THE ELEPHANT MAN; Full-Tilt Review

"My life is full because I know I am loved."

John Merrick 

A human being.

Synopsis:

This is the true-life story of  Joseph Merrick, a man born with a sever deformity, forced into an impoverished existence of cruelty on the streets of Victorian London. That is, till a chance encounter with kindly hospital surgeon Frederick Treves,  who, after finding Merrick performing in a freaks-show, takes the man under his protection.

Script: 1/2 - lacks subtlety but makes its point

Pace: 1/2 - sufficient, if a little meandering

Acting: 2/2 - heartbreaking performances

Aesthetic: 2/2 - haunting use of black-and-white

Intention: 2/2 - a tear-jerking meditation on compassion and cruelty

Final Word: 8/10

Director David Lynch, better known for his surreal works (including the cult TV show Twin Peaks), dials back on bizarre and delivers arguably his most conformist film. 
While the director certainly demonstrates a keen insight into human behavior, and despite the odd moment of trademark surrealism, the film does suffer from feeling rather 'flat'. Having said that, it's the cast that do heavy lifting here, not the director or the screenwriter, and everyone involved brings more than their A-game. John Hurt, as the tortured yet humble Merrick, is a master class in body language and tone (his prosthetic making any sort of facial expression unreognisbale), and Anthony Hopkins as Merrick's friend and surgeon wisely underplays his role, turning instead to shades of grey- a man of compassion, even though his initial kindness may have stemmed initially from professional curiosity and ambition. Embracing Treve's faults allows Hopkins to bring inner-conflict into the later part of their relationship, and rounds the surgeon's character nicely, rather than painting him as a "white knight". John Gielgud is excellent as the wry hospital governor, and both Freddie Jones and Michael Elphick are on fine form, embodying the sleaze, corruption and cruelty of the Victorian era.
It's not an easy film to endure by any means, but humanity eventually prevails despite tragic circumstances- The Elephant Man is a film that celebrates the best of human nature, while exposing some of the worst of it.

"AND YET WE ACT LIKE CHILDREN..."

Charles Xavier (X-Men Apocalypse)

A lot of people are getting choked-up over this.

So, we come to it again. Controversy

You may have heard by now, but people aren't all that happy with the poster for the new X-Men film. It features an image of fan-favorite mutant Mystique being chocked by super-villain Apocalypse, and people have taken to that now most sacred of institutions, Twitter, to completely lose their shit. Those concerned feel that showcasing this single act of violence is sexist and trivialises the issue of violence against women. The phrase 'domestic violence' is also in-play.
The posters and billboards have been slammed most vocally by actress Rose McGowan (seemingly on a Twitter-break from her 'hectic' scheduled) commented "Fuck this shit. Which studio did this?". Seemingly not all that connected for someone in the trade, love. McGowan added in a later interview

"There is a major problem when the men and women at 20th Century Fox think casual violence against women is the way to market a film. There is no context in the ad, just a woman getting strangled. The fact that no one flagged this is offensive and frankly, stupid. The geniuses behind this, and I use that term lightly, need to to take a long hard look at the mirror and see how they are contributing to society. Imagine if it were a black man being strangled by a white man, or a gay male being strangled by a hetero? The outcry would be enormous."

Fox responded to the criticism and released the following statement.

“In our enthusiasm to show the villainy of the character Apocalypse we didn’t immediately recognize the upsetting connotation of this image in print form,”

Way to stand by your guns, Fox studio. And as for Ms Mcgowan, the cynic in me feels you've attracted a fair amount of publicity from this rather well-timed outburst, can't be bad for your (slow) career, can it?

I have a big issue with this, as you might of guessed.

Firstly, if someone was arguing a point that family-end films are too violent these days, maybe they'd have a point. With what feels like 1 in every 4 blockbusters at the moment being superhero films, that's a lot of spandex-based fisticuffs going on. If someone said to me "there's no need for such a violent image to promote the film" I'd think "fair enough"- most X-Men films till this point have been group-shots rather than action. But no, the focus of this latest controversy is unconcerned by the image of choking, but rather on the sex of the choke-er and the choke-ee.

