Freaks

Posted by Notcot on May 22, 2010 in Cult Film |

Average Rating: 4.5 / 5 (18 Reviews)

Amazon.co.uk Review
One of the most famous, most shocking and, for much of its existence, most elusive of cult films, Tod Browning’s Freaks remains worthy of its dubious top billing by literary critic Leslie Fiedler as the greatest of all Freak movies. At the centre of the story are two circus midgets, Hans and Frieda (already well known in the 1930s through film and advertising appearances as Harry and Daisy Earles), whose marriage plans are blasted when Hans becomes the target of the aerialist Cleopatra’s plot to marry him then kill him off for his money. During what is certainly one of the most notorious scenes in cult film history, the wedding party of freaks ritually embrace Cleopatra as one of us. Through her undisguised horror at this and her gruesome punishment by the freaks, the film bluntly confronts viewers about our awkwardness about different bodies while simultaneously stirring up fear and alarm in familiar horror-movie style. Better known for the Bela Lugosi version of Dracula (1931), Brownings showmanship was equally a product of the circus (he was himself an adolescent contortionist in a travelling show). His meshing of circus and cinema–two dangerous entertainments–produces Freaks‘ uniquely disquieting effect.

Startled and indignant preview audiences forced the producers to add an explanatory foreword to the film but even this crackles with sensationalism as it veers between sideshow-style sympathy and fright warning. None the less, protests and local censorship ensued and the film never reached the mass audience for which it was made. Still, some of the real stars of the midway Ten-in-One shows of the 1920s and 30s (Johnny Eck, Daisy and Violet Hilton the Siamese twins, Prince Randian, the Hindu Living Torso) are showcased here as themselves and it is their undeniably real presence in what is otherwise familiar fictional terrain which is still so provocative. –Helen Stoddart

Freaks

Buy Now for £9.52

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Comments

R. hardy
at 7:58 am

“We’ll make her one of us”- say the Freaks, yet ironically that statement is already true as it is the “normals” who are the real freaks.
When Hans the midget first catches sight of the lovely Cleopatra, he thinks she is the most beautiful “normal” he has ever seen. She treats it as joke and flirts with him to poke fun at him, but when she finds out he has inherited a large sum of money, she hoodwinks him into marrying her, and with the help of Hercules her strong man lover, she plots kill him. All the other freaks, including; Frieda the dwarf, the Bearded Lady, the half boy, the living torso, the half woman/half man,the pin heads, Koo-Koo the bird girl, the stork woman, the living skeleton and the armless wonders can not except her as one of them.
It is finally on their wedding night, when the Freaks learn that the whole thing is a hoax, when Cleo is repulsed and insulted by the freaks’ propsition she is now one of them having married Hans. The following evening the Freaks witness her trying to poison Hans, and plot a shocking, terrifying revenge, in an attempt to really make her one of them which is the code of the freaks: “offend one, you offend them all”.
The wedding scene is a prime example of excellent use of “mise en scene”, with the bird girl dancing atop the table, and the Freaks’ chanting of ” one of us, one of us…gooble, gobble…” while passing round “the loving cup of wine”.
The revenge scene however has to steel the title of one of the best scenes in cinematic history, with the freaks crawling in the pouring rain, chasing Cleo and Hercules through the woods. What makes it even more scary is that the viewer sees hardly anything, therefore the terror relies solely on imagination to decide what happened.

To conclude, this is a cult/horror/drama classic which needs a place in all DVD collections and proves tht you should’nt judge a book by its cover.
Rating: 5 / 5


 
Lawrance M. Bernabo
at 8:14 am

For years I had heard about the legendary Tod Browning film “Freaks” that so upset audiences it was banned in Boston and Great Britain. I had read the short story “Spurs” on which it was based and when the film was finally screened on campus I talked my roommate into going with me. Most of the people sitting around us knew nothing about the film and when I told them about it everybody started to get nervous. Then the film began…and we all loved it! My roommate and I both had crushes on Daisy Earles who plays Frieda in the film, opposite her brother Harry as Hans.

The story is quite simple: Hans and Frieda are a pair of midgets in love, but Hans thinks that Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) the bareback rider is beautiful. Cleopatra plays with Hans’ affections until she learns he has money. Over the objections of her boyfriend, Hercules (Henry Victor) the freak show strongman, she accepts Hans’ proposal. During the wedding feast when the freaks accept her into their ranks, she makes it clear how much she despises them all. But when Hans starts to become ill because of the poison she is feeding him, the freaks decide it is time to take matters into their own hands. The film’s climax, when the freaks chase Cleopatra and Hercules during a rainstorm, is truly chilling, although Cleopatra’s final fate is as unreal as it is ironic (and was supposed to be even worse: but the scene of Hercules singing soprano in Madame Tetralini’s new sideshow–think about it–was too intense for early audiences and was cut).

