Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Movie – Freaks (1932)

The movie Freaks was controversial even when it was released in 1932.  After negative reaction to the original version the studio cut almost 30 minutes out of it and tried to make it not quite as horrific.  It still ended up being banned in the U.K. for 30 years and in some states in the U.S.  So why am I recommending it?  Because it is a piece of cinema history that plays differently today than it did when it first came out.

The plot is very basic: a bad woman uses a good man for his money.  It’s been told in many movies and happens thousands of times every day in real life.  What makes this movie so different is that it happens in the setting of a circus, among a set of carnival performers collectively known as “circus freaks”.

A beautiful trapeze artist named Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) is aware that the dwarf Hans (Harry Earles) is infatuated with her.  She pretends to like him both as part of a cruel game and to get as much out of him in money and gifts as she can.  Hans loved a dwarf woman named Frieda (Daisy Earles) before he met Cleopatra, and Frieda still loves him.  She tries to get Cleopatra to stop using Hans because she knows he will get hurt.  Unfortunately, while doing this she lets Cleopatra know that Hans is due to come into an inheritance.  He’s going to be rich.

Cleopatra and her real lover Hercules (Henry Victor), the circus strongman, come up with a plan for Cleopatra to marry Hans and then poison him once he gets his inheritance.  That way she will have his money and then she and Hercules can run off together.  It works up until the point that the other “freaks” find out about the plan.  They decide to take action.  The ending of the movie is both horrific and surreal.

All of the “freaks” that appear in this film were actual circus performers.  For most of them this was the only time they ever appeared in a movie.  Director Tod Browning originally had a clear message in the movie that the supposed freaks were actually the nice people, and the supposed beautiful people were actually the real monsters.  Unfortunately, part of this message got lost when the movie got re-cut.  Browning mostly got criticism that he was exploiting these people the exact same way their real circuses exploited them.

Of course, there is the whole debate of what is and is not exploitation.  If you pay someone a good wage for an honest job, then is that exploitation?  What if that person would not have been allowed by society at the time to have a regular job?  Hattie McDaniel famously said about still usually playing maids in movies after winning an Oscar for her performance in Gone with the Wind, “I’d rather play a maid for $800 a week than be one for $8 a week.”  Is it right that she was limited like this?  Of course not, but she was pointing out that even being “used” like she was, she was still better off than most other people.

That question of whether these performers were being exploited by Browning, or given a good chance by him, is one of the reasons to watch this film.  You have to see it to decide for yourself.  You also should see it because Browning’s original message does come through a little clearer today than it did back when it was released because people’s understanding of birth defects are much better than they were 80 years ago.  They are no longer believed to be “punishments from God” or any such nonsense. 

Of course, large numbers of people have never gotten over their fascination with “freak shows”; that’s why TV reality shows are so popular.  Despite this, there is no way that this movie could ever be made today because the studios would not want to open themselves up to the charge of exploitation.

By the way, even though this movie was made pre-Code, Hans and Frieda are not shown ever really being loving with each other.  They just speak their words of love, but barely ever touch.  This was for a good reason: they were brother and sister in real life. 

Finally, if you’ve ever heard a movie person all of a sudden chanting, “One of us! One of us!”, then after you’ve seen this film you’ll know what it’s about.

As you can tell, this movie is not for everyone, or even most people.  It can certainly still offend.  Personally, I found some of the scenes of the “freaks” made me uncomfortable and I don’t honestly know if it was because I thought the scenes were wrong, or if seeing these oh so different people triggered something primal inside me.  You may think that this sounds like a horrible film, and you may be right from your perspective, but you owe it to yourself to actually watch it and see what your opinion will be.  For that reason I recommend that you give it a try.

Chip’s Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

           DVD                  Instant Video

10 comments:

  1. Yes, I agree. "Freaks" is definitely worth a view, if for no other reason then that you will never have seen, and probably never will, anything like this before. It is a common theme that the outcasts are the good guys, but never using physical deformity to this extreme. I actually do not think it is exploitation. These people got a chance here to be proud of themselves and to show that they are real people like any of us. In that sense it is also an important film. I greatly enjoyed it for sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I appreciate it.

      Delete
  2. I saw Freaks a couple of years ago, a unique experience.

    Don't quote me on this word for word, but I think I read somewhere the freaks depicted would probably not have been born with today's improved technology, so that made the movie a production of its cinematic era.

    I also remember from the other "freak movie" The Elephant Man, the dvd documentary talked about how the deformed real-life John Merrick was making money from his deformity, even though the movie depicted him as a victim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the info on Merrick. I didn't know that, but it does make sense.

      Delete
  3. This is a very good film, and I remember reading somewhere that David Lynch ranks it amongst his favourite films. No surprise when we think about Elephant Man.
    Excellent review Chip!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another Elephant Man mention. I didn't even connect those two films, but it's obvious in hindsight. Thanks.

      Delete
  4. Ahhhhhhhh!!! I think I saw this for the first time when I was about 12 and it still freaks me out. Certainly, worth a watch especially during the Halloween season. some things can't be unseen :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Man, I can't begin to think what this movie would have done to me if I had seen it at the age of 12.

      Delete
  5. This is one of my favorite Tod Browning films. Much more enthralling (or horrifying) than Dracula. It's impossible to look away, yet you can't help feel a little unclean in the process.

    Nice review, Chip.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that this has much more of an impact than Dracula. Thanks.

      Delete