The Elephant Man (1980) movie review - Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- This is the original review of The Elephant Man by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1980. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.
![ARGENTINA vs. BOLIVIA [6-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C3wPtKNbAOA/mqdefault.jpg)
I completely disagree with Roger on this film. It’s a great moving and emotional film beautifully directed by David Lynch. The ending is very sad and also gets to me every time. Very moving. A great film.
I don't get the ending myself.
sha11235 I think he didn't feel worthy of the high society people accepting him
They killed him with kindness
same
Ebert was basically looking for a way to understand the whole idea of the movie, or find interest in the story of Merrick and the Doctor, together. Even though this movie had a lot of sensationalism (in which I wasn’t too fond of, either), I still felt what Siskel felt, as he saw this movie, and how he felt for other people who are so widely different, than us.
But one thing I want to know, do you think the movie is moving and great?
Yeah, I think Roger missed the boat on this one. This was a classic.
Clifford Shafran I even brought that review up at a film seminar. The professors hosting the screening believed me. This actually happened on the same day Whiety Bulger was killed in prison coincidentally.
jack bran Really? I thought they both picked Raging Bull...🤔
Yeah, he raised some interesting points, but I think he's missing the big picture, as Gene points out. Not only that, but the artistic element of showing those scenes he didn't understand. The heard of elephants, etc. We're supposed to look at those parts and imagine that's what people back then, in those "primitive" times, thought might be the reason why this man was the way he was. Rumors of his mother being "raped" by elephants, etc. That's the point of those scenes. Went over Ebert's head here. I'm surprised by that, because it's usually Gene who doesn't see the artistic value in stuff like that.
Ebert doesn't understand the little things created atmosphere. He was always triggered by Lynch movies for some reason.
Ebert has odd thoughts about The Elephant Man and you can see it in his written review of the film. He makes the point that John Merrick was not particularly brave because he had nothing to do with his physical condition. It was just a weird thing to say. It's a spectacular movie in every way.
I think of all the films that Roger reviewed, on this film he is the most off-base. Complaints about the sounds of the era and smokestacks were simply a reflection of the bleak times of the industrial revolution and nothing more than atmospheric flourishes. Roger is making points that make no sense! This film was genius, one of David Lynch's very best, and the fact that Lynch directed it should have been a signal to Roger that it was not necessarily going to be conventional. And John Hurt's performance is one of the most shattering and touching performances I have ever seen, a sadly disfigured man whose spirit and soul more than compensated for his broken body. Almost 40 years later this film is still vibrantly in my head, much like Schindler's List. A great film and a true classic!
You are 100% correct on all points.
Re: "The fact that Lynch directed it should have been a signal..." Keep in mind that in 1980, David Lynch was in his early thirties and had only made one feature. Lynch wasn't a celebrity director with a lot of expectations that came with his name. I don't think the film's director is even named in this clip, and these two were normally very director-conscious.
But Ebert did struggle with Lynch for a long time. He liked Eraserhead and then didn't like any of the others until The Straight Story and Mulholland Drive, both of which got his highest rating.
I wonder if it's a signal that brutal times breed brutal attitudes? Merrick is abused by uncaring poorer people in his life where as the people in the film from a high social class like the Doctor and the actress treat him more kindly?
This was the first film that both disturbed and affected me deeply...saw it at the impressionable age of 10 or 11. This one and Midnight Cowboy had the biggest emotional impact on me in my teens. The generally cruel, callous and indifference of people and society to others' suffering really opened my eyes, it's the world we live in now
@@eargasm1072 Agree with you completely.
Siskel is spot on here. The Elephant Man is the most moving picture I have ever seen.
It’s definitely up there.
For me it is utterly unique with a kind of lifelong message to communicate to me, which was ironically the point of the movie. Not to judge a book by its cover...
I was 5 when it came out and I remember seeing the advertisements and how they frightened me. My mother would just chuckle and say "Its just the Elephant man sweetie" and yet that fear stuck with me, inhibiting me from wanting me to see it. A film as good as it is has its own historic buzz and I eventually saw it late in adulthood... It is my favorite film, yet if I am asked what my favorite film is, it doesn't come to mind... Funny thing the mind.
Ebert’s points are well taken... But I’m with Gene on this one...