All Browning really did to terrify audience was to include real freaks in his film, such as Daisy and Violet Hilton the Siamese Twins, Schlitze the Pinhead Girl, Josephine Joseph the Half-Woman/Half-Man, Johnny Eck the Half Boy, Frances O’Connor the Turtle Girl, Peter Robinson the Living Human Skeleton, Olga Roderick the Bearded Lady, Koo Koo the Bird Girl, Martha Morris the Armless Wonder, and Randion the Living Torso, who rolls his own cigarettes despite having neither arms nor legs. The original short story “Spurs” by Tod Robbins had a midget falling for a bareback rider who marries him for his money and at their wedding feast puts her husband on her shoulders and boasts that she will carry him across France. With the aid of his large, angry dog he forces her to do just that. Browning’s film expands the scope of the story into something more complex and much more satisfying.

However, the film clearly portrays the “Freaks” with dignity. As Madame Tetrallini (Rose Dione) tells someone, “These are all God’s children.” The true monsters in this film are the “normal” human beings, who receive their just desserts. But when “Freaks” was relased it was banned in the United Kingdom for thirty years (and is still banned in Sweden). During that period Browning was blackballed in Hollywood. He had promised MGM the ultimate scary movie and given the reaction you have to conclude that he delivered. The film was originally intended to have what we would now consider an A-List cast with Victor McLaglen as Hercules, Myrna Loy as Cleopatra, and Jean Harlow as Venus. However, all of the stars reportedly balked at the prospect being in a film with “sideshow exhibitions.”

This 1932 film is clearly Browning’s best film, vastly superior to the more famous “Dracula,” which, after all, was basically a filmed stage play for the most part. It is not even close. You might screen this film for the first time because of its reputation, but you will watch it again because it is a pretty good film, especially given the time at which it was made.
Rating: 5 / 5


 
Anonymous
at 8:35 am

This is a film filled with numerous contradictions. It at once makes an attempt to defy preconceived ideas about ‘otherness’, yet at the same time undermines these attempts and therefore serves to reinforce them. Brownings direction is magnificent. The viewer is both unsettled by the use of so-called ‘real’ freaks, yet also intrigued, which creates a complex relationship between viewer and subject. Ultimately, instead of us considering the distinctions between ‘normal’ people and ‘freaks’ to become blurred throughout the course of the film, they actually become more clearly defined, and in particular from the freaks’ point of view. It becomes clear that they wish to preserve an identity of differentness and otherness and that is just what they do. They key scene for emphasising this fact is the wedding feast between Hans and Cleo. A communal cup is passed around the table accompanied by ritual chanting. But it is the freak community stamping their claim to a separateness and distictness from the rest of the circus folk. The chant goes “One of us. We accept her, we accept her. Gooble gobble, gooble gobble”, firstly asserting their right to be different and to set themselves apart in their self-contained ‘freak’ community, and secondly emphasising their strangeness and otherness with the gibberish and nonsensical chant. All in all, this is an excellent film. The controversy surrounding the film’s original release has made it all the more intriguing for the modern viewer who is attracted to the idea of controversy, however, it is likely that many such viewers will be disappointed. I myself was not.
Rating: 4 / 5


 
Mr. Graham S. King
at 9:34 am

You will never see another piece of cinematic history like this one. Some will say this is sick ( like my gf) but take it for what it is.

Fantastic acting, outstanding directing and moving to boot. It starts as a freak show, and ends as heart churning classic.
Rating: 5 / 5


 
v
at 11:01 am

I watched this film yesterday and I enjoyed thoroughly.

How often do we get to see the physically/mentally diverse in a film these days, let alone empowered and taking revenge over callous injustice! And we are supposed to be in the politically correct age.

Of course the people featured on this film are seen through the perspective of 1932, when deformity was considered circus material, not at all tolerated by society at large, and ‘freaks’ were confined to circuses and traveling fairs as exploitable attractions. But this film also shows that, even if not leading a dignified life by ordinary standards, the ‘freaks’ living in the circus were also able to earn a living and be part of an accepting community. They are portrayed as people with ordinary problems, relationships, and friendships.

A bit of a voyeuristic touch is noticeable as the man with no arms nor legs is shown lighting a cigarette (with a somewhat proud look in his eyes) or the lady with no arms drinks a glass of bubbly. This could also be viewed as simply showing how people different from us do the same things we do.

The horror chase at the end is quite scary, and despite this film taking the us/them perspective, between normal looking folks and ‘freaks’, and saying that ‘freaks’ have their own codes, in a conspiration theory science fiction, the movie’s final message is that physical diversity is acceptable, and indeed preferable to beauty when accompanied by evil behaviour, which is punished harshly in the end, when the beautiful baddie is transformed in what she despises the most.

The best part of this movie is that at first the ‘freaks’ (a man with no limbs, a lady with no arms, a man without legs, three microcephalus ladies, an extremely thin man, the classic circus bearded lady, and others) seem disturbing, but by the end of the movie their diversity is not as noticeable, as in view of their character, their smile, and the way we see their lives as not very different from our own, we identify with them.

I don’t think that in our age there is a much better acceptance of physical and mental diversity, and I consider this film as doing a better job at treating the subject than total invisibility in the media, which is pretty much the way in the 21st century.
Rating: 5 / 5


 

Reply

Copyright © 2024 Notcot All rights reserved. Theme by Laptop Geek. Site by I Want This Website. | Privacy Policy.