Fox and His Friends

1975 movie

Rating: 15/20

Plot: The titular circus performer loses his job when his boss/lover is arrested. He scrounges up some money to play the lottery, wins, and is then manipulated by his titular friends.

Another happy German movie. Well, if your idea of happy is closer to devastatingly bleak. Parents renting this to show their children because they think it might be a sequel to The Fox and the Hound will certainly be unhappy. It also has nothing to do with this children's book:

Unless, of course, that children's book has a lot more penis than you'd think by looking at the camera. It's possible, I guess. That pig looks a little randy. But yes, there's an awful lot of penis in this movie. One wonders if Rainer Werner Fassbinder directed this and starred as the titular loser as an excuse to show his penis to a bunch of people. I didn't realize that as Fassbinder as Fox until I looked it up. He's fine as an actor, but I thought he was a portly gentleman. El Hedi ben Salem, one of Fassbinder's boyfriends and the star of Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, makes a brief appearance in this one to as a "Moroccan." Speaking of homosexuality, here's a question. Should I have been shocked at a kiss in the first five minutes of this movie between Fox and the circus guy? And if I was shocked, what does that say about me? Keep in mind that it was kind of an odd moment for a kiss anyway. But it's 2013, and I'm not sure if I should be shocked with an onscreen kiss between two men, especially with the amount of gay porn I watch. Fox says "When I have fun, I want to have regrets." He's a tragic character who has a little fun in this movie and, I'm guessing, a whole lot of regrets. Fassbinder tells his story with a fair share of dramatic irony. I don't think there are a lot of people who could watch this not knowing that Fox is being used by people and that his lottery winnings are going to end up being his downfall. It's a lot like those stories you hear about people striking it rich and ending up with ruined lives. This is a movie about how people, regardless of their sexual proclivities, will use other people and about how money corrupts. It might not be interesting all the time and seemed a little long to me, but there is a lot of penis.

Freaks

1932 circus soap opera

Rating: 20/20

Plot: A circus strongman and a trapeze artist conspire to steal a sideshow little person's fortune. Gooble gobble.

This is a special movie. A lot of its specialness is the context. It's 1932 when talkies are mostly awkward, and as expected from both the time period and the use of non-professional actors, this is stagy. But you look past that because so much of this is stuff you've never seen on screen before and will likely never see again. Sure, certain directors revel in showing audiences the grotesque, but in Freaks, Browning shows it all so casually, and instead of exploiting the sideshow performers in this movie, they're just nonchalantly shown going about their business and are easily more likable than the "normal" characters. This is prior to the enforcement of the Hays Code, and a couple years later, this movie wouldn't have been allowed to exist. Predictably, it was banned in several places as well as being heavily edited by the studio. The studio also decided to tack on a happier ending.

Here's my context: I had heard about this movie long before I saw it. I saw a VHS copy at a library and took it home to give it a spin. I enjoyed the antics of the titular freaks, but the 1930's movie aesthetics were distracting while the story was weak. It's really a side-show soap-opera rather than the horror cult classic that I was setting myself up for. However, I couldn't shake it, especially the climactic scene in the rain that is so wonderfully filmed. I watched it again, and what I thought were flaws the first time I watched it didn't seem important at all. Now that I've seen it a third time, I think it's a masterpiece.

At the heart of the movie is Hans, the little guy whose infatuation with the "most beautiful big person" he's ever seen leads to the tragedy. He's played by Harry Earles who unfortunately has a small discography which includes another Tod Browning movie called The Unholy Three which I liked. He was also in the Lollipop Guild. His wife in this movie is played by his sister which, if you ask me, is all kinds of creepy. His character in this is such a player. Harry and his sister Daisy are both great, and they have these great little people voices. The best Hans scene is when he raves about "Swiss cheese heads" with tiny clinched fist body language. The "laughing" speech is also really good. Of course, this movie isn't just about little people. The first shot of the microcephalic children from the circus with "La la la" circles is plenty shocking, but there's also something beautiful and wonderful about the whole thing. Add conjoined twins, one who is marrying a stutterer; Johnny sans the lower half of his body whose deft maneuvering using on his arms is beyond impressive (Johnny Eck--a guy referenced in a Tom Waits' song); a marriage between a thin man and bearded lady whose offspring just made me try picturing a thin-man-and-bearded-lady sex scene in my head; a guy with no arms and no legs who lights a cigarette (Prince Randian in his only role); a bird-girl; Schlitzie, one of the "pinheads" whose incomprehensible dialogue doesn't even get subtitles; and the 2'11" Angelo Rossitto who gets the "Gooble Gobble" chant started during the great wedding reception scene. From the torn title screen leading into a carnival barker's foreshadowing intro about the "code of living monstrosities" to the shocking rain-drenched finale, this is about as fascinating as movies get, one that has really grown into one of my favorites.

Santa Sangre

1989 Jodorowsky funk

Rating: 17/20

Plot: A boy is traumatized by some horrible experiences that took place during his young life with the circus involving a tattooed woman, his knife-throwing daddy, and his mother who worships a no-armed woman with the religious cult across the street. Following his release from an asylum, he tries to put his life back together again. That's made difficult when he runs into his no-armed mother who controls him and demands the use of his arms. His childhood sweetheart and a little fellow try to help him out.

It's really the type of movie that makes a plot synopsis pointless which explains the half-hearted effort I gave it up there. This is a psychosexual Freudian (aka Freddian) horror-comedy that is probably unlike anything you've ever seen or in some cases unlike anything you'll ever want to see. My plans were to make Santa Sangre my Oprah Movie Club pick before I got depressed about that whole thing and passed. I'm sure it would have been dug by all. This is Jodorowsky's third best film after Holy Mountain and El Topo, and although it's not as bizarre as those two, it's pretty bizarre compared to everything else. I still chuckle a little when I see this labeled as one of his most accessible. Jodorowsky seems to have had more of a budget to work with in this one, and he uses it to compile some artful visuals and utilize his vivid imagination. Not that he needed much money to help him out anyway. Drenched in film-school symbolism and saturated in cartoon colors and Part-Fellini (probably just the circus thing), part-Psycho, part-Bunuel, and all Jodorowsky, there are scenes throughout this that will linger in the mind for a long time. There's an elephant funeral that has to be seen to be believed, and the choreography and timing required for the scenes where the mother "uses" her son's arms is impressive. There's also a great little person, Jesus Juarez as Aladin. And you get a scene where some actors with Down Syndrome visit a prostitute. Exploitative? Yeah, probably. Original? Definitely. Oh, and there's a scene where a guy peels off his own ear. I'm sorry. I should have warned you all about spoilers before typing some of that. It's a challenge, but it's a thoroughly entertaining one. Shame about the dubbing though. It's also a shame that this guy can't get financing so that the rest of us can see his dreams. I keep reading that he's making a movie, but then I'll see where the Russian producers "just disappeared mysteriously" and then there's no movie.

By the way, I follow Alejandro Jodorowsky on Twitter. Highly recommended despite 95% of his tweets being in a language I don't speak. I think probably Canadian. He's like an advice columnist. One follower asked him, "Any advice for mental clarity?" and he answered, "On Sundays, lock yourself in the house and repeat, incessantly, one word: ass." It's sound advice.

The Man Who Laughs

1928 drama

Rating: 16/20 (Jen: 2/20)

Plot: Based on a Victor Hugo writing, this is the story of the oddly-named Gwynplaine, the son of a lord who pissed off a king. Young Gwynplaine was punished for the sins of his father by having a permanent surgically carved to his face. He's abandoned by gypsies, and while wandering through the snow to look for help, he comes across a baby in the arms of her dead mother. He and the baby eventually arrive at the home of Ursus, a philosopher, and he raises them. Years later, Gwynplaine and blind Dea put on plays as part of a traveling circus. They're in love, but Gwynplaine has low self-esteem because he grins all the time and is apprehensive about marrying his beloved. Meanwhile, an evil jester named Barkilphedro (damn, was Hugo even trying on these names?) is thinking up a plot to get rid of Gwynplaine as part of a ploy to gain favor with the queen.

This movie really could have been cut by thirty minutes without losing anything at all. It's a Paul Leni joint, and there's some of the expressionist set design (especially in a scene where young Gwynplaine wanders past a series of gallows), and a lot of experimental shots and unusual perspectives (most memorably a shot from a Ferris wheel) that he's known for. The Man Who Laughs has also got editing that surprised, reminding me of Battleship Potemkin. I guess that makes sense since Potemkin came out three years before this one, but I was still surprised by the quick cuts, jarring in comparison to most silent movies. There's also a nice texture to Leni's 17th Century England. The old and ominous castle walls, some torture paraphernalia, and statues concealing secret passageways added a moodiness at the beginning of the movie. There are a lot of scenes that go on way too long, but this one has more than its share of great scenes, ones that connect emotionally in a way that doesn't seem typical of 1920's melodramas. I really liked one lingering scene where a clown removes his make-up while Gwynplaine, with his permanent preposterous and grotesque grin, watches. There are a lot of good performances here, especially for the silent era, but Conrad Veidt's performance as the laughing man himself is really impressive. Think about it. You have to portray hurt, despair, fear, happiness, and a variety of other emotions without the benefit of a variety of facial expressions. To look sad with a big goofy grin on your face? It's not easy. And I should know because I spent about two hours in front of my bathroom mirror trying to do just that. I thought it was a great performance.

Admission: I had to give this movie a bonus point because of Homo the wolf, played, according to the opening credits, by "Zimbo." He's blind Dea's dog. I just love that there were title cards that said nothing but "Be quiet, Homo!" or "Where are you taking me, Homo?" There are also some ridiculous "special-ed" effects used with Homo at the end of the movie where it looks like a guy's attacking himself with a really stiff stuffed animal. I often add my own dialogue to silent movies, so of course I spat out a "Get him, Homo!" at that point.

Dumbo

1941 Disney cartoon

Rating: 15/20 (Abbey: 20/20)

Plot: Dumbo, a large-eared freak, has to overcome obstacles in order to be accepted by society. His mother is imprisoned, he's relentlessly taunted, and becomes an alcoholic. With the help of a down-on-his-luck mouse (a former drug dealer), he learns to fly and becomes the star of the circus.

This is the movie that taught me where babies come from, that elephants are made from rubber, that female elephants are bitches, and how awesome things get when you drink. I really like the way the background music works with the animated action (i.e. rhythmic puffs of smoke from the anthropomorphized train). This looks a little rougher or less lush/textured than Fantasia or, as I remember it at least, Pinnochio. There are some moments when the vocal music really dates things, but the songs you remember are all pretty good. The best, of course, is "Pink Elephants on Parade" which is a timeless classic that will likely still be performed at weddings five hundred years from now. I just wish the pink elephants scene could have gone on for another half hour. Dumbo's got some nice visual humor, sight gags reminiscent of 20's comedies. I don't like all the characters, some of which are just too mean, and I think the high-flying denouement under the big top is a bit quick, especially after the unnecessarily drawn-out scenes from earlier in the movie. Short and sweet.

Abbey's review: "I'm curious to know whether anybody's analyzed this with race relations in mind. There are black characters although they get no dialogue and are mostly faceless laborers setting up the circus tent. Elephants are African though. Then, of course, you've got the crows (Jim Crow?) who really end up being good guys although their mannerisms and language doesn't seem entirely sensitive now. All those white-faced clowns and the white ring leader making all those plans to oppress the black man behind closed curtains? Could Dumbo represent the embodiment of white's oppression of the blacks? How about that scene where the angry gorilla rattles the bars of his cage hard enough to actually break one loose! Does he escape? No, he puts the bar back and accepts his imprisonment! What's that supposed to symbolize? And what's Timothy the mouse represent? Magic feathers? Is alcohol the only answer? Female characters are only in the movie to advance the plot with gossip and give birth. Is the wash of snow at the opening of the film supposed to be jism? The train's a phallic symbol? Don't get me started on trunks! And speaking of penii, where are the male elephants in this movie? Subtext!

Now that I think about it, what was the first Disney animated feature with speaking black characters? Was it Atlantis? Lilo and Stich had a black character, but that was after Atlantis. I can't think of an earlier example unless you count animals, like Dumbo's crows or the horribly offensive King Louie in The Jungle Book who speak with African American dialect. See, this is exactly why Walt Disney is in hell right now."

The Circus

1928 comedy

Rating: 17/20 (Emma: 16/20; Abbey: 20/20)

Plot: The Tramp, hungry and broke, waddles onto the grounds of a circus. While checking out the scene, he's mistaken for a pickpocket and chased into the big top by the po-po. The crowd laughs uproariously which inspires the ringleader of the struggling circus to hire him as a clown. He isn't very good at it. He does, however, fall in love with the oft-abused daughter of the circus's owner.

Hmm. I'd always heard this was not a very good movie and that Chaplin himself ignored it completely when writing about his career. My girls and I thought it was hilarious. Lots of great (Keaton-esque) gags--the chase scene, a hall of mirrors, some magic tricks, an irritable horse, a tightrope act, troublesome monkeys, a lazy lion, lots of kicking--and that pathos that's in so many of Chaplin's films. The ending is especially touching although it could be argued that it's very artificial and impossible to buy. If you could only see one silent comedy and have always had a desire to see Charlie Chaplin depantsed by monkeys, this is the flick for you!

One note: When Chaplin's character first meets his love interest, an equestrian, she reveals that she actually is part of the circus. He looks behind him at a poster of a female sword swallower and gets a look in his eyes that suggests he's thinking of something other than swords. It's a cool bit of bawdiness that slipped past. I was really hoping the movie would end with a scene Vincent Gallo could be proud of but was disappointed.

Sawdust and Tinsel

1953 movie

Rating: 17/20

Plot: Darkly almost-comic battle of the sexes within a filthy dilapidated circus. As they pull into a certain town, the ringmaster plans to visit his ex-wife and sons for the first time in three years. Meanwhile, his current love--a Spaniard who rides a horse around and displays bobbing bosoms--sleeps with an actor they met when borrowing clothes from a theater troupe. Problems in their relationship escalate poetically. Nobody lives happily ever after.

Great stuff. It's often amazing what the camera does in this, and although it has a few flaws, this is still a great Bergman flick. A first viewing feels incomplete, but the visuals (especially in an early flashback/dream [?] sequence involving a clown and a naked woman and the thickly tense climactic scenes) are so capable of creating moods. There's a definite and not-very-complex plot, but this still works more as a movie you feel rather than follow. There are strange period details that make this both otherworldly and timeless. Add terrific acting, an interesting score, lighting that even somebody as dumb as me can notice and appreciate, and some close-ups of clowns' faces, and you've got yourself a great movie. Keep in mind, however, that I'm a sucker for circus movies. Usually, they've got both midgets and monkeys just like this one.