Skip to main content

I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I... am... a man!

The Elephant Man
(1980)

(SPOILERS) It seems to be the current curse of the fledgling talented director that a much-feted indie debut leads to wooing by Hollywood and subsequent, if not dissipation, then diluting of talent, as distinctiveness and individuality are drained away and homogenised. Four decades ago, David Lynch was someone who took exactly that path, transiting from one of the all-time cult movies to the most darling of respected genres, the period piece. And then he went and made a hugely-budgeted sci-fi blockbuster. Clearly, it was career curtains for the one-time auteur. I won’t come on to Dune just yet, but The Elephant Man, his sophomore film, is an unassailable classic, and manages to get right in approach, tone and storytelling what so many period movies get wrong.


Which is mostly that it isn’t starchy. Or at least, most obviously. It has starchy characters, observing societal norms, but the filmmaking is neither rigid nor perfunctory. Not for Lynch the staid virtue that would make Merchant Ivory Oscar mainstays in the latter part of the decade. And yet, Lynch’s film also troubled the Academy for big prize consideration. Indeed, whenever he strays outside of his hyper-weird, preferred narrative constructs (see also The Straight Story) awards tend to come calling (and even occasionally when he’s just being full-on weird: Mulholland Drive). The other such period romp of the decade, unbound by such obvious convention, that springs to mind is Amadeus. But where that film revelled in its clash of excess and restraint, paralleling Mozart with a modern rock star, it also shares a distinct characteristic with Lynch’s picture; a palpable, sustained emotional pulse that cuts through the costumes and drapes. Amadeus’ is found in Salieri’s disgust and jealousy of the famous composer, whereas The Elephant Man’s is revealed through John Merrick’s unearthly sanctity and purity of spirit.


It’s the kind of centre that in any other hands would surely veer towards the horrifically sentimental and maudlin. I note some have accused it of same, but I would suggest they fail to distinguish between the sentimentalised and the genuinely emotive; I don’t see the excess and indulgence here that goes with the former. One wonders if they would have preferred a clinical analysis of the case, whereby empathising with Merrick is thrown out of the window in favour of cold, distanced observation. Surely it is as Pauline Kael argued in her review, that it “doesn’t stray from the Victorian framework (Lynch) constructs; nothing is interpreted… and so nothing is sentimentalized in a modern manner”. Another director might have been so wrapped up in eulogising the man and his burden that the heart of the piece was lost, but for all his ability to mimic such emotional displays for absurdist purposes in other movies, The Elephant Man finds Lynch working entirely in the service of his subject, rather than distancing himself or unleashing his bag of eccentric tricks.


There are moments of strangeness, and that sound design is as industrial and oppressive (well not as oppressive) as it was in Eraserhead, and the black and white visuals (courtesy of Freddie Francis) retain something of the toxic, suffocating hellhole of urban degradation of his first movie, but Lynch so clearly feels for his protagonist (as opposed to indulging him) that the result is a rarity, a film from the director where the sympathetic response is first and foremost, and the distancing from the characters is absent (for all its unadorned virtues, The Straight Story is also fairly remote). Lynch even uses Samuel Barber during Merrick’s final moments to profoundly moving effect, his effective suicide a point of poignant release that makes Oliver Stone’s later appropriation seem merely crass.


Hurt’s Merrick is profoundly affecting, gentle, delicate, suffering (and Hurt suffered for his art, having to work alternate days due to the encumbrance of the prosthetics). Frederick Treves (Hopkins), in introducing us to this character and world, is the audience identification figure, however, even though the compassion displayed in the moment he lays eyes on Merrick (the single tear), showing that he is genuine, lapses into remote scientific inquiry whereby he presents the man before his peers of the Royal Society, a subject to be scrutinised.


As such, we’re invited to assess the picture’s most complex character, aware before anyone in the film itself identifies that his devotion towards his career leads to a lack of consideration for the man within “the monster” (whom he refers to as “perverted, degraded, insidious” in form); he receives much consequent acclaim, and even when he wrings his hands in guilt (“Am I a good man, or am I a bad man?”) it is that of the man who would likely make the same mistake again.


It’s a superb performance from Hopkins, moderating a mix of reserve, hesitancy, moral rectitude and tunnel-vision blinkeredness that’s as human a counterpoint to Merrick’s unreal inner beauty as one could conceive. It takes Gielgud’s Carr-Gomm, whom we initially expect to be a force of stern rebuke, to show the insights Treves lacks, through the latter’s assumption that his scientific understanding extends to the realm of the emotional and spiritual. Carr-Gomm corrects Treves when he says he believes he can imagine the kind of life Merrick has suffered (“I don’t think so. I don’t think anyone can”). Gielgud’s is as good as any performance the actor gave in his last few decades (and let’s face it, many of his films during that era were not so distinguished).


