I think Treves’ doubts happened when Merrick went from being a “freak” because of his deformity to being a “celebrity” because of his deformity, the spotlight was not going to leave him, he was not going to be able to live a normal life. The “suicide” wasn’t necessarily a suicide, it was Merrick doing the normal thing of laying down like a normal person to get a normal night’s sleep, but Merrick was not normal, couldn’t be normal. And the thing that made him special more than anything else, is that in the face of all that he has been put through he refused to condemn humanity, he wanted to embrace it and be a part, it is humanity that refused him. He can be considered a Hero because he choose positivity.
That’s kinda how I see it.
I really recommend reading the short story by Frederick Treves, it is a beautiful story
Er, WAS there a heroic angle to the film? I didn’t notice it. But if you look at the predicament Merrick found himself (or rather, was born with – “Thanks god, you’re a pal!”), couldn’t he be regarded as heroic? If not heroic, what would he be then? Just screwed?
The point of heroism is making the best out of a fucked up situation. In regards to the Elephant Man, I don’t see an element of heroism (unless one deludes oneself into thinking suicide is “heroic”), but again, the film isn’t about heroism, but about Merrick and how people cannot cope with things they don’t (or don’t want to) understand.
What I personally liked about the film is that it gives no clear answers to the questions you asked. A lesser film would have deliberately hammered down those points until they were bloody and meaningless. The strength of the film is that it depicts people as they really are – perhaps those who were cruel learned their lesson, most likely not, and why should they? It’s not a perfect world.
As far as Hopkins’ motivation, I think it began like everyone else, as curiosity, then sympathy, then a glimmer of hope. As you say, this was unrealized. I think he was motivated more by science than by pure sympathy necessarily, but that’s just my own interpretation.
@suicide: This can be interpreted multiple ways and any one of them could be “correct”, the trick here is that there is no “correct” answer, one can only surmise. Personally, the suicide was, predictably, an escape (as all suicides are). Doesn’t it make sense that Merrick would want to escape his incurable condition? He knows by the end of the film that someone like him would never be truly accepted, and that he would always be looked on with suspicion, fear, etc.
If you’re really intent on answering all of these questions, then perhaps Lynch isn’t the best director to look towards.
Thanks, guys. That’s real helpful.
I like the interpretation that his death wasn’t a suicide as much as it was just a decision to go to bed normally.
The “heroic” aspect I agree did always seem out of place. That the movie is probably focussing more on coping with things that are bigger than day-to-day reality is probably a better way to put it.
I guess I was looking for Hopkins’ motivation because we were given Merrick’s: he’s a nice person who makes due because of his mother, whom he idolizes and adores, probably justifiably.
Lynch is totally not the director who gives answers; I’ve seen ever other of his films (except Dune, though it’s on my list) and was a bit surprised that there were such direct moments in Elephant Man — like Merrick pledging his good behaviour to his mother; like the nurses boldly explaining why they didn’t like him; with the carnival guy and Hopkins being “the same kind of man” (though Hopkins resists that) and very clearly using Merrick for money (again: Hopkins wasn’t that guy, he was just called that guy) and again having a clear correlation between behaviour and character. It seemed that if some elements like that were in the story, then others (like an explanation for the death, or motivation for the entire Victorian society that flocked to Merrick) would be there too.
…
Moderated
Having just seen this film, I totally don’t get the whole “Lynch’s treats him like a hero” interpretation, which most notably was used in Ebert’s scathing review of the picture. Totally disagree. To me, Lynch’s point is more along the lines of “humanity casts out extraordinary minds if they are shaped in unappealing packages”. Also unnoticed by Ebert in his unusually shallow review was that the film, to me, was clearly attempting to reach the style of a silent expressionist film. There’s a very “Nosferatu” feel to many of the shots and the dreams (which, for the opening, Ebert unexplainably saw as a literal rape of a woman by an elephant, not a dream) used as bookends perfectly capture this stylish and moody tone. I feel Lynch employed this because he knew the characters were not going to be fully fleshed out like in a character study, here, the story’s focus is elsewhere and motivation moves to the background in favor of tone and mood. I don’t think this is a weakness, and I think to hold it against this film (which seems to have slipped in reputation as opposed to the other great Lynch works, in my opinion, “Eraserhead” and “Velvet”) is missing the point of the film.
I saw this film a long time ago, but what I remember about it was the scene where the man who is assisting/promoting the Elephant Man says to his wife, “Am I a good man or a bad man?” That to me what the emotional heart of the film – how do people see themselves and where do they place themselves along the “good” vs. “bad” continuum in how they treat others.
Anthony
What is touching about this film?
I recently watched it and was impressed with a few things: John Hurt’s evocative performance that was more than just makeup and broken speech — the moment he’s trying to clean up an ink stain nearly/did broke my heart; the look and sound of the picture is masterful.
But a couple of things really puzzled me: was the movie suggesting that Merrick is some kind of hero for simply abiding his deformity? was it suggesting that the people who treated Merrick like a freak had learned their lesson? what was Hopkins’ character’s motivation for ‘saving’ the guy — (he had doubts later on, but we never really saw them resolved)? why the [SPOILER] suicide?
I didn’t want to walk away from the movie, assuming my interpretation/criticism sufficed. But there were things like the above I felt lacked considerable depth and am hoping someone here who knows the movie well can give me some prompts for watching it and maybe even understanding it.
(PS: this is probably a duplicate thread, but I couldn’t find an original. So here we are.)