"Freaks," 1932

"One of Us"



ADDENDUM: Rogi found this article today, April 29. It's a thorough review of the social impact of the movie, "Freaks." By the way, "Freaks" began with a suggestion by the little person who became the lead actor in the film. It's a good analysis of stereotypes of people with disabilities, especially of women. Very interesting read. Too long to post here:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-21221638.html

Rogi thinks this was a ground-breaking film: it was the first time genetic anomolies ("freaks") and people with disabilities performed as they were, not as "magical" or mythical creatures. It was an opportunity for these actors to show their acting skills. It was an opportunity to earn a living in films. It was an opportunity to participate in a project that was SYMPATHETIC to their lives, not an exploitation of them.

The story is a melodrama:
Tagline: Can a full grown woman truly love a MIDGET ?
Plot Outline:A circus' beautiful trapeze artist agrees to marry the leader of side-show performers, but his deformed (sic) friends discover she is only marrying him for his inheritance.

Freaks isn't really a horror film, although the horror boom that began in 1931 precipitated Freaks entering production. The script developed out of an earlier one named "Spurs" that had been in MGM's possession since the late 1920s. The success of Universal's horror films of 1931 (Dracula and Frankenstein) had studios scrambling to cash in on the trend. Horror films weren't new, of course, but repeated commercial success of horror films released in quick succession was. A number of factors contributed to the phenomenon, including the Great Depression, the lingering cultural impact from World War I, and the advent of sound films. So even though Freaks wasn't exactly horror, and the protagonists weren't exactly monsters, it was close enough. In the early 1930s, the public had not yet been overexposed to media-sensationalized differences in human appearances and behavior. The effect of the film then, in conjunction with memories of real life horrors, including those of war-mangled veterans, offered the emotional reaction that producers and studios are often seeking from horror films.

But Freaks is really part tragic drama, part character study, and in many ways it is almost a documentary. The modern attraction to the film comes from a few sources. One, the "gawking effect", or the simple fact of watching the freaks in action. Sideshows are an unfortunately dying phenomenon, if they're not already dead (many would say they are), largely because of a combination of medical advances, which often "cure" the physical differences that would have made "victims" sideshow candidates, and political correctness, which mistakenly sees sideshows as negatively exploitative. It's fascinating watching the different kinds of people in the film and their behavior, including not only their social interactions, but how some of them manage to just get around and perform everyday activities such as eating, lighting a cigarette, and so on. This kind of material takes up at least half of the film's short running time (64 minutes; initially it ran closer to 90 minutes, but 26 minutes of cuts were made (and are now apparently lost) to appease the New York State censor board).

You can read more about the film, "Freaks," here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022913/

The BEST part of this website is that you can meet & learn about the careers & lives of the "Freak" actors, some of whom went on to some seriously-impressive things, as a result of their participation in the movie.