Freaks, la monstrueuse parade

Tod Browning est excellent en tant que narrateur. Avec un pinceau psychologique précis, il nous présente des êtres handicapés comme des personnes capables d'aimer, de désirer, de rêver et de ressentir de la jalousie. Et dans leur confrontation avec des personnes en bonne santé, qui sont les véritables "monstres", il remporte la bataille de la narration. Mais ce ne sont que des morceaux d'un puzzle qui, dans l'ensemble, n'a pas vraiment d'impact cinématographique complet pour le spectateur qui aspire à quelque chose de plus que simplement voir l'inconnu jusqu'à présent (comme un mutilé sans bras et sans jambes qui allume une cigarette). L'intrigue est relativement banale, avec un résumé facile. Mis à part la reconnaissance nécessaire de la bravoure de Browning pour avoir réalisé quelque chose comme ça dans les années 1930, cela ne laisse qu'une expérience inhabituelle et un sujet de brève discussion. C'est pourquoi je ne donne pas la note maximale. (20/04/2003)

Legendary classic, which makes sense to assess in its contemporary context and which, nevertheless, still surprises with the decent craftsmanship of the film crew, direction, and acting performances. In terms of the dramatic plot, it is a relatively conventional matter, but considering the emphasis on the human side of physically disabled individuals and their right to dignity, it is a significant film with an ethical dimension. Overall impression: 80%. (15/04/2008)

Magical, bizarre outlandishness. And maybe more so now, sixty years later, than at the time of its release. There are so many ideas and originality here that it’s a shame it has such a short running time. It means a lot of leads are left to fizzle out. The result isn’t helped much by the same problem that brought down Dracula the year before. And that’s Browning’s static, uninventive directing. (04/04/2008)

I find it quite funny that Browning, after his vehement efforts to explain to the viewer who the real freaks really are, still couldn't resist using the appearance of the performers at the end for the film's most impressive scene. But I would have been tempted, too. I'd love a director's cut, but I don't think I'll get one. In fact, the editing detracts greatly from the film, many scenes don't build on each other, and almost the entire film takes place in one place, so that up until the wedding reception I felt like everything was happening in one day. The Siamese twins are mega-appealing, and along with the bearded lady are my favorite freaks. I actually wish the Freaks actors had a whole series of their own in which they saved the world from ever new supervillains. First they'd mow down an army of formalists and then they'd unleash their super freak powers to deal with the main pretty boy, who would attack them with cutting humor and a distinguished air. And when our heroes killed and ate him at the end of each episode, the torso of the guy rolling a cigarette with his nose would tell a joke. A good one. Like the one where three tomatoes are walkin' down the street.... (19/04/2012)

Freaks isn't just a classic horror film from the early sound film era, it's much more than that. It’s an unconventional, confidently retold critique of depraved humanity, where genetically healthy individuals are put in the position of the real monsters, that not only carries a commendable and brilliantly depicted premise, but above all it leans, it must be added, without fear or reproach, on such bizarre themes concerning the natures and life principles of physically or mentally disfigured human beings as to make it a far more important and, above all, psychologically valuable spectacle than any other genre film of the time. A realistically sketched and thought-provoking lesson in advanced psychology, which, although it may have nothing to say to modern film fans and impresses only with its shocking casting, it’s something that everyone should listen to carefully. 85% (19/08/2015)