This movie destroys people???

You suck

although i don't care for your potentially populist social whining, you are right in that this movie is indeed sentimental, so much so that i cannot think of another that has gone so far to attempt to force the viewer to feel something sans even an attempt at actual empathy.

keep in mind that the movie is actually about the elephant man, it is not some treatise on suffering, so you should not necessarily expect it to be one.

i think, though, that the heart of your comment is your disappointment in the movie's sentimentalist - lack of true emotion, and you are dead on with that criticism.

still, the visuals are great, as is the score, at times, and it's definitely a watchable movie.

as for the actual story, having read the wikipedia after watching the movie, it'd have been far more dramatic to show the man's unwilling transformation, from the age of three onward, into a deformed human. that is way more agonizing, and way, WAY more unique, than the social outcast with a heart of gold story. might've been more challenging to execute, though.

Allow me to try and make sense of the rhetorical and syntactic chaos that is the OP.

"Try living in the real world."

Apparently, the poster is referring to those of us who enjoy The Elephant Man. The argument, it seems, is that we should be more socially conscious.

"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?"

I am a bit unclear how these questions relate to the film. The poster is implying that those of us who enjoy it either do not read the paper or are not properly moved/outraged by it. I can personally answer, yes, I do read the paper daily, and no, it does not destroy me; in fact, I tend to function well after reading it, although certain news items do provoke an emotional reaction.

"Some of you need to really open your eyes."

Note the split infinitive. The poster again refers to we who should be living in the real world. However, only some of us, strangely, need to open our eyes. I tend to agree with he poster in a broader sense: it would be very difficult to read the paper with one's eyes closed. (AM radio is a different story.)

"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'."

Here, we transition rather abruptly to the subject of the film, which fails to "shine the light" [sic] on those who suffer. Taken literally, the statement is patently false. The protagonist is someone who suffers a great deal, and -- this being a movie -- has many lights shown on him throughout. We are then told that the EM is approximately as realistic as an old Frank Capra picture. The assumption is that "It's a Wonderful Life" is naive and unsophisticated, but no evidence for this is provided. Seeing as "It's a Wonderful Life" has achieved a certain classic status and was directed by a prominent auteur of the 30's and 40's, the comparison misses its diminishing intent. However, other than the black and white photography, I must also admit that I see no discernible connection between the two films.

"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. "

Here we reenter the territory of split infinitives and missing definite articles. I find it hard to approach any of these meaningless words flung together. What does the poster mean by "substantive worth" (a useless repetition), and how can such a thing, if it exists, lead us to believe anything? Does it possess human qualities, such as the ability to inspire credulity in its viewers? A highly original thought if it weren't so damn vague! Also, I must take issue with the gross generalization that there was ever a time when people were afraid to examine the darker elements of life. Does the poster mean 1946, the year It's A Wonderful Life was released? Can we really characterize the immediate post-war period as a time when people were more naive about the darkness of life than in 1980 -- the age of hairspray and disco?

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

Ah, yes, perhaps, but not nearly as anti-intellectual as the incoherent drivel you just rattled off on your keyboard. Adieu.

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.

"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.

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/

[deleted]

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.