MovieChat Forums > The Elephant Man (1980) Discussion > This movie destroys people???

This movie destroys people???

posted 16 years ago by millicannon
28 replies | jump to latest

Try living in the real world. 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? Some of you need to really open your eyes. 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". 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.

This film is almost anti-intellectual in its ability to convey true suffering.

[–] Juaqino 14 years ago

Jesus. Can't people just watch a freaking movie anymore? Apparently a movie is bad if it shows you anyone's personal experience beyond the mundane, whether the person depicted is real or fictional.

[–] imbluzclooby 9 years ago

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.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

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

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

"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

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

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

...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:💩

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

I posted detail about what he found fault with on the other related thread (Re: Why I couldn't like it)

[–] Sewaat 9 years ago

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!