"Halfway through the screening, a lot of people got up and ran out."

This is how artistic director Merrill Pye summed up the bewilderment of the

Freaks

team after its preview, in January 1932. As is the case today, 90 years ago test screenings were common to decide on the final cut of a film.

In the case of

Freaks

, the defection of so many viewers made everything else seem secondary.

Hardly anyone was happy with the result.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios

President Louis B. Mayer

He blamed producer Irving Thalberg, who had already been lectured by an angry delegation of executives during filming.

With no voice or vote, the film's director, Tod Browning, had to agree to damage control surgery.

On Thalberg's orders, 30 minutes of the footage was mutilated.

That was the version released on February 12 of the same year, at the Fox Criterion in Los Angeles.

As he had done in

Human Claws

(1927), Tod Browning visited a cloudy world in Freaks, lost in the night, full of discomfort and ambiguity.

What was new about him was that, in this case, his evocation of traveling circuses brought together a cast made up of

actors with disabilities

.

Unkindly, this detail prevents us from enjoying the film through the gothic haze of

Dracula

or

Frankenstein

.

Perhaps the director, as Stephen King argues in

Danse Macabre

, "made the mistake of using real freaks in the movie. Maybe we're only really comfortable with horror as long as we can see the zipper on the monster's back."

There is a very illustrative message that AN Diehl, head of the film committee of the National Association of Women, sent to William H. Hays, president of the all-powerful MPPDA (Movie Producers and Distributors of America) and

promoter of self-censorship in Hollywood

.

She asked Diehl in that letter why the producers of

Freaks

could "lower themselves to the ignominy of financially exploiting human pain, deformity, and suffering."

Therein lies the key, or one of the keys, to the position that was later taken by many other associations and rating committees.

An attitude that was based on precepts of

the Hays Code

, and which, contagiously, also thrived in England, where the film was banned for 30 years.

The background to this conviction is clear.

The censors acted after reading the lobbyists' leaflets

.

Which also explains other similar decisions.

Consider the logical protests by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People after the release of

Song of the South

(1946) for perpetuating "a glorified image of slavery."

Or in the campaign that the National Association of Viewers and Listeners launched in the UK at the beginning of the 1980s against certain extreme horror films,

the so-called video nasties.

What logic links these denunciations with the overwhelming success that

cancellation culture

has today ?

Perhaps the moral typecasting has not changed, but there is a readjustment of its volume that we owe to the

woke

ideology and, of course, to the internet.

As Twitter drums roll, this Orwellian move is beginning to take its toll on classic cinema

.

As hypersensitive as Diehl after the release of

Freaks

, his activists seem delighted with the demolition of cinematic monuments.

For any circustance?

Unclear.

There are especially serious sins.

For example, the presence of a white actor made up to appear black, as in

El cantor de jazz

(1927),

En alas de la danza

(1936) and

Othello

(1965).

The same goes for the whites who pretend to be Asian in

The Mask of Fu Manchu

(1932),

The King and I

(1956) or

Breakfast at Tiffany

's (1961).

Let's not talk about the use of

racist stereotypes

, in the style of the ravens in

Dumbo

(1941).

And even less of the

machismo

, unmistakable in the first

James Bond

.

These taboos, when punished retroactively, show the madness with which historical consciousness is administered.

"What does the moral order consist of today?" writes

Pascal Bruckner

in

The Temptation of Innocence

: "In the conventional cult of despair, the religion of obligatory whining."

And since historical processes are judged from a raging present, the new inquisitors

feel comfortable looking for signs of racism, sexism and colonialism in the old celluloid

.

In short, honoring the point of view of the victims - which is valid for all times - forces us to file charges against the cinema that our grandparents saw.

To square these accusations with the decisive role of the industry, there are only two options: withdraw the most controversial titles from the programming or appease those offended with the introductory video of some unsuspecting academic.

I will not be the one to question the maturity of those who need to be warned from the screen by Professor

Jacqueline Stewart

, head of the

Black Cinema House

organization , before facing

Gone with the Wind

on HBO Max.

For these

neopuritans

, assuming as adults the historical context of any work of art, with its gray scale, is equivalent to consecrating injustice.

But there is still more.

It is shocking to see that some intend to turn classic cinema, despite the distance that separates it from our reality, into another tool

to continue drawing red lines

.

If any lesson can be drawn from this, it is that childishness will always be the worst way to scrutinize the past.

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria

Know more

  • United Kingdom

  • Twitter

  • U.S

  • ERTE

MediaWho is Paola Dominguín, the guest of Pasapalabra who lived the record duel between Orestes and Jaime live

MotorThe Mini of the 20th century disembark in the electric mobility of the 21st

CineJohn Cena, The Rock and the actors who came out of wrestling: neither method nor hosts

See links of interest

  • Last News

  • Work calendar 2022

  • The reading

  • Sporting CP - Manchester City

  • Paris Saint-Germain - Real Madrid