And will say that this film had me weeping... Merrick’s life was just awful...
But like an ancient Greek story . He persevered and did the best he could
Lazy millennials could take a lesson
His life wasn't as awful as this movie makes it out to be yet a difficult one regardless
@@jothishprabu8 Yes I did hear that he actually had a little more control over his life than is shown in the film. There's differing accounts though, in the film his owner is portrayed as cruel person exploiting him. Apparently this is based on the account of Dr Treves. There's other evidence though to suggest he was more of a business partner. The film takes a few liberties, I don't think he was kidnapped from the hospital, the porter character was probably fictional, the head nurse of the hospital was in her 20s not an old woman like in the film. The sack he wore when he went out and the cathedral model are both real and both in a museum. The train station scene though was true, happened in Liverpool, the bit about the Freak Show and The Times Newspaper and the Princess of Wales also true. Also his death may have been an accident, apparently he was his usual self when the staff saw him that day. When he was alone in his room possibly he fell onto his back and wasn't able to right himself or call for help.
That nurse was played by one of the UK’s acting legends, Wendy Hiller.
She was great in this,she came across a bit mean and heartless to John at first but then she cared and respected and wanted the best for John in the end.
Though I would disagree with Roger's ultimate verdict, he does raise interesting points, as we might expect from him.
He doesn't recognize the little things created the atmosphere. He was always triggered by Lynch movies. His critiques of almost all Lynch movies get a little irrational. It's that creeping Kafkaesque feeling that Ebert hates.
Love Roger but he's nitpicking.
@@MicahMicahel In hindsight, we can deduce that Lynch's work went over Roger's head for many years lol he eventually saw the light w/Mulholland Drive, don't know why that particular movie struck a chord with him
@@eargasm1072 Yeah, he really didn't get Lynch for a long time. Just look at his reaction to "Blue Velvet" and losing his mind over the scene in the bedroom with Rosselini. He had a Puritan streak in him that just couldn't handle Lynch for years.
No mention that Mel Brooks was the producer of this.
Well apparently Mel Brooks took his name off the credits because he was mostly associated with comedies.
@@oldfashionedguy1368 He didn't put his name on the credits because he felt people would think it was a spoof.
Roger Ebert doesn't like a David Lynch movie?
I'm shocked.
You should see his review of "Blue Velvet" a few years later; it was a scorcher
@@kristiantoimil Yeah, I know, hence the sarcasm.
He didn't like Dune, he didn't like Lost Highway, he hated Wild at Heart.
Like most people, he did think highly of Mulholland Dr.
Forget David Lynch...Roger Ebert actually dislikes a black-and-white movie.
Yea Roger never got Lynch until Mulholland Drive, don't understand why. He trashed Blue Velvet when released also
@@eargasm1072 It seemed Roger not only disliked Lynch's movies but also David himself. Roger Ebert had distain for violence against women, and to a lesser extent negative depictions of minorities, and seemed to accuse Lynch of being nothing short of a misogynist.
I was 10 years old. A rainy night in Castlegar. Saw it by myself. Walked home. Bout a kilometre. Tears the whole way. Good tears though. Thoughtful ones. Thank you David Lynch
Greg Cahill
Bless you.
Bless you too. Maybe God is making a comeback :)
castlegar.....British Columbia?
Yes
Same here Roller. Saw it when I was 10 years old at a double feature. Held it together through the credits, then excused myself to the restroom and burst into tears and wept uncontrollably. What a powerful movie
Imagine the embarrassment of riches they had back then-movie-wise-for Roger to carp about a film as extraordinarily well-made as The Elephant Man. He didn’t realize how good he had it.
Exactly....now we have movies about nomads in RVs winning Academy Awards lol
Roger Ebert Wasn't A Movie-Critic He Was A Stupid Idiot Who Actually Gave Thumbs-Up To Such Garbage As Cop And A Half! & Home Alone-3! As Well. Unbelievable.
@@eargasm1072?
@@TotallyOKaYProductions that's what they call me! Lol
John Hurt was amazing in this film
bassliveevil Standout performance in Midnight Express as well
John Hurt received an Oscar nomination for The Elephant Man.
And Tony Hopkins, Wendy Hiller, Hannah Gordon, Ann Bancroft, Michael Elphick and others - all outstanding!
