I come to write this review because on having read one or two others that have been put up, both by the lay-people as you and I and by the 'professionals' such as Ebert (a man whose reviews are consistently poor!); I believe that a serious disservice has been done. Both by those who have praised the film and by those who have condemned it.
The film appears to have been assessed almost unanimously on its portrayal of Merrick and its message regarding his strength of character. I however feel that the more nuanced and more praiseworthy element of the feature is how it addresses the ethics of exploitation. A theme which is opened within the first ten minutes of the film with Treves mention of how terrible are these new machines. These machines being the steam powered machines of the workhouses and factories. That means of capitalist exploitation from which England was birthed and that exploitation which was practised by every strata of society.
What I took the film to be is a very subtle exploration of who might be in a position to call the other morally reprehensible, who it is that might condemn the actions of others. In just the same way as Treves asks who might be more of a monster; Merrick or his 'owner' (or rather in the film Trevers actually charges Merrick's owner of being a monster, but his character this moral question of the audience).
As for the opening scene of the movie at which Ebert takes such offence; besides David Lynch simply being David Lynch (and we might all be thankful that he is), the opening scene might readily be interpreted as Lynch having us imagine all by ourselves that the woman was raped by an Elephant. It is never made explicit that this is what happens and in fact, when Merrick is first being introduced as The Elephant Man his back-story is given as being the result of an elephant trampling his mother whilst in her fourth month of pregnancy.
Who is perverse here, Lynch or us? Who is the exploiter here, Treves, the 'owner', society - us?
As for the sermon which Lynch is giving on Merrick I don't believe that it is quite so patronising as Ebert suggests. In the final scene it is quite clear that Merrick is choosing to sleep in a way that will end his life (as explained earlier in the film). And again there is a subtlety about this. Is suicide an escape from something unbearable (is it weakness?), or is it the fruition of Merrick's realisation that he is a man - for he is choosing to sleep as 'normal people' do.
With that said the film can certainly be taken on a(n extremely) sentimental level. But this is surely only something that we should Praise Lynch for. He has succeeded in making a film on many levels. One that your mother can watch and merely gloss the surface of, or, that you can analyse and discover something deeper. Moreover he has also facilitated some brilliant performances and crafted a brilliant aesthetic.
He's also thrown in a few wonderfully 'Lynch' elements such as the scene with Elephant and Merrick's rescue by the 'freaks' of the circus from a baboon cage.
So go and watch the film. It will not be the greatest film you ever see, but it will certainly be one of the better ones and it will test your subtlety of appreciation.
The film appears to have been assessed almost unanimously on its portrayal of Merrick and its message regarding his strength of character. I however feel that the more nuanced and more praiseworthy element of the feature is how it addresses the ethics of exploitation. A theme which is opened within the first ten minutes of the film with Treves mention of how terrible are these new machines. These machines being the steam powered machines of the workhouses and factories. That means of capitalist exploitation from which England was birthed and that exploitation which was practised by every strata of society.
What I took the film to be is a very subtle exploration of who might be in a position to call the other morally reprehensible, who it is that might condemn the actions of others. In just the same way as Treves asks who might be more of a monster; Merrick or his 'owner' (or rather in the film Trevers actually charges Merrick's owner of being a monster, but his character this moral question of the audience).
As for the opening scene of the movie at which Ebert takes such offence; besides David Lynch simply being David Lynch (and we might all be thankful that he is), the opening scene might readily be interpreted as Lynch having us imagine all by ourselves that the woman was raped by an Elephant. It is never made explicit that this is what happens and in fact, when Merrick is first being introduced as The Elephant Man his back-story is given as being the result of an elephant trampling his mother whilst in her fourth month of pregnancy.
Who is perverse here, Lynch or us? Who is the exploiter here, Treves, the 'owner', society - us?
As for the sermon which Lynch is giving on Merrick I don't believe that it is quite so patronising as Ebert suggests. In the final scene it is quite clear that Merrick is choosing to sleep in a way that will end his life (as explained earlier in the film). And again there is a subtlety about this. Is suicide an escape from something unbearable (is it weakness?), or is it the fruition of Merrick's realisation that he is a man - for he is choosing to sleep as 'normal people' do.
With that said the film can certainly be taken on a(n extremely) sentimental level. But this is surely only something that we should Praise Lynch for. He has succeeded in making a film on many levels. One that your mother can watch and merely gloss the surface of, or, that you can analyse and discover something deeper. Moreover he has also facilitated some brilliant performances and crafted a brilliant aesthetic.
He's also thrown in a few wonderfully 'Lynch' elements such as the scene with Elephant and Merrick's rescue by the 'freaks' of the circus from a baboon cage.
So go and watch the film. It will not be the greatest film you ever see, but it will certainly be one of the better ones and it will test your subtlety of appreciation.