Review: The Elephant Man

Set in London in the late 1800s, affluent surgeon Dr. Frederick Treves (Sir Anthony Hopkins) attends the ‘freak show’ of ghastly drunk Bytes (Freddie Jones, seemingly scarily familiar with the mannerisms of a drunk) and is mesmerised by ‘The Elephant Man’, whose real name is John Merrick (John Hurt). Treves arranges to ‘borrow’ Merrick, and takes him back to the academic hospital where he lectures, hoping to study Merrick and his severe deformities. He also helps Merrick deal with a serious speech impediment and gives him back the dignity that was robbed of him by the vile Bytes. Meanwhile, he comes to learn that Merrick is a sweet-natured and rather intelligent young fellow. However, is part of Treves’ motivation one of boosting his own image or reputation? Sir John Gielgud plays Treves’ superior Mr. Carr-Gomm, Wendy Hiller plays the head nurse at the hospital, Michael Elphick is the sleazy night porter, and Anne Bancroft plays a famous socialite and actress who meets Merrick and shows him kindness.

I don’t normally rail other film critics, especially dead ones, but the late (and normally great) Roger Ebert absolutely positively didn’t get the point of this 1980 movie from director David Lynch (“Eraserhead”, “Blue Velvet”, “Mulholland Drive”). Roger probably wrote his worst review ever, when he suggested that this was the story of a pitiable yet innately courageous deformed freak. Talk about missing the damn point, Rog. This is not the story of a deformed man showing courage by simply living the life he has little choice to do otherwise. It’s quite clearly a story of humanity, the human spirit, and the story of man’s inhumanity towards man. It’s an incredibly moving, expertly performed example of such a story. As a paraplegic myself, I’ve never felt it was courageous for me to simply not die or to merely go about my life the only way I know how, so trust me when I tell you that this is not the point of “The Elephant Man”. So I’m sorry Roger, that you never got around to understanding and enjoying this film, because you were well and truly missing out. This is really something, and by far the crowning achievement of David Lynch’s frankly overrated career. I hope you’ll beg my slightly tangential indulgence, as it’s something I’ve been wanting to say publicly for many, many years because this film’s message is absolutely important, and wonderfully conveyed.

The opening nightmarish circus images are about the only Lynchian element on show here, and even then it still fits the story. Produced by “Young Frankenstein” director (the normally comedic) Mel Brooks, the film has a bit of Universal horror-bent (or at least a very, very dark Dickensian vibe) to its visual design through the wonderful B&W cinematography by Freddie Francis (“The Innocents”, “Dune”), which along with the music score by Brooks regular John Morris (“Young Frankenstein”, “Spaceballs”) is a touch Gothic. Yet for the most part the story is simply a dramatic one, and amazingly, the two things aren’t incongruous, because this man’s tale really is a little odd and almost fable-like at times anyway. It’s a most unusual, somewhat fictionalised biopic of the real Joseph (John) Merrick, and it’s to the credit of Lynch and co-writers Christopher de Vore (“Frances”, the Mel Gibson version of “Hamlet”) and Eric Bergren (“Frances”) that it’s never jarring. Meanwhile, once the audience becomes more familiar with Merrick as a human being, the lighting and score composition become far less Gothic.

The performances are outstanding and essential, with an Oscar-nominated John Hurt leading the way. Everyone loves Robert De Niro’s work in “Raging Bull”, but with all due respect to that excellent performance, I would’ve given the Oscar to Hurt for his work here. Whether wearing a sack over his head or caked in makeup, the late Hurt does a truly remarkable job of not only managing to give a performance at all under trying circumstances, but giving a truly moving one. Using only his voice, Hurt is able to convey…everything about this man. Although he may look ‘monstrous’ it’s easy to see the humanity within Merrick through Hurt’s performance, which as I say is primarily a vocal one. He shows us a gentle, thoughtful young man who has already faced so much cruelty dished out by human beings that it’s amazing that he has any trust or faith in humanity left in him. In my view, it’s one of the greatest lead performances ever committed to film (Alongside Sir Ben Kingsley in “Gandhi”, Robert Donat in “The Magic Box”, Tom Hanks in “Forrest Gump”, and Jane Wyman in “Johnny Belinda” to name but a few of my favourites) and the key to the entire film being a success. Cast the wrong guy and no amount of makeup is gonna hide that mistake. Speaking of makeup, it’s kind of amusing the amount of makeup required to get John Hurt to play a 21 year-old man in this. Dude was middle-aged from birth. Veteran character actor Freddie Jones has his finest hour and was robbed of an Oscar-nomination for his sickening turn as the sadistic, cruel ‘freak show’ owner Bytes. Jones may not know the meaning of the word subtlety, but in a film where he is essentially the monster of the piece, he’s extremely effective. Sir Anthony Hopkins excels as the well-meaning but clinically-minded Dr. Frederick Treves, who takes a long time to realise that he may be exploiting Merrick in his own way, too. He and Bytes are interesting to compare and contrast as characters. Treves may lose sight of things through scientific curiosity (and Hopkins sells that curiosity very convincingly), but the tears in his eyes upon first meeting Merrick tell you that at heart, this is a good man. Jones’ Bytes, on the other hand is a brutal fucker who took Merrick’s dignity away. We all have a right to it, but Bytes would rather make money off of a ghastly ‘freak show’. Treves, obviously comes from a far more innocent point of view. Also effective are Sir John Gielgud, Wendy Hiller, Anne Bancroft, and a disgusting Michael Elphick as the shamefully exploitive night porter who just as bad as Bytes. Gielgud could play rich educators/authority figures in his sleep, but he bothers to put in effort here and is as classy as ever, playing a man who isn’t quite as detached as he may first appear. Hiller meanwhile, is spot-on as the no-nonsense nurse who in her own way is actually kind-hearted and sees the downside of what Treves and his colleagues are doing. The film doesn’t exactly make the best use of Anne Bancroft, but I love that her character shows none of the revulsion or apprehension around Merrick upon meeting him, and very little of the pity as well.

Stunning to look at and listen to, impeccably performed, with the late John Hurt giving one of the finest lead performances in the history of cinema. It’s the story though, that ultimately affects you. It’s not as sentimental or mawkish as you might expect, thanks perhaps to oddball director David Lynch at the helm. It is however, still a wonderfully moving story of humanity and inhumanity. Hardly the most typical biopic you’ll ever see, but I think that helps this one stand out even more. Must-see.

Rating: B+