Catching Up On The Classics: Freaks (1932)

Freaks is a very rare kind of movie. In the special message prologue preceding the movie, it is said that "never again will such a story be filmed" and I think for the time being that that is probably true. Though based on a much darker short story called "Spurs," director Tod Browning still wanted to be able to tale a truly horrific story with Freaks - something he very much succeeded in because the film was widely controversial upon its release. Over time, audiences have come to more appreciate this tale of deception, prejudice and revenge; though it no doubt also still has the power to unsettle and disturb those who see it.

As a sort of "circus soap opera" (as one interviewee on the DVD feature put it), Freaks follows the behind-the-scenes lives of performers in a traveling sideshow circus. When dwarf Hans becomes infatuated with Cleopatra, the "normal"-sized beautiful trapeze artist, she plays along with him to get him to buy her things and laugh at him with her real beau, strongman Hercules. Cleopatra then finds out that Hans is actually due a large inheritance, and she schemes to marry him and then slowly murder him with poison to collect the money. Hans and the other freaks at the circus discover this and soon concoct their own plan for revenge.

(Simply for the purposes of brevity and avoiding confusion, let me just say that I will refer to any of the actors with real deformities here as "freaks." I'm not trying to be disrespectful or mean, obviously. Hopefully you get it.)

I loved this movie, but it's almost hard for me admit to that without feeling a little bad. My conflict is this: while I think the movie is well played out and expresses great empathy for the freaks, something in me niggles a bit at Browning's choice to cast people with real physical deformities. Freaks is often described as an exploitation film probably because of this choice. If (goodness help us) Freaks were ever remade today, there is no absolutely no chance that they would ever get away with using people with real deformities. I don't think Freaks is an exploitation film in the sense that it uses the real freaks to shock us. I think it is that the audience only feels like they are the ones exploiting these people simply by watching the movie, and perhaps trying to see as much as it can of their lives and what they can do. I felt like a peeping tom looking in on their private lives and guilty for wanting to see more.

Browning seems to even play on this a few times. There are several seemingly unimportant scenes with a few of the different freaks and Browning's intentions are either confusing or misinterpreted, depending on who you ask. He has short bits with the Living Torso lighting a cigarette with his mouth, one of the Armless Girls eating dinner with her feet, and a sideplot with the Siamese Twins and their respective fiances. Because these scenes have nothing to do with the central plot, I can see how some might think Browning included them just to "show off" the freaks and their freaky skills. It seems to me though that Browning actually had a lot of respect and love for them, though, and these scenes were included to show that the freaks were very normal people and it was only what was on the outside that was different about them.

All this confusion is made all the more difficult to deal with while watching the movie because the freaks are all awesome people. Aside from Venus the animal trainer and Phroso the clown (who is actually very annoying at times), it is the so-called normal people - Cleopatra and Hercules - who are the ones we hate the most for their prejudice of the freaks; their self-centeredness; their manipulation of Hans and Frieda; and their greed. The freaks are sweet, fun people who obviously feel very comfortable and at home in their community, despite the fact that their jobs are to show off their deformities for gawkers. Even when the freaks take their revenge at the end, a part of you is definitely rooting for them. I also have to point out here that while I hated her character Cleopatra, I absolutely loved Olga Baclanova's portrayal of her. The way she speaks and all her little gestures really sell that this woman is completely full of herself and just a really bad human being. Olga at the wedding feast is fantastic - every annoying drunk person you ever knew, right there.

That wedding feast scene and the final scene are probably the two most famous from the film. The former because of all the freaks chanting "We accept her, we accept her! One of us, one of us!" and the latter because of its very creepy and scary imagery. The whole sequence is really just stunning as the freaks go after Hercules and Cleopatra during a rainstorm. The shots of the freaks crawling in the mud under the wagons, weapons in hand, or running in the woods toward Cleopatra are all so incredibly beautiful and well composed and very disturbing all at the same time. It's what everybody remembers most about the movie, except maybe for the reveal of Cleopatra as the human duck thing in the next scene. In the version of the movie I watched, there was this whole denouement scene with Hans, Frieda, Venus, and Phroso, but I really didn't like that or think it was necessary. I think it would have been much more effective to end the movie on Cleopatra the duck.

So I've finally seen Freaks and I'm so glad that I did. Like I said before, it is a very, very rare movie in that we will never see anything like it ever again. A truly unique and fascinating tale, Tod Browning's Freaks was saved from obscurity to be enjoyed and appreciated for future generations and I think we all need to do our part to keep that going.

