The Elephant Man (1980) – 3/5

Tragic, yet uplifting – the elephant in the (film) room

„The Elephant Man“ is a co-production between the United States and the United Kingdom from 1980, which of course means that this movie is in the English language and this film is still pretty known today because of its awards success almost 45 years ago, or maybe even more depending on when you come here to read this review of mine. It was nominated for eight Oscars, but did not win any of the categories. The director is David Lynch and if I say that this film is a contender for being his most famous work, then this means quite something with everything else he has worked on. The film is about the actually existing man John Merrick and this probably helped the movie as well with its awards ambitions. It is not the first and by far not the only time that Lynch directed a film based on actually existing people. „The Straight Story“ comes to mind too for example. That was much later though. Lynch is also one of the three writers here, which is not unusual as he may not have worked on the screenplay for all his films, but for the majority it was the case that had did. For his two co-writers Bergren and De Vore, this is surely also the most known work of their career as it got them the Oscar nomination. And was just seen by so many. Still is in fact. The room was quite packed when I watched this movie the other day. I am glad it was and that old films like this are still getting the recognition. The thing you will recognize first perhaps from those over two hours is that this is a black-and-white movie and given the fact that it was shot in the late 1970s, it hadn’t to be one of course, but it was definitely a stylistic choice from Lynch as the actual elephant man lived in the 19th century still, actually during the years when moviemaking pretty much began back then, even if Merrick had no connection to it and also wasn’t filmed, but drawings and photographs exist apparently. Another inclusion to make it look older were the fadeouts you find in films from the 1940s and 1950s too.

For Lynch, it was really a fitting subject as in a way he always focused on content that some may find revolting, but he saw the beauty in it and tried to get it across. He also made many black-and-white (short) films and some of them focused on animals too (okay, this one here did not, it just carries such a name) and it was often insects for Lynch, but I would say that the outcome of this movie is in a way symbolic for Lynch’s career and nothing very extraordinary and unusual compared to his other works where you would not guess it is a Lynch movie and the aforementioned „The Straight Story“ would be a great example of such an exception. But we talked about that one another day and now let’s look at this one here. Many say that John (not William) Hurt have one of the greatest performances in film history here and I am not sure if I would go this far, but he was indeed pretty good. I assume the fact that he lost the Oscar to a certain Italo-American actor also had to do with this one here not being a film in which Hurt is the one and only lead, but Anthony Hopkins may even be a bigger lead than Hurt in here. I think I would have preferred Hurt to win the Oscar, but I am not totally sure. Have to see „Raging Bull“ at some point in the future. Anyway, you will also find Anne Bancroft here, but her role is just minor. Much smaller than I expected. The scene in which she tells the title character, however, that he is not an elephant, but a Romeo because of his interest in the theater and his beautiful soul, was still among the most memorable from this movie. The tears in the title character’s face add to that as well. Sadly, both Hurt and Bancroft are no longer alive anymore right now, but may they rest in peace. Same is also true for at least one of Lynch’s co-writers here. Lynch himself was still pretty young when this film got made, closer to 30 than to 40, and people would have been surprised I assume if you told them that at more than twice his age now in 2023, he still has not win an Oscar, but then again many of Lynch’s films are also not truly mainstream-friendly. That much is safe.

As for this film here, the by far most memorable moment is when he is chased by this mob who think he did something bad to a woman or child or who might only be chasing him because others are chasing and because he is so different and the moment I am talking about is of course when he is caught by them and cannot get away and you might think they kill him because of the atrocity he is, but he screams out these words there that he is not an animal, he is not an elephant, but he is a human being. This was very touching and a definite contender for best movie moment of 1980 without a doubt. Even if the film did not make a huge emotional impact on you in general and I would say it probably did not on me, then this scene will give you goosebumps for sure. Another moment I remember is when we have Hopkins‘ character see the elephant man for the first time and he cries because of it and because he maybe thinks about what this poor creature has gone through because of its looks. So this was another moment of tears. But it is not the moment when we see the elephant man for the first time and see more than a shadow or silhouette. That moment for us is when this young nurse sees him and panics so hard there. I think it was a good choice to have us see him the same moment. The nurse is not too important anyway in the whole picture. Actress Nula Conwell was kinda pretty though, another nurse actress we on one occasion only was even prettier.

If we look at the cast, I already mentioned the names of some, including the two protagonists, but let’s go on with a few more: Wendy Hiller was already an Oscar winner at that point and John Gielgud would soon be one. Those two played characters where you could not be too sure where they stand in this film, if they are good or bad. I mean the one thing they surely are is professionals, but yeah eventually, they are supportive of Hopkins‘ character’s activities. In terms of Gielgud, he even stood up against others who would no support all this anymore, but of course a letter from the Queen always helps. As for Hiller, she is also part of the maybe funniest moment of the film and there really aren’t many funny ones, namely when she knocks out the guy who has exposed the title character to paying customers. This was one of the most rewarding scenes anyway because Hopkins‘ character unleashed so nicely there on this man and you could probably call him an antagonist, even if he is probably not the main antagonist this film has. That would be the one who is the elephant man’s proprietor early on and who also abducts him in the end. But he is also pretty isolated with his cruelties as the boy he lives with is not supportive of those and same is true for the ones who are the other members from this cabinet of curiosities, disabled or not, as they help the elephant man then to get away from his captor you can surely say and free him after he is locked in a cage next to monkeys, so there the question of man vs. Animal is really present again. As for the other bad guy who just wanted to make some money, I must still say that it did not feel too realistic that nobody ever recognized what he was doing with the title character. I mean even if the title character himself was too ashamed to talk about it, even his proprietor found out at some point, but Hopkins‘ character did not? Difficult to believe.

As for Hopkins‘ character, his core story is surely the idea to what extent he is really helping the elephant man or just using him as well, only on a more intellectual occasion. This also fits in with the words of the antagonist that the two men are not really too different. It is a constant conflict in Hopkins‘ character’s mind. He wants to be good, but is not sure if actually is. Well, the final conclusion is of course a yes. Early on, especially when he does not want his colleague to tell anybody what or who he has in this room, this is not yet true. He is only fascinated by the elephant man as this creature can skyrocket his own ambitions as a scientist. But you have to say as an excuse that the title character’s mental state did also not yet play a role there. Later on, Hopkins‘ character understands that the creature can actually talk and engage in conversation, then he also sees him more and more as a human being. It was almost funny then when we see him like some distinguished gentleman there in a suit drinking tea with friends. Of course, you can say again that it was his physicality that is responsible for him becoming a celebrity almost, but still. He was accepted, appreciated and loved and this made it then of course even more difficult to see him back to animal status almost when he is abducted again. This film really took the generic route of a change for the better and then a negative escalation towards the end before we get something that resembled a happy ending. The idea of the elephant man being in the crowd of a theater and enjoying the show as a viewer and not being the one that is looked at was a really smart inclusion of how the tables got turned. Of course, the very end, namely the moment when he lies down to sleep after the cathedral or what he was building is finished, is a sad moment again, but what can you do? It is roughly what really happened back then. You can never be sure if almost 100 years were before the story and the film, but oh well we are now also at almost 50 already. Time flies. That is all then. Finally, we can also say that John Hurt was much older than the character he played when this got made and if you look at the Oscar nominees, you will find masters from their branch like Norris, Coates and Morris (no Badalamenti yet for Lynch) here. Very competent crew and execution without a doubt. I liked this film. I give it a thumbs-up. Many good scenes here and some very good ones even. Go see it.