littlemissattitude
Super Moderator
After the success of "Dracula" in 1931 Irving Thalberg (who now has an honorary Academy Award named after him), the head of production at MGM ordered up a new film. He said he wanted a film made that was "even more horrible than 'Dracula'". To accomplish this, the studio hired Tod Browning, the director of "Dracula". He obliged Thalberg by making "Freaks", which has become one of the most controversial film ever made. It was banned in the UK for thirty years after its release. It's still banned in Sweden. The laws banning it in some US cities and states, while not enforced any more, are still on the books in some jurisdictions.
But the uproar began before its release. Even during filming there was trouble, including horrified reactions when the cast members were allowed to eat lunch in the MGM commisary. The problem there was, Browning had hired authentic cirucs sideshow performers to play the "freaks" referred to in the film's title. He cast "little people", "pinheads" (microcephalics), a set of conjoined ("Siamese") twins, two women with no arms, a man with no legs who used his arms to get around (quite well, in fact), another man with no arms or legs. Oh, and a bearded lady. Among others. Today we would call exhibiting a cast like this politically incorrect; back then it was considered in incredibly poor taste, even though there were still working sideshows then. A number of cast members had been employed by Barnum and Bailey circus.
All of this served to make "Freaks" not only controversial, but legendary as well, turning it into a classic cult film. In today's world it is apparently considered at least acceptable for public consumption late at night on cable TV. Anyway, that is when and where I saw it, in a late-night showing on Turner Classic Movies. I'll admit it: I watched it partly out of curiosity, to see how horrifying the "freaks" really were. But I also wanted to see if there was anything other than the nature of the cast and the movie's long and sometimes strange history that has made it such a talked-about film, even all these years later.
The history of the film, in fact, is at least as interesting as the film itself. Despite the controversy during the filming, Thalberg refused to back down and shut the film down. But after it's release and the reaction of the audience, MGM pulled it from circulation and put it in the vault. However, they sold distribution rights to Dwain Esper, who took the film around the States, exhibiting it sensationally under such titles as "Forbidden Love" and "Nature's Mistakes". Eventually, "Freaks" disappeared from sight for years. A search for it began in the 1950s when it was suggested for exhibition at a horror film festival. At one time, distribution rights wer owned by Anton LeVay, the founder of the Church of Satan. It was one of the first midnight-showing cult films.
So, after all this history, is "Freaks" worth all the interest and all the controversy?
Well, it isn't the acting that makes "Freaks" memorable, at least not in any positive way. Most of the performances, even by the "normals", the professional actors, are best described as wooden. Except when it is completely over the top. And it isn't the dialogue, which is stilted and unnatural, and delivered inexpertly in many cases. This is understandable on the part of the authentic circus performers in the film; for many, this was their only film appearance. Still, there is something about "Freaks" that pulls the viewer - or at least this viewer - in. I stuck with it for the full 64 minute running time even though it was late and I was very tired. It has, for lack of a better term, a spirit that permeates it, makes it watchable despite its deficits compared more modern films cast with more experienced actors.
The story is very simple. Hans, a dwarf, is engaged to be married to Frieda, another dwarf. Hans, however, has become enamored of Cleopatra, a "normal" circus perfomer. She is tall, blonde, and beautiful. Cleopatra teases Hans, leading him along, at first to make fun of him and then for the gifts and money he gives her, even as she is carrying on an affair with Hercules, the circus strong man. When Cleopatra learns that Hans has inherited a fortune, however, she marries him for his money and then proceeds to slowly poison him. When the rest of the freaks discover her plot, they have their revenge, turning their wedding-feast chant of acceptance of her, that they will make her "one of them" into the literal truth. The freaks, it seems, can become a bit vicious when one their own is harmed. But it was a righetous anger, and the moral of the story seems not to be a warning against the different in society, but just the opposite. In this film, it is the "normals" who are the real freaks.
In my view, it is this theme that caused the real trouble around the film. I'm not sure the audience, filled mostly with "normals", was ready to see folks they routinely marginalized, thought of as "freaks", shown as having normal emotions and normal desires while the characters they saw as "normal" - tall, whole, beautiful - portrayed as cruel, greedy, and murderous. The indignation over the display of the disfigured, I think, probably covered the visceral response to seeing the normal as horribly abnormal. In 1932, when "Freaks" was released, circus sideshows displaying such people were common. It was a time when the handicapped, physically and mentally, were often hidden away in the back bedroom or in an institution, and it was often advocated that such individuals be sterilized so that they would not reproduce. This film, however, showed such folks working, doing daily tasks, gossiping, falling in love, marrying, getting jealous, just like regular folks do. That must have been the real shock of the film to the original viewers.
