The Treatment of 'Freaks'

When watching Freaks, it is hard to imagine that once upon a time people sought amusement from viewing humans with abnormalities and physical deformities. However, not much has changed since then. People still gawk at others who do not fit into ‘normal’ physical appearances. Whether it be amputated limbs, different skin colors, mental disabilities, and other severe birth deformities, society will continue to distance themselves from them. So the question should be posed; did Tod Browning had the right to publish and direct such a movie?

When Freaks first debuted in 1932, it was met with horror and shaking of heads (Whittington-Walsh). For twenty years, it was kept in the vaults of MGM, the studio who produced it, and it was forbidden in England for forty years. Some have said that the film ended Tod Browning's career as a movie maker. The movie starred real freak show acts including half-woman, half man; those who had pinhead deformities; bearded lady; midgets; people who were born without limbs; and other types. In the movie, husband and wife, Hans and Frieda were siblings born into a family of seven children with three born without looking like dolls.

Many critics and audiences have called the film insensitive to freaks. However, Browning did not intend to make a movie about the monstrosities of entertainers in such freak shows but to highlight their bond with each other. In the beginning of the film, a proclaimer says that to mess with one is to mess with them all. When Hans is mistreated and misled by Cleopatra, his fellow misfits help him get revenge on her. It is the same for Venus when she is attacked by Roscoe (?) and defended by Phroso. After Roscoe is injured, the freaks are seen coming towards him with murder in their eyes. Even though Venus did not have an abnormality, she treated everyone nicely. Venus and Phroso are the exemplary normal figures who are kind to everyone they meet, that is why they must end up together. Cleopatra, Hercules, and Roscoe are shown to be the evil bullies and their ends are in the movie justified.

Freaks is not simply a film about what people look like and reaction to their appearances, but a social commentary on the code of conduit of freaks. Browning had freak shows as merely as a setting about human connections and bonds. Audiences in the early 30s' only saw what was above the surface and did not try to understand the message of the movie. There have been worse movies that have graced the screen and viewers adored them- take 1915's Birth of a Nation for example. It was a film that is so racist that there are arguments about whether it should even be seen or shown. over the course of decades, society has become more open to viewing movies that were once seen as taboo. One of the main reasons is as a whole, people have become more open and honest about weird things and they have more knowledge of the different sorts of diseases and disorders that are out there. There has been so much understanding about the human body and genetics due to books, research, and the internet where people can look up things they simply do not know about. Overall the targeted audiences overreacted when Freaks first came out, but now society has come to appreciate the frankness of the topic and the meaning of the story.

Dealing with "SILLY SUZY"

"There is a leopard on you roof and it's my leopard and I have to get it and to get it I have to sing," (Suzy); silly, huh? In the 1938 comedy, Bringing Up Baby, Howard Hawks illustrates Suzy (Katherine Hepburn) as this hyper, energetic, fun, crazy, but even more "silly" woman who is full of life. When the viewer are first introduced to Suzy, she's comes across as this annoying woman, who pops up everywhere that David is(Cary Grant); David is the unfortunate man who happens to get caught up in all of Suzy's mayhem. With all the chaotic events that Suzy has put David thorough, like stealing his car and damaging it: ripping his tuxedo while trying to meet with the marvelous Mr. Peabody: dragging him all the way to Connecticut to take care of the leopard, "Baby", and much more, David remains somewhat calm about each of the situations. On the behalf of David, the viewers could really applaud him for his continuous patience and self-control while dealing with the confusion that Suzy was throwing at him. On the other hand, the viewer could also look at David like, why are you still putting up with this? Other than handling Suzy's actions in a calm manor, some viewers may have given up on being nice way back in the beginning of the movie; most people would've been too frustrated to talk to her, yet still stand next to her in the same room.
Now, seeing the side of Suzy, we as the viewers might be able to sympathize with her. Though Suzy's silly ways came across as annoying acts, maybe we can just recognize that-that is how she is; maybe she really doesn't mean to bring madness to other's lives. In the movie, one could notice that she really was ashamed for the trouble she caused for David. This also showed that she cared for David and like in the movie, maybe all of the mayhem was just a way to keep David closer to her since she really liked, or "loved" him.
Silly Suzy's ways taught the viewer many values. First, it taught how to be careful with the company you keep; though a person doesn't always want to be around trouble, they may never known when it's standing right next to them. Her ways also taught us that you may be in the wrong place at the wrong time but the best thing to do is...take a car and run. Most importantly, we can say that through every trouble or hardship comes a reward; therefore, we could say that the best thing that "SILLY SUZY'S" ways taught us, was to live a little and to have fun doing it. The prime example of living a little was at the end of the movie, David confided in Suzy and told her that though the time spent with her wasn't the best, he had-had the best day ever.