It’s a flawless performance and should have won the Oscar.
David Lynch i think is sort of known for or viewed by most as a guy that makes bizarre films filled with characters that maybe many cant really relate with. but for me that "i am not an animal" scene is one of the most human and heartbreaking things i have ever seen in my life. to this day i cannot even think about it without tearing up. it absolutely devastates me every time i see it.
It’s brilliant
It's one of the most famous quotes from any movie.
Has any one noticed that Robert De Niro also cries "I am not an animal" while in solitary confinement in Raging Bull? Same line in movies released a few months apart from each other, both actors nominated that year, but where Merrick declares "I am a human being" after it, La Motta does not lol
The scene that started my tears:
Mrs. Kendal:
Why, Mr. Merrick, you're not an elephant man at all.
John Merrick:
Oh no?
Mrs. Kendal:
Oh no... no... you're a Romeo.
i think lynch was able to continue that trend though... think about the sadness of many of his leads: dorothy in blue velvet, laura in twin peaks, betty in mulholland drive... these are people who are afraid and suffering, beaten down and bent backwards. all dorothy wants is her husband and child back, all laura wants is to forget the abuse suffered at the hands of her father, all betty wants is love and adoration. nothing more human or relatable than those feelings.
I probably was too young when I first saw this because it emotionally affected me to the extreme. I still have problems making it through without shedding tears at age 50. I think Anthony Hopkins gave his most emotional delivery than any film he has made since. The distress and shear sadness in his eyes is amazing.
The Hopkins character Dr Treves is one of the most heroic characters in any of the films I've seen. After seeing it I wanted to be him.
The Elephant dream sequence in the film relates to the belief that Joseph Merrick had which was his condition was caused by his mother being struck down by an elephant while she was pregnant. Researchers looked into this and found that some elephants did indeed escape from a circus in 1862 in Leicester. This can't have been the actual cause of his condition though. It's likely to have been an extremely rare genetic condition I read. His sister was listed as crippled on her death certificate so possibly she suffered from something too. It was widely believed at the time that a terrible shock during pregnancy could harm the baby, you could still find it in science books up until the 1950s apparently.
This review flashed on my memory of this movie getting bad reviews when it was first released. Incredible that a lot of movies like this became classics in the course of time. I specifically remember one reviewer describing the pace as being "elephantine". It's cute when critics try to be witty when trashing someone else's work.
It was nominated for Best Picture so didn't get as much hate as you think. I remember it being beloved at the time and the Shining getting hate.
@@laartwork ok im ready for S&E throwback reviews of the Shining and Raging Bull. Hoping they are here!
This reminds me of their review of Blue Velvet, another David Lynch film. Roger hated it while Gene liked it.
Ebert disliked every David Lynch movie except Mulholland Drive, as I recall. I can understand it for Dune and Wild at Heart, but otherwise, it was strange.
@@75aces97 Actually, Ebert loved The Straight Story.
@@75aces97 He also liked Eraserhead.
Wtf Roger?!! Elephant Man is a masterpiece. The train station scene and the ending are incredible.
AN ABSOLUTE MASTERPIECE
Without question.
I like your avatar from "The Town That Dreaded Sundown".
@@pauljoyner4338 THANK YOU ITS MY ALL TIME FAVORITE FILM
I believe this film with it's constant hissing of gas lamps, is one of the great films about the Victorian age...
I believe it also represents how the industrial revolution also matches the cold metalic lack of compassion and humanity from these people attacking john Merrick
I’d forgotten about that... excellent point...
this is the only movie that made me cry in the theater, then on the way home, then before bed that night. thoughtful, haunting, and for me a life affirming ending. for anyone who hasn't seen it, I can't recommend it highly enough. The only other movie with close to the same emotional impact was flight 93.
No mention of director David Lynch. I wonder if he ever went on to do anything? 😄
Funny that Ebert objected to what we now know were the most Lynchian aspects of the film, Lynch's visual and aural way of establishing emotional landscapes as well as physical ones.
This is one of the saddest movies ever made but at the same time so beautiful. Black and white was a brave choice and worked well. It not only removed the distraction of color to focus more on light and faces, but also immediately gave the film a vintage look. The audience feels as if they're watching something straight out of the past, allowing them to more readily acknowledge the upsetting scenes and attitudes as belonging to those who were less "enlightened" and "tolerant" than we supposedly are today.
