Opiniones de usuarios

Don't let people convince you that "Freaks" is a horror movie, because it isn't. It's actually a quite sad and sympathetic look at the way abnormalities were treated in the early part of the 20th century, and has direct parallels to the obsession with physical perfection causing eating disorders today. Tod Browning of course asks us to consider who are the bigger freaks: those with deformed bodies or those with deformed souls? The two "normal" people who are out to cheat and steal are monstrous, whereas the freaks are quite likable and charming. The ending is disturbing to be sure, but it's hard to condemn the freaks for acts that seem largely justified.

Is it a coincidence that in several shots showing Cleopatra reclining on a sofa, she appears to be deformed herself (in one shot it looks as if she has no legs). Has anybody else noticed this? "Freaks" was obviously way ahead of its time. There's a very interesting documentary on the DVD about its reception in 1932; it bombed and pretty much ruined Browning's career. Thank God that the general public is not allowed to be the final arbiter of a film's value. Think how many priceless films we would have lost by now if that were the case.

Grade: A

Part fictional portrait of a group of circus sideshow performers and part tragic soap opera about their various and complicated relationships, the main story has a midget, Hans (Harry Earles), falling in love with the Amazonian trapeze artist, Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova), who feigns affection for him--at first to taunt him and later to use him.

Freaks isn't really a horror film, although the horror boom that began in 1931 precipitated Freaks entering production. The script developed out of an earlier one named "Spurs" that had been in MGM's possession since the late 1920s. The success of Universal's horror films of 1931 (Dracula and Frankenstein) had studios scrambling to cash in on the trend. Horror films weren't new, of course, but repeated commercial success of horror films released in quick succession was. A number of factors contributed to the phenomenon, including the Great Depression, the lingering cultural impact from World War I, and the advent of sound films. So even though Freaks wasn't exactly horror, and the protagonists weren't exactly monsters, it was close enough. In the early 1930s, the public had not yet been overexposed to media-sensationalized differences in human appearances and behavior. The effect of the film then, in conjunction with memories of real life horrors, including those of war-mangled veterans, offered the emotional reaction that producers and studios are often seeking from horror films.

But Freaks is really part tragic drama, part character study, and in many ways it is almost a documentary. The modern attraction to the film comes from a few sources. One, the "gawking effect", or the simple fact of watching the freaks in action. Sideshows are an unfortunately dying phenomenon, if they're not already dead (many would say they are), largely because of a combination of medical advances, which often "cure" the physical differences that would have made "victims" sideshow candidates, and political correctness, which mistakenly sees sideshows as negatively exploitative. It's fascinating watching the different kinds of people in the film and their behavior, including not only their social interactions, but how some of them manage to just get around and perform everyday activities such as eating, lighting a cigarette, and so on. This kind of material takes up at least half of the film's short running time (64 minutes; initially it ran closer to 90 minutes, but 26 minutes of cuts were made (and are now apparently lost) to appease the New York State censor board).

Two, this was a lost film, figuratively and almost literally, for quite some time. MGM wanted nothing to do with it. For a while, it had been playing the "roadshow" circuit in different cuts, under different titles, such as "Nature's Mistakes". The film had been banned in many areas, and at least technically is still banned in some. It eventually appeared on VHS in the 1980s, but until the recent DVD release, it has never been very easy to find in most rental or retail outlets.

Three, the most common modern reading of the film--and this was also part of director Tod Browning's intention in making Freaks, even if the average audience member didn't see it this way at first, has it as a Nightbreed (1990)-like turning of the dramatic tables, where the extremely alienated "monsters" are the sympathetic protagonists and the ostensibly "normal" humans turn out to be the real monsters. For those who like films best where they can identify in some emotional way with the characters, Freaks is particularly attractive to anyone who feels alienated or strongly different, even looked down upon, by "normal" society. At various times, and by various people, Freaks has been read as everything from purely exploitative schlock to a socialist parable to a film imbued with odd commentary, metaphors and subtexts about male-female couplings and Oedipal complexes.

Freaks isn't a great film in terms of the usual criteria, such as storytelling, exquisite performances, and so on, but it's appropriate that it wouldn't be a masterpiece per the normal criteria--it's not about normal people. The film is certainly valuable as a creative, almost experimental artwork, not to mention as a more or less permanent record of the decayed and almost abandoned artform of sideshows. It's not surprising that not every cast member is an incredible actor--for many roles, there was only one person available who could have fulfilled the character in a particular way, making the stilted delivery of dialogue more excusable. In any event, this is an important film historically, and a joy to watch.

D-U-M-B! Everyone's accusin' me!

I've been listening to The Ramones' music off and on for almost 30 years now, and despite reading and viewing tons of stuff about the band and its origins, I'd never run across how they came up with the whole "pinhead" theme.