What the %$#!

Bringing Up Baby was a screwball comedy that leaves the viewer thinking to themselves "What the hell did i just watch?" After watching this movie I didn't really know what i had just watched. Also, reading reviews of the movie from the time of its release, so did other people. The entire time watching the movie you are not quite sure what is going on or why you are watching this film. Throughout the movie the characters are witty and fast talking, almost too witty and too weird. Their actions are questionable and don't seem logical. One example of the illogical factors in this movie is how Susan Vance can take whichever car she pleases. In the scene at the golf course, not only does she just start up Dr. Huxley's car, the crashes into the surrounding cars without thinking twice about it, and how Dr. Huxley didn't act more angrily towards her is beyond me.
Another aspect of the movie that surprised me was how calm Dr. Huxley remained through all of this. His car was stolen, his clothes were stolen, he had to look for a bone the dog stole, chase after a leopard, and this all happened on his wedding day which he didn't seem too concerned about not being there as he played Susan's games all day. The interaction between the two was odd to say the least. Susan found new ways to keep Dr. Huxley from getting to his wedding and Dr. Huxley kept going along with it, it was very frustrating watching these two and never knowing what time it was and if Dr. Huxley would make his wedding.
This movie was funny however. The comedic timing of all the characters was very funny, and the fast talking witty comebacks and interactions between the characters was laughable. The scenario was absurd but made for funny moments and even if you didn't care for the movie you laughed at most parts. The dumb Constable and the drunk gardener made this movie very entertaing.
This movie reminds me of many slapstick comedies being made today. One movie that sticks out in particular is Step Brothers. While i was watching Step Brothers i couldn't believe i had actually paid money for the movie. I was laughing throughout most of the movie but i just couldn't get my head around the absurd scenario the movie had, much like Bringing Up Baby. The thing is though, after I saw it, i found myself quoting the movie quite frequently. My friends and I will find ourselves blurting out funny lines from the movie and still laughing at them. However, we all agree that when we saw Step Brothers we all thought it was one of the worst movies we had ever seen.
Bringing Up Baby reminds me of this because after i saw it kept thinking about some of the lines and the fast talking witty remarks. I doubt i will watch this movie again but it will always be in my head and sometimes i will probably laugh.

Bringing up Baby: Absurd Then, Funny Now.