Good performances too from Wendy Hiller as the initially dismissive then staunchly protective hospital matron Mothershead and an early appearance from Dexter Fletcher as Bytes’ lad. Freddie Jones’ Bytes and Michael Elphick’s Night Porter are cartoon villains of the most garish order; one might argue such a depiction is beneath the picture (particularly since Tom Norman, on whom Bytes is based, was apparently a decent man who treated Merrick well, in contrast to the monster of Treves’ memoirs – although, an earlier sideshow owner did treat him badly it seems), and a sequence in which Mothershead bashes the Night Porter on the head seems to have strayed in from a Carry On. Nevertheless, while the episodes of cruelty at the hospital are also inventions, if one were to stick to the facts of most true life stories they’d make highly unsatisfying movies dramatically. The emotional substance of Merrick’s treatment is believable, and that’s really why it carries such power.


As such, the fairground escape from France is perhaps a little too close to a fantastic rendering found in a Disney fairy-tale, yet it also carries undeniable weight, culminating as it does in the Merrick’s stirring assertion of his worth beyond the currency of his surface appearance (“I am not an animal!”).


As the Time Out review by Tom Milne noted, the picture leaves (intentional) question marks concerning the inner Merrick’s feelings, notably potential sexual stirrings in response to the attentions of his admirers, from the touch of a beautiful woman (Hannah Gordon as Treves’ wife) to the recitals with another (Anne Bancroft’s stage darling); this being a man whose one notable area of non-deformity is his genitalia. But this is entirely germane to a character who ventures no opinion unless asked, who is even assumed by the compassionate doctor to be an imbecile until he offers evidence otherwise.


And what of the pervasively Lynchian in the picture? We see his attention to extreme close-ups, pushing against the macro world that divides reality, and the queasy fairground imaginings of the fate of Merrick’s mother trampled by elephants (based on the myth propagated by Bytes). It’s suggestive of an imprinting of a reality from beyond, the framing echoing that of Eraserhead’s external forces impacting on our world. And then again, in the final moments, as Merrick passes to the infinite (the angel that is his vision of his mother, quoting Tennyson’s Nothing will Die, subsumes the demonic elephants). There’s also the attention to body horror, besides Merrick himself, in Treves’ operation on a burn victim, something you can see previously in his short The Amputee and subsequently in Dune’s pustulating depravity of Baron Harkonnen.


The Elephant Man was nominated for eight Oscars, including Picture, director and actor, winning none; the lack of make-up recognition led to the introduction of a specific category the following year. For my money, the movie should have swept the board (Ordinary People is a decent movie, but not Best Picture-worthy, unless you have Driving Miss Daisy as a yardstick, while Raging Bull may be the oft-cited stolen but is massively over-regarded). Apparently Mel Brooks, who produced, responded to Paramount execs’ requests for removal of the framing device with “We are involved in a business venture. We screened the film for you to bring you up to date as to the status of that venture. Do not misconstrue this as our soliciting the input of raging primitives”. Which, I think, told them. Adjusted for inflation, this is the director’s most profitable film.


Kael, in her essay, referred to The Elephant Man having the power and some of the dream logic of a silent film. That’s certainly the way one feels departing its spaces. There’s a sense that, no matter what the attentions or intentions, Merrick cannot be treated with true evenness until he was left the real world. His initial salvation through the enlightenment of science is just another form of (refined) freak show, and Lynch retains this idea through his time as a célèbre of the social elite; far from sentimentalising, this environment and its illusion of dignity is shot through with an undercurrent of inevitability and pessimism. A figure such as Merrick, too rarefied to persist for long, can only persevere there a while, a beacon of the of the unquenchable spirit in the prevailing darkness.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989)
(SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch, or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins. Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon. 

It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy (Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Big Lebowski, “got it” on fi…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

What is this, the Titanic? Screw the women and children first shit, man.

Alien vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)
(SPOILERS) The brutal evidence, if any were needed, that Fox had no interest in the quality of its franchise(s), let alone admiring their purity. There’s almost (I stress almost) something beserkly admirable about Alien vs. Predator: Requiem’s flagrant disregard for anything and everything that set the primary series apart or made it distinctive. You might, at a stretch, argue this is a not bad Predator movie, in that it gives Wolf (not the Gladiator, alas; informally named after the Pulp Fiction character Harvey Keitel has since trodden into the dirt and repeatedly stamped on in a series of whorish adverts) motivation and everything, but that’s really doing it too much credit: AVPR is simply a bad movie.

I hadn’t seen this since its release, when I was marginally more charitable to its appetite for transgressive behaviour. And, to give it its backhanded due, in the establishing sections, the marriage of never-destined-to-meet genre subplots is at least…

I came here to take President Sarkoff back to his people.