Rewatching these old Siskel and Ebert shows I’m stunned at how often they were wrong. The Elephant man is one of the greatest movies ever made.
Roger definitely did kind of blew it on this film, it's a powerful, haunting and very moving drama about a man isolated from society, it's probably my favourite David Lynch film of all time and it's interesting to have in the same year (1980) both this and Raging Bull as two great films shot in black and white demonstrating that the genre of B/W film making is still with us to this day.
Another film shot in black and white that year was Stardust Memories.
@@sha11235 Sorry I forgot to mention Stardust Memories though both Gene and Roger didn't like that film.
@@oldfashionedguy1368 I knew Roger didn't.
@@sha11235 Well Gene and Roger were greatly disappointed with Stardust Memories back in 1980 because they were big fans of Woody Allen and they really like his movies (though Roger didn't like Take The Money And Run, he gave the film 2.5 stars), though Stardust Memories has gained a positive re-evaluation over the years even after Gene and Roger were no longer with us.
I remember seeing them sort of back to back...two classics!
Gene Siskel was absolutely right on this on, and Ebert is wrong. This is a beautiful and moving film, that deserved the academy award recognition it got. However it was interesting to see two people who felt differently about it, and discuss the nature of the film.
I think it is interesting that it was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar in 1980 against the winner that year, a movie named “Ordinary People.”
Yeah, Roger’s definitely being “nitpicky” about the film, but the bigger story for me is how much I miss having these guys around. The back and forth banter was the stuff of legend! 😁
The elephant man was a terrific and sad movie.
I've been wanting to see this segment for years. Thank you so much for sharing!!!!!!!
I went to see this with my sister. Around the point in the movie when things seem to be getting better for Merrick and he has tea with Ann Bancroft, my sister whispered to me, "Let's go!" I said, "What? Why?" She said, "I know it's just going to go downhill for him from here."
Your sister was right. But she should've hung in there. Great movies make us FEEL! It's not always a positive feeling, but a movie that can have us emote, and force us to confront uncomfortable feelings, has done it's job. While Roger droned on about the little details here, Gene got it right when he saw the big picture. How do we treat people that are so different from us? The poor, physically ugly or from the wrong side of the tracks? Or in this case, the radically deformed, who can still function?
These are the questions that matter. Not, How did he learn to read the 23rd Psalm?
I remember this being the most memorable review of the entire run of the show. I roared like a maniac after Roger's review and Gene's reaction! Classic.
Can't even watch it anymore. I know what it will make me feel and I just don't want to feel it.
We are all in agreement, Ebert totally missed it. The " I am not an animal I am a human being" touches your soul like not many lines can
Roger is way off
This is one choice where Gene definitely has an upper hand and better understanding of this deeply moving and spiritual film.
I wonder if Rodger remembered what Gene said to him about this film when he lost his ability to speak. Because one of the main themes of this movie is to not hide yourself away and to be accepted by others despite what you look like and that was a sentiment that Rodger stood by after he lost his upper jaw. Just some food for thought.
Almost shocked Ebert did not like it. Very good movie snd very moving.
Sometimes Ebert was too clever to just enjoy a brilliant film.
Very interesting opinion!
Agreed
Not sure if Ebert was actually paying proper attention to the film. Merrick is encouraged to start speaking by Dr Treves. He is taught Psalm 23 but later reveals he knew much more having read the bible and the common book of prayer when he was younger. He doesn't know Shakespeare but is introduced to it by Mrs Kendall a London actress. Dr Treves treats Mr Merrick with care and attention as well as introducing him to other members of London society to improve his social skills and knowledge. The Dream sequence is classic David Lynch stamping his mark onto the film.
The saddest movie I’ve ever seen 💔
I agree with Gene Siskel 100% on this. I always loved the Elephant Man. Very good movie indeed.
The mother/elephant scenes were OBVIOUSLY representing Merrick's nightmares and feelings about how he became deformed, it wasn't meant to be taken LITERALLY, Roger. How a man that smart could miss such obvious symbolism is bizarre. And it was important to establish the early industrial environment in England and what it was doing to society at that time. Man, Roger was just off, here.
