This movie destroys people???
-
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: -
franzkabuki — 9 years ago(June 15, 2016 03:33 AM)
Nothing wrong with the style/aesthetic approach - it's considerably toned down compared to Eraserhead, but still recogniseably Lynch. Don't doubt his good intentions, either. However, I do feel that Merrick's character is overly sentimentalized, so that he comes across as a relatively one-dimensional martyr. It doesn't exactly ruin the film or anything, but it would have been more interesting had the character been given a bit more complexity or nuance beyond being this gentle soul in a hideous body. We basically only see him alternate between experiencing terror/desperation and being a gushing goody-good.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan -
rascal67 — 9 years ago(June 16, 2016 04:49 AM)
I do feel that Merrick's character is overly sentimentalized, so that he comes across as a relatively one-dimensional martyr. It doesn't exactly ruin the film or anything, but it would have been more interesting had the character been given a bit more complexity or nuance beyond being this gentle soul in a hideous body.
That is a very valid criticism. The script is the main flaw here and Bytes I believe was a fictional character; but representative of exploitation from the underbelly. Merrick's real life father was the one that beat Merrick, who would run away from home after his mother died and father remarried. He was also an attraction in a shop across from the Hospital he later resided at. His trip to showcase himself in Europe was at his own behest, arranged by his managers after the shop was closed by police. He ended up back in London with Treve's card in his pocket. I don't think he was ever kidnapped.
The film did take several liberties, but like any truth life tale adapted for the screen, it usually distorts the truth to give us some interesting conflict and emotional impact to make us care, even appall us in this case. I don't mind the manipulation if it's message resonates, and it did here.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata: -
Sewaat — 9 years ago(July 07, 2016 07:26 PM)
So what you're saying is that people aren't allowed to respond emotionally to a piece of art just because of the troubles that go on in the real world? Movies are art. Art is supposed to make you feel and think. There is no right or wrong way to feel about art. So responding with sympathy is perfectly valid when a film touches upon such a subject as this.
And John Merrick was a REAL person, in case you forgot. And prejudice towards disabled people is still alive and well in the modern age. So yes, this film still holds a lot of relevance for suffering people today. But even if it didn't, why the hell do you care about other people's reactions to a film? If you didn't like it, that's fine. But don't go around and shame people for how they react to a film. Have a heart for Christ's sake!