ironhorse_iv
Although, it was chosen for inclusion in the National Film Registry in 1994 and is considered by many to be a classic by many; 1931's Freaks still can makes some people feel uncomfortable, watching it. After all, a horror film about killer sideshow performers will indeed, raise some eyebrows even in today's extreme world. Some people still feel, that it is a horrific exploitation film. It can be certainly be argued that, since the film does somewhat invites audiences to gawk at, and eventually fear, the so-called "freaks" of the title. However, others audience members see it, as a mostly sympathetic portrayal. After all, the one-dimensional villains, strong-man Hercules (Henry Victor) & Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) was indeed conspiring to murder one of the freaks, in order to steal his large inheritance. In my opinion, the sideshows revenge plot was somewhat justified, because of that. Although, I agree with the sympathetic people; I still have to say, there are somethings about the film that still can be criticize. Not everything in this film was perfect. One is the notorious bad-acting from both the real-life sideshow performers, and the actors chosen to play the villains. The dialogue was really hard to heard, due to the thin German & Russian accents, some of the actors, had. Other times, the dialogue was some badly written, that it just doesn't sound natural, coming out of a performer's mouth. Although, director Todd Browning and his uncredited screenwriters offer frequent reminders of the sideshow performers' humanity, there were tons of parts in the film, where, the sideshow performers were looked down, upon, as children, rather than real-life adults. Other times, the camera somewhat linger, for a little too long. While, the 'slice of life' sequences, were somewhat entertaining, and does help expose, who these supporting characters, are. Plus, I understand, that director Tod Browning had previously worked as a contortionist in a traveling circus, but what does showing a long sequence in which a performer use her feet to do everyday activities, in an almost ballerina style grace, have to do with the main plot? Nothing. It really doesn't help, force the main story, along, at all. It felt like padding. Despite that, I still would had love to see the original now-lost 90 minute version, rather than the 64 minutes movie, we got, instead. Much of the violent sequences of the freaks attacking the villains was removed. Not only that, but a number of comedy sequences and most of the film's original epilogue was also cut from the film, due to executive meddling. Instead, a new prologue featuring a carnival barker was added, as well, as the new epilogue featuring the reconciliation of the tiny lovers, despite the fact, that the happy ending, doesn't work; as it come across as jarring and out of place. After all, how does a circus performer at that time, honestly, makes that much money? I never heard of millionaire midgets, before. Plus, it's disturbing to think, that they got back together, seeing how both of the actors, playing Hans (Harry Earles) & Frieda (Daisy Earles) were indeed brother and sister in real-life. Despite that, I do like, the fact, that they did cast real people with deformities as the eponymous sideshow "freaks", rather than using costumes and makeup on conventional actors. However, it's a bit disheartening to hear, that the sideshow actors, were banned from the MGM commissary due to complaints from other actors. Not only that, but were getting underpaid, compare to the normal actors for the same amount of time. Despite that, I like how 'Freaks' does seeks to unseat its audience's expectations and challenge their biases in a way. At the time, that was pretty daring for any major Hollywood released to a movie like this. Even today, some studios wouldn't even dare, go the lengths that this film does. For that, I have to give MGM, some props for that. It's just sad that this movie bomb at the box office for being too offensive. It even supposedly, cause an audience member to have a miscarriage. It got even worst, as the film was then sold off to exploitative, second-rate distributors in 1947 who truncated it, toured it and renamed with altered names like 'Nature's Mistakes', 'Forbidden Love' & 'The Monster Show'. Only to have it, then banned in the UK & parts of the US for the next thirty years after those releases. It's also sad, that this film, pretty much, ruin Tod Browning's film career. Yes, he did directed a few more films through 1939; however, he never had the success, as he had, before, making 'Freaks'. Was it, worth it for Browning? Yes, indeed, in my opinion. One gets an even stronger sense of Browning's likely motivations and intentions with this movie, when one read the source material, in which, this film was based on. Author Tod Robbins' strange and brutal short story "Spurs.", presents all of the characters, more monstrous and selfish than Browning's version. Another thing, while Robbins' story goes for broad comedy and more making fun of the disability, Browning's more sensitive adaptation finds something pointed and tragic instead. It's shows that Browning honestly care about, making this film, and it shows Overall: Browning's film powerfully grapples with the cruelty that people are capable of inflicting, when they fail to recognize someone else's humanity. That, rather than sensational exploitation, is why this movie continues to endure. It's a good movie to watch, but not a perfect film like some modern viewers think it is. Still, it's worth watching.