He wasn't THAT smart.
I have wept several times watching The Elephant Man.
It's mad even for many years after this movie came out how films continued to portray the hero as good looking & the villain as ugly/disabled. Darth Vader, the Joker, the Penguin, Two Face, Jason Voughes, Freddy Kruger, Scar, Captain Hook, Emperor Palpatine, Leatherface, Voldemort, most of the Bond Villains have a hand missing or an eye patch or something....
I couldn't believe when I read Roger's 2 star review in his book. Wanted to see how he reviewed it on his show.
back when the boys were on PBS
Aaaah, I remember it well. I was glued every Saturday morning to this show! 1979-1983 were my peak years. Ages 14-18. Great times!!! Movies certainly have changed in 40 years! Big shock!
Haunting and beautiful movie. I cannot find a moment of fault in it. David Lynch's #1 masterpiece.
Roger is complaining about smokestacks. That's his big flaw of the film. Fucking. Smokestacks.
He completely missed the boat here
Ebert(as is many times before) just did not get the film...I only saw The Elephant Man once at it's general release. It was such a powerful and traumatic experience that I stayed away from it since. A remarkably accomplished picture by David Lynch.
"I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!," Man From Deep River. 😆 🤣 😂 😹.
Being a movie geek since I was about 7 years old, I grew up watching Siskel and Ebert. I never could understand Ebert. I believe he gave a thumbs down to the majority of 1980's films now considered classics. Siskel disliked a few great ones as well (they both disliked Blade Runner, for instance) but I seem to recall Ebert dismissing many more. That's why it shocked me, in 1999, when Ebert gave a glowing review to Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace. I still can't figure him out.
I was just a little kid when this came out, I seen it on H.B.O, I truly cryed after this movie. My mom asked what the matter was, I tried to tell her about this movie, I couldn't. I started crying.😞😢😭😥😪
The Elephant Man is a great movie.
lol! At the end, Roger Ebert wouldn't recommend The Elephant Man, but agreed with Siskel that out of the films they reviewed, that was the one to see....
Damn. You have to be one heartless bastard to give The Elephant Man a thumbs down.
I agree, I find that completely cynical and void of compassion,.
8:42 Amen Gene 👏🏾 Roger is entitled to his opinion, but was he nit picking; *NONE* the minor details he mentioned take away from the superb performances!
Roger just didn't understand the film, I'm not sure why he didn't dive deeper into it. The sequences of industrialisation and machinery could be visual representations of a theme within the film, maybe could tie into the theme of treating humans like animals? What makes someone human? The way they look? Their intelligence? I don't understand why Roger completely wrote off these sequences as 'having nothing to do with the life of the elephant man' it's like he didn't even try.
I also don't think that them not showing how he looks in the film is a gimmick. The way he looks is obviously a big part of the film as it is what the whole story revolves around. The film wants to show the audience this in a very particular way. I can see why they wouldn't include it in the promotional material
You are right on all points.
This movie is now considered a classic.
It was in 1980 as well. Nominated for Best Film. The bland Ordinary People won but another classic B&W movie Raging Bull should have won.
Ebert gave this a thumbs down and "Revenge of the Nerds" a thumbs up
Roger kinda/ sorta retracted his statement though by saying it is noteworthy and worth watching.
I saw this as a kid. Thought it was a good movie because it was really moving. Then again, in the last 40 years, it has never occurred to me to watch this again. I don't know, maybe they're both right.
Sometimes Siskel was right.
Usually I agree with Roger (less with Gene) but I am honestly SHOCKED that he didn’t give this film a positive review!
what were the other movies in this episode? Where can I find out?
I usually agree more with Ebert, but I fully agree with Siskel on this one.
My thoughts exactly 💯
$4.00!!!!! New York City prices. our Suburban Philadelphia prices were $1.75. lol. I see what Roger is saying---it can come across as exploitative because of David Lynch's at times abstract approach especially with the mother being stomped by elephants in the beginning might offend Roger because of its sensationalism, but I loved it; it didn't seem to win the Major Academy Awards
Roger had an instinctive dislike of David Lynch's style. His dislike of David Lynch was probably his single biggest divergence from cinematic critical consensus.
