| |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
| |
Freaks
Freaks contains three consecutive minutes of pure, relentless terror. These three minutes alone are so unnerving and gripping that they earn the film its title as one of the most terrifying cinematic experiences of all time. If the rest of the film is tame in comparison, it is only so that these three minutes can jolt you in a way that you never expected. I fear that this description reveals more than I should have revealed. Tod Browning’s Freaks is not a horror film by the popular definition of the word. There are no fright-scenes or demonic forces at work. Rather, it is a character-study about selfish people who do greedy things and the horrific consequences that they must suffer. Browning’s strategy is not much different from that of William Friedkin’s in The Exorcist, except Browning moves at a quieter pace and is much smaller and personal than the later, more charged movie about demonic possession: He develops his characters, develops their story, and forces us to watch what happens to them as they fall into corruption and depravity. The film concerns the family lifestyle and the moral codes that circus freaks follow. By freaks, of course, the film means those born with physical deficiencies that render them so bizarre or frightening in appearance that they often could find no other job except as sideshow entertainers. In today’s politically correct world this is certainly not the case, but in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, such sideshows were all the rage: People would come in flocks to gawk at the likes of the half-woman-half-man, Siamese twins, the Armless Wonder, and midgets and little people of varying height and deformities. Because these misfits are such social outcasts literally confined to the circus, they must find solace and friendship with each other. The result is a community spirit that would but the United Nations to shame: When a family member is sad, all of them are sad. When a family member is happy, all of them are happy. When a family member is wronged, all of them revenge. We follow this group in painstaking detail as they experience all of the above, and we realize that they are a very human, very charming group of individuals. This realization simmers to a boil until the conclusion, when the final listed scenario—revenge—leads to images that are absolutely unforgettable, startling, and seemingly unexpected. Wow, what a payoff. Today, most of the film is mild and static, mainly because we have become used to images of the grotesque and deranged. As a result, most of the film comes across as more dramatic than horrific. Nevertheless, Freaks sparked a great deal of controversy during the time of its release because of its use of real-life circus freaks as the principal cast. There is no makeup applied onto any of these small performers—they are really midgets, really disfigured. I can certainly sympathize with Britain, which banned the film for thirty years until finally releasing it with an X-rating. If the images of a legless man walking around on his hands, or a man with only his torso slithering around like a human caterpillar, or child-like midget smiling sinisterly as he plans his revenge channel Jerry Springer today, it certainly must have packed a terrifying, sensational punch back in 1932. Like The Exorcist, this film was accused of exploitation, though I do not think this is a fair accusation: Freaks simply captures the sideshow-discrimination that existed in 1932 anyway, but it successfully counters it by looking into this group of people and seeing them as witty, capable human beings. If it eventually uses them for scenes of horror, these moments are utilized well in a storyline that shows these outcast’s loyalty and community spirit to one another. Browning also directed the Universal-produced Dracula the previous year, though Freaks is light years beyond that film in terms of character development and payoff. Dracula worked because of its haunting sets and creepy atmosphere, not to mention the superb Bela Lugosi as a surreal, sexy Count Dracula. That said, while that film contained some genuinely creepy images, it was certainly predictable and mild, even for its own time. Freaks plays completely the opposite of Dracula—it is grotesque and realistic, with little concern for surrealistic horror. Brown merely points the camera at the sideshow freaks and lets their story create their own mood and atmosphere. The results are a little hit-and-miss, at least until the final closing minutes: Because the jolt that this film caused in 1932 is missing today, we are able to see that the pacing is often slow, the acting wooden, some subplots extraneous, and the dialogue very weak. But I cannot deny that these weaknesses are forgotten in those terrifying three minutes when Browning pulls the film’s loose ends together for a riveting, blood-curdling conclusion. Certainly Freaks is a film contained in its own time. Certainly it is flawed. But it is also clever, engaging, and ultimately terrifying. I have often seen it listed in the top five scariest movies of all time, and I wholeheartedly agree that it belongs in such a ranking. That a film can contain enough terror in a mere three minutes of running time to merit such a high place on those lists is achievement enough, and it certainly helps that the rest of the film is also pretty good drama. A.K.A.: The Monster Show Cast: A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer production. Directed by Tod Browning. Written by Tod Robbins, from his novel. No M.P.A.A. rating, but probably too intense for children under the age of 13. Running time: 67 minutes. Original United States theatrical release date: February 20, 1932. Questions? Comments? E-mail me: danel_the_tinman@hotmail.com |
||