After reading some of the reviews that Bringing up Baby received when it was first released, one wouldn’t expect to be entertained from this film. When this film was released in 1938, film critics laughed at the goofiness of the plot and mocked the effects used throughout the film. It would be one thing for modern viewers to be criticizing the film style, due to comparisons with today’s techniques, but for reviewers at the time of the release to blatantly make fun of this film says a lot about the public audience of that time, and what was acceptable in movies. Due to our class’s reactions to this film (because of it being funny, or pathetically silly?), one would venture to say that at some point over the past seventy years the public has drastically shifted their opinions on this comedy. There are several reasons for this distinct change of attitude towards Bringing up Baby.
Bringing up Baby was arguably one of the more silly movies to be released during its time. A significant reason why it received such criticism at the time of release is due to the fact that viewers were not as familiar to this style of comedy, nor could they look past the blunders of the film and realize that this was not a movie to take seriously. A New York Times review from 1938 critiques the film by saying, “And the gags! Have you heard the one about the trained leopard and the wild leopard who get loose at the same time? Or the one about the shallow brook with the deep hole? Or the one about the man wearing a woman's negligee? Or the one about the Irishman who drains his flask and sees a wild animal which really is a wild animal”, obviously, this reviewer could not expand his suspension of disbelief and accept Bringing up Baby as an impractical movie that was not meant to deliver a deep meaning.
One major reason why viewers today generally accept Bringing up Baby as a successful comedy is due to the recent production of comedies and what the public deems acceptable. Thanks to films like Dumb and Dumber and Billy Madison, producers can usually create films that have absolutely no academic merit, and the public will realize this and view it as a movie not to take serious. Audiences in 1938 tended to view films with the assumption that they were going to gain something out of the viewing; this is why Bringing up Baby was not successful at the time of release. Today, audiences can accept the humor in the intentional blunders in films, because we have seen them used before and we are not surprised by nearly anything when it comes to the “Comedy” genre.
In 1938, Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn were relatively young in their acting careers. Often, it seems, we appreciate actors and actresses more after they have been given the chance for their talents to mature over time. Looking back today at Bringing up Baby, critics realize the talent that was underappreciated at the time of original release. Hepburn, a four-time winner and twelve-time nominee for the Oscar given to the best actress in a leading role, came off as a ditzy young woman to critics of Bringing up Baby. Grant was no disappointment in the later half of his career either, staring in North by Northwest and being nominated for two Oscars. Though not as famous in the beginning of their careers, Hepburn and Grant made Bringing up Baby a funny movie that many people can enjoy.
Like a good bottle of wine, some things just need time for people to show the proper amount of appreciation that it deserves. Bringing up Baby probably would’ve been more of a success if it had been released decades later. Nonetheless, it is now considered one of the more successful comedies in the early years of film production.

L.B. Jefferies says "I Do"?

Alfred Hithcock proceeds to unveil the mystery of a marriage gone wrong in his 1954 crime thriller “rear window”. In the opening scene immediately following the credits, we are introduced to protagonist L.B. Jefferies. Without the use of any dialogue and only a brief camera panning moment we can easily draw conclusions on Jefferies occupation as an action photographer, and probable cause of his temporary immobilization, through the displaying of enlarged photos documenting dangerous sports accident, war scenes, and other catastrophes. These assumptions are soon confirmed when Jefferies’ editor calls on the phone, and briefly discusses the situation with Jefferies. The editor reveals to Jefferies the ill timing of his misfortune and tells him he will be missing an assignment. At this comment Jefferies begs for his editor to get him out of his predicament, claiming to him that “If you don’t pull me out of this swamp of boredom, I’m gonna do something drastic…like what? I’m gonna get married and then I’ll never be able to go anywhere.” This quote illustrates Jefferies’ discomfort towards the restrictions of marriage, a formal union that is seemingly ubiquitous in his rear courtyard. Many parallels can be drawn between the relationships of his neighbors and the relationship between him and his girlfriend, Lisa Freemont. These similarities can be found through the vast breadth of information acquired through viewing the courtyard using the invasive paparazzi style that Jefferies has become accustomed to.
Through a quick glance at a thermometer reading scorching temperatures in the opening scene accompanied by a shot of our protagonist sweating profusely. The reasoning behind every neighbor’s window being wide open immediately becomes clear. This apparent heat wave combined with photographers’ tendency to nose into others people affairs, offers justification for Jefferies’ voyeurism. Through this harmless sight seeing, connections between Jefferies’ relationship with his girlfriend, and that of his neighbors, becomes prevalent. Through the first window we gaze into, we are introduced to a grouchy neighbor, Thorwald, who is initially shown arguing with his sick, nagging wife. She is shown covered up in bed in the adjacent apartment window, offering a feeling of separation. This nagging that Jefferies also finds in his own partner, pushes him to draw conclusions about how he and Lisa will end up like Thorwald and his wife, unhappy to say the least.
With the use of an interesting camera angle that insists we are peering directly through Jefferies window we are introduced to a seemingly fascinated newlywed couple. They embody the types of optimistic high hopes in which Lisa holds for her and Jefferies’ potential marriage. While the drawn curtains hint at the quenching of the newlyweds sexual appetite, it is the later appearance of the man hanging out of the window, relieving stress through a cigarette, that appeals to the sexually impotent Jefferies. He believes despite their initial attraction and seemingly potent love connection that due to her being a “park avenue” woman and “too-rich”, that they would never be able to make it work out. The possibility of Lisa being incompatible with Jefferies traveling lifestyle further deters the likelihood of their marriage.
Another comparison, not to a couple in a relationship, but instead to an individual, is seen through the viewing of the middle-aged lady, whom Jefferies dubbed ‘Miss Lonelyhearts’. ‘Miss Lonelyhearts’ is seen alone, setting a table for two. An odd occurrence, considering the gentleman, for whom she is waiting, never arrives to attend the dinner with her. She even goes as far as pantomiming his arrival, possibly in an attempt to mask her loneliness. While ‘Miss Lonelyhearts’ is acting out her evening date, Jefferies, intertwined in a conversation with Lisa, raises his glass, and offers ‘Miss Lonelyhearts’ a toast. This kind gesture goes unacknowledged by ‘Miss Lonelyhearts’, symbolizing Jefferies’ own loneliness and inability to commit. Despite this being cognizant to the audience, Jefferies again displays his stubbornness and voices his unwillingness to change through an indirect comment he makes. “Well at least that’s something you’ll never have to worry about”.
Obscured behind the storyline of the blatant murder mystery lays the love tale of L.B. Jefferies and his fashion model girlfriend Lisa Freemont. Since we are constrained at home with Jefferies we are allowed to view only what Jefferies sees as potential future outcomes if he chooses to get married. These views are built off of several factors. His marriage is not acted upon due to flaws he sees in his seemingly perfect girlfriend, the constant freedom awarded to him through his job and his current physical state which unconsciously reminds him of what a pain it is to be tied down and inhibited. This heavily biased opinion Jefferies holds is influenced not only by the internal factors, but more importantly by the external examples of relationships which he encounters daily through his apartments rear window.