Ebert's biggest miss. I suspect it is because he did not like Lynch and went into it not wanting to give him any credit.
I think "The Straight Story" changed his opinion on Lynch, and if he had re-watched this movie after that movie he would have been more positive.
I love the movie, but Roger does bring up a good point about the ambivalent beginning. I was young and naive, so I remember thinking the elephants mated with the mother.
Interesting Roger's thoughts on this movie and Mr Merricks deformity inflicted upon him a birth. Remember that Roger would later succumb to his own terrible cancer diagnosis that brought deformity to him as well. I did enjoy listening to these 2 guys and their reviews. I did take their thoughts on movies seriously. I wonder what their thoughts would be re the movies of today and the poor quality that is out there.
Ebert was definitely off on this one. This is a one of a kind type of movie that should never be remade. It's perfect the way it is.
I grew up watching these guys, and it's always fun to see which classic movies they gave a thumbs down to. Ebert is soooo wrong on this one. It's a perfect movie.
1. the bottom line is do you recommend it? roger struck out. Hurt's performance was stunning, one of the greats in film history to be seen by all.
2. roger astutely complains the film is exploitative. Merrick was highly independent. The film is instead a false narrative about an invalid. Lynch was not stupid though. He likely wanted the viewer to consider if they are participating in exploitation, just as the nurse questioned the doctor.
3. last, roger just did not get early David Lynch. What are the elephants? Who knows- it is a dream fuge. Like every Lynch film, dreams are brought to life.
one of my favourite classic movies by David lynch and made me cry a lot
Joseph Merrick, not John.
It's based on the book by Dr Treves he released in the 1920s. He was going to use the name Joseph but crossed it out and wrote John instead. Perhaps to give him some anonymity perhaps.
This movie review proves why I tend to agree more with Gene than Roger.
Great movie, Gene was right 🐘
Ebert didn't like Eraserhead, Elephant Man, Dune, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, Twin Peaks, or Lost Highway...hard to not see it as personal--funny footage of Ebert meeting Lynch 2002 at Oscars a tense, strange encounter.
I like Sneak Previews more than the later iterations of the show, I feel like they went more in-depth -- Anyone else?
I really miss these guys. rip
Not surprisingly, he was on the wrong side of “Blue Velvet” as well…..
That might be the most hilariously hypocritical thing for a studio to do
Or you can also see it as you paying to see a carnival show attraction and then seeing people in the movie pay to see a carnival show attraction, as bad as the people are in the movie, you can say we are double guilty of the same sin
@@bathombre9739 TRUUUUUE. So many layers
@@friendlypup5650 Ebert totally dropped the ball on this masterpiece. Even the focus on all the smokestacks and such representing the industrial revolution representing the same people who are lacking compassion for john Merrick. I haven't seen this movie in a long but I have tears every timei saw it. Take care man, let's treat all people no matter the differences as human beings
@@bathombre9739 TRUE! I prefer this over eraserhead personally. His best work
Unbelievable that Elbert didn’t like this one.
Anthony "Hopkin" 😂😂
I think Ebert came around at the end.
So The Elephant Man was the charter member of the 27 Club 😏
Roger Ebert giving THIS film a thumbs down tells you everything you need to know about the value of movie critics and their opinions. You can see why they've disappeared. Good riddance.
I can’t believe Ebert didn’t love this film.
He just didn't get the artistic parts where we are shown clips that represent the "thoughts' of the people who lived back in those days. For example, the elephants. That is supposed to represent the rumors of people who thought maybe his mother was raped by an elephant which caused his deformity. Sounds absurd nowadays, but back in those days, people just didn't comprehend such deformity, and often the cause was sensationalized.
This movie makes me uncomfortable, but I do appreciate it greatly. It’s like Ebert didn’t understand a frame of it, and got that but I like it in at the end to be one of The Cool Kids.
What movie is Metallica One song from?
Johnny Got His Gun
I always thought Roger was kind of a jerk but after viewing a lot of the shows I found him more reasonable than I remembered.