Blake's 7 1.11: Bounty

It was inevitable that the series would trot out a retro-planet budget-saver at some point, and it’s a shame that it comes attached to a story as unimaginative as this one. Blake and Cally teleport down to a Federation planet with the intention of returning the exiled President Sarkoff (T.P. McKenna, The Greatest Show in the Galaxy) to his people on Lindor.

Sarkoff is under guard so there’s quite a bit of extended ducking and running for Blake and Cally to do, only to find Sarkoff is extremely reluctant to return. He is content to wallow in the historical artefacts that surround him in his small castle. His daughter Tyce thinks he should grow a pair.

The B-plot, which converges eventually with the A, sees the Liberator detect an unidentified ship (we are told later that it is the civilian cruiser Star Queen, which it turns out not to be) and Gan teleports over to investigate. Vila doesn’t like it, and he’s right.

Avon: As a matter of fact, I don’t like it either. …

This is hell, and I’m going to give you the guided tour.

Lock Up (1989)
Sylvester Stallone’s career was entering its first period of significant decline when Lock Up was flushed out at the tail end of his most celebrated decade. His resumé since Rocky includes a fair selection of flops, but he was never far from a return to the ring. Added to that, his star power had been considerably buoyed by a second major franchise in the form of John Rambo. For a significant chunk of the ‘80s he was unbeatable, and it’s this cachet (and foreign receipts) that has enable him to maintained his wattage through subsequent periods of severe drought. Lock Up came the same year as another Stallone prison flick, Tango & Cash, in which the actor discovered both his funny guy chops (resulting in an ill-advised but mercifully brief lurch in to full-blown comedy) and made a late stage bid to get in on the buddy cop movie formula (perhaps ego prevented him trying it before?) The difference between the two is vast. One is a funny, over-the-top, self-consciously bo…

I used to be dead, but then he brought me back to life.

Swiss Army Man (2016)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes I’ll finish watch a movie entirely bewildered by the praise it somehow merited. Spring Breakers was one notable case. Swiss Army Man is another. I’ll readily admit that music video turned feature directors Daniel Scheinert and Daniel Kwan are incredibly inventive and talented – as writers not so much – and that Daniel Radcliffe’s performance as a corpse shows range I never knew he had (I mean that both ironically and seriously). Otherwise, the experience felt like being harangued by a blowhard hipster for 90 minutes, one who thinks he has something desperately, insightfully deep to say but is actually running on empty after five. It isn’t even all that appealing if you love fart jokes: any given Austin Powers is far more flatulently fulfilling.

I was tempted to label Swiss Army Man a one-joke movie, so impressed with its own single-plane weirdness that it irons itself out into something not really very weird or compelling at all. Which would be …

This planet is a game reserve, and we’re the game.

Predators (2010)
(SPOILERS) By the time this belated Predator 3 arrived, anything that treated either of Fox’s monster franchises with a modicum of decorum was to be embraced, so Predators, overly indebted to John McTiernan’s original as it is, is not exactly a breath of fresh air but nevertheless agreeably serviceable. You might have hoped for something more innovative after 23 years in the standalone wilderness, but at least you didn’t get Alien vs. Predator: Reheated.

Of course, this is essentially Robert Rodriguez’ 1994 screenplay spruced up a slightly, and as such displays the kind of slipshod approach to narrative that has served the writer-director-producer-auteur-in-his-own-bedroom’s cottage industry reasonably well over the past couple of decades .We’re mercifully fortunate he didn’t choose to make it himself (it’s only recently, with Alita: Battle Angel and the Escape from New York remake, that he appears to have been lured back to studio fare, and perhaps some degree of dilige…

You look kind of nervous. Probably your first hostage rescue, huh?

Rock the Kasbah (2015)
(SPOILERS) The chances of making a genuinely insightful, acutely satirical Hollywood movie relating to US interventions abroad, political and military, seem minimal these days, so you might as well go back 25 years to the flawed Wrong is Right. What we have seen most recently appears acknowledge this: desperate attempts to make feel good hay from loosely factual material (“inspired by”), to disastrous effect, both creatively and commercially. 2015 saw Our Brand is Crisis and Rock the Kasbah, both based on documentaries, both plotting uplifting, redemptive tales of self-realisation for their jaded, cynical protagonists when they’re confronted by the realities fostered on other nations by their home one.

Although, reality couldn’t be further from Rock the Kasbah’s Afghanistan (filmed in Morrocco), which has about as much legitimacy as The Men Who Stare at Goats’ Iraq (there at least, the heightened sense was part of the point). Taking 2009 doc Afghan Star as a starti…

Orac has access to the sum total of all the knowledge of all the known worlds.