I caught the Hilton Sisters in 1951's "Chained For Life" a couple weeks ago, and while researching that film, I was pointed in the direction of Tod Browning's "Freaks". I had heard of it before of course, but hadn't realized that the picture dated back to the early 1930's. MGM's Irving Thalberg wished to capitalize on the popularity of horror films of the era, one of which was Browning's year earlier take on the all time classic "Dracula". The studio already owned the rights to the short story "Spurs" by Tod Robbins on which this movie was based, and had the active interest of Lon Chaney Sr. in bringing the story to film before he died in 1930.
It goes beyond saying that this is a picture that won't appeal to everyone, but at the same time I don't think you have to suffer from voyeuristic tendencies to find it gripping. Unless you grew up in the Depression era (and that leaves most of the current population out), you wouldn't ever have seen such a large collection of human anomalies on display in one place at one time. My own experience of growing up in the 1950's allowed me to sample a mere shadow of these holdovers from a prior era at the local county fair, but sadly, they were of the half man/half woman and 'man eating chicken' variety - not 'true freaks' in the sense of the word that the title offers here.
Needless to say, the movie became a lightning rod for Hollywood backlash groups when it first came out, who also targeted the sudden popularity of gangster films. Although the picture did well in major cities like New York, MGM didn't want to take it on the financial chin with wide release, and pulled it from their calendar. The picture was actually banned for almost three decades until the counter-culture of the 1960's revived the picture in this country. After all, if you considered yourself a hippie-freak and found all things 'freaky' to your liking, it was inevitable that a picture with the same title would find a new audience.
Too many other reviewers on this board have retold the picture's main plot, so instead I'll offer my impressions of the characters. I think I found Johnny Eck the Half Boy to be the most interesting. I couldn't get over how easily he scrambled from place to place, maneuvering stairs and obstacles as easily as you or I can walk on flat ground. I found Prince Randian, the Human Torso to be truly disturbing. I know, I know, I'm trying to be as objective as possible about this, and maybe that's one of the confounding things about being 'normal'. Who's to say that any one of us has the authority to proclaim what's normal?
You know, I've seen a wide variety of films in all genres, but I don't think any single one ends as creepily grotesque as the final attack on Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) in one of the picture's final scenes. Under the dark of night and crawling through the mud, the image of a dozen mis-shapen but determined attackers is enough to create a week's worth of nightmares. You have to remind yourself that this isn't modern day CGI or some other kind of trick photography or special effects wizard at work. I'd watch it all over again if I didn't have to get some sleep tonight.
It goes beyond saying that this is a picture that won't appeal to everyone, but at the same time I don't think you have to suffer from voyeuristic tendencies to find it gripping. Unless you grew up in the Depression era (and that leaves most of the current population out), you wouldn't ever have seen such a large collection of human anomalies on display in one place at one time. My own experience of growing up in the 1950's allowed me to sample a mere shadow of these holdovers from a prior era at the local county fair, but sadly, they were of the half man/half woman and 'man eating chicken' variety - not 'true freaks' in the sense of the word that the title offers here.
Needless to say, the movie became a lightning rod for Hollywood backlash groups when it first came out, who also targeted the sudden popularity of gangster films. Although the picture did well in major cities like New York, MGM didn't want to take it on the financial chin with wide release, and pulled it from their calendar. The picture was actually banned for almost three decades until the counter-culture of the 1960's revived the picture in this country. After all, if you considered yourself a hippie-freak and found all things 'freaky' to your liking, it was inevitable that a picture with the same title would find a new audience.
Too many other reviewers on this board have retold the picture's main plot, so instead I'll offer my impressions of the characters. I think I found Johnny Eck the Half Boy to be the most interesting. I couldn't get over how easily he scrambled from place to place, maneuvering stairs and obstacles as easily as you or I can walk on flat ground. I found Prince Randian, the Human Torso to be truly disturbing. I know, I know, I'm trying to be as objective as possible about this, and maybe that's one of the confounding things about being 'normal'. Who's to say that any one of us has the authority to proclaim what's normal?
You know, I've seen a wide variety of films in all genres, but I don't think any single one ends as creepily grotesque as the final attack on Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) in one of the picture's final scenes. Under the dark of night and crawling through the mud, the image of a dozen mis-shapen but determined attackers is enough to create a week's worth of nightmares. You have to remind yourself that this isn't modern day CGI or some other kind of trick photography or special effects wizard at work. I'd watch it all over again if I didn't have to get some sleep tonight.