I am a human being!

Rating: 8/10 (30 October 2017)

Even before I realized that David Lynch directed this film and was specifically in charge of its sound design, I immediately recognized his trademark background effects, which reminded me of the constant drone of old industrial machinery, from "Eraserhead", which he had directed three years earlier. Although my unfavorable review of the earlier film has received a mostly "useless" response from IMDb readers, I am not here to win any popularity contests, and that review stands exactly as is. To this day, thanks to "Eraserhead", a film I admittedly couldn't understand or appreciate, I can't look at a roasted chicken in a supermarket without wanting to throw up. Perhaps this was Mr. Lynch's deliberate intention. At any rate, what a difference three years makes as my reaction to this film was totally the opposite. That producer Mel Brooks had the vision to select Lynch as the director here was a stroke of genius. Brooks could see what I could not. That explains his success and my sitting here at a keyboard as a washed-up old geezer passing judgment on the actual, creative achievements of others.
Although the subject matter and atmosphere of this film is as bleak as that of "Eraserhead", the visual depiction of Victorian England and the impact of the industrial revolution on the nation as a backdrop was fascinating, as was the unique and compelling story. While the true story of the real Joseph Merrick was fictionalized for the film, I had no problem viewing it as a work of fiction that was based on factual circumstances. It wasn't the first, won't be the last, and no one pretended otherwise.
At one point, Dr. Treves (Anthony Hopkins), Merrick's physician, asks his wife, "Am I good man or a bad man?" This is one of the key questions of the film. Once he "discovered" Merrick and began medically treating him, was Treves more interested in the well-being of his extraordinary patient or in his own professional or social standing. If his priority was on himself, how were his motivations different from those of evil Bytes, Merrick's original captor, even if Treves did treat Merrick far more kindly and introduced him to British royalty and high society along the way? While Treves found comfortable shelter for his patient at the hospital, what good was that accommodation when he could not guarantee Merrick's safety from the torment of the night watchman and eventually of the very real threat by Bytes himself. It was almost as if Treves set Merrick up for disaster by failing to protect him from the terrible sequence of events that followed Merrick's admission to the hospital. In answer to Treves' question, I would say that the jury is still out, Doc. I'm just not sure about you or your motivations, dude.
The cast was high caliber, but I felt that Hopkins and Bancroft, one of the most talented and versatile actresses of her time, were wasted in their muted roles, preventing them from demonstrating their true potential. John Gielgud and Wendy Hiller, two very experienced veterans, were excellent. Although the Oscars don't sway me one way or another, I will have to view "Raging Bull" again to understand how John Hurt lost out to DeNiro in the category of Best Actor. My memory is shot.
This is a film that very effectively illustrates just how cruel humans can be to each other and how even the best intentions can result in disastrous consequences. While humans did not create John Merrick's horrible condition and while some acts of kindness at least partially compensated for overwhelming meanness and selfishness, he deserved much more compassion from us. Now let us go outside and practice in real life what we have learned today. Be kind.