Cinema has always shocked people, and filmmakers have always looked for the next way to do so. But Tod Browning, who had just directed the classic Dracula starring Bela Lugosi, was not trying to shock anyone. He was not trying to disgust anyone. He was simply make a film, from a story by Tod Robbin’s, about a dwarf’s infatuation with an average sized woman. The result was more than an oddly paired couple, it was more than a lust story, and it was more than the oft-described horror film that categorizes it today. In 1932, Freaks repulsed its audiences and was banned in the UK for 30 years. It essentially destroyed Browning prolific if not profitable career. And it now stands as one of the more potent and poignant films of cinema past.
Browning worked as a contortionist among other things during his teen years in the circus. The material of Robbin’s short story, “Spurs”, was natural to him. For the audience it was not. He cast real sideshow oddities; a testament to the abnormalities of human anatomy. The pinheads dance merrily in the forest, encircling the human skeleton whose thin physique exposes his inner framework. The legless Johnny Eck joins them; moving adeptly on his arms as if they were legs. The Human Caterpillar (aka Human Torso) rocks back and forth, moving inch by inch. Later, he lights a cigarette by manipulating the match with only his mouth. We may be shocked at what we see, we may be offended. We may wish, as one character does, that such creatures be smothered at birth. Browning does not, and while the inherent exploitation that exists because of cinema’s nature may argue against it, neither does his film.
The creatures on-screen, the freaks, are not monsters. The physically deformed and mentally unequipped are not the danger. It is those that are “normal” that cause the trouble, those that consciously harm others to better themselves. Browning not only humanizes those that look least human but he uglifies those that are the true monsters. It’s no little wonder that the film turned out as it did; the source story casts the freaks as incompatible and indeed freakish. Certainly a horror film today would make them the monster. And it could certainly be argued that such portrayal would be more effective. Does this mean that this film could not be made today, not only because of its content but because of its tone?
Cinema has undoubtedly changed since the early thirties and more legality surrounds what one can do, for better or worse. I would like to think that such an interesting and eye-opening film could be made today without suffering the expected turns. I recommend this film not only for its various success at fostering humanity and acceptance but also because it is, frankly, weird and amazing. I mentioned in an earlier post a quote that suggests the final interpretation is with the viewer. And in this case it may become shock value, we may watch it simply to see the freaks in all their glory, certainly the cult status this film has achieved can give credit to this reason. To me, that’s part of cinema; to see things, observe them, and hopefully be amazed.
I do not disagree that ‘Freaks’ was a penetrating and touching film with its significance only magnified by the social context it was presented in; far ahead of its time in its dexterity of such a sensitive topic, albeit one that can be generalized to time-less and context-less audiences (namely, anyone who has ever felt love, rejection, or loneliness). You argue that Browning was presenting a story that was not meant to shock or disturb; a subject that to him may have seemed natural and ordinary in light of his experience in the circus. Perhaps to him, it was simply a tragic and touching story that anyone who has ever felt the loneliness that accompanies humanity could relate to and appreciate. To portray such a story is a noble pursuit that takes exceptional insightfulness, integrity, and intuition.
ReplyDeleteHowever. While Browning may have presented his subject in an objective and honest way, I am not sure that he entirely ignored the strange exoticism and intrinsically ‘forbidden’ tone of the story. Perhaps he overestimated his audience’s depth of compassion and understanding, or perhaps he underestimated (to a degree) the extent of the taboo held by society towards anything ‘odd’. But to expect the audience to be as objective as he, especially in the 1930’s, would be naïve. Again, I do not intend to undermine his commendable intent; he did try to change misperceptions and by leveling the humanity and compassion of the anomalies with the truly monstrous behavior of the ‘norm’. Ideally, he wanted his audience to sympathize with the likable sideshow performers in spite of their physical abnormalities and detest the despicable “ordinary” performers for their hatred and exploitation. The fact remains, though, that he chose a shocking story as a vehicle for this juxtaposition. I am certain he never meant to exploit or capitalize on his cast, but I do think that perhaps he recognized the strange nature of the content and I think he was aware of the draw it would have on his audience. For example, he titled the film “Freaks”. I realize that it is intentionally meant to be a paradox: that the true freaks are the beast-like “ordinary” performers, but the word itself is certain to elicit attention and morbid curiosity. Pairing the title with an image or even a vague knowledge of the content would probably foster the stereotype- precisely the opposite of objectivity. Secondly, he chose to make a film about sideshow performers. It’s already a foreign and mysterious topic as it is. After all, you mentioned in your review that you recommend the film not only for its affective content, but also because it is “weird and amazing”. If Browning truly wanted to be objective, he could have used the same themes of love, rejection, discrimination, and loneliness using metaphorical minorities (thereby removing any preconditioned stigma) instead of actual ones. But then would it be honest? No. In this case, I do not think Browning was being entirely objective with his project, although perhaps he tried to be objective with his portrayal of the characters. But if distorting or minimizing the story in order to obtain objectivity, or compromising its veracity to appear neutral for the purpose of suppressing socialized reactions of shock or distress from the audience… well, I don’t want to see that film. I watch films because I want to see, and be emotionally stirred in some way by, the truth. The truth may be objective, but humans simply are not.
Essentially I agree with you. The meaning of a film, or any art, is established by its perceiver and all of the experiences, stereotypes, schemas, emotions, beliefs, prejudices (no matter how inherent) that come with being human.