This movie destroys people???
-
franzkabuki — 17 years ago(December 04, 2008 04:18 PM)
Id stress once more that The Elephant Man basically isnt an "intellectual" film as it were It appeals to emotions rather than brains (which is the case with pretty much all of his films, but unlike his later stuff, its a straight forward deal, no puzzles here). An intelligent film, sure, but thats a different thing as far as Im concerned.
-
imbluzclooby — 17 years ago(December 04, 2008 07:44 PM)
Id stress once more that The Elephant Man basically isnt an "intellectual" film as it were
I beg to differ, beacuse it scientifically outlines his abberational form.A perfect example was when he was being displayed in front of the panel of doctors. This film is multi-layered and could have easily fallen into psuedo-documentary under a less gifted director. But EM is definitely an intelligent and brilliant piece of work. -
FlippyFlopper — 17 years ago(December 24, 2008 06:44 AM)
I thought it would effect me emotionally much more than it did, because I tend to be a sucker for this sort of thing. Actually, I saw a bio about Joseph Merrick, and that affected me more than this movie did because it was real. It wasn't a conveniently "reworked for emotional effect" retelling of his story. Also, seeing actual photos of the real person, and hearing from people who actually knew him, made it touch me more. When I watched this movie, on the other hand, I couldn't help but see a man in a mask talking to Anthony Hopkins, as opposed to Joseph Merrick talking to his doctor. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else.
-
Lets_not_get_personal — 17 years ago(January 24, 2009 07:10 AM)
i think the OP might have missed the point in this movie. What i got out of it was human dignity. In a way i look up to this man. He has every reason to hate like, himself and others but wanted to still be a positive person. I dont see the illness being part of the story because they talk very little about it. What i see in the movie is all the interaction with others. Like when that lady from the theater came by and talked to him and realize that the old line is true, beauty comes from within
-
evanm-3 — 17 years ago(February 15, 2009 12:12 AM)
Allow me to try and make sense of the rhetorical and syntactic chaos that is the OP.
"Try living in the real world."
Apparently, the poster is referring to those of us who enjoy The Elephant Man. The argument, it seems, is that we should be more socially conscious.
"What of the millions of people in this world who have absolutely nobody to care for them? Does it destroy you to read the paper everyday?"
I am a bit unclear how these questions relate to the film. The poster is implying that those of us who enjoy it either do not read the paper or are not properly moved/outraged by it. I can personally answer, yes, I do read the paper daily, and no, it does not destroy me; in fact, I tend to function well after reading it, although certain news items do provoke an emotional reaction.
"Some of you need to really open your eyes."
Note the split infinitive. The poster again refers to we who should be living in the real world. However, only some of us, strangely, need to open our eyes. I tend to agree with he poster in a broader sense: it would be very difficult to read the paper with one's eyes closed. (AM radio is a different story.)
"This film does nothing in depth to shine the light on those who suffer. It's about as realistic as 'It's a Wonderful Life'."
Here, we transition rather abruptly to the subject of the film, which fails to "shine the light" [sic] on those who suffer. Taken literally, the statement is patently false. The protagonist is someone who suffers a great deal, and this being a movie has many lights shown on him throughout. We are then told that the EM is approximately as realistic as an old Frank Capra picture. The assumption is that "It's a Wonderful Life" is naive and unsophisticated, but no evidence for this is provided. Seeing as "It's a Wonderful Life" has achieved a certain classic status and was directed by a prominent auteur of the 30's and 40's, the comparison misses its diminishing intent. However, other than the black and white photography, I must also admit that I see no discernible connection between the two films.
"Classic? Maybe if it was truly made in 1940's as its entire substantive worth would lead us to believe. Alas, it was made in 1980 and its thematic elements resemble those of a time where people were afraid to closely examine the darker elements of life. "
Here we reenter the territory of split infinitives and missing definite articles. I find it hard to approach any of these meaningless words flung together. What does the poster mean by "substantive worth" (a useless repetition), and how can such a thing, if it exists, lead us to believe anything? Does it possess human qualities, such as the ability to inspire credulity in its viewers? A highly original thought if it weren't so damn vague! Also, I must take issue with the gross generalization that there was ever a time when people were afraid to examine the darker elements of life. Does the poster mean 1946, the year It's A Wonderful Life was released? Can we really characterize the immediate post-war period as a time when people were more naive about the darkness of life than in 1980 the age of hairspray and disco?