How can anyone seriously insert the word 'domestic' into a scene where two blue-skinned mutants are fighting for the fate of the world (unless, say, you're one of the Incredibles?). Maybe they're using a different dictionary to me, admittedly mine isn't up-to-date as it doesn't feature LOL or YOLO.

Domestic. relating to the running of a home or to family relations.

 Domestic Violence. violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.

In all honesty I've yet to see the film, but I don't believe Mystique and Apocalypse are in any sort of relationship. If they were, and say Mystique accidentally overcooked the steak- leading to her brutal destruction at the hands of Apocalypse (in this unlikely scenario her spouse), maybe McGowan and co would have a point...

Ms McGowan's friend also commented on Twitter in regard to something her 9 year old said, which McGowan later forwarded for the benefit of the rest of the world;

"Dad, why is that monster man committing violence against a woman?’ This is from a 9-year-old.”

To be honest, I'm a tad skeptical. How many 9 year olds do you know who would use the term "committing violence"? That's creepy. I'd be more concerned about the child's icy sense of detachment than that poster...

Another problem I have with this public-indignation is this; it seems to perpetrate the myth that violence is only abhorrent when it's dolled out on women by male attackers. If this were to be a poster of a woman hitting a man, that's fine apparently, because obviously that doesn't happen in 'real life'. Violence doesn't exist in gay and lesbian relationships either, oh no. Clearly abuse can only be enacted by straight males. Yet another feminist right-on thought process that hates more people than it helps.

Let's simply turn Mcgowan's comments on their head for a minute; what if it were a black man choking a white man, a gay male attacking a hetero, or a woman hitting a man? Would their be such an outcry? I get the feeling many of the right-on brigade, their own thought processes ruled by having-it-too-easy-guilt, would likely call such a thing "empowering". I don't remember people losing their shit with the Inglorious Basterds poster, a blood-stained Nazi helmet triumphantly slung over a baseball bat, nobody said anything about it being unfair towards Germans (history check people- not all the German soldiers were evil, they just realised if they stopped fighting their families would 'vanish'). Or the poster for the Hills Have Eyes 2 for that matter, with a mutant dragging a corpse through the desert- no, that didn't mater because the corpse was of an unidentifiable gender. The poster for Star Trek Out of Darkness seems fairly inoffensive, till you stop to consider it- a lone figure standing inside the ruins of a desolated city where thousands of innocent lives have ended, echoing real tragedies from 9/11 to Stalingrad. All of these posters caused little to no offense, but I put it to you that actually their use of images is far more troubling. Am I saying we need to start complaining more? NO! What I'm saying is this- we need to be sensitive without pandering to people who go through life projecting their own anxieties on everything. Not every advert, poster and film is salacious propaganda against women- how paranoid are these people?

Surely most sane and well-adjusted human beings can see this poster in no way 'normalizes' violence? What's normal about the subject matter here? Sure, the image doesn't elude to the plot, but when both the characters are clearly the work of fantasy (and who out there is really that clueless they don't realise X-Men is a superhero movie?) how is it in any way 'normal'? It's supposed to invoke a sense of sympathy for a much loved character (Mystique, who most people should relaise is about as far as you can get from a 'damsel in distress'), and hatred towards it's central villain. What kind of world do people think we live in- that whenever people pass by a billboard they go "Oh, having seen that poster I'll go home and beat the shit out of my wife- it must be OK if the Apocalypse did it!" And if you're reading this thinking "that's probably not what McGowan's implying, she doesn't mean violence is only bad when it's against women" then consider this- if film producers need to be more sensitive about what they pump out into the world, so do pompous, over-privileged, sexist actresses.

Proof, if any more were needed, that the right-on brigade (and the feminazis among their number) don't stand for equality...I urge all of you to watch the South Park episode 'Cheff Goes Nannas'. Seriously. They make a very clear point:

Violence is violence; gender, sexuality and colour should not be a factor if we are truly striving for equality.

Job fixed.