Well, I've finally seen FREAKS, often listed as one of the great cult flicks of all time. And wouldn't you know it, the "pinheads", including "Schlitze", the inspiration for The Ramones' mascot who always came out to join the band during their live shows at the end of the Pinhead song, were in FREAKS.

The Ramones also slightly modified the "freak chant" from the wedding scene, changing "Gooble-Gobble" to "Gabba-Gabba". I guess Jeffrey Hyman (Joey Ramone) must have viewed himself as somewhat "freakish" (he did have an incredible look), and really related to the group of circus curiosities assembled for this film.

After being shelved for about three decades, FREAKS started playing again at art-house theaters in the mid-60's, and that's where Joey had to have come across it.

As far as my film review, this movie needs to be viewed. Look past the stilted acting, and soak up the message. It will stay with you for a long, long time.

It's interesting to me that this film is viewed as offensive. People say that these people are being made fun of and exploited. I wouldn't like to comment on how they were treat on set or anything but I will say that they all see to enjoying them selfs for the most part and as for being made fun of, I think the total opposite is happening.

This movie came out in 1932 so before I watched it I also was nervous that these people would be used to make others laugh at their expense but it was the furthest thing from the truth. This film hands its subject matter with such care and deft that I was astounded that it came out in 1932.

It can be like looking at window into the past as sometimes it almost plays like a documentary due to the fact that most of these actors were actually circus performers. There are so many scenes where the performers are just relaxing and chatting to each other. It shows people they are just like us, it doesn't mater if they look different. It shows them doing mundane things like hanging washing, struggling with problems like infidelity. It shows ignorant people that they are human just like you.

I think the title "Freaks" is interesting. I think there is two ways to look at it. The first way is the obvious and offensive way demeaning the performers but I think by the end of the film the only freaks in this movie are the people who look normal. The movie shows this makeshift family coming together for each other, the only people who are outcasts are the able bodied "normal people". I think that is one way to interpret it any way or maybe I am reading into it.

That is the interesting thing about this movie. You can read a lot into it and it is never clear what the director was really trying to say as another interesting part is all of the performers are shown to be good people, kind people for the most part friendly and loving. Once again the only truly evil people in this movie are the people who are able bodied people. The reason I lean to the side of the director was showing these people are simply just people is it is framed as shocking and wrong when bad things happen to the performers and I don't think it is ever played for laughs.

It also really bothers me that this movie is labelled a horror movie. It is a drama. There isn't really any horror elements to be found.

One more thing I just want to point out is that I am astounded how much Ryan Murphy took from this movie for season 4 of American Horror Story. Like I think his only reference point for "freak shows" was this movie. Just a stray observation.

So I would say definitely watch this movie. It is only short as it was cut down due to the fact people believed it was too outrageous and offensive. It has a lot of heart and is really head of it's time.

I really dig 1930s horror movies. There's just something special about them that can never be recreated. A lot of it has to do with the talkies being new territory, many of the directors adapting German Expressionist techniques to Hollywood melodrama, and the freedom allowed before the Hayes Code really kicked in. Movies like 'Dracula', 'Frankenstein', 'Bride Of Frankenstein', 'Island Of Lost Souls', 'The Invisible Man' and 'White Zombie' are horror classics which still impress today. I wonder whether anyone will be watching the lame horror movies of today in seventy years for any other reason than some cheap laughs? Todd Browning made the transition from silent movies and directed the hugely successful 'Dracula' in 1931. It was a sensation and made Bela Lugosi a horror icon. Browning could pretty much do anything he chose after that. He chose to do 'Freaks'. Great for us as, not so great for him. The movie was universally reviled and even banned in some countries and his career never fully recovered. But 'Freaks' is an extraordinary movie with a lot of heart. It has faults, sure - some corny acting at times, and not so great production values - but it really doesn't matter. I don't know anyone who's seen it who hasn't been deeply affected by it. The reason the movie caused such a negative reaction back in the 1930s was because it used real circus performers including Zip the Pinhead and Radian "The Living Torso". Many people found this to be distasteful and exploitative, but the performers seemed to be glad to get the opportunity to work, and the whole crux of the movie is that the "freaks" are more decent than the "normal" Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) , the trapeze artist who marries little person Hans (Harry Earls) for his money. 'Freaks' is still a very powerful and unique movie. It has inspired many creative people over the years from the Surrealists to The Ramones to Jodorowsky to David Lynch. 'Freaks' comes with my highest recommendation!

A forest glade somewhere in Europe. A warm, sunny day with children playing on the grass. But the camera moves closer and reveals that something is terribly wrong. For these are not children, but tragically misshapen human beings. Pinheads. Dwarfs. A young man with only half a body. A man without arms or legs. These are the Freaks.