"This film is almost anti-intellectual in its ability to convey true suffering. "
Ah, yes, perhaps, but not nearly as anti-intellectual as the incoherent drivel you just rattled off on your keyboard. Adieu. -
anee08 — 17 years ago(February 17, 2009 10:27 PM)
The Elephant Man, in my opinion, is a one-of-a-kind film. Because it is based upon a true story it is not overly sentimental. It engages the mind to explore the subconscious human reaction to the revolting sight of a deformed person. Don't forget that freak shows still exist, and that our culture worships the beautiful and the superficial.
The value of this film is that John Merrick, rather than becoming self-pitying and vengeful, somehow managed to remain kind and gentle in the face of unrelenting persecution. He was a fine human being, much more so than the handsome, empty people who tend to be so admired. When we see someone whose physical person is repulsive, we can recognize our emotion as natural, but then use our powers of reason to lead us beyond the surface to the true person inside.
It can also be seen as a commentary on our culture's tendency to tear down and destroy other people by disregarding their humanity. We do this to celebrities all the time by treating them like inhuman freaks who have no feelings. -
theredwrasse — 17 years ago(March 01, 2009 06:15 AM)
THE ELEPHANT MAN is indeed a depiction of the story of Joseph Merrick, but it is only fair to Mr. Lynch to recognize that it is a film first and a true story second. Those familiar with Lynch's work have come to find that his films are not only narrative (though he has even moved beyond that in the decades since this film), but also deeply explorative of how the medium of film relates to perception. In this way, Lynch appropriates Merrick's story to explore the human tendencies that surround circumstances such as his. Thusly, it is not simply the story that is being presented, but also an examination of human nature (both on screen and off), and a challenge to examine your own basic emotional reactions to it. Lynch is a deeply cerebral artist, and I don't doubt that he might be happy to note your dissatisfaction at his attempts to "manipulate" you. Had you really considered the film AND your own almost hilariously guilt-ridden reaction to it in a intelligent manner, instead of contemplating a painfully oversimplified criticism that really just demonstrates how maladjusted you are, you may have noticed that emotional manipulation is in itself a very present theme.
-
lornamd-1 — 17 years ago(March 09, 2009 07:51 PM)
"Try living in the real world"
I think you are the one not living in the real world. The issues that Merrick faces in the film - bullying, slavery, abuse, persecution, judging people on appearance or for being different - all still happen in the modern world every day. The themes of the film are unfortunately still very relevant.
"What of the millions of people in this world who have absolutely nobody to care for them?"
Being upset by the cruelty depicted in The Elephant Man isn't going to make the problems of the world worse anymore than your post is going to make them better. I care very much about suffering in the world (which is why I found this film very heartbreaking) and I do try to help ease the less fortunate in the world. I don't want to sound self-congratulatory by listing things that I have done but if anybody wants examples just ask. There is no reason to think that other people who were moved by the film don't try to make the world a better place either.
"This film does nothing in depth to shine the light on those who suffer"
To me the film vividly demonstrates the frustration and humiliation of being treated as something less than human being a with feelings and being powerless against cruel people. If it didn't have that effect on you fair enough but your interpretation is not the only valid one.
"a time where people were afraid to closely examine the darker side of life"
Are we talking about the same film? Joseph Merrick a gentle and sensitive man is beaten, imprisoned, ridiculed and humiliated throughout this film by many people. If that isn't the darker side of life I don't know what is.
For what its worth I have read posts on this board of people saying that this film made them examine their own attitudes and behavior towards those who are different so this film has the potential to help people try to become more open minded and compassionate unlike your post which is just very arrogant, superior and self-righteous. -
paxtonfettel — 16 years ago(April 20, 2009 01:35 PM)
I can't help but shake my head at the ignorance here, be it intentional or accidental. You are aware that the movie is a down-played retelling of a true story, that was indeed far more melancholy than depicted in the film, right? I'd assume the contrary as you tried to say the movie wasn't a realistic depiction of humanity.