Albert Williams

L.B. Jeffries plays a unique role in Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window." Jeffries is a photographer who was hurt in the field and has been in a wheel chair in his apartment for weeks. He gets very restless, and cannot wait to get out of the massive cast and troublesome chair to which he is confined. While sitting in total boredom, Jeffries decides to entertain himself in a rather odd way. He ends up watching his neighbors' every move and becomes very invested in what he sees. Jeffries, who appears very innocent and well-intentioned, is a very frightening character in this film.

Jeffries was obviously a person in great need of some mental stimulation. His few visitors seemed to think that his entertainment was not a healthy form of it, which may have been a vry good point. Once his mind gets far enough from him, or so it seems, he ends up thinking that he is witnessing the aftermath of a very well performed murder. He insists that the lady across the courtyard has been slain by her husband, but proving this idea turns out being much harder than he could have ever thought.

This whole practice of spying, almost obsessively, made for a very good movie. However, this same behavior seems to be very scary to some people, especially in modern days. L.B. Jeffries acted very suspicious, and even went as far as to try to get a detective to sneak into the apartment of the suspected killer on a mere whim. For someone like myself, this behavior is creepy at best. The era in which this movie was made never saw atrocities like today's population through the use of facebook, myspace, etc. Jeffries tried to hide his attempts to spy on occasion in the movie, which suggests that this kind of spying and intrusion was not acceptable back then even.

All of us have seen the news stories of young people in our country that are tracked down by some sick individual who often does not mean well for the person he or she is after. While watching "Rear Window", I could not seem to side with Jeffries at all. His behavior became obsessive and unhealthy. Although he seemed to help the community in the end, this does not explain why he had been watching all of his neighbors for such a long period of time. Upon being told that the behavior he was taking part in was unhealthy, he got very defensive and edgy.

It would not be a stretch to compare this bored, middle aged man with one of those mentioned with something like myspace. Obviously no one wants to think of the main character in such a good movie as someone who is something so awful, but his behavior parallels that of today's criminals prefectly. There is some amount of convenience in the fact that he would appear to end up somewhat of a hero as he tries to piece together a suspected murder, but that is just how movies go. Jeffries, who appears very innocent and well-intentioned, is a very frightening character in this film.