In 1932, director Tod Browning, fresh from his success with DRACULA, was instructed by Irving Thalberg to top FRANKENSTEIN. He succeeded. The resulting film was considered so ghastly that it was banned in Britain for 30 years. It is the strangest film MGM ever released.

Browning wanted to tell a tale of love, greed & revenge set in a circus, most particularly in the sideshow of human anomalies. He scoured Europe & America for the perfect cast. He got them: Violet & Daisy Hilton, the celebrated Siamese twins; dwarf brother & sister Harry & Daisy Earles; Johnny Eck the Half Boy (a good actor, he will remain in your mind a long time); the tragic Josephine Joseph, a hermaphrodite; as well as a human skeleton, armless girls and the female pinheads, among others.

While the plot is exploitive & the title tasteless, these people show us glimpses of their hearts, some of the agony of their condition and make us wonder, `What if I'd been born as one of them?'

The rest of the cast is made up of MGM stock players Leila Hyams, Wallace Ford, Edward Brophy, Olga Baclanova and the screen's champion stutterer Roscoe Ates.

The plot is simple. A beautiful trapeze artist marries a dwarf for his money, then plots his murder with her lover, the circus strong man. The subsequent action is both horrifying & strangely satisfying. Various scenes - the Freaks' Banquet, the chase through the storm - are among the most bizarre ever filmed. You won't soon forget the time you spend with the FREAKS.

Those that have seen either 1930's gangster film, "The Public Enemy" or "Little Caesar" will be familiar with the opening scrawl of the amazing film, "Freaks." In the 1930's it seemed as though the filmmakers had to set up the audience or apologize, in a way, for what they were about to see. The opening, before the title card, explains how "freaks" or human oddities have been treated by society. It tells how such deformed people were shunned from society, but, how they have normal thoughts and feelings just like the rest of us. This truly is the power of this truly moving, funny, very strange, and ultimately frightening film from the "Dark Carnival" mind of director Tod Browning...

No reason to do a summary here, that ruins the experience for new audiences to discover on their own and the rest of the reviewers have all ready done a stellar job, I'm sure, of giving plot synopsis.

Let's say that the average viewer will be stunned at first by the fact that real deformed dwarfs, midgets,siamese twins, and other "oddities" were the actors in this film. And that, in itself, lends the film its mysterious power and casts its spell on the viewer as much now in 2004 as I'm sure it did in the 30's and upon its rediscovery in the 1960's.

The tone of this film varies throughout. At it's center really are several relationships: Hans and his fiancée; Hans and the "Big" Lady, Cleopatra; Frozo the Clown and Venus; Hercules the strong man and Cleopatra, and of course the "Freaks" vs. Hercules and Cleopatra and the special code of the Freaks.

There are several lame 1930's jokes an example: "I thinks she likes you, b-b-b-but h-he don't!" stutters a clown in the circus when the half male/female character walks by Hercules and stops to take a gander. It's a strange, perverse joke and an example of what you're in for with this movie.

The power of the film is within the freaks themselves. We are invited to gawk, stare, but, ultimately sympathize with them. We want to see anyone who threatens them get their comeuppance and boy do they ever get that!

The freak that will freak you out the most: The Living Torso, Radian.

You'll love Frozo and Venus and pull for them throughout.

You'll root for Hans and Frida.

You'll enjoy Rosco the clown's humorous performance.

You'll be truly disturbed by the classic; uber-horror scene of the freaks crawling with knives in the mud in the rain-storm revenge sequence toward the end. Some of the most classic images in all of film not just horror.

I love it when Hans calls other "big" people in the circus who make him angry : "Swine!" He rules.

When the title card: THE WEDDING FEAST comes up you too will be truly FREAKED out! I love this movie and it has quickly become one of my favorites of all time right along-side 1930's classics like Dracula, Frankenstein, etc.

`Freaks' is a totally unique and superb film by Tod Browning. He made himself legendary one year before this came out – in 1931 – with the all-time horror classic `Dracula'. This film, however, is something completely different and it nearly cost Browning his career. Since Browning had the courage to cast actual deformed actors, the words ‘distasteful' and ‘exploitative' were automatically attached to his masterpiece and it remained banned in many countries for too many years. Very unjustified, of course because throughout the whole film, you NEVER feel like a voyeur and neither is the misery of these unfortunate people overly exposed. On the contrary, I'd say…you can't but get deeply affected by these circus freaks. Especially in the 30's, when the people didn't know much about physical anomalies and feared the unknown, I dare to say Tod Browning's `Freaks' could have been an essential social portrait. And keep in mind that Browning's main moral is that the `freaks' show a lot more solidarity and honesty than the `normal' people whose every motivation is driven by greed and power.

The plot of this purely gold film is set in a traveling circus in which the freaks and normally formed people work together. The beautiful trapeze artist and her strongman lover plot a cowardly plan and she uses her beauty to seduce the rich midget named Hans (a brilliant Harry Earless who also starred in Browning's `The Unholy Tree'). When the greedy couple openly insults the group spirit of the freaks and publicly humiliates Hans, an eerie act of vengeance is thought up. This film is over 70 years old and it'll still unquestionably shock and amaze you. To me, it's just perfect. An outstanding mixture of warm-hearted characters, great dialogue and tension. The climax, in which the freaks seal the portentous fate of their enemies, is an immortal piece of pure terror! `Freaks' is one of the most dazzling classics ever made and must be seen by anybody who ever showed any interest in cinema.

Over the years, I've seen "Freaks" perhaps four times – all in theatres and on cinema screens in revivals. I've never seen it on TV, though I imagine it's been shown there.

It's fascinating and hypnotically watchable still, not always for the right reasons. Yes, it's exploitive of the "freaks." Yet given their opportunities in 1932, when they were either confined in institutions or exhibited in sideshows all over the world, the film gives them a curious dignity simply by offering them a one-time appearance in a Hollywood film that demanded more of them (some of them) than mere sideshow antics. The script, of course, also gives them "dignity" of a kind, at least relative to the prejudices of the times (i.e., "Don't betray the freaks or they'll turn on you, cut you up, and make you one of them.").

That the film was shocking in its day, and often banned, says far more about audiences of the '30s than the actual film. The only truly powerful sequence is the brilliant "storm" sequence that climaxes "Freaks." Emotionally, it is perfectly positioned in the film's structure: audiences inwardly understand and root for the "freaks" creeping and slithering through the mud beneath the wagon wheels to exact their revenge . . . while simultaneously being frightened of them and of what's to come. A brilliant and inspired sequence that deserves its legendary status.

The remainder of "Freaks," though entirely watchable, is not always watchable for the right reasons, as mentioned.

Namely the dialogue and the acting. The structure is fine. But many of the lines are stilted and phony, even for films of that era. None of the "freaks" were trained actors. Such careers simply didn't exist in those days. Midget Daisy Earles (as Frieda) does perhaps the best job. Yet even she has no notion (nor experience) of how to sustain a character arc. Her brother, Harry Earles (as Hans), has tremendous vitality in his role, but no idea how to deliver these lines convincingly. Yet he's a good instinctive actor, as witness his silent moments in the film. Olga Baclanova as Cleopatra certainly holds the screen, and is the "best" actor in the cast. Hers must have been a difficult task – playing a completely despicable circus diva with no redeeming value whatsoever. Henry Victor as Hercules? Mediocre.

Tod Browning's VISION for this film was / is breathtaking. "Contrast real physical mutants with 'normal' people, and get the audience to identify with the 'freaks.' Then take them through a murderous, mutilating, emotionally wrenching climax." That's a challenge in 2005, much less 73 years ago.

Browning's decision to use real "freaks" as opposed to made-up actors is noble and brave and true. But so intense were the prejudices of the day that that single decision affected every decision that followed. No "name" actor would agree to appear in the cast, citing "disgust" and worse. Five writers are credited on IMDb with the script – always a bad sign. None of the "freaks" had any real acting training or careers as actors. Much of the cast were amateurs, in other words, and it shows.

Whatever tensions are generated by the story's structure dissipate whenever the lead midgets are on screen. Though Daisy Earles has some intermittent moments of effectiveness, Harry Earles does not. He almost sounds as if he's delivering his lines phonetically.

Absent good actors in the lead roles (Baclanova overacts continually, but it works in context with her character), I've often wondered what "Freaks" might have been as a silent film.

The two great set-pieces (the wedding sequence and the "storm" climax) are amazing – for entirely different reasons.

At the wedding, the "freaks" are obviously having a grand time "acting" for Hollywood's cameras, while Baclanova (convincingly) goes over the top. The sequence is disturbing on more than one level. First, it's impossible to believe that silly "One of us!" chant. Yet it's disturbing at the same time it's phony. Possibly it was accepted as "real" in 1932, but I doubt it. Second, you have an actress who was reportedly sweet and kind to her co-stars, having to behave abominably with them on camera. How did Browning explain all this to some of his mentally child-like "freaks?" Visually, the wedding sequence is nothing out of the ordinary. Emotionally, it is wrenching – both within the story structure and outside the fiction: this and several other scenes that are blatantly exploitive beg the question, "How were these people treated? Did they understand what was going on?"

From all reports, the "freaks" were treated with respect and appreciation.

The "storm" climax, on the other hand, is simply stunning cinema. Silent, except for the deafening thunderstorm, it is brilliantly lit, shot and edited. It is also emotionally jolting. Here, finally, the "freaks" we have identified and empathized with are reduced to monstrous "things" snaking through mud puddles in the dark of night. They're on their way to do God-Knows-What to the "normals." But by now, the audience has realized that the "normals" are really the "freaks," and vice versa.

That's an amazing level of dual-audience identification and sophistication for 1932 – or even today.

"Freaks" is a failed enterprise in many ways. But Tod Browning's VISION of it was so audacious that it continues to stir controversy even now.

The ending seems abrupt. Yet what other image could so immediately, efficiently, crystallize the themes of all that's gone before?

In the first place, this movie was originally made to compete with the Universal Horror films, as though these human beings who are the titular "freaks" are not human. Director Tod Browning was still reeling from the loss of his big star, Lon Chaney, to cancer, and thought this would be a good follow up to his previous horror films without Chaney. And after all, he had just finished directing Dracula.

Actually, it paints a very sympathetic picture of the disabled and deformed circus performers, who, at this time of limited medical knowledge and abounding prejudice, were very limited in what they could do in life. They have a very deep camaraderie that is shown through such events as the birth of a child to the bearded lady and the engagement of one of the conjoined twins. Since the other twin is already married, there is much arguing over what the logistics are going to be in these two marriages.

The actual "monsters" in this film are the acrobat "Cleopatra" (Olga Baclanova), and strong man Hercules (Henry Victor), who are having an affair. Two physical specimens with monstrous morality. When the dwarf Hans is captivated by Cleopatra's beauty, she at first teases him by leading him on. But then he starts giving her expensive jewelry and she decides to keep up the ruse. When Freida, Hans' dwarf girlfriend, comes to Cleopatra and asks her to stop teasing him, she accidentally tips off Cleo to the fact that Hans has inherited a great fortune. Hercules and Cleo then plan to get Hans to marry Cleo and then poison him so she can inherit his money. But the two don't realize the close strong bond that the circus performers have with one another and that they are literally each others eyes and ears. Complications ensue.

The film was originally set to run at 90 minutes, but test audiences were so revolted that 30 minutes were cut out so that the remaining film only runs at an hour. Then a scene was tacked on at the end to show Hans' grief over what has ultimately happened. MGM would often add an end scene that really didn't fit the mood of the rest the film during Irving Thalberg's reign there to wrap things up.

This film pretty much finished the career of director Browning as afterwards he only directed a farcical sound remake of a silent film he had made at MGM and one other film and then retired. This was a good late role for Olga Baclanova. She had a very thick Russian accent and had some great late silent roles at Paramount, but talking film had not been kind to her career. This really gave her one last great role where her accent really fit into the plot, plus this was not a film where lots of dialogue was called for, and she was very good at using gestures and expressions to convey emotion.

In the 1960s this film got a fresh look, and today is widely celebrated as having been ahead of its time. The horror is implied and left up to your imagination as to just HOW it happened, and the empathy shown the circus performers is profound. It even got a separate DVD release with commentary.

It is ironic how director Tod Browning followed up "Dracula"--a horror film with painterly set design and a distinct atmosphere of unease--with a horror film more grounded in reality. Whereas the sets in "Dracula" were as skillfully rendered as the most elaborate of tapestries, the abstraction of "Freaks" comes from the title characters, who are at once hideous, wonderful, and all too human. Browning doesn't present these characters--who were actual sideshow performers--in an exploitative manner (though the long disclaimer that precedes the film is a definite reflection of his concern), but instead touches on a humility, modesty, and altruism that makes them as capable of expressing joy, sorrow, and vengeance as any 'normal' human being. And that's the overriding moral of "Freaks," wherein busty trapeze artist Cleopatra marries sensitive midget Hans only so she and her lunkheaded, strongman lover can make off with his inheritance. Granted, this plot has since become cliché, but to apply it to sideshow performers who are truly in their element 'under the big top' is something of a masterstroke...as it makes the 'normals' seem that much more out-of-place and unwelcome. (A complaint: as some of the dialog is difficult to decipher, it seems that the sound quality was either poorly recorded at the time or when it was transferred to video.)

Cleopatra is a gold digging trapeze artist who seduces sideshow midget Hans for his large inheritance. Fellow midget Frieda is suspicious and jealous of Cleopatra. Sweet Venus breaks up with brutish Strongman Hercules and he starts an affair with Cleopatra. Venus falls for the nice clown Phroso. Hans is completely under Cleopatra's spell and eventually marries her.

This is most notable for the real circus freaks in the movie. It even uses real Siamese twins Violet and Daisy Hilton when it probably doesn't have to. I guess it was horrific at the time but it's more of an oddity today. The acting skills of the freaks vary greatly. Some of them have trouble speaking in a normal voice. Hans' voice is quite squeaky. The story is scattered with some side stories touching on the various freaks showcasing their individual skills. The main story works well as a drama. This isn't really a horror at all.

The subject of human disability is still a taboo subject in Cinema, even over 70 years since this film's release.

It's difficult to imagine what impact this film would have had in the 1930's, but as it still has the ability to shock ( through the images of bodily deformity ) I can understand why many shunned and disowned this work, and why it totally ruined Todd Browning's film career.

The basic premise - that beauty is more than skin deep - can appear to be wielded with a sledgehammer, but perhaps the contemporary audience needed to be hit harder in order to make them understand the point.

The film is short ( due to enforced cuts ), and at times can move rather slowly and can appear rather 'stagey' which is a trait of many films from the 20's / 30's.

But don't let that put you off. The plot is simple, but it's the telling of the story rather than the story itself that is important. And you really do need to remind yourself that these are real people - not actors - and this was the live they led.

I rate it 9 outa 10 because they really don't make them like this any more.

"Freaks" is one of the most controversial horror films from the 30's,mainly because director Tod Browning hired as the actors real sideshow freaks.It does have a rather unsettling effect,but I think that really does work for the film.Browning builds up a great amount of suspense with the good use of locations,story and lots of atmosphere.The ending,where we see freaks crawling in the mud,is pretty creepy.Anyway check this one out-it's worth watching.

Freaks (1932) might just be Tod Browning's weirdest and most original film of all. It meant a return to his favorite milieu: the circus, which he had depicted for several times, in The Unknown (1927), starring Lon Chaney, for instance. The story of Freaks is rather simple and, maybe exactly because of that, very powerful: a beautiful aerialist Cleopatra notices that a midget, called Hans, has grown a strong infatuation for her. After hearing of Hans' vast inheritance, Cleopatra together with her boyfriend Hercules decide to fool Hans in order to get the money. Hans' wife and other sideshow performers of the circus dislike this and make a scheme to put an end to Cleopatra's cruelty once and for all.

Back in the day, the film was not well received at all and was, in fact, banned in several countries. This era, which approximately lasted from the mid-20's to 1933, is actually known as the golden age of Hollywood genre film but also as the pre-code era. During The Great Depression, film production was marginal but nonetheless great and unique films were made and new genres formed, such as musical, gangster film, screwball comedy and, of course, horror. Obviously people had made horror movies earlier as well but it was now when it found its true form: its essential conventions and structural elements. Browning's Dracula (1931) and Whale's Frankenstein (1931) started it all but, to my mind, it was really Freaks that showed what the genre was capable of: to describe agony, terror and violence in an allegorical manner.

On one level, Freaks reflects the American society very well but, what is more, it works best on another level: depicting the gloomy morale of the time. It questions our conception of normality; and even naturalness. It studies the existing ideas of beauty and ugliness in our society; the relation between inner and external features. At its heart, it is all about the abnormality of morality: we are frightened, just as we usually are in horror movies, but in a different way. Just as the audience of the prologue, we are afraid of what we see. However, we don't fear the deformed, but ourselves because, well, couldn't we all be Cleopatra or Hercules? We are frightened by the morale of the people; not by the outward appearance of them, but by their inner; moral monstrousness.

Browning's approach to the 'freaks' is purely empathetic and never demeaning. He lands down to their height and observes them, not as greater human beings, but as a greater society: Browning truly relays a vision of a collective community where, just like the Siamese twins, people share everything; grief and joy; love and pain. The film doesn't only question our conception of normality and abnormality, but our morality. It asks us who are the real freaks. For, in the midst of the "freaks", there is one "normal" animal tamer. In the result of that one comes to the conclusion that it is truly the moral of man which defines his normality or abnormality.

Freaks is many things, but boring is not one of them. Tod Browning's film happens to have a certain power to it in that it's actually kind of conventional with its story- a man falls in love with a woman, who wants him (not immediately but soon after finding out) for his money, and when his friends find out they plot revenge against the dastardly woman. It almost reminded me of a fable in a way, like some kind of cautionary tale. But it's definitely not simplistic in the way of what you might expect from 1932 (i.e. 'watch out for these deformed, crazy people who may kill you in the dead of night, etc'). It's the other way around, where the woman, Cleo, and her real lover Hercules, are the 'freaks' of the film, as they lack the real friendship, compassion, understanding and reality of their situation like the other sideshow attractions do. It's Hans who ends up getting duped, but then getting a happy ending, and rightfully so with maybe the most "normal" of the bunch, his should-be wife, who also happens to be a dwarf.

So in terms of being a 'message' movie, it's actually quite good by sticking very firmly to its one-dimensional guns. It doesn't fool its audience exactly by being something else that it isn't, and Browning's background in silent and horror films is shown in some very memorable scenes. Chiefly of these are the wedding banquet with the milestone of cheerily creepy cinematic moments with the 'ooble-gobble' chant where everything becomes clear. There are also some really horrifying images in the climax when the 'freaks' finally get their payback against Cleo. Now, because of such drama being put alongside such a demented atmosphere, the film lacks a lot of things other conventional films even have. The story, even at only over an hour, takes some time to really get started after some getting-to-know scenes with the bulk of the ensemble. And there are a couple of holes that pop up as well; the end moment where Cleo is revealed in the sideshow, literally having become 'one of them', it's too ridiculous and silly to even think of how it happened.

But somehow Browning's film doesn't feel too aged- it's actually one of those superbly shot early talkies, where the images still speak well enough on their own, while the dialog from these (mostly) non-professionals adds more of the emotional impact in the scenes. Once the audience can come to accept what these people are born with or have become (and in this day and age where day time talk show outranks most of what is seen in the film it's not hard to do) it's hard not to dismiss its worth. But if you turn it off after starting to see some of these strange oddities of human nature, you'll be missing the point. This is one hell of a picture that should stand the test of time.

FREAKS is one of those historical rarities that merits attention on several levels. Yes, its subject matter is sensational, but I think it stands fairly well as an example of early talkies, too.

While I was aware of the notoriety of this film for some time, I was not aware of its pedigree. One might think the film might have been thrown together as some kind of exploitative quickie, but its production involved Hollywood legends like Lon Cheney Sr (it was originally conceived as a vehicle for him) and Irving Thalberg.

The film was mired in controversy from the beginning, and this adds to the fascination. Many, many edits were demanded from the studio, particularly after test screenings (the DVD shows a few different edits of the ending in its nice little documentary). Apparently, about 30 minutes wound up being cut, and I can't help but think that if an original cut could somehow be found it would uncover a significant piece of cinematic history.

While the story is pure melodrama, and not terribly important, the "freaks" themselves (they did not see the word as a pejorative term, by the way) are fascinating in their complete normalcy. The film treats them quite affectionately, with only a few scenes that could be considered gratuitous.

Another fascinating element of FREAKS is as an artifact of its time. The sound is awkward, because director Tod Browning still hadn't mastered talkies (a Hollywood veteran of dozens of films, Browning would only make three more films after FREAKS). Sideshows no longer exist, so the film gives a glimpse into a world that could never be duplicated.

I regard FREAKS quite fondly, which might seem an odd emotion, but it's a neat little gem of a film.

Freaks was a highly controversial film at the time of its creation, and its easy to see why. The casting of actual deformed people in a movie is an audacious decision. This can be seen in two ways: a real freak show (which is very, very disturbing) or an investigation into human character. I like to think that Tod Browning was striving for the bigger picture, but sometimes its not so obvious. The real-life freak show actors were definitely fascinating, but not much was done to create sympathy at the individual level. Rather, the freaks are represented as a varied group that works together to get things done. While this is effective in some ways, it didn't let the viewer surpass the barrier between seeing it on screen and understanding how it feels.

The subject matter is successful in bringing some deep messages about human character. The film is unique in that it does not try to hide anything. The freaks are not meant to be liked right away; although possibly pitied. But as the film progresses, the contrast between the "normal" people (Hercules and Cleopatra) with the collection of freaks builds up. When the marriage between Cleopatra and the midget occurs, the freaks are aware that its a plot. The is meant to define the freaks as the good guys, but the conclusion returns to a dark theme.

Freaks is one of those films that was fascinating but disturbing at the same time. It is unlikely that there will ever be a movie similar to Freaks. Tod Browning took a risk that impacted the rest of his career with this film. It is worth seeing because of the important subject and the real actors. Its one of those things that we cannot cover up or pretend doesn't exist.

Not much I can say about this except it's one of the most chilling and disturbing films I have ever seen. The story is one of those universal parables of beauty and ugliness, "are those that are attractive to the eye really that beautiful inside?" the entire film is skilfully directed by the great Todd Browning, with some fantastic performances from the cast of real life sideshow performers. One of the most groundbreaking films of all time...

10/10

What makes the film interesting and gives it its cult status is the fact that real circus freaks were used in the film. This gives Freaks a genuine shock value that could never have been duplicated with special effects. Coupled with this is dark and twisted storyline that really impresses, even though you may know where it's going. The downside of using these circus performers in the film is that they are not actors. A lot of the dialogue, especially from the central midget character, Hans, comes off sounding very forced. Olga Baclanova also hams it up a little too much as the villainess. In fact, the only good actor in the bunch seems to be Wallace Ford, playing one of the few friends to the circus freaks. Still, the movie succeeds in making an emotional connection, not so much because of the weight of the performances, but because of the realism of their situation. We get the sense that what these characters are going through on screen is not far from what they go through in life. Then, of course, we get to see them do what they would never get a chance to do in real life: take their revenge!

