The Elephant Man

The Elephant Man_360P

source: The Elephant Man

A very unusual David Lynch movie, this tells the story of the life of a disfigured Victorian man and the doctor who tried to help him. Few American directors have really had a feel for Britain, let alone continental Europe, (Landis (An American Werewolf in London) and Losey (The Go-Between) are exceptions that come to mind) but Lynch's portrait of Victorian society is both powerful and poignant. Similar in concept to Bogdanovich's Mask, the film is profoundly different in execution. Lynch elicits outstanding performances from all the cast and succeeds in producing a deeply humane piece of cinema.

Spoilers herein. Some films are effective because they competently push all the buttons. Some work because they effectively transport you an unfamiliar place. And some reveal some new way of folding your imagination. This film shifts among these three excellent qualities, depending who is making the decisions. Of these three, only the last really matters. Oh, a good empathetic cry is worthwhile, especially if I can congratulate myself on my understanding, charitable nature. But that's cheap. What really matters in this film are the few places where the producers let David Lynch do his thing. There are two: --The first is the sequence in France where Bytes has taken up with the freak show that seemingly is the original one visited by Treves. This sequence is clearly patterned on the amazing `Freaks,' elaborating and extending many of the images first invented there. Leading up to the escape by the edge of the water, which is the single image that permanently rests in mind and anchors this whole film. Lynch (and most other intelligent filmmakers) is obsessed with what it means to make a show. Except for the obvious (Trevers is much like Bytes but with clean sheets), there isn't much exploration of what society accepts as a `show' except for this and the next mentioned: --The freak show is mirrored by the other show Lynch is allowed to mess with, the play. This is also a show, but this time Merrick is a spectator. There are also wonders; also natural and societal forces at play; also an imprisoned ogre who presumably is shown to have a heart of gold. By 1980, it is already a hard rule that the abstraction `distance' between a film and the film or play within the film must be the same as between the film and `real' life. And so it is here. These two sequences of the freak show and the play, clearly siblings, are the two places Lynch has been allowed to be Lynch, and they are inventive, trenchant and lasting. But where Brooks and company constrained Lynch, we have a failure: all that stuff about clouds and smoke and boilers. I suppose (knowing his later work) that he was going for the industrialization as a Victorian template (mapped to the hospital's rigid rules: `we only help patients who can be cured'). Going for the `hey, that's me struggling against the machine of society,' and linking that machine to machine of show business. (The name : `Bytes' was designed to further that notion.) Constraining him thus certainly was a wise decision given the goals of the film, and the emphasis on the actors. But I dare say that it would have been a better, more important and visceral experience if there had been less mawkish sentimentality and more image; fewer gems of actors' effects and more cinematic structure. Lynch and Freddy Francis were to team up again for `The Straight Story' where it is all about what they couldn't do here. Elsewhere, I have come down pretty hard on Anthony Hopkins' acting style, which is mannered, lazy, and completely uninterested in the director's intent. That comes from being constantly celebrated. But here, we have none of that. He is focused, committed, new in the character's skin. It is not really fine acting, where the doctor's skin itself would be worn and mannered, but there is no room in this film for such stuff. All the actors have to be abstractly sharp, and they are (except the boss's wife, who is dreadful). And he is the sharpest. Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.

Choosing monochrome for his foray into the smog age and Jack-The-Ripper back-street London, director David Lynch does everything to place his freak-show action far in the past. However, he is exploiting the Elephant Man (Hurt as John Merrick) no less than his "owner" was in the fairground. He offers no explanation for the man's condition, not even from the eminent surgeon Treves (Hopkins) who got the unfortunately deformed man admitted to the London Hospital. Apparently, plastic surgery was far in the future when Treves practised medicine. Not even a dental surgeon was able to sort out Merrick's mouth for him, it seems. Once this is established, the medical dimension is removed from the story and it shrinks into a little morality tale that can barely support a 90-minute feature. There's no sub-plot, for example, to change the tempo, and the civility of Merrick's entry into society is laboured while we wait for the janitor to bring in his paying crowd, along with the wretched, drunken 'owner', and wreck Merrick's life once again. Anne Bancroft's walk-on appearance as an improbable West End actress speaking American and doing a reading of the love scene from Romeo & Juliet is poorly handled as the story clunks along in "and then", "and then" mode. The Elephant Man is a rather tiresome and poorly constructed bio-pic that fails to transcend the age in which it is set, and succeeds only in making a banal point about the gulf between appearance and inner nature, something that Charles Dickens would have handled in one paragraph.

