A circus' beautiful trapeze artist agrees to marry the leader of side-show performers, but his deformed friends discover she is only marrying him for his inheritance.
There is something disturbing about Freaks, something that goes beyond the typical, visceral response the audience is supposed to develop after seeing these physically-deformed and/or handicapped characters parade around their circus dwelling. Certainly that "awkward" feeling is exactly what the filmmakers wanted to create, but even then, there's so much more to be disturbed by than appearances alone.
Freaks is clearly the 1932 version of an exploitation film, a motion picture whereby the entertainment is mainly based on the exoticisms of these "monstrosities," the word that the film uses. It's important to note that the political correctness standards we live by today hardly existed back in the era of the Great Depression, a time where equal rights was more of an eccentric plea than an accepted mentality. But still, it wasn't as if the exploitation aspects weren't noted; several viewers, actors, and even one of the chosen "freaks" (the Bearded Lady) regretted working on the film.
Part of the discomfort lies in the approach and execution. There is obviously a discrepancy in what the film (specifically, Browning) wanted to do and what it actually did. Freaks purported to humanize the disabled and monster-ize the normal humans, but a number of scenes and bits of dialog were removed, toning down the social commentary and toning up the exploitation factor, making the film's central characters more attuned to inclusive monsters geared toward vengeance than a close-knit group of people who are protective of one another.
So for every scene of humanizing dialog, there are two scenes designed to see the "freaks" in action and awe. For every moment designed to make these characters seem real, there are two moments where we are supposed to laugh and/or cringe at their physical state. There is no denying that, even for the scant few good moments, the exploitation factor is high and accountable.
At least the central story is self-aware of the film's meta-commentary. When a beautiful trapeze artist (Cleopatra) gets wind of Hans (a midget) and his inherited fortune, she pretends to love him while exploiting him for his money, while conspiring with strongman Hercules. Hans unwittingly showers his beau with gifts, until an inebriated Cleo exposes her distrust and hate for the non-normal circus dwellers. Their plan is soon exposed soon-after, which brings the full force of the "freaks" upon them.
There is little comfort in the resulting act; at the risk of a SPOILER, Cleopatra is somehow transformed into a chicken-like girl, which in retrospect, reeks of disturbing misinformation, that somehow these people possess some type of voodoo magic that they can unleash when angry. Although this perhaps is better than the original ending, where the "freaks" had castrated Hercules (such a masochist/sadist-sexual attack could only exercise the deepest of the audience's fears). In the theatrical ending, he is merely killed.
I do not mean to sound as if I am harping on the film; in fact, Freaks, in its own way, exposes a number on engaging historical elements that seek to explain the world of the 1930s and their response to the exotic, the different, the exploited, and the abnormal. There is not much difference in the intention of Freaks as compared to, let's say, Funny Games, Saw, or Hostel, save for the ratings. Imagine, a hundred years from now, when film historians look back at those films. I image they would have similar critiques.
A prologue exists before the showing of the film, as if to justify Freaks' very existence, defining the history and situation of many physically-deformed people throughout time. "Never again will such a story be filmed, as modern science and teratology is rapidly elimination such blunders of nature from the world." Calling them "blunders" belittles the sincere hope of a deformity-free future, but as we well know, exploitation will never go away.
(I do apologize in advance if anything I stated in this piece offended anyone in any way. It is very difficult to write about the exploitation of any kind without straying beyond that very thin line between discussion and offensiveness.)
2010 MOVIE REVIEWS
BOX OFFICE RESULTS
2010 MOVIE TRAILERS
FREAKS, 1932