Mirrors As Windows

Being the neighborhood “Peeping-Tom” is a title that few people would want to live with. In the film Rear Window, this label is one that L.B. Jefferies fits perfectly. Stuck in a wheelchair for what seem like endless weeks, Jefferies amuses himself by watching his neighbors through his window. While most other characters in the film disapprove of his watchful eye, Jeff does it purely out of entertainment. What started as an innocent way to pass time suddenly became a murder mystery. While Thorwald’s window is the one with most of the action, each and every one of Jefferies’ neighbors give insight to what his life could end up like, depending on the decisions he makes. In the film, the windows not only act as a distraction, they act as mirrors as well.
The first window is quite possibly the most popular one for Jefferies. By watching Lars Thorwald’s window, Jeff does indeed witness a murder but he sees something else as well. Throughout the entire film, Lisa is constantly nagging Jeff about marriage and being committed to their relationship. When Jefferies looks in the window which leads to the Thorwald’s flat, he sees a man who is so annoyed with his wife that he puts himself out his misery and murders her. While Lisa has many other attributes besides her bothersome ways, Jeff can’t help but see his and Lisa’s future every time he glances in that window and sees an irritating wife and miserable man.
Another window which catches Jefferies’ attention is one that belongs to “Miss Lonelyhearts.” In the film, we see this sorrowful woman with so much love, but no one to give it to. In one scene, we actually see her having a date with an invisible person, just to act as though she had someone to spend her nights with. Of course, reality sets in and she comes to term with her loneliness. This window is a mirror for Lisa. When she gives Jeff everything she can, she still feels inadequate. John Fawell wrote in his critical essay on Rear Window, “Lisa has all of the same needs as these women. She finds no response from Jeff to her beauty or loneliness, and his concern for Mrs. Thorwald, his sympathy for Miss Lonelyhearts, and his erotic interest in Miss Torso all represent ironic counterpoint to his cruelty and indifference towards her (Fawell 5).” His rejection to her leaves her feeling lonely and as if she’s not good enough for him. Lisa puts all her effort into she and Jeff’s relationship, while it seems Jeff hardly gives at all.
Another similarity between Jefferies and his neighbors is the discouraged composer which lives across the courtyard. In the film, we see this composer constantly working on his music at his piano, and never feeling satisfied with his work. In one scene, we actually see him blast his papers across his room. This frustration is that same way Jefferies is feeling with his career. In one of the opening scenes, Jeff’s boss calls him and informs him that one of the biggest stories will be given to another photographer, instead of him. This of course highly upsets Jeffries, much like the anger the composer is feeling with his music. Luckily, both men find a way to work past their setbacks. The composer hosts an elegant party with many friends while he entertains playing the piano and Jefferies focuses his energy on the murder involving the Thorwald’s.
The main feminine character in Rear Window, is the lovely Lisa Fremont. She is described as a woman who could have any man she chooses and is also a popular socialite. While Lisa is madly in love with Jefferies, he tends to shift his attention elsewhere. Rather than spend time with Lisa, Jeff watches “Miss Torso,” a beautiful young woman who lives across the courtyard. The mirror effect in this scenario is that Jefferies sees the same traits in both Miss Torso and Lisa. According to Fawell, Jeff ignores real-life love in Lisa, instead investing himself in a fantasy woman who lives in the apartment building across his courtyard and who he watches through binoculars and the telephoto lens of his camera--the sexy Miss Torso (Fawell 3). Both women give off a sense of exhibitionism which attracts many men, including Jeff.
Lisa’s persistence of she and Jeff’s marriage is a recurring theme throughout the film. Jeff fears what life will be like with Lisa as his wife, and sees examples of what marriage does to people merely by looking out his window.
In one window lives a newlywed couple. At first they are uncontrollably happy and couldn’t be any more in love. While it all seems perfect in the beginning, the husband soon becomes exhausted of his wife. In repeated scenes, the audience sees the husband lifting up the window shade, which stays down for the most part, and opening up the window. He pokes his head out the window and lights a cigarette, enjoying his moments of freedom from his wife. Then, within seconds, she calls him back in and he returns back to his wife. Jeff sees this man as being way too tied down and couldn’t imagine his life being like this.
While the film Rear Window entertains audiences with L.B. Jefferies peering into his neighbor’s lives, it is clear that he is not only seeing them, but he is seeing himself as well.