John
-
CapitanHowie — 10 years ago(November 23, 2015 11:13 AM)
In the trivia section, it said they based it off the doctors journals and book.
It may have been a nick-name.. it's never explained.
I just watched this movie (it just ended) and it made me very sad. I found myself tearing up. Then it stated in the trivia he was never mis-treated or beaten and his manager was nice and made him wealthy.
I wonder what the truth is?? -
nammage — 10 years ago(November 26, 2015 01:03 AM)
People who seek history lessons from films are idiots.
Some history, even if widely accurate, is boring. Movies are meant to entertain, and make money. Money being the key word. If the only sadness one derives from this film is the fact this man (based on his actual life) had such a disease that made him so deformed yet everyone around him treated him with respect and kindness would that be entertaining and make money? Maybe. Maybe not.
However, in the case of this film they mainly based it on a book written by Treves who, for some reason, fictionalized Merrick's life in parts, such as his ill treatment which was found to be untrue, and the fact he called him "John" when he knew his name was "Joseph".
To find the actuality of something one researches it from all the information available, and deduce from that was is reasonably true, and what sounds more like fiction, than anything. If not, and they get their history lessons from films, then I guess if you've seen "The Outlaw" then Billy the Kid and Doc Holliday were best friends; though in real life they most likely never met each other.
-Nam
I am on the road less traveled -
imbluzclooby — 10 years ago(November 26, 2015 09:40 AM)
It all comes down to which source you are going to trust. Surely, Treves' memoirs should be accurate and forthright. I would put more credibility into his words than the family of the Sideshow master when you consider those people are trying to clear their name and family legacy. It seems too coincidental that they are trying to save their grandfather's reputation. It's their word against Treves'. Who's right? Who knows?
But you certainly don't know and your speculation of what is true to this story isn't any more valid than the movie's interpretation.
People who base their knowledge on movies are idiots? Shut up!
Stopping short at the movie level of investigating, in this case, isn't any more interesting or trustworthy. The movie did a very good job at being historically accurate with acute attention to details. The only noticeable problem, based on the chronology, was John's trip to Belgium. It was reported that he was swindled by another manager leaving John broke. There wasn't a kidnap reported. The role of the porter could also have been implemented in the script. -
spookyrat1 — 10 years ago(January 27, 2016 04:16 AM)
I've no idea why he was called John. Perhaps it's a Lynch clue that he intends to fictionalize part of the story. And remember this is David Lynch here and David Lynch doesn't do documentaries.
Having said that, the main body of the story presented is true, with Lynch adding familiar personal touches such as dream sequences, a philistine horde intent on kidnapping and mercenary gain at Merrick's expense and an accelerated death. -