Classic Monster Movie Marathon: Dracula (1931)

The vampire subgenre of horror films has taken some good turns and some bad turns over its lengthy time on the big screen. Bram Stoker's 1897 gothic novel Dracula was first adapted for film - albeit, unofficially and unauthorized - with the 1922 movie Nosferatu. Since then, the famous Count has appeared a number of times in different adaptations and versions...

... just to name a few. However, there is no movie or no performance of Count Dracula more well-known or as recognizable as the 1931 film Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi in the titular role. This movie has an indelible place in the history of horror, and for good reason. To say that it is dated would probably be an understatement, but though the movie is over 80 years old, it still works. And why shouldn't it? The classic story and characters have been the inspiration for countless films, television shows, stage plays, novels, short stories, and comic books over the years.

One of the most obvious reasons for the film's longevity is the portrayal of Dracula by Lugosi. Watching the movie now in 2012, I still love almost everything that he does with the role. Lugosi's slow movement, mannerisms, and speech created a character that was charming and mysterious. With one eyebrow almost constantly raised and a crooked, cruel smile, Lugosi commands his presence whenever he is on screen, with every facial movement and hand gesture having a purpose. In this way, Lugosi was quite revolutionary in portraying the vampire, a monster that for all purposes looks and acts human, but is really not. They are still, simply, monsters who feed on the lifeblood of humans. They don't know how to act truly human themselves. Lugosi's speech pattern is often imitated or made fun of these days, with his accent, careful pronunciation, and pauses ("I never drink... wine," "We will leave... tomorrrrrrow eve...ning...") and I have to admit that I found myself smiling as well almost every time he opened his mouth, but I think it was a brilliant choice for this role. 

For me, though, the real scene stealer of the movie is Dwight Frye as Renfield. I had completely forgotten about this wonderfully creepy performance from the first time I saw Dracula many years ago. Renfield is the character who leads the audience to Castle Dracula in the beginning of the movie where he is then put under the Count's spell. Dracula uses him to help him travel to England by ship, and when Renfield is discovered as the last "surviving" person aboard, he is mad. That shot of Renfield looking up and laughing that insanely weird laugh is still very chilling and effective, as is the shot of him crawling on the floor toward the maid after she's fainted. Like Lugosi, Frye also created an iconic character that is sadly not as recognized as it should be. His plastered-on crazy face and the conviction that he puts into each one of his lines completely sells the character and is a great juxtaposition to the Renfield in earlier scenes.

Most of the story centers around Dr. Seward, who runs the sanitarium where Renfield is placed after being found on the ship; his daughter Mina and her fiance John Harker; and Professor Van Helsing, who has knowledge of vampires and is able to see Dracula for what he is. Dracula focuses on Mina for his vampire-making seduction game, coming to visit her several times in the night. This is probably where the romanticism of vampires originated - not just biting a person and making them a vampire, but slowing getting them under their thrall and attacking them in their beds, which has obvious sexual undertones. The one scene where the character of Mina really shines is when it is revealed that she has been made into a vampire. It's a slow reveal, and you almost don't really notice what is happening until Mina starts to look very lustfully at John, or at least at his neck. 

You almost can't compete with the sets on this film. Dracula's castle is just as it should be, huge and gothic and perched precariously on a cliff with only one road leading up to it. The castle is deliciously old and decrepit, with crumbling and broken concrete, and cobwebs everywhere (love that huge spider web on the staircase). The monstrous staircase at Carfax Abbey is also iconic, as is the basement that holds the coffins for Dracula and his wives. Director Tod Browning makes perfect use of wide shots in these locations to really show them off and add to the gothic nature of the film. I only wished that there more scenes in other parts of the castle, as we only get a limited view of what is surely a grandiose beauty of architecture. 

Certain camera and editing tricks are used effectively in some scenes that I really loved. Love the part at the beginning where Dracula somehow walks through the large spider web covering his staircase without disturbing it. The well-known trick of identifying a vampire by the fact that he casts no reflection in mirrors is stumbled upon by Van Helsing, when John opens a little chest with a mirror in it and Van Helsing sees that Dracula is not there. The camera also teases the viewer by cutting away or dissolving at the moments right before Dracula bites a victim. Being 1931, I'm sure that actually showing the act would have been a huge no-no. But here, it works. It adds to the mystery of the vampire that all his dark deeds are done in secret, and all his charm would be taken away if he was shown feeding like an animal on a victim. Plus, it would have been a very sexual scene indeed, a part of the vampire lore that would be explored in later movies.

What more is there to say really? Dracula is a classic and will probably remain so forever. Even in our MTV generation, one can still admire and respect the subtle brilliance of this tale of the famous Count, his brides, his Renfield, and those that try to thwart him. Seriously, who doesn't love Dracula? I know I do.