You've missed one of the largest elements of this true story that make it all the more notable among the billions of humans throughout the past thousands of years. It's the very fact that the upper echelon of London's society were the one's that embraced Joseph (or John, as he is called in the film), and the middle and lower class that shunned him, or saw him as a monstrosity. Historically the class system among developed societies acts in the opposite way, with the oddities of the world usually left searching for acceptance among the least common denominators among fellow citizens.
It's this dramatic and real occurence of role reversal that made Joseph Merrick's story something worthy of being told and re-told to each generation.
Here is the link to a movie you may be better off watching and analyzing (or more accurately, failing to) - Disney's Aladdin. http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000538/ -
Kitty_fortay — 16 years ago(July 16, 2009 06:14 AM)
SPOILER
I'm sorry but why did he decide to go to sleep in the only way that would kill him, that was in his control? To me that says he was trying to avoid any loss pain that he may incounter in the future as his looks would always bring him misfortune.
Your looking at a rather vivid perspective of suicide just there. usually something that is commonly covered up by the media. As far as I'm aware in Australia anyway. -
-
imbluzclooby — 10 years ago(November 23, 2015 09:52 AM)
I'll go softly on the OP for I don't think he learned the valuable life lesson of this movie.
You need to be kind. And if you aren't by nature, you need to learn to be kind.
This movie is based on an isolated story of one man's terrible condition. You need to put yourself in other people's shoes sometimes. That is how we come to mutual respect, understanding and hopefully, love.
We can go on and on reverberating the horrors of the world with all these anonymous people getting killed in third world countries. This is the stuff we read in the newspaper and online editorials. It gives us an overall picture, but rarely provides a personal story. But when they do people read them and post them on Facebook.
don't be so harsh on this movie, it changed many lives. -
InherentlyYours — 9 years ago(May 25, 2016 02:09 PM)
I think what the OP may be saying is everyone crying tears and professing compassion and empathy for this unfortunate man, but otherwise treat their fellow man in real life with apathy and like crap. Weigh on that
Roger Ebert was not crazy about the film, though he does not like Lynch in general. His usual reasons for not liking Lynch are not displayed in this film, but he still found fault with it -
rascal67 — 9 years ago(May 26, 2016 02:40 AM)
I think what the OP may be saying is everyone crying tears and professing compassion and empathy for this unfortunate man, but otherwise treat their fellow man in real life with apathy and like crap. Weigh on that
What the OP has done has made a half good valid point. Where they have gone wrong, is blame the era in which it was made:
Alas, it was made in 1980 and its thematic elements resemble those of a time where people were afraid to closely examine the darker elements of life.
This is exactly the point of Lynch's film, to get people to examine the darker element of life and how better to do that than expose a hideously deformed man, from an era that could be considered hideously deformed itself. Attitudes and behaviors can be still no different today. It's like holding a mirror up to ones face and not liking what was staring back at you, just as John Merrick felt about his own appearance. However, his appearance was incongruous to the gentle, kind, intelligent and appreciative soul that was hiding underneath.
This was Lynch's first major feature film and while it echoed the visual style of ERASERHEAD, it was a film that was designed to be palatable to general audiences with a straight forward narrative this time. Mr. Eggbert didn't appear to understand Lynch's films or cinematic art and that is why he didn't connect with them. He was just an armchair critic like the rest of us are today on the internet, except he was getting paid for it and being influential in the process. His word is not gospel and he even backtracked on some of his opinions.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata: -
franzkabuki — 9 years ago(May 28, 2016 04:29 AM)
"But he still found fault with it".
Ebert mainly criticized The Elephant Man for being "sentimentalist" which I actually agree with, up to a point but at the same time saw fit to give glowing reviews to the most obnoxiously corny rubbish like Forrest Gump or The Green Mile. Not very consistent.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan -
rascal67 — 9 years ago(May 28, 2016 07:09 PM)
Ebert
I suppose like most of us can be
was full of contradictions in many of his reveiws. In regards to The Elephant Man, as major film from a budding talented film maker, it can easily be criticized for it's style\approach. However, I think that is negligible in regards to the films well intentioned theme, message and point. A fact that was acknowledged with 8 Academy Award nominations.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata: