Talk:Freaks (1932 film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic. Happy to offer a review, but it may come in bits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"and reunited with Frieda." Who is she? What's the significance of this?
"scholar" isn't very discriptive; what kind of scholar are they? You're wrong to attribute views to John White and Sabine Haenni, though. They're the editors of the volume - the chapter is by Jennifer Peterson. You need to fix this in the article, and clarify your citations. (Similar issue with The Routledge Encyclopedia of Films and, I think, 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, but these aren't as problematic as the Peterson case.)
Be aware of MOS:LQ. I've tried to fix as I went, but may have missed things.
"Durgnat echoed a similar sentiment" Can you echo a similar sentiment? Which is it?
"eerily matter-of-fact [sic]]" Are you adding the [sic] because of the grammatical weirdness? One bracket is usual! We have a template: {{sic}}
Half Boy or Half-Boy?
The development subsection seems to be completely out-of-order. Is there any reason for not presenting it chronologically?
"of The Silent Witness.[13] Harry Earles, a dwarf who had appeared in The Ugly Three" Are either of these productions notable? There's nothing wrong with redlinks.
"a male named Simon Metz who wore a dress, mainly due to suffering from incontinence, it has been claimed, though this is disputed" Do we need all this? Our article on Schlitzie suggests that his name is unclear. Simon Metz may have been his birth name, but it wasn't his legal name (it seems).
Why are you putting footnotes before semi-colons? Would after not be standard?
" In order to pad the running time after these cuts, a new prologue featuring a carnival barker was added, as was the alternate epilogue featuring the reconciliation of the dwarf lovers. " Reference?
"Despite the extensive cuts, the film was still negatively received by audiences, and remained an object of extreme controversy amongst the public.[35] Critics' responses were similarly divided." The public had a negative reaction, but critics were similarly divided? That doesn't sound similar - or am I misunderstanding?
Perhaps retrospective would be better than modern, though I confess I don't like the "fake" section head. Do you have any other recent reviews to quote? Presumably, the Rotten Tomatoes assessment is based on some?
Anything more to say about the comic book adaptation? I think we need a little more about the film's influence... I assume the "one of us" refrain originates in this film? If so, there's considerable influence. A quick google search suggests its an important influence on contemporary high-budget horror (e.g., American Horror Story: Freak Show).
"Film scholars John White and Sabine Haenni cite Freaks as one of the 50 most important American films ever made" Do they? Or do they just include it in their book of 50 "key" American films?
Is TV Tropes a reliable source?

That's what jumps out from a first look through. Please double check my edits. A few issues to be resolved, but this article certainly has a lot going for it. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I appreciate the review; I fixed most of the technical errors here (including the incorrect attribution of the Peterson chapter), and have clarified who Frieda is in the plot. As far as the development subsection is concerned, I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of the chronology; it begins with MGM's purchase of the rights to the story in the 1920s, and moves through the green lighting and writing of the screenplay in 1931. As far as the {{sic}} in the quote, the double bracket on the end was a typographical error and not intended; I've replaced it with the template. I did include it because of the grammatical nature of the sentence, which is notably odd.

As far as the notability of The Silent Witness, I was not able to determine whether or not this was the same source material as the 1932 film, so I left it unlinked. However, The Ugly Three was another typo—it was supposed to be The Unholy Three, another Browning film that Earles had been in several years prior (I fixed this and properly linked it). The footnotes before semicolons was something I was instructed to do in a previous article review; I had written them with footnotes after, as you say, but was corrected to do it the other way; if the way I was writing them before was correct, I'm glad to hear it from someone else. I've cut the "Modern assessment" 'heading' as I don't really see a need for it given that it's only distinguishing the Rotten Tomatoes score, which I think stands on its own well enough as a contemporary footnote closing out the critical response section.

Per this passage: "Despite the extensive cuts, the film was still negatively received by audiences, and remained an object of extreme controversy amongst the public.[35] Critics' responses were similarly divided.", the intention was to distinguish the general public's reaction from that of the film critics', though I can see how the wording is confusing; I've changed "audiences" to "moviegoers" in an attempt to make this a bit more clear.

As far as the influence is concerned, I do believe the "one of us" chant originates from the film, though I'm not sure how to incorporate it as I am unaware of it being replicated/paid homage to anywhere. I did find a source from Ryan Murphy in which he directly states that the film inspired American Horror Story: Freak Show, so I've added that. The comic book adaptation was something that was added by another editor with a shoddy source; I was able to find a better source for it, but there is not a whole lot of information on what the comic book entails. The 50 Key American Films does indicate in the prologue that it "explores and contextualizes some of the most important films ever made in the United States" in the opening page (pre-title page); this page isn't numbered, so I'm not sure how to incorporate it into the shortened footnote.

I also replaced the TV Tropes source (an iffy one for sure) with a direct link to Filmsite.org, an AMC-operated site which published the list from the Bravo "Scariest Movie Moments" special. Let me know if I've left some outstanding issues here that still need some tweaking. --Drown Soda (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick not on "one of us"; I'm getting lots of potentially useful hits on Google Scholar which may explore the influence significance of that one scene. In fact, it looks like there are loads of scholarly analyses about the film. Now, this isn't FAC, so we don't need fully comprehensive coverage, but I do think that delving into these sources may help plug the gap that is the discussion of influence. I also think it might be important to include some discussion of the portrayal of disability; disability is obviously core to this film, and no doubt there will have been some scholarly discussion about this. I've not looked into your other responses closely! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And on 21st century reception, here's one to get you started; Mark Kermode is probably the best-known film critic in the UK. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Let me know when you're ready for another look. I think Paleface Jack's comments further up this article talk page are very useful, too. There's a lot said about this film in the scholarly literature; while we don't need to be comprehensive at GAC, we do need to cover the bases. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I am going to go through the book sources provided by Paleface Jack and try to consolidate the common points of discussion among those; I'll integrate that into the Themes section of the article. I will post back here when I'm finished with that. --Drown Soda (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Great; focus on the books from scholarly publishers (university presses, Routledge, Springer, etc.) and skip anything from Lulu.com. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Let me know when you're ready for another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I expanded the themes section quite a bit last week, but upon reading through some of the bibliographic sources, I'm not sure I can stretch it much beyond where it is right now, as there is quite a bit of overlap in terms of commentary (i.e. writers/scholars reiterating similar positions). I feel comfortable with it having a reassessment right now, as I think I have added a reasonable amount of more scholarly criticism and context. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks - we are just looking for a summary of the academic analysis (especially at GAC), and if there's a lot of overlap, that sounds like there's a kind of scholarly consensus that we can report. I'll aim to find some time for another look in the next few days, but it could be a little while. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the Great Depression in the lead, but could offer more about the portrayal of disability.
The fact that the "one of us" chant is repeated at the end seems important, but isn't mentioned in the plot section.
Could you explain what an "outsider film" is? It's not a kind of outsider art (I assume?) Without that context, the fact it's called an outsider film isn't useful information.
"ultimately concludes that this subversion of character exemplifies" What subversion of character? Also, is that really what he calls the "core belief" of eugenics? It sounds a little reductive to me. (But what do I know?)
"Browning's thesis of the film" What does this mean?
"by virtue of depicting its disabled subjects" Is that what she's saying? It doesn't sound like that's what she's saying from the quote that follows.
"Schlitzie, a male named Simon Metz who wore a dress, mainly due to suffering from incontinence, it has been claimed, though this is disputed" Complex sentence. Do we need all these details?

Stopping there - looking better! The analysis section is a bit he-said-she-said, but I think that's OK for GAC purposes. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: no worries. I've tweaked some phrasing to fix the points above, specifically the wordy/confusing passages (the Schlitzie claim was in the article before I started heavily working on it; I don't really think it's necessary either as it's disputed anyway, so it especially becomes an extraneous detail). As far as the "One of us chant" being repeated at the end—do you mean the end of the film itself? It's been awhile since I've seen it, but I don't recall the chant happening again at the end. --Drown Soda (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen it; I was just basing it on this: "Scholar Jane Nicholas suggests that the film's conclusion, in which the circus performers mutilate Cleopatra whilst chanting "one of us", is reinforcing the freaks' social currency". Josh Milburn (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Critics' responses were similarly divided." Why similarly?
I still think it would be good to include some 21st century reception in the reception section. At the moment, it's all about how it was received on release - but this is surely only a part of the story about the critical response to the film? As it is, we have two paragraphs about how audiences/critics hated it, two paragraphs about how some critics thought it had merit, and then a short paragraph about how basically all critics think it is very good. It's unbalanced.
Do we need the interview in the external links? Maybe it's something that could be incorporated into the legacy section, but it's already mentioned in our article on Koo Koo, so maybe not.
Your Schneider source... You should really be citing the particular chapter, not the book as a whole. Chapter title, author, and (if available) page range. Scheider is the editor, but not the author of the (short) essay about the film.

Please check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lt me know when you're ready for me to take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no edits in two weeks - if you do intend to come back to this and/or need more time for some reason, just let me know. Otherwise, this is probably going to have to be closed as a stale review. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: I don't really want to close this one when it's so close - the main thing right now is the lack of 21st century reception. Is this something you're wanting to revisit? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Apologies, I've been busier than usual as of late and haven't had a chance to deep-dive back into this. Per the 21st century reception, I presume you're referring to the "Legacy" section? I can try to find some more recent (within the last ~10 years) commentary on the film in terms of its importance, but as far as critical analysis goes, I've not been able to find much more as there is a lot of restatement/focus on the same themes across time. I can try to make a few additions to the Legacy section but am not sure how much further I can go with it. --Drown Soda (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was thinking more of the critical response section. It just feels unbalanced at the moment - a couple of paragraphs about how contemporary audiences and critics hated it, a couple of paragraphs on how a few contemporary critics thought it had some redeeming features, and then a short paragraph saying that critics admire it! I think we need more bridging the gap - hated by audiences and critics at the time, but now considered very good. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I've done some expansion on the critical response section and broken it into two separate subsections for the sake of clarity (I feel this makes it easier to navigate for readers, and allows them to compare the reactions to the film at the time of its release, and in the decades after). I've attempted to highlight the critical praise for the film among modern audiences, as this is truly the prevailing opinion; I cannot find any negative reviews from the last 30–40 years, as the modern critical reaction was overwhelmingly positive. Instead, I've added some context here from critics (such as Mark Kermode and Kim Newman) who attempt to explain why the film has been better-received in subsequent decades. I also plumped up the Legacy section a bit and have found sources that point out the cultural currency of the film's final scene, as well as the banquet chant. --Drown Soda (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! This is exactly what I was looking for. I'll take a close look soon - this weekend at the latest. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a look through and made some edits. I have left one {{which}} tag - I recommend changing "it" to either "the latter" or "the former". I also think you should revisit the lead given recent additions, but I won't demand that. Once the "it" has been clarified, and if you're happy with my edits, I am ready to promote. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Ditto. I added an additional paragraph to the lead that highlights the film's cultural relevance a bit more, and reworded the "which" tag highlighting the grammatical issue you pointed out. --Drown Soda (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bash at the lead myself - what do you think? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Looks good to me—more concise but still retains the additions made in the body of the article. --Drown Soda (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - I'm promoting now. Good working with you! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]