Freaks, la monstrueuse parade

In the first place, this movie was originally made to compete with the Universal Horror films, as though these human beings who are the titular "freaks" are not human.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.

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!

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.

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.

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