But the uproar began before its release. Even during filming there was trouble, including horrified reactions when the cast members were allowed to eat lunch in the MGM commisary. The problem there was, Browning had hired authentic cirucs sideshow performers to play the "freaks" referred to in the film's title. He cast "little people", "pinheads" (microcephalics), a set of conjoined ("Siamese") twins, two women with no arms, a man with no legs who used his arms to get around (quite well, in fact), another man with no arms or legs. Oh, and a bearded lady. Among others. Today we would call exhibiting a cast like this politically incorrect; back then it was considered in incredibly poor taste, even though there were still working sideshows then. A number of cast members had been employed by Barnum and Bailey circus.
All of this served to make "Freaks" not only controversial, but legendary as well, turning it into a classic cult film. In today's world it is apparently considered at least acceptable for public consumption late at night on cable TV. Anyway, that is when and where I saw it, in a late-night showing on Turner Classic Movies. I'll admit it: I watched it partly out of curiosity, to see how horrifying the "freaks" really were. But I also wanted to see if there was anything other than the nature of the cast and the movie's long and sometimes strange history that has made it such a talked-about film, even all these years later.
The history of the film, in fact, is at least as interesting as the film itself. Despite the controversy during the filming, Thalberg refused to back down and shut the film down. But after it's release and the reaction of the audience, MGM pulled it from circulation and put it in the vault. However, they sold distribution rights to Dwain Esper, who took the film around the States, exhibiting it sensationally under such titles as "Forbidden Love" and "Nature's Mistakes". Eventually, "Freaks" disappeared from sight for years. A search for it began in the 1950s when it was suggested for exhibition at a horror film festival. At one time, distribution rights wer owned by Anton LeVay, the founder of the Church of Satan. It was one of the first midnight-showing cult films.
So, after all this history, is "Freaks" worth all the interest and all the controversy?
Well, it isn't the acting that makes "Freaks" memorable, at least not in any positive way. Most of the performances, even by the "normals", the professional actors, are best described as wooden. Except when it is completely over the top. And it isn't the dialogue, which is stilted and unnatural, and delivered inexpertly in many cases. This is understandable on the part of the authentic circus performers in the film; for many, this was their only film appearance. Still, there is something about "Freaks" that pulls the viewer - or at least this viewer - in. I stuck with it for the full 64 minute running time even though it was late and I was very tired. It has, for lack of a better term, a spirit that permeates it, makes it watchable despite its deficits compared more modern films cast with more experienced actors.
The story is very simple. Hans, a dwarf, is engaged to be married to Frieda, another dwarf. Hans, however, has become enamored of Cleopatra, a "normal" circus perfomer. She is tall, blonde, and beautiful. Cleopatra teases Hans, leading him along, at first to make fun of him and then for the gifts and money he gives her, even as she is carrying on an affair with Hercules, the circus strong man. When Cleopatra learns that Hans has inherited a fortune, however, she marries him for his money and then proceeds to slowly poison him. When the rest of the freaks discover her plot, they have their revenge, turning their wedding-feast chant of acceptance of her, that they will make her "one of them" into the literal truth. The freaks, it seems, can become a bit vicious when one their own is harmed. But it was a righetous anger, and the moral of the story seems not to be a warning against the different in society, but just the opposite. In this film, it is the "normals" who are the real freaks.
In my view, it is this theme that caused the real trouble around the film. I'm not sure the audience, filled mostly with "normals", was ready to see folks they routinely marginalized, thought of as "freaks", shown as having normal emotions and normal desires while the characters they saw as "normal" - tall, whole, beautiful - portrayed as cruel, greedy, and murderous. The indignation over the display of the disfigured, I think, probably covered the visceral response to seeing the normal as horribly abnormal. In 1932, when "Freaks" was released, circus sideshows displaying such people were common. It was a time when the handicapped, physically and mentally, were often hidden away in the back bedroom or in an institution, and it was often advocated that such individuals be sterilized so that they would not reproduce. This film, however, showed such folks working, doing daily tasks, gossiping, falling in love, marrying, getting jealous, just like regular folks do. That must have been the real shock of the film to the original viewers.
