Elephant Man explores what it is to be human

By Alan Charlton

The necessity of asserting one’s dignity above all else provides the basis for many works of art. Perhaps none has so vividly depicted it as Bernard Pomerance’s THE ELEPHANT MAN. Many became familiar with this work in the screen version, in which John Hurt so memorably played the title role.

Perhaps it is a lapse of memory, perhaps it was not given the same emphasis; whatever the reason, seeing the play performed in an outstandingly good production by Five Bob Equity Co-Op at the Pacific Theatre ultimately results in a very different sense of the author’s purpose.

Yes, the play is about John Merrick, the unfortunate man who was so horribly deformed that he was violently attacked as being non-human when he appeared in public. Forced to support himself by appearing in a so-called “freak show,” even that prop was removed from him when such appearances were outlawed.

Fortunately he was befriended by a doctor, Frederick Treves, who not only was ultimately responsible for Merrick’s finding a home in a hospital, but also introduced him to members of London’s upper class society, among whom he was eventually lionized as a person of sensitivity and insight. All of this becomes background, however, to Pomerance’s concern with exploring the question of what it is to be human.

Treves represents scientists (in the wake of the Darwinian revolution) who have rejected God. He can only react in despair when he sees the corruption of humans who seem so perfect on the outside, but who within are capable of betraying the very norms of human conduct which he would like to hold dear.

On the other hand, Merrick, so repulsive on the outside, manages to preserve a sense of decency and dignity which would seem to be impossible given his condition. One longs for Christian values; the other lives them.

Superbly performed by a talented cast, THE ELEPHANT MAN is produced as if the audience were attending a side show. This forces each viewer to consider himself in the light of the disturbing questions it raises.

Though photographs of the nude Merrick are shown on a screen, following the lead of the original productions of the play, there is no attempt here (as there was in the movie) to present Merrick as he actually appeared, his deformity being suggested merely by the contorted position of the actor’s body.

This serves further to emphasize his humanity rather than his deformity, yet perhaps in the end causes the audience to consider even more deeply whether, stripped of our facades, we would be as faithful as he was to his God-given humanity.

This production is moving, insightful, and challenging. It would certainly even be one not to be missed were it not for a short scene of female upper body nudity.

* * * * *

Less successful is SEPARATE LIES, a film based on Nigel Balchin’s novel The Way Through The Woods. It probes the impossibility of living when one’s life is based on lies.

The main characters are a successful London, England, solicitor and his bored wife, who have moved to a village in Buckinghamshire. When the wife starts a liaison with the son of the local aristocrat, things begin to fall apart. The process is considerably accelerated when one of the lovers accidentally knocks a villager off his bike, killing him.

The trio attempt to lie their way out of the situation, but find themselves involved in ever more complex situations. The driver of the car ultimately wishes to tell the truth as being the only way by which any of them can hope to achieve happiness.

As essentially decent human beings face the consequences of betraying their own dignity, they discover that lying ultimately undercuts all relationships.

Though the plot development at times is difficult to accept, the superb acting of Tom Wilkinson, Emily Watson, and Rupert Everett makes the film far better than it deserves to be.

However, SEPARATE LIES is still a film which makes a plea for dignity in our relationships with one another and which is considerably better viewing than most of the movies in current release.

The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R – restricted. The B.C. rating is PG. Warning: coarse language.

* * * * *

Even less satisfactory is TWO FOR THE MONEY, a film about sports gambling.

An injured young football player (Matthew McConaughey), who can no longer fulfil his dream of being a pro, quickly discovers that he has a knack for picking winners of games. He is soon adopted by the head (Al Pacino) of a gambling advisory company with its own television show. The failed football star becomes an overnight sensation with his successful predictions.

The problem with the film is that it attempts to explore so many themes that it loses its way. The young protagonist is guilty of hubris, and that is what the film seems to be about as he betrays his own self.

However, another theme is soon raised, that of trust and mistrust, as we become acquainted with the fact that his mentor is a reformed gambling addict, always on the edge of a relapse. The mentor’s wife (Rene Russo) is a reformed drug addict, desperate to preserve her marriage.

Then, in addition, morality in business is also explored as one watches the gambling scion manipulate the world around him (even to the extent of giving his noble young pupil a lesson in foul language and blasphemy).

It is true that the film exposes a great deal of the ugliness in humanity, but in the end it becomes such a confusion of ideas that one really doesn’t know what it is trying to say. In need of a considerable re-write, TWO FOR THE MONEY seems ultimately designed to allow Al Pacino to give yet another portrayal of the foul-mouthed boss keeping his underlings in line, and to allow McConaughey to show off his well-toned body.

Though apparently well intentioned as to what it is attempting to say about human weakness and the loss of dignity, in the end it simply comes off as a muddle.

Because of a sexual encounter with suggested shadowy nudity, a wince-inducing sports injury, gambling themes, a crass scene of urination, and much rough and crude language and profanity, the USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is L – limited adult audience: many adults will find the problematic content troubling. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R – restricted. The B.C. rating is 14A. Warning: coarse language, sexually suggestive scene.