NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!
DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.
filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.
Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.
Antonius Block A classic of pre-Code cinema, Tod Browning's 'Freaks' is populated with a broad cast of real-life carnival performers and those with deformities, and the effect is striking. We see the armless, legless, and completely limbless. We see coned twins, a 'human skeleton', and microcephalics (so-called 'pinheads'). We see a 'bird girl' and a 'stork woman' (who we find out later had Virchow-Seckel syndrome). And we see some of the more conventional carnival acts: a bearded lady, a half-man/half-woman, a fire-eater, and a sword-swallower. We never see them performing in front of an audience; instead all of the action in the film is behind the scenes, and the effect is humanizing. We see life from their perspective, and that they face the same relationship issues that the rest of society face. We watch the film perhaps voyeuristically because of the deformities and differences, but it's to Browning's credit that they are shown sympathetically. A caretaker for a group which includes the three microcephalics chides a couple of guys who react in horror, pointing out they're just children who are playing in the sun. A little person (Harry Earles) points out that most 'big people' laugh at him, because "they don't realize that I'm a man with the same feelings they have." It's telling that the real 'freaks' in the story are two "normal people", a trapeze artist (Olga Baclanova) and her strong-man boyfriend (Henry Victor), who play on Earles' emotions, and then plot to kill him for his money. There are several truly memorable scenes, starting with Prince Randian, "The Human Torso", an armless and legless performer in a tight one-piece garment making him appear like a caterpillar, manipulating a cigarette and a matchbox with ease, and fluidly giving himself a light. Another is when the performers are all drinking at a wedding and chanting "One of us, one of us, Gooble gobble, Gooble gobble, We accept her, we accept her, One of us, one of us" riotously, until Baclanova erupts in disgust and calls them all freaks. The look of hurt in their eyes, and shame in Earles' face is heart-rending. However, nothing can top the circus performers crawling through the mud, with revenge in their eyes. The extended sequence that this led to was so disturbing that the film's 90 minute run-time had to get cut down to just 64, and it's a real shame that the original is lost. Great film, from a great director.
elicopperman Upon Universal's Dracula becoming a huge hit, director Tod Browning was given an opportunity to make whatever he waned afterwards, which was to adapt the short story Spurs into a feature film, later entitled Freaks. By doing unconventional methods such as casting actual deformed circus performers amongst a cast of "regular" actors, the film was seen as too shocking to be released and was even cut from its original hour and a half long cut to just 64 minutes. Even at that, the film was not well received and became an infamously controversial film throughout the world. That being said, time has shown to be more kind to this film, as it has gotten more critical praise and attraction over the years, which I agree on.Set in a traveling circus, trapeze performer Cleopatra tricks the lovesick circus midget Hans into marrying her upon hearing about his inheritance so she can steal the fortune and run off with her lover, strong man Hercules. Upon hearing of this, Hans' friends and fellow performers, all of whom are deemed as freaks, decide to seek vengeance on both Hercules and Cleopatra to show them what it truly means to be a "freak." While the main story itself is pretty simple, it is intriguing enough to sit through, as it does detail how deformed people were treated back in the day (makes one wonder how the actors were treated on set). It's made clear that the so called "freaks" are not inherently horrid beings, it's really those who are prejudice towards them that are. As such, it makes the eventual ending obvious albeit disturbing once Cleo and Hercules finally get what's coming to them (although we'll never get to see the original ending where Hercules gets castrated).As for the characters, it's great that Browning was able to cast circus and sideshow performers to play the deformed beings, and they really do play off one another through their own distinct traits and personalities. Hans and his former fiance Frieda are probably the most endearing characters in the film, since while many of the other deformed beings get their fare share of taunts, we really get to see the pain and anguish shown in their faces and what happens to them really makes one feel sorry for the two. Cleopatra and Hercules are just appropriately despicable, for whether they lie to or openly insult the "freaks" themselves, their evil cunning nature is not too different to how greedy and downright malicious people were to deformities back then, or even like some people are now in general. The only "normal" characters in the film, Phroso and Venus, are much more relatable to a modern audience (or even Browning himself) as they understand the deformed being's pain and do wish they would just be happy.In addition to the main storyline, there are a few subplots revolving around other "freaks", such as Phroso and Venus' relationship, one part of Siamese twins marrying a stuttering circus clown, and even a bearded lady giving birth to the daughter of the human skeleton. Although they're charming and humorous in their own right, they mainly serve as superfluous to the main plot and come off as nothing more than filler. Phroso and Venus's arch is an exception since they do play a vital role in having a healthy relationship with the performers outside of Cleopatra and Hercules, and they do have rather witty banter with each other which makes for an entertaining couple. Considering the movie had roughly 26 minutes cut, it's possible that these subplots added up a little more in the original version, but as nonessential as many of them are, they do build up to the eventual climax, and boy do things get rough from there on out.Needless to say, Freaks holds up as an unorthodox shocking albeit insightful horror flick of Hollywood's pre-Code era for its share of warm-hearted and horrid characters, well timed tension and moral that says "freaks" may show much more honesty than a 'normal' people driven by greed, power and prejudice. If you're looking for a classic horror film that as much light to deformed beings as much as The Elephant Man and Mask, then give Freaks a watch. Similar to deformed beings of then and today, the film may have been reviled then, but its praises and even defenses are being sung now.
