepted in society for our differences. Now, this struggle has taken many forms over the years. From Gender, to Sexual orientation, Race, Religion and everything in between.
I should hope that most people know by now that it is unfair to treat someone any differently simply because of the way they look. But in Victorian England during this time, it was commonplace. That's where I feel Anthony Hopkins' character comes into play. He is us. He represents the audience and how they perceive John Merrick, The Elephant Man. He responds in a way that I think most of us would. With kindness, dignity and most importantlyrespect. He never once disrespects Merrick. Even when he is frustrated by his initial lack of communication, he stays right by his side until the very end and helps him to stand up for himself in a world which constantly tells him he's a freak who belongs in a show, instead of a man who is just as worthy of respect as any other. Remember, no one else believed that Merrick was an intelligent man until Treves helped him to speak and recite the Bible. The doctor was the first person to believe in Merrick when everyone else disregarded him as an imbecile. And without his help, Merrick perhaps would have remained in the freak show for the rest of his life. Which would not have been for very long given his medical condition. Don't forget that. It is for this reason that I believe Treves is an essential character to the story and my personal favourite.
This somewhat ties into my second point. You (the OP) mentioned that there was no character development for Treves, which I can somewhat agree to. But that's because he was already a well rounded character when he was first introduced. There was really no need for him to change as a person. Now, Merrick on the other hand was almost a mute "creature" at the beginning of the film. He could hardly walk without help, much less speak to anyone. But as the film goes on, he begins to find his voice, attain some friendships and gain the self-respect that he so desperately needed. The way he finally snaps and declares himself a human being in front of the angry mob during the Subway scene was incredibly powerful; I almost got shivers. John Hurt completely disappears into the character. It is an unforgivable sin that he was not given the Oscar for Best Actor that year.
To sum up the entire film in one word, it's incredibly moving and highly intelligent. Masterfully crafted and well acted by pretty much everyone in the cast. I had to watch it again almost immediately after I finished it because I enjoyed it so much. It is one of the best films I've seen in a long time. I'm very sorry that you did not enjoy it to the same extent.