This movie is not easy to watch and it should not be. It makes us uncomfortable precisely because it challenges us to consider how we treat and react to people who are very different from us, especially people who do not fit into conventional categories of normality. That alone makes the film worthy to me. Ebert's objections are indeed trivial. Looking back over the wonderful pairing of Siskel and Ebert I find that when they disagree about a film I usually end up agreeing with Siskel. Ebert seemed to view films more critically, namely always trying to find faults with them to decide whether they were worth watching, whereas Siskel tended to have a more rounded view that was closer to the average movie goer. They are both sorely missed though. Their show was the original and best.
So... how are we to know his story? At all?
It ironic that Elephant Man got Antony Hopkins Hannibal Lecter according to Jonathan Demme and Siskel hater Silence of the Lambs.
As a whole, the film is brilliantly done. But the intro always baffled me. Like if that was his mother, why try and put across that she was trampled on by elephants and that being the reason for Johns deformities? He was by all means a normal child until the age of 11 or 12 where his body started to change. His mother died when he was 11 and according to most versions of the story ( some differs) never had any interactions with elephants be they good or bad. So that intro is very weird to put in, even for a guy like Lynch. But it captures victorian London excellently, and paints a bleaker picture of that area than most films set in that period. You can feel Jack the Ripper just waiting to enter the scene round every corner i feel. Just wait till they get a load of me.. You can almost hear him say 😏
It’s called surrealism.
@@rightchordleadership taking liberties in this case. Dont see it as a surrealist film at all..
i didn't get the opening and ending scenes myself. then found this analysis of the movie: www.asharperfocus.com/Elephant.html
is this what lynch meant? i dunno. but he raises some very interesting points there.
On this review, you can tell Siskel actually watched the film with his full attention, while in his Terminator review he can't even understand what the plot was and mentions a different planet instead of the future Earth. I think it's clear that he doesn't always do his homework and perhaps didn't even watch all the movies or simply walked in the middle of a showing just to get the gist of it for his poorly done review.
Roger did get annoyed with more eccentric directors sometimes. Occasionally he saw the light though. I remember he trashed The Fountain (in print) and then months later had a change of heart and re-reviewed it. This time very positively.
Oof Roger just so wrong on the Elephant Man it hurts. Ebert channeling fricking youtube explainers needed his hand held to explain everything in the movie an missing the entire point all together, and seems to want to judge the film on what he wanted it to be and not what it was.
I have to say, I loved The Elephant Man.. but Ebert's, "What was it with the Mother? Raped by elephants, scared by elephants, dreamed of elephants?" caught me so off guard I was laughing my ass off.
Unlike some people, I won't freak out about his thoughts on the film. In fact, I can see where he's coming from with some of his points and we should keep in mind that he started off by saying that he doesn't think it's a BAD film.
With that out of the way, my biggest disagreement is how he claims that the industrial revolution visuals in the film "don't have anything to do" with the story. Everyone in the film is ALWAYS seen working on some kind of machinery, and Merrick even has dreams where he's plagued by sounds of machinery, or the sounds of the beating train when he's trying to escape from the brats picking on him at the train station. Basically everyone in the film, the society in the film, is like a cold, nasty machine and Merrick is looked down upon because he's essentially a malformed cog that doesn't fit anywhere and he gets hurt by the conformist machine.
His best moments is when he's in a nice room alone or having a good time with someone else, or when the freaks help him escape, which they do by taking him through a forest, a place that is absolutely industrial machinery-free, natural, among other freaks (one of these being a lion-man). They could've just cut to them from opening his cage to then being in front of the boat that will take him back to England, but they don't, and I think showing the freaks taking Merrick through the forest was very intentional on Lynch's part. This really is the most accessible Lynch movie, it's puzzling how Ebert didn't get the rather easy to understand symbolism.
Well, now wait a second... Maybe Mel Brooks and Lynch had a little ore to do with the marketing and the decision not to show Merrick. Think about when you saw it in the theater, and you didn't know what he looked like under his head covering. Of course, Lynch was putting us in a spectator role, anticipating what we were going to see. Lynch drew the audience into the picture.
Their point about the movie distributor not releasing footage of Merrick and equating that as being circus side-show manipulation is way off base and not convincing at all. You could make a counter-argument going the other way. It wasn't some publicity ploy.
You’re right. Had you known what he looked like, it would have changed the viewer’s experience for the worse. These clowns don’t seem to get that.
How could they review this film without mentioning Anne Bancroft and David Lynch?