I first watched 'The Elephant Man' over twenty years ago, not long after it was released. It was the first David Lynch movie I ever saw, thought at the time I'd never even heard about 'Eraserhead' and knew nothing about the guy. I was incredibly impressed by the film, as I have been every time I watch it. Eventually I became a big Lynch fan, and could see the similarities between 'Eraserhead' and 'The Elephant Man', both visually and in their use of sound. Apart from that, they are very different movies. 'Eraserhead' still freaks most people out, but 'The Elephant Man' is arguably his most accessible film. It has heart and an emotional impact, something rare in Lynch's movies ('The Straight Story' is another exception). Anthony Hopkins is an actor I've frankly had it up to HERE with, especially after his increasingly hammy Dr. Hannibal Lecter, but boy, is he wonderful here! Probably his finest performance to date. Of course John Hurt is superb too, especially taking into consideration him having to work under pounds of make up. It's hard to fault anybody in the supporting cast, especially John Gielgud and Hannah Gordon, who plays Hopkins wife. Freddie Jones, who Lynch has worked with a few times since, is really evil as Bytes, and the late Michael Elphick ('The Element Of Crime', 'Withnail and I') plays another memorable baddie as the hospital's night porter. 'The Elephant Man' is a remarkable achievement. Lynch doesn't seem to have compromised his unique vision one bit and yet manages to make a genuinely moving drama about one of the screen's most unlikely heroes. I don't throw the term "masterpiece" around lightly but it's difficult not to use that word when describing this truly extraordinary film! Simply one of the best movies I've ever seen.

I believe that one of the greatest ideas in the movie, is that it starts by frightening you, it makes you fear John, in such way that you don't even want to see him. And then when the movie continues it is revealed that John is just a loving human being, who wants to be loved like everybody else, and you suddenly look at him and has a kind of sympathy for him. This is a VERY VERY VERY strong idea in my opinion BECAUSE the movie shows us that we are not better than anyone else. Even though we think that the people who've seen John as a horrible deformed monster were horrible, we were thinking the same way in the beginning of the movie. Because the movie introduced John to us that way. This teaches us that unfortunately we are not objective, we don't really check things out before we judge them. We base our opinions on what others tell us, and not on what's right.

On many web-sites this movie was a common factor in top classic movies. I was quite interested to see it. I also saw the IMDb review and the poster and that appealed me more. I was too eager to settle down on my chair to view this classic. This is a second half of 19th century (1860-87) true story of a Joseph Merrick (John Hurt) man with physical abnormalities thus the name Elephant Man. A surgeon Dr. Frederick Treves (Anthony Hopkins) gives refuge to Joseph in his hospital and makes him part of the high circle society of England. But still Joseph faces humiliation from people due to his looks. In the end of the movie Joseph is given standing ovation by the then Queen Victoria and all eminent people. The movie though based on a true story is a distorted version. Joseph was affected at an age of five by elephantiasis – but the movie starts with a dramatic misrepresentation of a dream sequence (or I do not know real) of an elephant raping a young woman – through whom assumingly this boy is born. The movie's script is a big let down. It showcases typical irritating British-ness; exaggerate the miseries of the man and the goodness of rich British people. Most of the poor people are shown as villainous clowns who are insensitive, ignorant, uneducated, rascals; whereas the rich class is shown as overly sensitive and humane to ugly Joseph. Again I think a total mis-representation! This movie reminded me of a documentary I have seen recently Darwin's Nightmare. African poverty is shown and exploited by the Director to fetch a name in the ignorant and insensitive western audiences. Similarly here ugly looks of a person is exploited by the Director to fetch a name for himself in the ignorant and insensitive western; mostly British rich class. There are so many things that are badly scripted in the movie that I would not even venture to mention them here. Most IMDb reviews rate this movie very high. I am saddened by the fact that they because they have failed to relate with such characters in real life – they feel so moved in reel life. What about people who considers being humiliated throughout the life with people's insensitiveness – find this representation over the board. Acting wise I found everyone more dramatic, and overacted – including reliable Sir Anthony Hopkins. For no obvious reason at all (may be to hide the make-up of John Hurt) the movie is shown in Black and White. John Hurt due to a huge make-up and limping character, even though had some work to do; but with this character – any actor could have done an equally satisfying job. I think, Director David Lynch is not a competent director, but has achieved some mastery in showcasing miseries of people and earning a living. His list of movies proves that. He may have felt that he is sensitively portraying miseries, but actually he is exploiting miseries to make a name for himself in an insensitive British/ western society. Because of the fact that this is a true story I give 3 out of 10 for this otherwise – poor movie. (Stars 3 out of 10)