thelastblogontheleft Director Tod Browning might be more well-known for Dracula, which was released in 1931, but he was also behind this gem of a movie — based on the short story "Spurs" by Tod Robbins — that highlights the need for strong community in the face of oppression and emphasizes how the real "freaks" in our world may not be who you would guess at first glance.It didn't entirely receive the greatest reviews upon its release. One, written in Harrison's Reports, stated: "Any one who considers this entertainment should be placed in the pathological ward in some hospital." (I think there are people who would say that about most horror movies these days.) Beyond simple dislike, many expressed revulsion and disgust… it was a commercial failure and wound up banned in the UK for 30 years. Browning's career never fully recovered.Synopsis: sideshow midget Hans (Harry Earles) may be engaged to Frieda (Daisy Earles, the real-life sister of Harry), but he is smitten with Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova). When she agrees to marry him, he is over the moon. But he soon comes to find out that she has conspired with Hercules (Henry Victor) to poison him and inherit his wealth, which is when the freaks get their revenge…** SPOILERS! **I really ended up enjoying this movie more than I expected. The snippets of the carnival workers' every day lives — from siblings telling jokes to each other to the Bearded Woman giving birth to her baby — is a great touch, doing wonders to make us empathize with them and their unique existence and highlighting the community they have created.I'd like to think we, as a society, are more accepting of those we deem different now in 2017 than we may have been in the early 30s (though I know we haven't improved a whole lot…), but some of the initial negative reactions in response to this movie was due to the "freaks" themselves and their physical deformities. Many real life circus workers were cast and I think the gut reaction to them and their appearance goes a long way in making us analyze why we associate capacity for evil with outward physical traits. The real evil in this movie lies in those circus performers who appear "normal" to the outside world.The dinner scene — possibly the most well-known of the entire film — manages to be uncomfortable throughout its entirety, even before the explosive ending. Cleopatra is infuriated by the mere idea of being accepted as "one of us" with the freaks, despite them being perfectly kind and gracious to her. The idea of being known as part of their group — associated in any way beyond the circus itself — is repulsive.The entire chase scene is terrifying, honestly. It looks gorgeous in black and white, and the heavy rain only adds to the chaos. Rumbling thunder, flashes of lightning, and various freaks crawling (or rolling) their way towards Hercules to exact their revenge… honestly gave me chills. So good.Ultimately a great film, well worth the watch (and it's only about an hour long!).
john_vance-20806 I really don't know what to think of this film. Nothing like this could be done today except maybe to be viewed on the dark net.I think you could be either enthralled or revolted by Freaks. It's such a stand alone production that first-time viewers are usually going to be caught off-guard. In any case, it's hard not to have a visceral reaction one way or the other.Without going into plot details, a portion of the cast is made up of people with severe disabilities or physical defects. Some clearly have very limited mental capacities but others seem to know exactly what they're doing. I suspect that much of this line-up would have been what you'd see in a 19th century traveling carnival side-show.I'm not easily offended or shocked but I'm a little uncomfortable with what's going on here. Politically correct doesn't really apply, it's beyond that. As to whether it represents inspired, courageous, avant-garde filmmaking or is an example of vomitous bad taste and ignorance is, I suppose, up to the viewer. But if anyone responds with just a 'meh' I suspect their own tastes and social skills are a bit outside the normal.I suppose Freaks speaks to our human ambivalence in dealing with things that are bizarre, abnormal or revolting. Most of us can't resist at least taking a glance at a book filled with pictures of those with congenital anomalies. Many feel the same way about photos of victims savaged and mutilated by violence or injury. You're glad it's not you, but then turn to the next page to see the next repellent example.I can't recommend this film but I wouldn't say no one should watch it. Just be a little prepared for something that might be either fascinating or stomach-churning. The response will be a reflection of yourself.
