This message has been deleted.
-
knoxfan2008 — 10 years ago(December 07, 2015 07:05 PM)
Kinda amazing?? That's poor English. Is that the most profound statement you can come up with?
YAWN It's the internet kiddo, we get it, you can't think of an intelligent response so you go to the lowest form of retort, cheers for showing that I'm, winning. (I've left a few grammatical errors in so you can have something to lean on after you read my brutally effective retorts to your insecure ramblings)
Can you explain how this movie is conventional? There's much to be said about this movie, but I don't see how it's conventional in any way, especially from a Hollywood standpoint.
Everything about this films story is one dimensional, Merrick is a bland character who's only good qualities is that he is 'nice', he has no conflicting emotions, he never becomes angry or acts out in a way that challenges the viewer's sympathy for him. The ugly duckling story is one of the most over-done cliches of all time, it's a simplistic story we were all told as children, then they made a film with the exact same moral. The film even has the "People fear what they don't understand" which may be the single most over-used line in cinematic history. However, the film is beautifully shot which saves it from being crap, the set design and make-up effects are top notch, even if all the characters are made of cardboard.
As I stated earlier, there isn't any point in trying to convince the thickheaded outsider.
Yet you wrote two comments back at me? Hmmmm looks like you're lying mate. Also, I perfectly proved why this film is not challenging, one-dimensional and derivative. It's so sad that people are easily manipulated by mediocre films like this.. -
Bard_Battalion — 10 years ago(December 12, 2015 05:39 AM)
I did not feel any of his torture, and the camera work did not help in creating a sentiment of compassion towards the character.
The mans situation is enough to make one feel compassion. There is no need for dynamic camera movement.
As for the character of John Merrick, the character goes through the same obstacle (not being accepted in society) from minute 1 to the minute 110 (where he gets his standing ovation) - with practically no evolution
He goes from not rebelling against his jailer to shouting "I am not an animal". A total 180. -
Sewaat — 9 years ago(July 19, 2016 10:22 PM)
You asked for us to elaborate on why we love the film, so I will tell you as simply as I can.
Of David Lynch's work, this is probably the most approachable of his films because it focuses around one of mankind's most universal battles: to accept those who are different. And in turn, be accepted in society for our differences. Now, this struggle has taken many forms over the years. From Gender, to Sexual orientation, Race, Religion and everything in between.
I should hope that most people know by now that it is unfair to treat someone any differently simply because of the way they look. But in Victorian England during this time, it was commonplace. That's where I feel Anthony Hopkins' character comes into play. He is us. He represents the audience and how they perceive John Merrick, The Elephant Man. He responds in a way that I think most of us would. With kindness, dignity and most importantlyrespect. He never once disrespects Merrick. Even when he is frustrated by his initial lack of communication, he stays right by his side until the very end and helps him to stand up for himself in a world which constantly tells him he's a freak who belongs in a show, instead of a man who is just as worthy of respect as any other. Remember, no one else believed that Merrick was an intelligent man until Treves helped him to speak and recite the Bible. The doctor was the first person to believe in Merrick when everyone else disregarded him as an imbecile. And without his help, Merrick perhaps would have remained in the freak show for the rest of his life. Which would not have been for very long given his medical condition. Don't forget that. It is for this reason that I believe Treves is an essential character to the story and my personal favourite.
This somewhat ties into my second point. You (the OP) mentioned that there was no character development for Treves, which I can somewhat agree to. But that's because he was already a well rounded character when he was first introduced. There was really no need for him to change as a person. Now, Merrick on the other hand was almost a mute "creature" at the beginning of the film. He could hardly walk without help, much less speak to anyone. But as the film goes on, he begins to find his voice, attain some friendships and gain the self-respect that he so desperately needed. The way he finally snaps and declares himself a human being in front of the angry mob during the Subway scene was incredibly powerful; I almost got shivers. John Hurt completely disappears into the character. It is an unforgivable sin that he was not given the Oscar for Best Actor that year.
To sum up the entire film in one word, it's incredibly moving and highly intelligent. Masterfully crafted and well acted by pretty much everyone in the cast. I had to watch it again almost immediately after I finished it because I enjoyed it so much. It is one of the best films I've seen in a long time. I'm very sorry that you did not enjoy it to the same extent.