Freaks (1932) *

the bearded lady has a baby

 I don't think I could do the film justice with just one blog post about it. There's a lot to absorb and think about. There's so much lost that could have even enlightened us even more, I think. Only a certain audience in 1932, all deceased, ever knew what Browning's intact film actually had. Lost because of prejudices Freaks (1932) exposes. Behind the scenes, I have read about studio folks who expressed their own disgusting human behavior, furthering the narrative that the true "monsters" are those considered "normal". Browning's film, even at just 60 minutes, still exposes the normies of their detestable character. That you can read of all the reactions from the Louis D Mayer and actors of "renown" at MGM. That Thalberg believed in this project is probably the only reason it is available even at 60 minutes, as "uncut" as it will ever be, sad to say.

I was quite taken aback by this viewing, a lot I just seemed to either miss, forget, or escaped me. I don't know. Like the stuttering Roscoe and chivalrous Angeleno in love with Siamese twins, Daisy and Violet Hilton separately. Angeleno kisses Daisy and Violet feels it, responding as if overswept herself by the moment. Roscoe fights with Daisy, as Violet, for whom Roscoe plans to marry (and vice versa), must endure their squabbles. When Daisy wants to get away from Roscoe, Violet agrees while he's left to "Phooey" the tense interactions. You have relationships among the carnival workers often strained, breaking up, or developing, such as Wallace Ford's clown and Leila Hyams' showgirl coming together after Hyams and the strongman (Henry Victor) sever ties. Victor and the carnival opening performer, Olga Baclanova, coming together while diminutive Harry Earles believes Olga has interest in him. And Harry's actual sister, Daisy, starring as his fiance in the film, dreading how Olga appears to be manipulating Harry for shits and giggles. So much of this I think is Browning exorcising perhaps past experiences he had...what he saw, how these people of the carnival so many on the outside find gross and hard to look at, was normal to him. But Browning released to a society too unwilling to see humanity in all its different forms and that cost him. The motion picture industry of his time failed to see the humanity that he did, and while I can see why those in the cast--considered "imperfect" and disgusting by others too coddled by their supposed genetic superiority to see how imperfect and disgusting they truly are outside their physical "gifts"--denounced "Freaks", the film nearly 90 years later can still talk to many who have felt as they once were treated. I just wish Browning could truly have understood that his film would not endure the same hostility that it did in the 30's. That even if you aren't necessarily of a certain size, shaped a certain way, the genetic features altered somewhat from what society is used to, there is something in this film that communicates to an audience. "One of us" does reach plenty of people long past 1932. I guess I find it sad Browning never got the chance to realize his film would not remain so outright rejected.

***The finale with how Olga now looks as monstrous as she was inside still lands with a resounding power and I guess certain members of the audience of the time (in the MGM studios and elsewhere, too) failed to see that Olga was them. Its a message; in fact, Browning had plenty to say, it's just too bad 30 minutes of that was excised by those willing to damage art because of what it was willing to provoke***