this is a brilliantly done film. it is quite raw and blunt about its subject matter, however, so it should not be viewed for "entertainment" purposes, thought he story is inherently intriguing. we must just sit and watch in curiousity and amazement, but in concurrence with extreme sorrow, as we are shown the brutality that john merrick must face as his reality. a smile from another human being, or even a pleasant greeting (which is something that we all take for granted), is treated by this man as the highest form of complimentary behavior possible. one of the best films that i have ever seen. it wouldnt be called a top 25 of all-time film by the public (though i may place it there), however, based solely on the fact that it, as i mentioned earlier, is lacking in terms of typical "entertainment" value. even though you will certainly be immersed the entire way through. ah, who knows! im not expressing myself very well. make it a priority to see this film. enjoy absolutely amazing and memorable - 10/10

David Lynch is a remarkable director and The Elephant Man is a remarkable film. Inspired by a true story in the streets of London during the Victorian Age, the film is based entirely around the life of John Merrick (John Hurt), an individual dubbed by his `owner' Bytes (Freddie Jones) and others as 'The Elephant Man' because of his hideous deformities. With this film, Lynch grasps his audience and stretches them to a new parallel of an emotionally capturing film. And what makes this so daunting and so intriguing is the fact that 'The Elephant Man' is a true story, no part of it is fictional. Anthony Hopkins plays Dr. Frederick Treves, the man who somewhat saves John from those who persecute him for being a freak, being a `monster.' A story of human triumph could never be so remarkable as that of The Elephant Man. Lynch takes The Elephant Man to a new level of technical aspiration with a dark, dank setting shot completely in black and white. This film is amazing and would undoubtedly be just okay any other way. The black and white adds to the story in a way that touches the audience much deeper and much more personal. Not to mention stunning performances and dialogue by all cast, `David Lynch's portrait of John 'The Elephant Man' Merrick stands as one of the best biographies on film.' Literary critic Leslie Fiedler maintains that freaks stir `both supernatural terror and natural sympathies' because they `challenge conventional boundaries between male and female, sexed and sexless, animal and human, large and small, self and other.' In this very interesting and moving film, we are challenged to clarify our values in regard to `very special people.' However, in one powerful scene of tension and curiosity, John Merrick screams out, `I am not an animal! I am a human being! I.am.a man!' This particular sequence, I believe, is incredible and it ties in with the whole focus of the film itself, human dignity and emotion. David Lynch is known for some pretty twisted films, and yet, The Elephant Man is not that twisted at all. Even though his audience views John Merrick as not the average person because of his medical condition, the story is cherished because of how it is put onto the big screen. Compared to his other films such as Blue Velvet and Eraserhead, The Elephant Man is more surreal in terms of what Lynch was going for. Lynch does a magnificent job in portraying his version of The Elephant Man, and many people along with critics alike agree. I can easily rate The Elephant Man with four stars because David Lynch deserves no less. The Elephant Man is a classic, a striking and devastating film depicting the account of John Merrick's search for a dignified and normal life. I would definitely recommend this film to those in search of a wonderful story about one man's conquest to a regular life. Dr. Treves' account with John not only presents him with respect and normalcy, but also takes him as far as an uplifting scene where upon John states `my life is full because I know I am loved.' With such an inspirational and true story, David Lynch puts on a film that should be loved by many, if not all.