So much has been written about this film one is wary of writing about it, figuring that most everything that can be said about it has already been said, and that there's not much more to add. It has been praised and damned, and was so hated by the boss of the studio that produced it that he had his company's trademark removed from the credits and sold it to an independent distributor. It was banned in England for thirty years.

The movie's director, Tod Browning, was best known for a series of highly popular macabre melodramas he had made with silent picture star Lon Chaney in the twenties. Just prior to making Freaks he had made Dracula, with Bela Lugosi. As the result of the controversy surrounding Freaks his career was ruined. He was allowed to make a few more films, but none did well; and his career's momentum, which had been strong in the early thirties, was soon lost. For all intents and purposes Browning gambled his reputation on this one movie, and he lost, badly.

Freaks concerns life in a circus that features a particularly large side show of freaks: pinheads, a bearded lady, midgets, an armless and legless man, and so forth. The story revolves around the efforts of a beautiful 'normal' woman, known as Cleopatra, to woo and wed a midget she knows to be worth a good deal of money. This woman has a lover, Hercules, the circus strong man, and together they plot against the hapless little fellow, who is quite smitten with her. Cleopatra hates her tiny husband and plans to poison him for her inheritance. The midget becomes quite ill from a lethal drink she gives him; however, by this time the other freaks are onto her. As their little friend ails in bed they extract a terrible vengeance for what was done to their comrade.

The bare bones of the story make the film sound better than it is. By no means is Freaks a bad film, but it moves like molasses, and is for the most part badly acted. Its ideas are better than its images. This surely is not the fault of the freaks themselves, who are the best thing about the picture. Despite their appearance they are an engaging lot. In this respect the movie succeeds. We come to like the freaks and care what happens to them. The ideas behind the film are exciting to think about. Normal people are indeed often hateful; and the suffering and crippled souls among us seem far worthier. Beauty has a cruelty about it. But the vehicle that carries these and the other messages that Browning put forth is, sadly, inadequate, and not up to the task.

Yet I highly recommend this film. For all its faults it is, at its best, a powerful and original work. That it deals with the entertainment world cannot but raise the issue of the movie being perhaps a criticism of Hollywood and the studio system, which may also be why it was so despised within the industry. It is a guilty pleasure if ever there was one, but it is, in the end, more interesting to talk about and look back on than to actually experience.

Tod Browning's FREAKS is still haunting and unsettling after more than 75 years despite draconian edits, clumsy dialog, implausible and ultra-contrived situations, mostly amateurish acting and a deteriorated soundtrack (at least half the dialog is barely comprehensible) solely because of the human types on display. If a similar scenario (say, a group of non-freakish circus performers who gang up on a newly arrived gold-digger who upsets the camaraderie of their tribe) had been cast with "normal" human beings it would have come and gone with minor praise for some interesting cinematography.

The imagery harks back to the silent era. When an inter-title ("The Wedding Feast") appears one can't help wondering if this film might have worked better a few years earlier as a late-period silent with elaborate musical scoring and sound effects. The feast itself has been accurately described as "bizarre" by many viewers. A dwarf dances awkwardly on a banquet table to an audience of fellow freaks chanting "one of us, one of us!" as Cleopatra, the beautiful but heartless trapeze artist (Olga Baclanova) gulps champagne and repeatedly bursts into explosive guffaws. The dialog is so crude and ridiculous one wonders if it wasn't improvised on the spot. Baclanova overacts shamelessly throughout this sequence.

Harry and Daisy Earles alternately move and embarrass us as a midget couple torn apart by Cleopatra's intrigues. Daisy manages to be heartbreakingly sincere but simultaneously wooden. The scene of Madame Tetrallini supervising the micro-cephalics ("pinheads") at a picnic in the forest is deeply touching. The "human torso" (Rardion) is perhaps the most mind-boggling to behold, like a plump, stocking-sheathed caterpillar with a human head stuck on.

Ultimately it's a story about humanity, bonding, comradeship. The fear comes from the uncomfortable empathy we experience at the sight of those born without legs or arms or fully developed brains or common gender characteristics. We imagine how we would feel if we too had been born that way. Through most of the film it is painful for us to gaze upon these individuals whose mere appearance is drama in itself. The melodramatic scenario that is imposed on them seems unnecessary. But the climax works, even if the coda with the Earles is stilted. I think this film encourages us to love or at least respect one another as humans. A very simple message which, appearing at the dawn of the Holocaust when people like the ones depicted here were routinely exterminated by the Nazis, takes on new meaning for the contemporary viewer.